Scene: Dinner table, chez Lex
Principal players: Your humble scribe, his eldest daughter
Chorus: CINCHouse, Our Youngest
Eldest Daughter: Stop stressing about it dad, there’s nothing to be done.
YHS: I’m not stressing, kiddo, but it’s an awful, incomprehensible thing.
ED: It had to happen.
YHS: What do you mean, it had to happen?
ED: It was meant to be.
YHS: (Unpleasantly surprised) You mean it was “fated”?
ED: That’s right, it was fated.
YHS: (Frowning slightly) Do you believe in fate?
ED: Yes - I believe everything happens for a reason.
YHS: That’s not fate, that’s causality. (Brief discussion of causality ensues.)
ED: Then I believe in fate.
YHS: Do you mean fate as a kind of predestination, that every act and thought and result we have is pre-ordained? Or something recognizable only in retrospect?
ED: The first.
YHS: Why would you believe that? It runs counter to our culture’s intellectual tradition, apart from a certain Calvinist strain of thought - a exceptional strain that only goes to prove the overall rule. What about free will?
ED: You mean that thing about staring into the abyss?
YHS: No, that’s Nietzsche, although you’re close. I’m talking about your God-given freedom to choose. Or if you prefer a non-religious argument, Sartre’s point about freedom being the defining characteristic of a being-for-itself.
ED: Not following you.
YHS: If you lay a two-by-four across the carpet and walk from end to end you will do so without trembling and without falling. Lay the same two-by-four across a chasm and you will shake with fear at the edge of the precipice. The two-by-four is the same, unchanging (and, by its own volition at least, unchangeable) “being-in-itself”, but your consciousness - the “being-for-itself” - is aware of its freedom.
When you stand at the edge of the precipice you are not afraid that you might fall. You are afraid that you might jump. A part of you wants to jump, to see how it feels, to feel the wind in your hair, to see the rocks coming up. The rest of you is aware of that ever-present desire to self-destruct -  this is the source of your fear.
To be a conscious being is to be free. The awareness of that freedom - and the conflicting intrusion of physical reality and events - leads to what Sartre called “nausea.”
ED: What about those university students? What freedom did they have?
YHS: Which is precisely why this whole thing is so disturbing: Their free will - their defining characteristic as conscious human beings - was unnaturally and terminally imposed upon by the free will actions of another. It’s monstrous.
ED: I still believe that it happened because it had to.
YHS: (Hiding an element of exasperation) Look - one of the things I admire least about a certain strain of middle eastern thought is its “inshallah” fatalism. It is a recipe for passive inaction in the face of the supposedly inevitable. It forgives everything, or if it does not, excuses it. (Pauses, awaiting a reaction.)
If we have no free will, what do we make of the concept of sin?
ED: I don’t believe in sin.
YHS: You don’t believe in sin?
ED: I think it’s just a way to guilt people out, stop them from doing fun things.
YHS: Let’s put aside the sins of the flesh for now (although I’d like to get back to that later), and Old Testament proscriptions against shellfish. What did the New Testament say was the sum of all the law and the prophets?
ED: (Eyes rolling, recites) “Love your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself.”
YHS: So take that out of the religious context and put it into a personal and communitarian frame. To love God is to follow in his ways, or - put another way - to ourselves become more nearly perfect, the best we can be. And from the community perspective, are not those societies, and those who live within them, better off for having certain rules of behavior? Penalties for stealing, lying, etc?
ED: Yes, yes - I get all that. I just don’t believe that God is up there keeping score, waiting to cast bad people into Hell.
(A brief discussion on the existence and ontology of “Hell” ensues. Rivers of fire and imps with pitchforks are quickly discounted, the alternate theory proposed that hell is an eternal absence from the presence of God. Questions are posed about whether such absence - conceded arguendo - is conscious or not. It is postulated that it is probably not if we accept the theory of a loving God - a necessary predicate for the existence not just of Hell but also of Heaven. Why then concern ourselves for a loss we are not conscious of? A lost potentiality is still a loss, even if we ourselves are unaware of it. Lips are pursed all around. The discussion is shelved as ultimately unknowable in this life.)
