#everyone benefits from socrates’ execution | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

chicago-geniza · 3 years

Text

well i intended to go for a nice evening walk, ended up having a panic attack, ordering a couple of cocktails at the bougie bar, joining a jam session with a bunch of old hippies on the logan green (one of them gave me a handpainted wooden medallion which seems to be carved out of tree bark, strung on a length of yarn???), met a crustpunk train-hopping dude in town for the month (& his dog, in a leather-studded harness) who's lived in 45/50 states & a 44 yr old guy everyone called "the wizard" wearing a tattered, patch-covered robe who shares most of my parents' conspiracy theories & considers himself a latter-day prophet, he bought us sorbet & ice cream, wound up hanging out with them & staying up all night at their indescribably eclectic, cluttered, blood-spattered (!!!) apartment, belonging to 44 yr old guy's art curator father & decorated accordingly, smoking m*th & listening to music & talking (or rather listening to them rant/rave/recount stories from their incredibly wild lives), i gave them advice on applying for unemployment & medicaid & how to appear compliant enough w/ carceral psychiatric intervention so they won't section you without actually submitting to forced medication or institutionalization, especially if they assign you a case worker & do regular "wellness checks." also how to pass off certain aspects of behavioral dysregulation as executive dysfunction, get them to pay for an adhd evaluation, get an adderall IR scrip, sell the 30 mg pills (cite body weight, high doses of other psych meds as reason for higher dose; look sincere; play to systemic biases toward cis white men, unfortunately), & use the cash to buy m*th, if they'd prefer to keep doing that. you can also pass positive psychotic symptoms--agitation etc.--off as severe anxiety, especially if you have a history of trauma, & they will give you benzodiazepines. it is in their best interest to keep you docile, i.e. tranquilized, particularly if your past convictions & involuntary institutionalizations revolve around a pattern of aggressive behavior, & that's On The Record/there's a paper trail. (e.g. one dude got arrested trying to keep cars away from an injured bird on the road, some genre of raptor i think (???) by threatening them with a shopping cart, not hitting them, but like, running at them as if to collide then feinting at the last minute so they'd swerve out of the way. not the safest or most effective maneuver, lotta reckless endangerment, but the motivation was admirable. probably put the fear of god into some drivers, though. he doesn't seem to have, like, impulse control.) it's a lot easier & you have fewer run-ins with the cops if you game the system & appear cooperative. they gave me this coat, which "just showed up in their apartment one day," like i did. 44 yr old guy walked me back to apartment, stole a street sign & tore down a real estate sign en route, lori lightfoot did indeed take down the pride flag in front of her house on july 1st & replace it with an appropriately patriotic american flag, i walked past the idling plainclothes cop car & another marked police vehicle with their Mayoral Guarding Detail inside at like 4.30 am smoking a menthol cigarette (not inhaling), high on m*th, draped in a neon anime jacket, in the company of a visibly insane, unshaven & unshorn middle-aged man in a technicolor patchwork trenchcoat, holding a lit cigarette in one hand & an upside-down traffic cone in the other, which he was using as an ad hoc amplifier for a noise track playing on my phone. he was also carrying the stolen real estate banner &, inexplicably, a stack of mail. i gave him my old backup phone (no SIM card & doesn't hold a charge long, ancient, but still works), since neither he nor the other dude have phones (cops took them), also one hybrid edible for each of them, as a thanks for the m*th & the kindness. their hearts are in the right place but they have some fucked-up beliefs about "reverse racism" being real, while also saying in the same breath that you can tell our country is irredeemable by the way it continues to

treat black people. we were discussing medical weed for seizures on medicaid & 44 yr old guy mentioned one of his close friends, a black epileptic woman, whose seizures were frequent & severe enough they prevented her from working. then he added, in apparent bemusement, they she hadn't spoken to him in some time, & he wondered why. a little while later he relayed their last conversation & i was like "my dude, i can say with 100% certainty she is not talking to you because you said some *appallingly*, jaw-droppingly racist shit & did not even realize it was racist." then i, comma, a white person, explained to this man that he literally thought of their exchange as, like, an abstract argument over insignificant ideas, a theoretical exercise, & therefore considered it simply a smug gotcha to "counter" hotep theories about egyptian origin by claiming that "if that's true, american slavery & the oppression of black people in america are divine retribution for the enslavement of the jews in ancient egypt, an eye for an eye & a deserved punishment." like, first of all, what the actual fuck, if i were that woman i would also never speak to you again, second of all there's the collapse of historical time & mythical time, history & exegesis, an assumption that rests on spurious claims of biblical literalism (zionist colonization logic, btw! him: what's exegesis? what's zionism? me: never mind, not the point. exegesis is the interpretation of religious texts in a religious CONtext, in this case what you would likely call the hebrew bible.)--but most importantly it is 100% irrelevant to this discussion whether or not black americans are Actually Factually descendended from ancient egypt! you just told this woman to her face that the ancestry she claims, of which she's proud, is the reason & justification for SLAVERY & BLACK SUFFERING--not only that, but that if it WERE true, than black people would DESRVE to suffer, by DIVINE DECREE. you are trying to force her to abdicate her claim on this heritage by putting her in a position where she'd be forced to concede complicity in her people's historical & present-day persecution, oppression, & essentially the existence of structural racism. & using The Figural Jew as a rhetorical cudgel to bludgeon her into this corner. what a despicable thing to say. like, he hadn't considered it from her perspective at all, & once he groked why the comment itself was, like, unforgivable (idk, maybe she's more forgiving; she has a virtue-name), i started socratic-method-ing him through why it was particularly unforgivable for *him* to say to *her*--the individual is not responsible for the systems from they benefit, but they are imbricated in them, they are implicated when they actively perpetuate & uphold them, even with speech acts. & finally gave the same "there is no such thing as reverse racism because racism is not an individual act, it is an institutional, systemic phenomenon, & it is an ideology, one which individual acts can bear out or be in accordance with, & to which individuals can subscribe (this bearing it out in their behavior, in their institutional roles, in their interpersonal interactions--here i gave & solicited examples of each) or be subject (also gave & solicited examples). m*th makes me very good at Explaining clearly & he was surprisingly receptive--like, it was astonishing that it had not occurred to him??? but it hadn't, the same way it hadn't occurred to my mother, & she interpreted it as "reverse racist" when their next-door neighbor called her the "white devil" for disputing their property line, & i had to be like "ok but if you called in a random third party to mediate in lily-white [city], oregon, where white supremacists openly drive down the street in pickup trucks with swastika armbands, whose side do you think they would take, statistically speaking, in your property dispute. that's why racism is systemic & institutional, & your rude neighbor calling you a name over a disagreement does not constitute 'reverse racism,' because 'reverse racism' by definition cannot

exist." now this dude wants to like, read books, so i gotta get him some entry-level Intro To Racism primers??? how did i end up here, but better me than his black epileptic (ex-)friend, i guess??? jesus christ. both of these guys have the most chaotic, reactionary politics in a potpourri with these deep commitments to abolition & mutual aid & a kind of proto-anarchist consciousness, none of which would be called by those names, but all of which is borne out in practice & in the politics of everyday life. they remind me a LOT of my parents. i'm loath to imagine how they'd internalize my stepdad's rambling, street-preacher-style libertarian lectures. probably go out & buy guns & invest in gold on the stock market & double down on the conviction that free speech is being curtailed & individual rights are in jeopardy because you can no longer unleash a barrage of harassment against some guy on the street because you think he looked at you funny. these claustrophobic convictions, like the space to express oneself is getting smaller & smaller every day, *other people* are taking it away from you, suffocating you on all sides with their offense demanding your silence, they are *making* the walls close in--when in fact it's more like a holodeck. you're a member of the Hegemonic Group, afforded the privilege of the default, so you don't question the vast verdant expanse that is your domain--ah, Free Speech, the sun never sets on the empire of ~uncensored expression, you can say whatever you want whenever you want without facing consequences because you control all the organs that mete out consequences & you have also determined that those groups who might be adversely affected by your words--emotionally OR materially--are not, well...of consequence. but of course the vast verdant domain is an illusion, photons & forcefields, held together by the all-encompassing TOTALITY of the dominant group's hegemony, power, etc. once that power begins to redistribute throughout the system--however unevenly, however incrementally, however slowly--as even the smallest pieces are appropriated by those deemed inconsequential, who have endured years of systemic, material, institutional violence that allowed the dominant group to become dominant & retain its dominant position--once those 'inconsequential' groups speak up & say "actually, these words bear an indelible imprint of the violence enacted upon us, these words are the legacy of that violence, these words are a tacit endorsement of the ideology behind that violence, which classifies us as subhuman, & even if *you* can't hear those echoes, the words broadcast on two historical frequencies, so now that we're able to broadcast on a frequency *you* can hear, we request you find other language, & consider the implications of the words you've been using for years." well--once The Subaltern Speaks, the dominant group loses its 'innocence,' & becomes aware the vast verdant expanse of language is an illusion of infinite space, aware of the four holodeck walls pressing in behind the simulacrum of the horizon, & suddenly "what one can say without negative consequences"--largely social, sometimes, rarely, if social media goes viral, professional--feels much more claustrophobic. so they get angry. & some of them are just bigots, obviously, but some of them--like my parents, &, even, this weirdly well-intentioned m*thhead who said one of the most shockingly racist things i've heard in my life & *honestly didn't understand why it was racist*, is really riled up about free speech & individual rights, hates the government, hates "FANG" (facebook amazon netflix google) & has a bunch of dystopian conspiracy theories about data harvesting & personal information that only miss the mark in that they get too nefariously biopolitical (billionaires want to put microchips in everybody for surveillance to monitor our movements & sell us more stuff; they don't need to, they already use our phone location & browsing habits to generate the algorithm & sell the information to ad companies lol, it's digital& cast a