YHS: Well if you don’t believe in sin, do you believe in evil? How about what Hitler did?
ED: Well, yes, I believe in evil, and I’m not forgiving what Hitler did or making any excuse for it. But he didn’t think he was being evil, no one thinks of themselves as being evil.
Our Youngest: Right, it’s all relative to what each person thinks. (Departs for the bathroom.)
YHS: Hmm. But doesn’t it matter that the rest of us, seeing evil, recognize it as such? Can not those of us who are bound together in community declare something which hurts us all individually and collectively as objectively evil, regardless of the point of view of anti-social psychopaths? And do not those personal actions which take us away from our more perfect selves: abuse of alcohol, illegal drugs, promiscuity - do not those also form a kind of sin, or evil? If not against the nature God has given to us, then at least to ourselves?
ED: You guys drink, you seem to enjoy it.
YHS: (For every thing there is a time, meh.) There is a difference between responsible adult use and any and all abuse. We try very hard to be aware of our limits and to be responsible. (Side discussion ensues on the dangers of alcoholism, health risks to other behaviors, dementias, etc.)
ED: I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m just telling you what I think.
YHS: Neither am I. We’re just having a discussion. Something to think about.
ED: Fine (thinking, “Parents!”).
YHS: Fine (thinking, “Teenagers!”).
CINCHouse: More shrimp?
ED, YHS: (Together) Yes, please!
51 responses so far ↓
1
SGT Jeff (USAR)
// Apr 18, 2007 at 9:33 am
Welcome to situational ethics and moral flexibility.
That’s what they’re teaching our kids in school these days.
2
CPT J
// Apr 18, 2007 at 9:41 am
This is a good thing. This is a very good thing. ED & Youngest get to see Dad exercised over the moral issues of force [as every military member is a moral leader first, regardless of their rank or station], and most importantly as a father concerned about how his daughters THINK about the world they are growing into. The standard teen response of “no big deal Dad” hides a quiet satisfaction that they are indeed loved and important enough to make a fuss over.
Their cryptic if not exasperating response only proves that they feel safe enough to speak their minds, to actually voice where they’re at on this topic. Free from any harm or censure, and with full knowlege that their parents have their best interests at heart. Of course Teen Union rules do not allow them to say that at this time.
3
John
// Apr 18, 2007 at 9:51 am
“What did the New Testament say was the sum of all the law and prophets?”
That’s a great way of phrasing the “most important commandment.” Sums up, in one line, what drives my faith.
4
Tom G.
// Apr 18, 2007 at 10:07 am
Very funny and reminds me of discussions w/ adult children. Though I would have pointed out that sin is “an offense against someone you should love.” Great post.
5
Randy K
// Apr 18, 2007 at 10:27 am
What a great discussion?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ I hope one day I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m lucky enough to have a discussion like this with my own daughter, but I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m stuck with doing the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìEvery other weekend and 2 Weeks a year?¢‚Ǩ¬ù thing (Sounds like I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m a reservist), so chances aren’t that great.
Strangely I find myself having discussions like this with my Fianc?ɬ©e, most likely due to her growing up with out any exposure to organized religion, and her parents not really sharing any kind of faith with her as a child. It kind of prepares me for when my daughter does start to ask.
Now if I could just word it half as well as you do Lex I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢d be doing good.
Randy K
6
Kris, in New England
// Apr 18, 2007 at 10:43 am
Hmmm…sounds like I did when I was her age. 10 feet tall and bulletproof. Sadly, and much too soon I fear, young women like yours will become acquainted with the ways of their world and will no longer feel 10 feet tall and bulletproof. Seems like that starts happening at a younger age every year.
And I also agree with Cpt J: “…The standard teen response of ?¢‚Ǩ?ìno big deal Dad?¢‚Ǩ¬ù hides a quiet satisfaction that they are indeed loved and important enough to make a fuss over.”
Yup - your conversation with her assured her that you do care about her, and the world still revolves around her and that all is well. And that’s not a bad place to be right now…
7
etgfv8s6tf12
// Apr 18, 2007 at 11:28 am
I’m against parents publishing private conversations with their children. How can you expect them to come to you when they have problems if they think you might publish it on the internet?
8
ChiefT
// Apr 18, 2007 at 11:33 am
Wonderful discussion of theological issues and post modernism and moral relativism. C. B. Moss’s The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology is perhaps the best discussion I’ve read. I’ll be ordained a Deacon in June, and we’ve been discussing it in clergy meetings. I was proud to read your discussion, as it is “old school” Episcopalianism. Good chapter on Heaven and Hell by the way. Here’s an on line link:
http://anglicanhistory.org/cbmoss/index.html
VR,
Phil
9
GEO6
// Apr 18, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Hang in there, man. They probably do not appreciate the man their father is. Yet. Prayer interface switch in the “ON” position. Check.
10
GEO6
// Apr 18, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Correction: ” .. fully appreciate the man …”
11
PunkysDilemma
// Apr 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm
What a great dinner conversation. I should be so lucky with my ED to have it go on as long as you had. My conversation with ED most likely would have been over after discussing the existence of “hell.”
Don’t you just love those eye-rollers? N O T
12
Curt
// Apr 18, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I’m thinking you really took on the “larger issues” here, at home where it begins…or should have at so many dinner tables.
13
OldRetiredChief
// Apr 18, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Truth to tell, I envy you the ability to actually have a discussion with your daughter. Mine have a tendency to go all blank around the eyes when I try to initiate two-way communication about any issue more difficult than American Idol or MTVs The Real House.
14
PeterGunn
// Apr 18, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Excellent, simply a terrific example of a great lesson in religion and philosophy. Hang in there, Lex, the redeeming days will come.
Having raised three daughters and one son, the youngest being 22, I value our times together highly. My wife and I have great discussions with them, still teach them and learn from them.
Enjoy the process; live and love them.
15
Papa Ray
// Apr 18, 2007 at 1:22 pm
When my kids grew up we didn’t have many really serious discussions. For one thing a dinner together was very few and far between, as I was gone most of the time.
But it is different now decades later with my grandkids. I see them often and I live with my youngest, Sweet Sarah.
We have lots of discussions as they grow up. My oldest grandson comes to me with all his problems and questions as he says his Dad just doesn’t get it.
But I do?
You should partake of some of the discussions I have had with my now 6 year old Sweet Sarah. She is a bundle of questions, opinions and contradictions. She keeps me sharp and keeps me amazed.
Just today on the way to school, she asked: “What do you think I should draw and color for my teacher today?”
I asked: (she does this a couple of times a week, the coloring for her teacher) “what does she seem to like best?”
Her answer almost made me pull over because I thought I might have a wreck laughting: ” Oh…she likes all of the things I draw for her, but I think she is thinking now more about getting a new boyfriend to replace her ex-husband”.
I said…Oh, ok, well…draw something that you think will make her laugh and be happy.
When we got to school, she handed me the picture she had drawn. It was a picture of a girl and guy holding hands and hearts and flowers and a rainbow.
I said: “Good Job”, I think she will like that.
She said: “I hope so, and I hope she gets a new boyfriend soon, cause she is not too happy now.”
Papa Ray
16
Michelle
// Apr 18, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Wow - not sure if I would want you to be my dad or not. It would either be totally amazing or pure… you know
So did you find yourself even more frustrated and stressed afterwards?
Seriously, that was great. But also scary, as to how some young people see the world today. The whole concept of fate v. free will is a thorny one - I believe both are in play but the lines can sometimes be fuzzy. So when in doubt, rationalize!
Ah well, good luck and God bless!