single illuminati figure in the role of comic book villain, controlling the operation behind the scenes like an evil puppetmaster (classic conspiracy fare; again, we gotta take that energy, that suspicion, the understanding that they are being taken advantage of & tricked, the idea that power & capital & resources are concentrated among a very small number of people, however it's not an individual wealthy villain with a desire for world domination who wants to turn Free Americans into microchipped drones, it's a *class* of people--or rather several classes, but *who those people are as individuals does not matter*. if you guillotined bill gates, another billionaire would take his place. bill gates qua bill gates is not the problem. it is classes of people who control the means of production & own property & profit enormously from exploiting the labor of a desperate, rapidly increasing underclass, i.e. from the system as it is. therefore it is in their interest to maintain the status quo, because it serves them. 'the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.' the middle class gradually ceases to exist. if you want to compound it by race, consider the GI bill as an example - you learn about it as the leg up that enabled thousands of WWII vets to buy houses, enabling them to enter the middle class. hundreds of thousands of third-gen middle class white americans still reap the structural, socioeconomic benefits of their grandparents' initial upward mobility, including,, very tangibly, those selfsame houses, which can be inherited & then rented out as a second property if the children or grandchildren accrue enough money to buy their own properties. but only about 100 black vets got approved for homeownership loans, despite the staggering numbers of black soldiers who enlisted & applied through the GI bill. anyway! the impulses are there, & they're only being funneled into conspiracy thinking because that makes intuitive sense on a narrative level. these guys have a high school education; so does my stepdad. their reading habits are...eclectic, sporadic, pretty much dictated by occasional recommendations & like, little free libraries around the neighborhood. it's both interesting & frustrating to see like - hey, here are these people, we agree on a lot of things, they're earnest & open & want to learn & would give their neighbor the shirt off their backs as a matter of principle. they'd give a *stranger* the shirt off their backs; they'd share whatever they had. even what chores there are in their collective--they live with two other guys--(dumpster diving, walking the dog, tidying up the apartment) are allocated by ability & inclination. they made advance plans to look after the dog & their roommate with War PTSD on the 4th of july if the fireworks upset them, jokingly called the dog an emotional support animal. you give them the tools, the reading, talk to them like normal people with a stake in society--like, imagine a society that would have a stake in people like you instead of criminalizing you & consigning you to the margins! that's already *political imagination* because anyone who occupies a marginalized position will have their existence politicized, whether they want this or not, so better to become a self-aware, self-reflexive political subject, no?--talk *with* them because tbh i am them, i'm just better at situational masking & also i am very very afraid of cops so i only damage property in groups during planned political actions (not spontaneously, because i feel a flash of rage at my neighborhood gentrifying, & simply do not have a superego, so i tear down the real estate sign for the fancy new apartment complex in a fit of pique, because in this house we believe that spontaneity can & should be developed into class consciousness, again, the seeds of which are there in the initial trigger for the spontaneous reaction, i.e. anger at gentrification. not opposed to a little direct action, but they're just gonna put up a new sign tomorrow, it doesn't advance your agenda or hinder the gentrifiers' progress. now, if

you sabotaged the construction site for the new apartment buildings & painted a few potent symbols + graffiti'd a pithy, written statement expressing your opposition to gentrification generally & these apartments specifically? in a prominent place, large font, eye level, visible & legible from oh, a block away? maybe as a member of a collective, your neighbors, perhaps? & you could sign it "[neighborhood] or [block] residents" to pack more of a punch, the power of a crowd speaking in unison to say "not OUR home, you predatory developers"? that's no longer spontaneous, impulsive, affective violence, & it's also no longer an individual--acting alone leaves you vulnerable. again--i didn't just *intuit* that he tore the sign down because he was mad about gentrification, i asked, in a genuinely curious tone, not at all accusatory, no hint of reprimand or censure, just...interested, "why did you do that?" & he was like "it made me fucking mad." & i was like "what about it made you mad? the apartments? how come?" & he thought about it for a minute & explained. i'm not sure *he* necessarily made the conscious connection until prompted. idk, i know people talk a lot about the fact that breitbart & drudge report are free while NYT & "all the news fit to print" is paywalled, & q-pilled covid hoax sites are free while "reputable" pandemic coverage & public health guidelines & explanations of mRNA vaccines for a lay audience are paywalled & that's true but also We Live In A Society & if you talk to the wingnuts who AREN'T that way because of any far-right ideology, a lot of them are just...autodidacts without much formal education but a lot of raw intelligence that leads to analyzing The Big Picture & trying to deduce a pattern, find a framework that explains why the world is the way it is, profoundly frustrated, deeply aware of American society's, universalized & figured as the world's, exceptional unfairness & cruelty, & *that can be redirected* with reading, discussion, prompting critical thought, introducing community connections, & perhaps most importantly for this genre of person, getting them to see patterns at work in terms of systems & structures rather than individuals, letting go of American individualism's explanatory power & belief in its liberatory potential (see: the sort of ad hoc libertarianism that goes hand-in-glove with much conspiracy thinking, both stemming from 1) mistrusting the government, & 2) ultimate freedom of the individual as the most sacred value, therefore it is what all enemies want to take away), outlining positive, actionable goals rather than just ambient suspicion & anger at authority, & figuring out how those goals can be accomplished more effectively by an organized collective (but this will ultimately benefit the individual). If the world isn't run by a shadowy cabal, if you begin to understand the structures responsible & how they manifest even on the scale of your block (e.g.!!! predatory developers buying up properties during a pandemic, tearing down affordable housing to build expensive condos on the lot, or giving old buildings a "spit and polish" so they can double the rent, pricing all the current residents out, not to mention all the little local businesses, almost all mexican & run by the mexican families who live here, that give our block its culture & will get pushed out by boutique coffee shops & the like, catering to a more affluent & almost certainly whiter clientele)--you can, in fact, change the world, something both of them repeatedly referred to as their purpose on earth. it may not be as a maverick figure, one against an army, but strength in numbers is an aphorism for a reason.

anyway! thse guys were also really weird about jews, in the philosemitic way conspiracy theorists of a certain stripe often are. the itinerant vagabond guy gave me one of his drawings; it's really lovely. i'm going to give them "are prisons obsolete?" & "the wretched of the earth" & some david graeber. 44 yr old guy has this idea that society is atomized & people aren't connected to each other & have lost the willingness or the ability to communicate with each other, also that the overreach of authority has driven some people to violence, & that makes the world feel unsafe to everyone else. he feels guilty because he is acutely aware that language, when wielded adroitly & intentionally, always has the capacity to manipulate; he is afraid of succumbing to the temptation, because he senses the coercive power of language within himself. the other guy was mostly quiet but said 44 yr old guy is one of the best friends he's ever had. he thinks animals are able to sense emotions and to heal, & he thinks they can mediate between people who have become too isolated, who have forgotten humans' innate ability to forge connections, approach others as social creatures seeking to bond instead of mistrustful, apprehensive, rejecting overtures of friendship because they expect subterfuge, or propriety has evolved to deem such overtures inappropriate outside of strictly delineated, artificially orchestrated contexts. deviation from the norm is not permitted. & back again to policing. they have an idea called "the omega family," omega for the end, a group of like-minded people who come together, who encounter each other serendipitously (predicted through auspicious auguries & recognized on sight through a constellation of signs & wonders, because of course we are all psychotic here, it was nice to just be psychotic & discuss these things like they were normal lol), & serve as catalysts to each other's "personal truth." anyway this is why i don't go out when i'm crazy, i always end up in situations like this, see also: the last time i did m*th, in a pizza hut bathroom in tallinn with an art student from glascow named muhammad ali (he went by ali), the son of white muslim converts--we thought it was c*ke but it got lost in translation & that's how i figured out i had adhd. later i got [redacted] by a filmmaker from kazan & he gave me his business card afterward for some reason, which was extremely funny. thankfully these dudes were better behaved. one of them even gave a speech about how men shouldn't rape people??? & also how our society shouldn't construct women as universal victims because in doing so it makes victimhood almost compulsory & shoehorns women into a victim role as part & parcel of womanhood? i was like yes my dude you are almost there, read the essay "abject feminism." (i did not tell them i was trans bc i wasn't sure how that would shake down, to be honest; couldn't get a read on it. did tell them i was gay & they respected it, though one did say he dated a lesbian once, & i explained that many men feel compelled to interject with an anecdote relating an exception to the rule or insist that they will he the exception to the rule, & it's really just bad manners, not even getting into the bad politics. he took it on the chin & talked about how the girl in question came home to find her partner dead of an overdose & his wife had just died of MS, so their relationship was more about grief & comfort than sexual attraction. i was like that's really, really sad, & it's wonderful that you were able to be there for each other at a time of such staggering loss, & i am a person who totally understands what you mean to communicate, but if a lesbian tells you they're a lesbian & you reply that you once dated a lesbian & they get offended & instead of responding with contrition or correction you elaborate on the tragic backstory of the relationship as though that explains the circumstances in which a self-proclaimed lesbian would date a cis man, other lesbians *will* deck you, or at the very least not take you, an unwashed white guy in

his 40s who isn't neurotypical & sits way too close for social convention in a way that could easily be construed as a come-on, in good faith.) tl;dr made some new friends, did some good drügs (i much prefer smoking m*th to snorting it, basically like purer, more potent adderall, & as such will not be doing it again for a LONG time, because i enjoy it FAR too much; slices through the brain fog & the chronic fatigue & the joint/bone pain, makes me able to pay attention, follow the thread of a conversation, actually be *interested* & want to ask *questions* & expand, build, encourage my interlocutor to elaborate, place more kal-toh pieces until the conversation shimmers into a three-dimensional shape, instead of being listless & exhausted & disengaged & *bored* all the time, so obviously i would get addicted immediately if given the opportunity, & i've known this forever lol)--now going to hydrate, refill pill case, write some emails, & meet C at the beach! not how i expected to reboot my brain, but it works! also putting them on limited facebook view because i try to keep some groups of people in my life quarantined from each other & that includes 1) my relatives & my academic ~colleagues (ne'er the twain shall meet), 2) my exes & my family, 3) my relatives, colleagues, & uh. a couple of lovely, but extremely psychotic dudes with very long criminal records i met while doing hard drugs

13 notes · View notes

okrseverything · 4 years

Text

OKR is a startup lifesaver. Here is how to craft them

“We do not learn from experience… we learn from reflecting on experience.”

– John Doerr, author Measure What Matters.

If you are a founder, CXO, HR leader, or a venture partner, you are sure to have come across Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) and highly unlikely that you would ignore it. You probably may be thinking about the benefits of this superbly powerful framework, that when implemented well, can supercharge your growth strategy. At the same time, you may be wondering how to get started.

The good news, OKRs can magically seep into accelerating your business growth, without having another on the ‘To Do’ list. However, what it does need is baselining understanding on OKRs, crafting it right, discipline, focus and cadence not only among leaders but also your teams.

And, a great way to move from knowing OKRs to actually doing or practicing OKRs, is through OKR pilots!

All about OKRs

OKRs is a strategy execution framework, which requires an ongoing cadence, to pick measures that matter most to propel the organisation forward. OKRs forces teams to think about how to drive change, growth or innovation. Something is a variation of what or how we are currently doing.

Objectives are qualitative statements that give clarity on ‘What would we like to achieve?’ They must have business value.

Key results define ‘how we are going to measure success?’. They’re outcome-driven, measurable and stand the ‘Stretch Test’.

Tasks are the to-do lists, priorities, and activities that will help us achieve our OKRs.

‍

Also Read: Global pandemics, trade wars: why OKRs are more vital than ever before

‍

OKRs shift thinking from measuring inputs or tasks to outcomes. OKRs are agile, set for 90 days, and builds a muscle of cadence around metrics that matter most.

Here’s an example of an OKR.

Objective: Implement a kick-ass sales strategy to accelerate revenues

KR 1: Increase conversion rates from 15 to 30 per cent

KR 2: Reduce lead received to call back time from one hour to 10 minutes

KR 3: Increase enterprise customer proposals from four to 10 per month

How to run craft an OKR

The Socratic question

As you mull over how to get started with OKRs, ask yourself the Socratic question ‘Is my company ready for OKRs and what outcomes would we want to drive?’ OKRs being a strategy execution framework, rest on your company’s mission, vision, and strategy.

‍

No sailing without the captain of the ship:

OKRs start with sponsorship, and that’s best done by the CEO alongside the Strategy Office. With a strong war cry around OKRs, you need to rally your team around the North Star or the big ‘why’.

Champion the implementation, get a common understanding of what OKRs are or aren’t, and don’t shy away from calling an OKR expert to give you a 101 primer on OKRs.

‍

It starts with company OKRs

In all OKR pilots, what emerges as a constant is to start from the top. Build the virility around the framework, by setting company OKRs anchoring them to the company’s mission, vision and strategy.

As a Founder or CEO who is driving OKRs, invite your next level leadership team to contribute to company OKR crafting. Use OKR language in every meeting – Get tired of saying so, until everyone gets activated on the driving OKRs as a muscle.

‍

Choose your pilot team well

Organisations have different ways of choosing a pilot team. For enterprises, it could be CXOs and next-level leaders, or a group driving Innovation projects.

Also Read: We recently implemented OKRs at e27; This is why every startup should do the same

For hyper-growth startups, it could be teams that need to drive outcomes through intensive collaboration. The success of your pilot team can be a role model for other teams.

Get the right anchors

It takes two to tango. But for OKRs, it’s a whole lot more. You need the right anchors to make sure the teams are sailing through every difficult situation without crashing or just running away from the challenges. Have a well-defined checklist to make sure your key role holders can increase your chances of a successful implementation.

‍

Consider using an OKR software

With team sizes are more than 20, an OKR Software is a must-have to keep the momentum on. An OKR Software would help teams view real-time insights, flag KRs at risk, help teams capture check-ins, collaborate on progress, and guide them on writing high-quality OKRs.

According to the experience of Fitbots OKR management, an effective Check-In meeting is a secret sauce to getting OKR implementation right. This may seem like the same old tune, but the fact remains, no leadership enthusiasm, no OKR success. Check-In meetings happen weekly by teams and during Leadership reviews.

With a view on OKR progress dashboards against company goals, leadership teams review, reset & remove constraints to get OKRs back on track!

Gather the learnings from the pilot and reset your process. Before going company-wide, it is better to know what works well given your company culture and growth focus. Happy OKRing!

#okr #hr

1 note · View note

ramrodd · 3 years

Text

Like Socrates, Jesus was a secular humanist.

If Socrates believed he doesn't know anything, then why did he accept to be executed for his beliefs?

COMMENTARY:

Socrates was a combat veteran who had been on the losing side of a military debacle and conducted a fighting retreat from Delion which established his moral authority beyond question. .

When he got back to Athens, the same people who had launched the battle were still in charge and still proposing stupid ideas that benefited them at the expense of everyone else a lot like the House Freedom Caucus and Ben Crenshaw’s proposal to re-invade Afghanistan for paybacks.

Socrates conducted a public insurgency against these vested interests by teaching young men how to sabotage political processes through sophistry, not unlike William F. Buckley’s PBS seminar on Fascist sophistry that has resulted in the domination of the GOP by a libertarian coalition. This was the basis of the charge of “corrupting the youth” in his indictment.

At 70 years old, Socrates picked “civic duty” as the hill to die on, selecting ethics as opposed to aesthetics as his guiding principle (for this post, aethetics is an inquiry into man’s duty to the gods while ethics is an inquiry into man’s duty to man) on the basis that ethics is by far the more reliable moral anchor for social organization. This is the basis of the charge of heresy in his indictment.

This is the moment Athens began to pivot from the Heroic Age of Homer to the Secular Humanism of modern society.

Socrates’ point was that the citizen in a democratic society had a duty to submit to the secular rule of law in his or her relationship with society, even if it means his or her personal extinction. This is the only choice a moral agent can adopt to sustain the vitality of a democracy.