17
Steve
// Apr 18, 2007 at 2:38 pm
CINCHouse… Now that’s a good one!
As far as closing the gap with ED, time will take care of that but never give up trying!
I still remember the day I left my Dad speachless over 20 years ago. Came home for the holidays about mid-way through college after a particularly rough semester both academicly and socially. Concerned, he asked how I had been doing lately. After a moment of thought during which I quickly contemplated how he had indeed been right about so many things, I threw something at him along the lines of:
“I’ve come to the conclusion that parents are usually right, they just say things when you really don’t want to hear them.”
Usually quick and quite often sarcastic, he said nothing. He couldn’t. He turned and walked off, shaking his head.
18
Lee
// Apr 18, 2007 at 2:57 pm
etgfv8s6tf12 - So what, everyone is against something. If you are really against it, why’d you read it????? Surely your browser has a “back” button (just like your radio and tv has an on/off button). I for one, having 3 kids, learned more about what I will be going through with them in a few short years from Lex’s writings, and I appreciate his sharing with us here. Whatever Lex decides to publish here, I’m certain, he has the capacity to decide what is OK to be shared with us, and what lines his family would not like him to cross. It’s called TRUST… you should give it a try.
19
GEO6
// Apr 18, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Is your daughter not using her free will to think like she thinks??? Ask her to define that. The wife.
20
Aiguo
// Apr 18, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Not being so far removed from such dinner table conversations myself (playing the ED role)–well done. And persist through the eye-rolling–we absorb more than it sometimes seems. =)
21
lex
// Apr 18, 2007 at 4:23 pm
etgfv8s6tf12, do you have teenagers of your own? The very idea of them 1) coming to a parent with their problems, looking for advice and, 2) much caring what a parent says about a conversation on their blog - especially if they are anonymized and their friends (the only people they really care about) don’t know - is rather quaint, sorry. In any case, we do have boundaries - I just don’t lump a frank, open and enjoyable philosphical exchange inside the “unpublishable discussions” bin.
Michelle, actually I felt better rather than worse. It’s great when your kids actually open up to you, and you get a chance to talk about the things you find important. Great, but altogether too rare.
GEO6 - we did branch over into a side-discussion of determinism and BF Skinner’s behavioral philosophy. I tried to paint it in the kind of bleak, mechanistic terms I think it deserves. Didn’t come to closure on that one either, and relaying it here would have seemed excessive.
The kid’s too much like me: She’ll never concede a point, but she will consider it.
The curse of genetics, I guess.
22
badbob
// Apr 18, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Going back to comment #1 I am truly glad (though poor for it) having invested over the years in parochial school where western philosphical and theological traditions continue. I am certain it has taken root in my sons head, though with younger daughter I am not so sure- yet.
I, for one, with my deficient educational background could never come close to ever articulating what Lex just documented not only for his daughters but also for the rest of us.
Thanks.
b2
23
Babs
// Apr 18, 2007 at 5:53 pm
After my son and I had conversations of this kind I used to have diarreah… No kidding.
How did the shrimp go down?
On man, I do applaud you for the conversation. These types of discussions with adult children are probably the most challenging of your lifetime. I only wish we could have drawn on the deep well that you are obviously familiar with.
We knew behavior to be wrong but, we were unable to back it up with so many historical antidotes.You are obviously ahead of us in that game.
I wish you the best Lex. You certainly seem to be making an effort, albiet, a sophisticated one. Sometimes a blunt hammer drives the nail home, sometimes not.
24
unkawill
// Apr 18, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Thanks for sharing Cap’n
25
GEO6
// Apr 18, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Lex,
I really think you and your family are blessed to have the sophistication and depth of conversation at the dinner table with the Lex clan. The responses of the teens can exasperate and make you question the effectiveness of your parenting and passing on the value torch. My batch of sons completely lost their minds at the age of 16. I saw a glimmer of hope at 18 and by 22 they did recovered with the exception of #2 who became a military aviator.
Bottom line: they can and do recover. All the best to you and yours.