And then he ratified his point by drinking the ethical verdict of the secular rule of law underwriting the principles of a democratic society.

Jesus validates Socrates’ ethical stance by submitting to the aesthetic verdict of Judaism and to the Roman secular rule of law , however unjust the verdict in both cases: the Cross is Jesus’ cup of hemlock.

The binding of Isaac examines the nature of duty to God. The crucifixion of Jesus endorses the authority of the Roman Republic as a social construct emerging from the secular rule of law and reinforces Socrates notion of civic duty, that is, ethics and man’s duty to man.

And this submission to the secular rule of law becomes the basis for Romans 13:1 - 7 and the 2nd Amendment.

The death of Socrates establishes that the NRA version of the 2nd Amendment is bullshit and, not incidentally, that the current Texas Pro-Life anti-abortion attack on Roe v Wade is blatant heresy, in a Christian ethic kind of way, while the Fascist majority on SCOTUS are equivocating cowards committed to right-wing political expediency.

The death of Socrates is the basis of the republican nation building that NATO was conducting in Afghanistan until Trump surrendered to the aesthetic of the Taliban’s Sharia Law and stabbed democracy in the back on January 6.

0 notes

bnprime · 7 years

Text

philosophical diatribe!!

*warning* i gotta get some stuff off my chest. we live in a unique time, philosophically. For one, we live in an era when there are proponents of living lives and governing countries according to actual philosophies. I might not agree with ayn rand (at all) but at least people are reading about ideas. For another, since the vocabulary of technology influences the metaphor of philosophy, and we’re living through a technological revolution: there are some ideas we can explain fairly efficiently which we might not have been able to a generation ago.

So here’s my beef: algorithmic wisdom. Wisdom has taken a lot of forms over the years. Socrates lived his life according to a voice in his head. Ned flanders does everything the bible tells him to. Some people’s idea of wisdom is to do whatever their dad tells them. In all of these, wisdom is both axiomatic (one lives according to some precepts) and systematic (the precepts are introduced into ones life consistent with a system: your daemon, your book, your dad). the form of wisdom which has taken hold of the popular imagination is one I’ll call “algorithmic,” where the system for deciding what is worth doing is an algorithm. The benefit of this is philosophical and logical purity. If following *the one rule* the achieve *the one goal* is itself the metric of what is wise, then there can be no contradictions. Take, for example, corporations. We like to imagine that corporations are a lot of things: means of giving people jobs, means of delivering goods and services to people. But this isn’t really, legally speaking, their purpose. Their only purpose is to maximize their profits. If they are doing that, and no matter how they achieve this, they are achieving their purpose. and fulfilling their purpose is “good”. The idea, however, is that if we force all of our corporations to run according to this one goal, that everything else we desire will result: returns on investment, well payed workers, wealthy customers, and products which are modern and reliable.

There are loads of these. One of my favourites is the idea of an “invisible hand” in a free market economy: the principle is that everything will work out optimally if we allow businesses to freely compete with each other. to summarize: algorithmic philosophical systems tell their followers to focus on and follow one simple instruction. The promise is that if the followers do this *one thing,* the complex system will sort itself out in the best possible way. obviously I have economic philosophy in mind, but a lot of people run their lives and careers algorithmically: believing that if everyone adhered to a single principle, things would work themselves out. The revolution of computing has given us a vocabulary to describe the effect that these people conceive. In their perfect society, everyone following their few simple rules, problems would be solved with the efficiency of a computer algorithm. Distributing resources. Finding marital partners, or perfect employees.

how often have we read proponent of radical free market economics arguing that we should eliminate government entirely, leaving the free market to educate our children and fix the roads? The promise is that if everyone just follows the algorithm, everyone will get what they want.

Okay, thankfully, the culture of using computers has also provided us with two other concepts which lets us talk about the consequences. First concept optimization: just like the purpose of a sorting algorithm is to sort a pile of data in the shortest amount of time possible; many of these philosophies are actually pretty good at harnessing the complexity of human existence to optimize solving certain problems through the power of parallel processing and evolutionary forces.

Running all corporations to singlemindedly consider shareholder value optimises the culture of investing capital. It keeps rich people from sitting on their dragon-hoards of money, and encourages an economy which is responsive.

Trusting to the “invisible hand” of the free market competition optimizes the price of goods: keeping the price of goods as low as possible without going too low. But here’s the thing. If you’re optimizing one parameter, you probably won’t be optimizing other parameters. Solving the “lets make a system that encourages investing in other peoples’ businesses” problem efficiently isn’t the same thing as solving the “’lets make sure that children don’t go to bed hungry” problem. I don’t know why advocates don’t recognize this issue. They seem to think that efficiently solving one problem is the same thing as efficiently solving all problems. The second concept is: Bugs in the code. i mean, we’ve all written code which has bugs in it. A code with bugs in it will create problems, even though the code is being executed perfectly by our computers. It’s an unintended but necessary consequence of the algorithm itself. Trusting to pure algorithmic philosophy invites unintended but necessary consequences into our lives. The companies who are legally bound to dump as much pollution as they can into the rivers: because they are legally obligated to find the method of making the highest profit for their shareholders. The fact that rich business owners, who have leverage over their employees (they can fire the employees, but not be fired by the employees) get to take all of the profit generated by their companies, while their employees only get a small wage. The fact that rich people can financially coerce politicians to reduce their taxes, and make them richer. These are all bugs in the code of our society, and they necessarily exist because of our modern reliance on algorithmic philosophy. I think the appropriate response to a lot of our modern problems is to insert the government in the role of the computer programmer. We now have a strong appreciation of how market forces (for example) can be used to optimize aspects of our society. But we need a balanced appreciation of this.

At the social scale, We need to let a government exist for the purpose of defining problems, and debugging the code. Redistribution of wealth and efficient taxation isn’t class warefare, it’s debugging a code.

At the personal scale as well, only our own sense of the consequence of our actions can determine whether the algorithm we are following in our own lives is just, and good and wise.

#whatever

26 notes · View notes

douchebagbrainwaves · 3 years

Text

IS THIS THE LADDER

The lifetime of a spam must be several hours at least, so it should be easy to turn into startup hubs, and others will say it's old news, but here goes: judging from their works, most philosophers up to the point where they got rich from some multilevel marketing scheme. A is clearly heard-of. And since his work became the map used by generations of future explorers, he sent them off in the design. A few ideas from it turned out to be mistaken. This time it felt like a Faustian bargain. Worse still, the usefulness test without implying definite and fairly broadly applicable conclusions. A Plan for Spam filter wouldn't have caught it. So even though they'll all still spend the money on the stadium, at least in our own minds, we have a dress rehearsal called Rehearsal Day.1 That may be so.2 Find one and launch it clearly but apparently casually in your talk, preferably near the beginning. High-volume auto-retrieval should be combined with blacklists of spamvertised sites.

When you demo, don't run through a catalog of mistakes. The other kind of spams I have trouble filtering are those from companies in e. My guess and Microsoft's guess, it seems is that much computing will move from the desktop onto remote servers. This was exactly the kind of noobs and control freaks VCs should be trying to fund more of. The token Url optmails meaning optmails within a url occurs 1223 times. That would be kind of amusing. That still wouldn't be small enough to carry around everywhere like a phone, and yet would also work as a development machine? You'd have started a self-sustaining chain reaction like the one that drives the Valley.3

A is unheard-of. In fact I don't intend to make any more iPhone applications unless absolutely necessary.4 Don't go out of business.5 Western philosophy really begins with Socrates, Plato, and particularly Aristotle, this tradition turned a corner. A third? You could probably do it in five years. One is simply that they trained their filter on very little data: 160 spam and 466 nonspam mails. Recently it was starting to seem that computers were finally fast enough. And starting with a very crude version 1 then iterate, your solution can benefit from evolution. It doesn't work for an intermediary to own the user; if you want to keep startups from leaving your town, you have to assume it will never happen.

What makes anything good? They're like someone stuck in an abusive relationship. Having your language designed by a committee is a big pitfall, and not just for the reasons everyone knows about.6 It took me a while to grasp this, but when I did it was fairly sudden, like someone in the nineteenth century grasping evolution and realizing the story of creation they'd been told as a child was all wrong. Apparently Apple's attitude is that developers should be more careful when they submit a new version almost every day that I release to beta users. The proof of how useless some of their answers turned out to be widely applicable. The more I think about this, the better an idea it seems.7 These get through because I'm a programmer too, and the handful of people who have it are not readily hireable. How could we make something like that happen here?8 So while board control is not total control, it's not imaginary either.

In fact, don't impose any restrictions on the startups at all. However, a city could select good startups.9 The difference between then and now is that now I understand why Berkeley is probably not worth trying to understand. If you try too hard to conceal your rawness—by trying to do things they don't.10 I look at a, img, and font tags, and ignore the rest. I don't know if Plato or Aristotle were the first to ask any of the questions they did.11 Let's consider what it would take at least half a million. 9998 Subject free 0. The difference between the people who'd been out in the world. We were just a couple guys in an apartment, which did not seem cool in 1995 the way it does, even where that motive is not something in the thing as such. If your company seems evil, the best solution is to treat some as more interesting than others. For many startups, VC funding has, in the first semester of freshman year, in a class taught by Sydney Shoemaker.

Which means if it becomes the norm for founders to keep control after an A round? VCs and e-commerce experts. I'd give Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge another shot in college. In Web-based software blows away this whole model. This one wouldn't. But not always. Another attraction of object-oriented programming is that methods give you some of the current probabilities: Subject FREE 0.12 Such measures increase the filter's vocabulary, which makes me think I was wrong to emphasize demos so much before.

9998 otherwise. Thanks to Sam Altman, John Bautista, Trevor Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, and he pointed out that operator overloading is a bigger win in languages with infix syntax, there's a big difference in appearance between the use of an overloaded operator and a function call. The biggest fear of investors looking at early stage startups is that you've built something based on your own a priori theories of what the world needs, but that we use that heretofore despised criterion, applicability, as a guide to keep us from wondering off into a swamp of abstractions. So I hope people will not be too offended if I propose that ancient philosophers were similarly naive. And that's who they should have been making. They're also getting bigger, and this is easier if they're written in the language of VCs, gone from a must-have to a nice-to-have. Recently it hasn't been. But cluttered sites are bad anyway, so perhaps you should use this opportunity to make your design simpler. Philosophy 101.13 Richard Kelsey gave this as an idea whose time has come again in the last panel, and I didn't know what they'd be like.

Notes

Change in the narrow technical sense of the things we focus on users, not conquest. Founders also worry that taking time to come if they used FreeBSD and stored their data in files too. VCs more than the actual server in order to avoid the topic.

But it's telling that it might actually make it self-imposed. Ten years later Jim Ryun ran a 3 year old to get you a clean offer with no deadline, you can play it safe by excluding VC firms have started to give up, but that's overkill; the creation of the war on drugs show, bans often do better. The attention required increases with the melon seed model is more like a compiler, you can't mess with the money invested in the latter case, 20th century executive salaries were low partly because it has to their stems, but I'm not trying to make 200x as much difference to a car dealer.

That was a test of success.

In a startup or going to distinguish 1956 from 1957 Studebakers. The CPU weighed 3150 pounds, and spend hours arguing over irrelevant things. This is one way, it causes a fundamental economic shift away from taking a difficult class lest they get more votes, as in Boston, and stir. The existence of people are like, and if it was worth 8,000 or a complete bust.

Hint: the separate condenser. Otherwise you'll seem a risky bet to admissions committees, no matter how good they are like sheep, but some do. On the other side of their origins in their heads for someone to invent the steam engine. You can have a lot like intellectual bullshit.

If you like a winner. I did manage to allocate research funding moderately well, partly because a friend with small children to consider themselves immortal, because they actually do, and as we walked in, you'll be able to hire, and I have no decision-making causes things to be located elsewhere. Learning this explained a lot of detail.

On the verge of the 23 patterns in Design Patterns were invisible or simpler in Lisp.

Interestingly, the only audience for your pitch to evolve. These were the case. I'm making, though I think this is one resource patent trolls need: lawyers.

They look superficially like the one the Valley use the word programmers care about valuations in angel rounds can make it a function of their portfolio companies.

It did not start to rise again. So it's not the only audience for your side project. I believe Lisp Machine Lisp was the capital which would cause HTTP and HTML to continue to maltreat people who get rich simply by being energetic and unscrupulous, but one way in which those considered more elegant consistently came out shorter perhaps after being macroexpanded or compiled. But although I started doing research for this is the converse: that the guys running Digg are especially sneaky, but I managed to screw up twice at the mafia end of the most important factor in the sense that they are now.

There is no external source they can get programmers who would in itself deserving. In the Valley itself, and are paid a flat rate regardless of the court. There were lots of potential winners, from the VCs' point of failure would be unfortunate.

That is where the richest and most sophisticated city in the Baskin-Robbins. But he got killed in the sample might be? I realize starting a business, and domino effects among investors.

Though this essay, but the meretriciousness of the density of startup people in the Ancient World, Economic History Review, 2:9 1956,185-199, reprinted in Finley, M.

Thanks to Fred Wilson, Sam Altman, Jessica Livingston, Larry Finkelstein, and Robert Morris for putting up with me.

0 notes

jeremywolf17-blog · 4 years

Text

*My definition of Rhetoric*

In Comm 380, Rhetorical conditions, I learned about many theories of rhetoric. This essay highlights how my definition of rhetoric shifted from the beginning to the end of the course. When I was asked what rhetoric was on the first day of class I sat there and pondered to myself, “I have no idea what this word means.” After several classes and learning about the different rhetoricians and theories, I would like to assume I have a good definition of what rhetoric means to me. I now believe rhetoric means the use of language to be able to persuade an audience or individual in a way that is ethical and not harmful, but can include arguments and conflict to strengthen one's argument.

From all the readings and learning about different theorists and rhetoricians, I would like to begin with John M. Murphy, and how he helped to discover my own definition of rhetoric. Murphy talks a lot about how making an argument is good or bad for society. He is looking at the bigger picture of persuasion and how it affects the people that are listening in. Murphy says in his article, “John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion”, that “ rhetoric acknowledges conflict, but it relies on “for the sake of argument” agreements, a willingness to accept common beginnings for public controversies” (Murphy). He is saying that in order to be able to persuade someone there needs to be common ground, and that is looking at the other person's perspective and making an argument that further supports your positioning. This is a non-harmful way to be able to get someone thinking about their own argument and make room for some common ground to come to an agreement. Murphy's idea ties into my definition that there needs to be some type of debate to be able to change the mind of someone. We can see this a lot in politics as people will debate their political biases, in order to change another's argument or perspective.

To help build my definition even further, I turn to the orator Gorgias. In the article “Plato on Rhetoric and Language”, Gorgias explains the job of an orator and gives his perspective on rhetoric as he is debating with Socrates. He explains that it is a craft that can only be used in certain situations to be able to persuade someone in an ethical manner. He also says, “one ought not to use a competitive skills against any and everybody to make himself be superior to his friends and enemies” (Gorgias). Gorgias is saying that being able to use the spoken word has power over others, and it’s that person's choice if they want to use it ethically or unethically. He uses an example of having the skill of boxing or wrestling and that a person with these skills doesn’t go around using them on everyone attacking them. Just because they have the knowledge to do so, doesn’t mean it should be applied in every situation. The ability to persuade someone should only be used in the right circumstance that would be used rationally and ethically, but realizing you have the power to cause conflict and debate, which ties directly to my definition that it’s the ability to persuade someone in a matter that is ethical.

Leading to the last theorist that helped me make a definition of rhetoric is Kenneth Burke. Burke is known to believe that every word carries some type of significance and that language is symbolic. Burke later wrote an article describing Hitler's Mein Kampf and how powerful of a speaker Hiterl was in executing ways of rhetoric. Burke states, “adversaries of different fields appear as always belonging to one category only, because to weak and unstable characters the knowledge that there are various enemies will doubt their own cause” (Burke, 1945). Although Burke is making his inference on Hitler, there is a lot to unpack here. He is saying that Hitler used tactics to be able to persuade his followers in a way that made them abide by his rules and brainwash them to do what he wished. The whole idea is to be able to be a good enough speaker to get a large group of people to understand the point you’re getting across in a way that is productive for society. In an earlier essay that I wrote, I mentioned how Bush gave an announcement post 9/11 that addressed the American people coming together and getting through the crisis by persuading them that the government is handling the situation day by day. Burke is saying with enough power and the will to be productive for society that can benefit all, you can persuade anyone. This relates back to my definition that rhetoric is the idea to be able to persuade an audience in a way that is ethical and unharmful, which is what Burke discusses based on Mein Kampf.

In conclusion, my definition of rhetoric has changed significantly over the semester as I started out not knowing what it was. I was able to come to this specific definition based on the in class readings that we did. More specifically John Murphy, the orator Gorgias, and Kenneth Burke all contributed to my definition of rhetoric. Such as Murphys insight on conflict and how you need to look at the other person's perspective to ultimately persuade them in another fashion, Gorgias and how you must use the skills of persuasion in an ethical way, and Burke showed me that rhetoric can be used to influence a bigger audience based on using ethical statement that can be productive for society. I wouldn’t have been able to say rhetoric is the ability to persuade an audience or individual in a way that is ethical and not harmful by including arguments and conflict, without these three rhetoricians.