26
Chap
// Apr 18, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Data point.
I never–never–had such discussions at the dinner table. Closest I got was discussions with peers at school, or on watch when enlisted. Figured out what I did by my own self, and have been working on filling in the gaps.
Guess that’ll come in handy when mine get beyond the “more milk, please” level of interlocutory and conceptual skill.
Oh, and
That? Priceless.
27
Michelle
// Apr 18, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Chap
I thought the same about that last comment. But I bit my tongue and managed not to quip until now (this one is your fault) …
“Gee, sounds like she has the making of a good lawyer”
28 Chapomatic » Kid Blog Party // Apr 18, 2007 at 7:14 pm
[...] is taking his kids to school at the dinner table. I would feel painfully inadequate but if a fighter guy can do [...]
29
Justthisguy
// Apr 18, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I am minded of a favorite Heinlein novel, “The Rolling Stones” in which Dad has a similar conversation with the family. Someone comes out for predestination, and Hazel(?) says, “A very shaky theory.”
Someone else says, “I suppose you believe in free will, then?”
Her answer: “Nah, another very shaky theory.”
“She’ll never concede a point, but she will consider it.” Stubborn *smart* Mick genes! (the best kind)
30
Justthisguy
// Apr 18, 2007 at 7:40 pm
BTW, speaking of the weirdo from Missouri (no, not you, JoA, I’m discussing a dead SF writer here), is there any record, or rumor, or tradition, about which room(s) in Bancroft in which Heinlein lived when he was at USNA?
31
Ensign P
// Apr 18, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Sir,
This was definitely one of my favorite posts so far. It’s scary to see the extent to which relativism and existentialism have taken root in our society. The idea of true truth and an absolute moral standard have definitely taken a backseat to the concept of “tolerance” as the greatest virtue - where everyone can have their own concept of truth and be equally correct. I love what Francis Schaeffer has to say about these topics. If you haven’t checked him out, I highly recommend his Trilogy: The God Who Is There, He Is There and He Is Not Silent, and Escape from Reason. It’s awesome stuff - makes me happy that God has blessed certain people with an ability to clearly and cleverly articulate the ideas and concepts that just seem to make my head hurt when I give it a shot.
32
doorkeeper
// Apr 18, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Wow, Lex, can I send my 12 year old over for a few years?
thanks for the example. trying hard here, too, with not just my own, but all those pesky and loveable teens who just think my place is the best hang out.
33
AFSister
// Apr 19, 2007 at 6:10 am
Disagreeing with my dad over anything usually resulted in me getting my ass whipped, or grounded. That included “discussions” such as this one.
You’re a good dad, Lex. Keep up these “discussions”.
34
Kris, in New England
// Apr 19, 2007 at 7:01 am
As I re-read this post, it brings up very fond memories that have been long buried - of similar conversations with my dad. And not just at dinner - in the car, sitting around in the backyard in the lazy summer days - they would always start with some current event and we’d morph and tangent from there. And you know what Lex - no matter whether I agreed with him or not, no matter how much eye rolling I did - it DID sink in and informed me in a way no newspaper, teacher or friend could. I may not have seemed like I listened - or even appreciated his viewpoint - but I did. And we kept those discussions going until he died in 1995.
So…thank you for making me remember those conversations. And much like you and your daughter, my dad and I were “that way” as well. Funny thing though - as I’ve gotten older, if he was still here, he’d be VERY amused to hear me starting to sound just like him.
35
Karla (threadbndr)
// Apr 19, 2007 at 7:15 am
Fantastic story - I, too, am loving the part of parenting that has let me get to know the Marine!Goth as an adult. We’ve always had the tough question discussions and I’ve always been the one he turns to for advice, but it’s even better to see him working through the really adult topics for himself.
This is where the years of coping toddler and teenage temper tantrums get to really pay off - we did good, Capt - we raised competent, thinking, moral people!