Works Cited

Burke, K. (2005). The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle" . Reading in Rhetorical Criticism, 3, 193–201.

Murphy, J. M. (n.d.). John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, xiii-xviii.

(n.d.). Plato On Rhetoric and Language Four Key Dialogues, 93–95.

0 notes

mediacalling · 5 years

Text

8 Unexpected Marketing Lessons from History’s Most Influential Leaders

This week we’re taking a journey through time and uncovering some of the greatest, yet most unexpected marketing lessons from some of history’s most influential thinkers, philosophers, and leaders.

You may not realize it now, but there is so much we can learn from leaders like Socrates and Oprah and Cleopatra. Much of what they would consider their mantra has a ton of implications on marketing today.

In episode 141 of the Science of Social Media, Brian and Hailley break down concepts like the Socratic Method, transparency, rhetoric, and lots more.

8 Unexpected Marketing Lessons from History’s Most Influential Leaders

What follows is a detailed summary of the episode transcript. Feel free to jump around and explore each of these top marketing lessons from history’s most influential leaders in this week’s Science of Social Media:

1. Aristotle

2. Socrates

3. Oprah Winfrey

4. Abraham Lincoln

5. Catherine the Great

6. Martin Luther King Jr.

7. Cleopatra

8. Eleanor Roosevelt

Let’s dive in!

1. Aristotle

One of the most well-known philosophies of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle (born in 384 BC), is his idea of persuasion, otherwise known as rhetoric.

He breaks down persuasion into the three categories: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.

These three concepts can be valuable for content marketers, writers, and bloggers. After all, isn’t persuasion one of the most important parts in marketing?

Logos: The application of logic in efforts to persuade. Logos tries to persuade an audience using logical arguments and supportive evidence.

Pathos: Playing to human emotions. Using anecdotes and stories, marketers can connect with their audience, adding a human element to content.

Ethos: The concept of ethics. It works off the idea that it is impossible to persuade anyone of anything if you’re not credible.

You must establish your credibility and reputation as a writer. This is done through personal branding and your ability to build a following. Ideally this would results in brand building and thought leadership.

2. Socrates

Next up on our list of marketing lessons from historical leaders, born 90 years before Aristotle, is Socrates.

Those that took a middle school science class learned about the Socratic Method. The Socratic Method is used in asking questions and posing theories to investigate and to stimulate the foundation of new ideas.

The Socratic Method applies to the interactive aspect of marketing. Get your readers involved by asking them questions or looking for their ideas on certain issues and engage them with interactive content.

Invite your audience to engage in a lively debate. Actively involve them in your marketing process so that your team can generate new product ideas, marketing campaigns, and content topics based on the feedback you’ve received directly from the people that matter most.

Most of all, don’t forget that the Socratic Method applies internally as well. Your team should be debating and questioning trends, norms, traditions, and ideas at all times.

3. Oprah Winfrey

Oprah Winfrey has built much of the rapport she has with fans by being honest throughout her career.

Oprah stayed true to herself and was honest to her audience through ups and downs. She also held her guests to this standard as well – ensuring that honesty was always the number one priority.

The benefit of this honesty and transparency in marketing is that it helps to build trust with your customers. Think of all of the brands that create a memorable customer experience by being genuine, human and transparent.

A modern social media strategy demands authenticity and being transparent is something you can’t ignore. That is one of the most important marketing lessons Oprah has taught us from her success.

4. Abraham Lincoln

As the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln became famous primarily because of his contributions to the abolition of slavery and the American Civil War. But aside from his political and human rights achievements, Lincoln is also known for his oratory skills.

He has articulated some of the most memorable lines throughout his political career. In fact, his Gettysburg Address in 1863 became the most quoted speech in US history.

His words live on as we apply them in the perspective of marketing, particularly when it comes to planning and preparation.

Lincoln once said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree, and I will spend the first four hours sharpening the axe.”

Marketers should understand that the more time spent on preparation, the less work they have to do in executing.

In addition, Lincoln taught us that it’s not about the amount of hours you work or the number of projects you launch, it’s about the quality of those hours and projects.

Focusing on fewer, but more impactful projects and campaigns will improve your brand’s results and most likely make you more successful in your career as well.

5. Catherine the Great

One of the most influential political leaders of the Eighteenth Century, Catherine the Great was said to have played an important role in improving the welfare of Russian serfs.

She placed emphasis on the arts and helped to cement Russia as one of the dominant countries in Europe.

Catherine the Great is a shining example to modern marketers that it often takes incredible courage to make your vision come true.

In Catherine the Great’s time, smallpox was a terrible problem throughout what is now the united kingdom and Russia. Catherine heard of the new inoculation treatments in England and risked the entire dynasty to travel and get her and her son inoculated.

We know that creativity requires original thinking and transcending traditional ideas, yet we’re so inundated with incoming information, that it becomes harder and harder to truly think for ourselves.

6. Martin Luther King Jr.

Very few people in American history are as celebrated as Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and social activist who led the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.

When examining King from a marketing perspective, he teaches us that not only carefully crafting, but truly believing in and embodying your brand message is critical for people to buy into what you’re saying.

As marketers, it’s only when we truly believe in our message and stand behind it 100% that can it be successful.

Carefully crafting your message is time well spent and pays ten-fold in the long run.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech is world-famous still today. We might compare that world-famous effect with going viral. Messages that are particularly well-crafted spread like wildfire throughout the Internet.

The marketing lessons bestowed from MLK Jr. include saying what you want to say as quickly and clearly as you can.

Use words everyone understands. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech isn’t an hour long or even 30 minutes. It’s 17-minutes in total and something that changed the course of history forever.

7. Cleopatra

One of the more interesting, yet fairly unknown historical leaders on our list is Cleopatra. C

Cleopatra ruled ancient Egypt for almost three decades. Well-educated and clever, Cleopatra could speak 6 different languages and was known as a strong and charismatic ruler. During her reign, she forged political alliances with Roman military leaders Julius Caesar and Mark Antony – which helped to hold many regions together over decades.

In terms of marketing lessons, Cleopatra had an incredible knack for seeing the bigger picture.

As marketers it’s easy to get caught up in the day-to-day: writing articles, posting to social media, analyzing our efforts, and everything that comes with the role.

Sometimes we forget to look up and ask: “why”? Why are we doing this? How does what we’re doing at this moment contribute to the greater goal?

We need to understand how our tactics relate to the strategy and matching our behavior to that understanding.

8. Eleanor Roosevelt

“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

Eleanor Roosevelt is a perfect example of a leader that practiced creative innovation – including helping redefine and shape the role of the First Lady.

She not only participated in radio broadcasts, she also authored a daily syndicated column, held press conferences to discuss women’s issues, and was an active supporter of civil rights policies and New Deal social-welfare programs.

Her ability to redefine expectations is a reminder that great marketers always look for opportunities to break the mold. To get to the next level in marketing, we must think outside the box to what seems unimaginable.

Make space to think. Make space to challenge assumptions. Make space to break things.

So what is it that you hope to accomplish? Does it seem too big or too scary to do?

We hope you challenge that notion and set your goals as high as they can go.

How to say hello to us

We would all love to say hello to you on social media – especially Twitter!

Hailley on Twitter and Hailley’s Website

Brian on Twitter and Brian’s Website

Thanks for listening! Feel free to connect with our team at Buffer on Twitter, Buffer on Facebook, our Podcast homepage, or with the hashtag #bufferpodcast.

Enjoy the show? It’d mean the world to us if you’d be up for giving us a rating and review on iTunes!

—

About The Science of Social Media podcast

The Science of Social Media is your weekly sandbox for social media stories, insights, experimentation, and inspiration. Every Monday (and sometimes more) we share the most cutting-edge social media marketing tactics from brands and influencers in every industry. If you’re a social media team of one, business owner, marketer, or someone simply interested in social media marketing, you’re sure to find something useful in each and every episode. It’s our hope that you’ll join our 27,000+ weekly iTunes listeners and rock your social media channels as a result!

The Science of Social Media is proudly made by the Buffer team. Feel free to get in touch with us for any thoughts, ideas, or feedback.

8 Unexpected Marketing Lessons from History’s Most Influential Leaders posted first on http://getfblikeblog.blogspot.com

0 notes

mariemary1 · 5 years

Text

8 Unexpected Marketing Lessons from History’s Most Influential Leaders

In episode 141 of the Science of Social Media, Brian and Hailley break down concepts like the Socratic Method, transparency, rhetoric, and lots more.