36
Albany Rifles
// Apr 19, 2007 at 7:25 am
Nice discussion and well done…I could hear an old family friend, a Jesuit priest, talking in the background of my mind as I read this. I grew up in a household where my dad, a very well educated man, and my mom, a very wise and self educated woman, would pose a question at the dinner table and all seven (!) of us were expected to form opinions and voice them. Father Norton often came to dinner because he said he enjoyed the conversation as much as the food.
BTW, what was the recipe for the shrimp and did you use Old Bay?
37
Therapist1
// Apr 19, 2007 at 7:26 am
Lex my field gives me a panoramic view of parenting across all economic ranges. Occasionally I see the good ones, but more often then not, I see some very poor parenting. This was a fine example of how just spending some time to talk and listen 1. Gives you insight into where your child is, and 2. allows for some time to mold and guide them toward the road you want them on. It reminds me that most of us have a God given right to procreate, but along with that comes the responsibility to invest the time in parenting. Thank you sir for doing your part.
PapaRay, what a wonderfully sensitive and empathic child she is. God Bless.
38
Marine6
// Apr 19, 2007 at 9:19 am
It’s amazing, Lex. You seem to have a great ability to dialog with your children. I grew up with a father (Capt USN) who considered a “little discussion” as I got the little, and he did all the discussion.
Of course, I was the wise ass, and was convinced that he knew nothing. Then I dropped out of college after my first year and enlised.
You know, I spent twenty weeks on the grinder at MCRD - up close and personal - with some very tough Gunnery Sergeants, and then I went home on Recruit leave. I was absolutely astonished at how much the old man had learned in my absence.
I also came to understand how correct he had been when he advised me “Son, it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it an remove all doubt.”
I’m now a sadder, but wiser man. I didn’t have the opportunity for reasoned discourse around the dining table in my youth, but I finally learned the lessons my father tried to impart in his own way.
Marine6 Sends
39
Subsunk
// Apr 19, 2007 at 10:38 am
Lex,
Could you repeat the entire dinner conversation in English please? My kids and I didn’t follow a word of it. Of course they are much smarter than I am and I am much busier and unable to read anything intelligent beyond US News&WR or the Harbor Freight Tool flyer. Perhaps there really is something to your supposition that pilots are, after all, much smarter than us nukes and you dress better……..
Nahhhhh.
Subsunk
40
Jim C
// Apr 19, 2007 at 10:54 am
Lex,
In regards to the discussion about the existence of hell; I certainly believe in a loving God. But, I also believe in a just and righteous God who cannot stand sin.
41
Thebastidge
// Apr 20, 2007 at 4:04 am
Great discussion, and you’re to be commended that your kids are willing to engage like that. That’s what parenting should be like. I’m more of the “whenever the discussion got serious and we didn’t back down right away, we got our asses whupped” background myself. I hope to do better someday.
I’m not a Christian, tho I can definitely relate to the tradition, and I like that the bible was not your sole source of philosophy.
In the end, an discussion like this is “won” as long as it provokes some thought. Kudos on the semi-socratic method there.
42
Cricket
// Apr 20, 2007 at 4:22 am
Then there is always duct tape and the final point: “Because I am the parent and I say so.”
Actually, it was a good discussion and at least you communicated. Eldest daughter seemed to pay attention to what you were saying, so you have validation there, and it was mutually broken off at a point of frustration for both.
I don’t know of many parent/child discussions that are that civil and sustainable.
One thing is sure; you gave her some food for thought.
43
Cricket
// Apr 20, 2007 at 4:26 am
Subsunk,
We told our son that when he turned 11, we would get a malady only known to parents of pre teens and teens. It would consist of us totally taking leave of our senses and not being able to understand him. We would be the most uncool beings on the planet. We also would suffer from bouts of extreme ignorance to
total dementia in curtailing freedom.
We explained that it would last for about seven years, until he turned 18, at which time the syndrome would vanish as mysteriously as it came.
heh.