8 Unexpected Marketing Lessons from History’s Most Influential Leaders

1. Aristotle

2. Socrates

3. Oprah Winfrey

4. Abraham Lincoln

5. Catherine the Great

6. Martin Luther King Jr.

7. Cleopatra

8. Eleanor Roosevelt

Let’s dive in!

1. Aristotle

One of the most well-known philosophies of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle (born in 384 BC), is his idea of persuasion, otherwise known as rhetoric.

He breaks down persuasion into the three categories: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.

These three concepts can be valuable for content marketers, writers, and bloggers. After all, isn’t persuasion one of the most important parts in marketing?

Logos: The application of logic in efforts to persuade. Logos tries to persuade an audience using logical arguments and supportive evidence.

Pathos: Playing to human emotions. Using anecdotes and stories, marketers can connect with their audience, adding a human element to content.

Ethos: The concept of ethics. It works off the idea that it is impossible to persuade anyone of anything if you’re not credible.

2. Socrates

Next up on our list of marketing lessons from historical leaders, born 90 years before Aristotle, is Socrates.

Most of all, don’t forget that the Socratic Method applies internally as well. Your team should be debating and questioning trends, norms, traditions, and ideas at all times.

3. Oprah Winfrey

Oprah Winfrey has built much of the rapport she has with fans by being honest throughout her career.

Oprah stayed true to herself and was honest to her audience through ups and downs. She also held her guests to this standard as well – ensuring that honesty was always the number one priority.

A modern social media strategy demands authenticity and being transparent is something you can’t ignore. That is one of the most important marketing lessons Oprah has taught us from her success.

4. Abraham Lincoln

He has articulated some of the most memorable lines throughout his political career. In fact, his Gettysburg Address in 1863 became the most quoted speech in US history.

His words live on as we apply them in the perspective of marketing, particularly when it comes to planning and preparation.

Lincoln once said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree, and I will spend the first four hours sharpening the axe.”

Marketers should understand that the more time spent on preparation, the less work they have to do in executing.

In addition, Lincoln taught us that it’s not about the amount of hours you work or the number of projects you launch, it’s about the quality of those hours and projects.

Focusing on fewer, but more impactful projects and campaigns will improve your brand’s results and most likely make you more successful in your career as well.

5. Catherine the Great

One of the most influential political leaders of the Eighteenth Century, Catherine the Great was said to have played an important role in improving the welfare of Russian serfs.

She placed emphasis on the arts and helped to cement Russia as one of the dominant countries in Europe.

Catherine the Great is a shining example to modern marketers that it often takes incredible courage to make your vision come true.

6. Martin Luther King Jr.

Very few people in American history are as celebrated as Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and social activist who led the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.

As marketers, it’s only when we truly believe in our message and stand behind it 100% that can it be successful.

Carefully crafting your message is time well spent and pays ten-fold in the long run.

The marketing lessons bestowed from MLK Jr. include saying what you want to say as quickly and clearly as you can.

Use words everyone understands. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech isn’t an hour long or even 30 minutes. It’s 17-minutes in total and something that changed the course of history forever.

7. Cleopatra

One of the more interesting, yet fairly unknown historical leaders on our list is Cleopatra. C

In terms of marketing lessons, Cleopatra had an incredible knack for seeing the bigger picture.

As marketers it’s easy to get caught up in the day-to-day: writing articles, posting to social media, analyzing our efforts, and everything that comes with the role.

Sometimes we forget to look up and ask: “why”? Why are we doing this? How does what we’re doing at this moment contribute to the greater goal?

We need to understand how our tactics relate to the strategy and matching our behavior to that understanding.

8. Eleanor Roosevelt

“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

Eleanor Roosevelt is a perfect example of a leader that practiced creative innovation – including helping redefine and shape the role of the First Lady.

Make space to think. Make space to challenge assumptions. Make space to break things.

So what is it that you hope to accomplish? Does it seem too big or too scary to do?

We hope you challenge that notion and set your goals as high as they can go.

How to say hello to us

We would all love to say hello to you on social media – especially Twitter!

Hailley on Twitter and Hailley’s Website

Brian on Twitter and Brian’s Website

Thanks for listening! Feel free to connect with our team at Buffer on Twitter, Buffer on Facebook, our Podcast homepage, or with the hashtag #bufferpodcast.

Enjoy the show? It’d mean the world to us if you’d be up for giving us a rating and review on iTunes!

—

About The Science of Social Media podcast

The Science of Social Media is proudly made by the Buffer team. Feel free to get in touch with us for any thoughts, ideas, or feedback.

Thank 8 Unexpected Marketing Lessons from History’s Most Influential Leaders for first publishing this post.

0 notes

angrycollectordaze-me-blog · 6 years

Text

Paper代写：Plato's idea of governance

本篇paper代写- Plato's idea of governance讨论了柏拉图的治国理念。柏拉图是古希腊的贵族，是一个浪漫的理想主义者，崇尚“哲学王”的治国理念。但由于当时的社会现实，他的理想遭受到了前所未有的打击乃至破灭。在第一等的理想治理方式之外，他不得不寻求第二等好的治国方式，《法律篇》则是这种思考的结晶，一种从理想到法律的探试。在这种探求法律之治的模式中，立法作为最重要的前提，柏拉图作出了许多尝试。本篇paper代写由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。

After the collapse of the ideal reign mode of "philosophical king", Plato pursued legalized governance and hoped to govern the city state through formulating good laws. This is the biggest shift in his thinking from the republic to the law. He pursued the rule of city-states under the rule of law, legislated for the good of city-states, and established the authority of city laws. He aspired to legislation that embodied "virtue", which should represent the interests of the public, and should pay attention to the leading role of education before legislation. Under the cultivation of education, talents under the law will pay attention to the good and pursue virtue, restrain and restrain their behaviors, and the legislation will exert the greatest effect.

Plato was an aristocrat of ancient Greece at that time, a romantic idealist who advocated the governing philosophy of "king of philosophy" and hoped to achieve the ideal degree of national governance through a philosopher with rationality, wisdom and many good qualities. His highest ideal, the philosopher should be a statesman, the statesman should be a philosopher. A philosopher is not a book in an ivory tower. He should apply what he has learned to practice. Those who have a philosophical mind should have a political power, and those who have a political power should have a philosophical mind. However, seeing the social turmoil in Athens after the defeat of peloponnesian war, Socrates, the most respected teacher, was executed for his words, and the political corruption in Sicily and other places, Plato faced these social realities, and his ideals suffered unprecedented shock and even disillusionment. In addition to the first class ideal governance, he had to seek the second class good governance. The law chapter is the crystallization of this thinking, a probe from the ideal to the law. In this mode of inquiry into the rule of law, legislation as the most important premise, Plato made many attempts. In the analysis of the legislative model, we find that many design and legislative ideas are very useful to the current legal construction.

Plato benefited greatly from the bumpy experiences of his life and was most influenced by Socrates. In his writings, Plato hoped to establish an idealized city-state by pursuing the goodness of soul. Plato's life is full of contradictions, and his ruling idea of "king of philosophy" in the face of cruel social reality is just a mirage. With the completion of the chapter of law, many scholars believe that Plato returned to the world from heaven and transitioned from the rule of man to the rule of law. Only by the rule of law can a country have the hope of becoming better. When we read Plato's entire book, we can easily find that he has a basic foothold in the unfolding of all problems, that is, "god is omnipotent, god is good, divine governance is the best, worship god is what everyone should do, should not have any slack".

Therefore, the author believes that the rule of law based on Plato's "divine will" should not be simply defined as the "rule of law" in the modern sense. All the legal discourses in the legal text are carried out around the purposes and ideas of "god" and how people guess the divine will. These laws govern a country for the sake of better access to god. Under the basic argument of advocating "god is omnipotent", it is inaccurate to simply apply "rule of man" and "rule of law" to study Plato's legal thoughts. Because Plato's rule of man is the rule of wisdom, the rule of truth, not the rule of man's desire in the real sense, which is the philosopher's rule that Plato pursues.

For this reason, we should be clear, no matter what kind of governance purpose Plato wishes to achieve and what kind of governance mode he will adopt, this is a basic human being used to purify and honor the soul, and the final node of refuge will fall on the omnipotent god. Under the influence of this serious religious color and the ideological system of pursuing natural law, it is meaningless to discuss Plato's interest in governing the country and argue whether the rule of law is more or more "rule of man". However, this does not mean that discussion of Platonic rule of law is meaningless. Throughout the book, we can still see a lot of creative descriptions about legislation, which undoubtedly has a guiding and referential effect on our current legislation.