44
Subsunk
// Apr 20, 2007 at 11:54 am
Cricket,
Heh, indeed. My son is 20. I am waiting for him to turn 18 still. Nevertheless, I have high hopes he will one day be able to tie his shoes without me or his mother reading him the directions. On the other hand, my 17yr old daughter quotes significant amounts of non-reproductive system related biology to me and has a fair sense of play about boys and school and that the twain do not mix well. She, I don’t worry about. I think our family is pretty average, but then again the standard for males in my household is rather high. My Father made it that way. (I, too, am far below the average).
Subsunk
45
P-3 wife
// Apr 20, 2007 at 2:06 pm
When our son turned 15-16, I couldn’t tell you which way he would turn out — either all our lessons until then would kick in and he would grow up to be a good citizen, or not. Couldn’t tell one way or the other. However, I always had hope when I saw him in public around other people — when I wasn’t looking, of course — he could be kind and nice and polite. He turned into a very pleasant young man when he turned 22 (the time his little sister went to college) and has continued to grow up well, since he’ll be 30 this fall. (Yikes — I’m getting OLD!)
But those middle years? It seemed a flip of the coin and up to him which path he would choose.
46
Grim
// Apr 21, 2007 at 6:11 am
If it makes you feel better, Lex, I believed exactly the same things as your daughter when I was a teenager. I think it’s a natural sort of philosophy for someone at that age, for reasons that are doubtless clear to you.
47
lex
// Apr 21, 2007 at 7:38 am
When I want to really frustrate her Grim, I tell her that I have been everywhere that she has been and everywhere where she has yet to go before finally coming “home” again, right back around to where I started.
She hates that.
48
Huntress
// Apr 21, 2007 at 8:12 pm
What a fascinating conversation between you and your daughter. It was an honest heartfelt exchange of ideas that didn’t deteriorate to a battlefield which is often the way these things go — as witnessed throughout the blogosphere.
Even within my own family, our conversations on this very subject can become very passionate :>)
I find Situational Ethics interesting — why does a Christian ethical theory based on the principal that love is the ultimate law(which is at the heart of the NT) and therefore in certain situations certain moral principles can be set aside if love is best served –seem to anger/annoy Christians?
If we start with the premise that all societies share certain moral universals, then why do so many conflicts seem intractable? Even in the blogosphere, we have people who talk past each other, convinced that the other person is incredibly dumb or willfully blind to what’s in front of him/her. We don’t just disagree, we have a hard time imagining how anyone could disagree on “this” point that seems “so obvious”. How can someone tolerate abortion? How could someone not? How can some women go out in public covering their faces? How could they not? Is it possible that our brains moral circuitry is affected by our genes, culture and personal experience and therefore wired in different patterns?
If I can co-exist peacefully with a woman who covers her face by choice, does it mean that I have abandoned my core values? Or am I simply a reasonable person? Likewise, if I cannot co-exist peacefully with her, then what kind of person am I? While each of our values are in conflict with each other, are they not equally correct and fundamental? Do they not both reside in concept at the heart of American values: individual choice?
I’m not a moral relativist — mathematics has proven the existence of universal truths, yet I don’t find it a contradiction to accept the premise of value pluralism: the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. The laws that govern the physics of the macro-world,(Newtonian physics) do not govern the physics of the micro-world( quantum physics) yet they are equally correct and fundamental, and they co-exist in conflict with each other.
.
49
Ymarsakar
// Apr 22, 2007 at 10:14 pm
ED: I think it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s just a way to guilt people out, stop them from doing fun things.
Fun things like blowing away people you don’t like, or having a harem full of sex partners.
There weren’t a lot of fun things to do back when the Roman Catholic church came around. They didn’t have to restrict people having fun, they were more concerned with survival and continuation of society.
People only see it sin now as a way to restrict people from doing fun things, is because people are more free. Meaning, people can do things that folks 500 years ago could not. Not would not, could not. They were prevented from doing so, they were not free just as we are not free to breathe in water as if it is air. There are physical limitations that are not the same as religious and societal ones.
YHS: No, that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Nietzsche, although you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re close. I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m talking about your God-given freedom to choose. Or if you prefer a non-religious argument, Sartre?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s point about freedom being the defining characteristic of a being-for-itself.
ED: Not following you.
I think you should have just said that free will is what can change a person’s fate.
ED: What about those university students? What freedom did they have?
The freedom to choose to try to run, to try to hide, or try to kill the killer. The freedom to choose to be prepared in reaction to an attacker. The freedom to choose not to be helpless, not to be an easy target. There are no physical limitations, and it is not as if the law can prevent you from doing what you want to do. Since laws are just like sins, they prevent you from doing what you want to do. But if you really want to do it, they cannot stop you from doing it, just as it did not stop Chou.
ED: Yes, yes - I get all that. I just don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t believe that God is up there keeping score, waiting to cast bad people into Hell.
She sounds as if she would be more amenable to the Deism beliefs that some of the Founding Fathers interpreted God as, or specifically that God is a natural god, not a humanocentric one.
ED: Well, yes, I believe in evil, and I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m not forgiving what Hitler did or making any excuse for it. But he didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t think he was being evil, no one thinks of themselves as being evil.
Our Youngest: Right, it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s all relative to what each person thinks. (Departs for the bathroom.)
I hope your Youngest was being sarcastic. ED is right basically, not a lot of people do things because they think it is evil. Most people think their actions are doing good in this world, or their beliefs at least if not their actions.
In a general sense, entropy is fate, it is what makes fate possible. For entropy is the fate of the universe, the inevitable fate. Sooner or later, that is, without an input from a different system/universe/dimension, the universe will face maximum entropy or heat death. In relation to humanity, this means that if you let Evil do whatever it wants, then that becomes the fate of people. It is destined to happen, which is why free will is important, because only the strength of free will can change destiny and fate.
Everyone will die sooner or later. That is fate. But while it is fate that cannot be denied, it can be changed. The time and manner of your death may be changed, if not the inevitability of the final end.
I hope your ED sees the connection between the laws of society and sins. If she truly believes that sins are a limitation upon one’s freedom to do fun things, then she must also recognize the limitations of society that prevents a person from changing his fate. Society said that you must not do violence, that you must not protect yourself by killing the attacker in a brutal and efficient manner. But society is wrong. Fate, as with evil, can only happen if you let it happen. If you stop resisting, you can die easily. If you stop trying to save your life, your fate will be here very soon.
The same with evil. If you stop trying to resist evil, evil will manipulate things in such a way that the final end will be where everything good is destroyed. Everyone can claim that they are strong, but this does not make them strong. The same with Good and Evil. The same with free will and fate. If you are weak, then your actions are decided by fate more often than not. If you are strong on the average, then your actions and life will be decided by your will.
To return to what you said about free will, there are limitations upon the will, free or otherwise. In fact, there are limitations to everything. And as it relates to fate, fate is the limitation placed upon free will. The co-existence of opposites. Light and Darkness. Good and Evil, also pertains to choice and the absence of choice.
If we start with the premise that all societies share certain moral universals, then why do so many conflicts seem intractable?-Huntress
I think in a sense because not everything can be validated or found out by humans, so all that remains is argument. Humans are not very good at argument as a way to find truth, we are much better at doing, at experimenting, and at finding out truths by ourselves. Rather than talking about them. It is not as if inventors found what they found because they got together in a group and started talking. Sure, partnerships can result, and benefits from the research of others accrued, but these are just foundations. They are not the doing, itself.
50 Lex's Dinner Conversation « Sake White // Apr 22, 2007 at 10:20 pm
[...] But you should read it all, including the comments, which bring forth a large field of views and [...]
51
warren
// Apr 23, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Wow. What a great conversation you were able to have with her. I think you’re a pretty great dad to be able to talk about this with your kids the way you did.
+Warren+
Leave a Comment