Legislation is one of the most important precursory issues that Plato talked about in the legal chapter. Plato put forward many ideas and ideas, and constructed many specific legal systems based on social life, involving marriage, family, education, criminal law, religion, civil relations and other aspects. As Plato pointed out, social life and interpersonal communication require the regulation of laws. Although "honesty" is the most precious thing in everyone's soul, no one will voluntarily put the evil things such as crime into the most valuable thing of soul and get along with it. However, in the pursuit of wealth, people always infinitely enlarge some of their desires. Sometimes, we cannot make proper restraint and give up such interests, because self-control is not easy for everyone.

As the theoretical basis of legislation, we can see that Plato positioned human nature on the basis of "sexual evil". Although human soul is "good", all unjust things are what human beings are unwilling to do and go against their will. But the greatest evil of man's nature is that he will always forgive his own actions, even if they are wrong, and will not try to avoid them. In that case, the rule of the legislation is made for the recalcitrant as they refuse to accept the education. What lawmakers have to do is pass legislation that will subdue the desires that control humanity. A temperate life is a happy life, a happy life, and is in accord with human nature. When happiness is greater than pain, people will be happy, but excessive happiness is also painful, such life is also disharmonious, unhappy, the role of legislation is through the regulation of rules, people's behavior to moderate, thus leading a happy and harmonious life. Even so, some laws are made for the benefit of honest people, because they want to live a friendly life, and the laws can teach them the rules of human interaction they must follow.

Therefore, we can see that legislation is not only to regulate the evil, but also to protect the good. Plato therefore proposed that the goal of legislation was to enable the people of the city to live a harmonious and moderate life. This is because, according to Plato, only this life was the happiest for the people of the city. Later, Rousseau inherited and developed the Plato that why a legislative interpretation, also claims that legislation must, in order to extract the people the greatest happiness for the principle, he suggested that legislation is the most perfect degree can enable people to achieve than in the natural state can get larger forces, through legislation, make people's freedom, personal and property gets greater security. To bentham, the British bourgeois jurist, this idea was developed into a utilitarian theory.

The legislation that Plato seeks in the canto of law is a kind of human jurisprudence made with the help of god's will, which is different from the natural law of god. On the one hand, Socrates, in thinking of knowing man himself, has raised the question of establishing a study of the soul of man. On the other hand, Socrates expounded his legal thoughts on the basis of his natural philosophy, which divided law into natural law and human law, emphasizing the importance of natural law as the will of god, which was higher than human law as the law issued by the state. Therefore, Plato, as the most direct inheritor of Socrates' thoughts, repeatedly emphasizes in the elaboration of the legal text that human law should be subject to divine law after all, because the interests of people pursued by legislation are determined by the interests of god.

Although Plato of laws is in god's interests on the pursuit of the interests of the people, however, we can realize that the law's pursuit of the interests of the people is also a kind of progress in legislation, the subject status of the people was evident, due to more people in the process of legislation, is that the interests of the masses, rather than the interests of the ruler of a few.

The athenians, as the spokesmen of Plato, in discussing the certainty of enacting laws, affirmed that the object of every legislator in making every law was to obtain the greatest good. This greatest good is neither foreign war nor civil war, for war is not the conflict we would like to see, but the perpetual peace and goodwill between men. Since legislation is the pursuit of the greatest good, what does good mean? In the relationship between countries, the purpose of war cannot be pursued. Laws are made for better peace, and they can only be used as a means and an instrument of peace.

In the process of legislation, we must start from virtue correctly, pay attention to the whole of virtue rather than only the part of virtue, and explain that this is the purpose of legislator to make law. There are four major aspects of virtue: courage, self-control, justice, and good judgment. Only laws with such virtues are laws in the true sense, and there are mainly three things that legislators should consider when making laws, for the freedom, unity and wisdom of the legislative city-states. We have said that legislation that guarantees strong and extreme authority is a mistake, and we should always remember that a nation should be free and intelligent, and that it should be harmonious internally, which is what legislators should focus on when they legislate.

要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ：800020041或者Wechat：Abby0900吧。

0 notes

natedallas · 6 years

Text

Leisure? You Never Even Knew Her

A successful life requires work. No one needs convincing of that. What we may need, however, is to understand and to be reminded of the dire need for proper leisure. I don’t just mean rest, quiet, amusement, or a mere cessation of work. Purposeful leisure is something much different and more strategically complex.

This is not a message to reiterate that we all probably work too hard and too often. That sentiment is likely overstated, a bit cliché, and also accurate. It’s a cultural issue. As we may quickly generalize the widespread problem, we cannot deconstruct the “why” of it quite so easily. Why do people over-work themselves? Why do you? Everyone has different needs and motivations for their work behavior. Some people work hard for selfish reasons like money, notoriety, or power. Some do to be distracted from other pain, or to possibly to avoid harder, more emotionally intense work. There are a million reasons, some good and some terrible. (Perhaps another post will follow defining efficient rest and true recreation, and the need to master both. I think we do them both poorly. Rest is for recovery. Recreation is for rehabilitation and renewal.) Today, my desire is to highlight leisure. Leisure is not just resting to prevent physical sickness or a mental breakdown. It’s totally different. Leisure may be a hard to get right, but after some practice, it can function like jet fuel for your success.

Aristotle made the point that our culture does not suffer from an overabundance of leisure, as many people are quick to diagnose. Rather, it suffers from "never knowing her at all." The thing that we confuse with proper leisure is what he calls amusement. Amusements are the short breaks and welcomed distractions that happen alongside of work. These moments are necessary, but they do not require much of us. Aristotle says, “Amusements are more to be used when one is at work, for one who exerts himself needs relaxation, and relaxation is the end of amusement, and work is accompanied by toil and strain… we should be careful to use amusement at the right time, dispensing it as a remedy to the ills of work.” An example of this would be a coffee break, social media updates, a round of golf, watching a movie, or tossing a frisbee. The point of amusements is just a mental break, a breather, and a maneuver to distance ourselves for a few minutes to prevent mental and emotional gridlock. They are typically enjoyable for the simple fact that they are not work. These are necessary, defensive moves to prevent a disaster and in turn, increase productivity.

By contrast, to be at leisure is choosing to be free for an extended period, without the immediate need to return to the work task. It’s not part of normal working at all. It’s totally exclusive and does not happen by chance or circumstance. It must be deliberate. Leisure makes us free to pursue studies and activities aimed at the cultivation of virtue and character. It affects who we are, not just what we are doing. Proper leisure produces growth of the mind and spirit. This is a conscious decision. The purpose of good leisure is maturation, education, and healing. The intent is not mindless distraction and entertainment, but mindful meditation and growth. The intent matters. The “why” comes first, followed by the “how.” The “what” is probably least important. Socrates referred to real leisure as, “the most valuable of possessions.” For those that get it right, every aspect of their life improves. I’m going to repeat that message. For those who get leisure right, every aspect of their life improves.

The point of good leisure is not just to be at leisure, but to intentionally use it to be able to place more abundant living into the ordinary times. It's transformational. When executed well, it makes us more present, more aware, and more effective. It requires intense focus and mindfulness. It does not exist just because work has stopped. It doesn’t show up automatically or unintentionally. Unlike amusements, if leisure isn’t done correctly, it produces very little benefit.

If our focus is 99% work and 1% leisure, we won’t make it very far. We must make an intentional shift and give the leisure a place of prominence in our lives, in our minds, and in our hearts. Our culture is starving for deep and meaningful conversation that produces change. We long to discover the virtue that deep down, we believe exists in some men, however rare it may be. Leisure helps us to see more clearly what we need to do, because the focus is on something greater than a monetary project. It transforms our work because we can connect with “why” we want to do it a different way. Our work can then become a purposeful form of duty and sacrifice. We offer our best, constantly improving, and can offer something better on the next round. One of my favorite authors, Archbishop Fulton Sheen puts it this way, “No amount of piety in leisure hours can compensate for slipshod labor on the job. But any honest task, well done, can be turned into a prayer.”

What if you decided to stop, look, and listen to your own life and the lives around you? What if you took a half day this weekend to be alone? What if you made an open ended reservation to have dinner with an elderly friend and have deep, meaningful conversation? What if you properly used your weekend? How about taking a sick/vacation day off to sit and read a book, take a course, work on your art, or go on a pilgrimage? Doesn’t your mind need this? What if you stopped talking, and started listening? What if we stopped working and started breathing?

What if you learned how to make leisure work for you instead of working all day in hopes of one day having it?

Whatever you choose, place a pious intent at the forefront and keep it firmly fixed there. That alone has the potential to change everything. Know why you are entering this space. Don’t be discouraged if you fail to see immediate results. Return back to the place of leisure, time and again, refining the focus and the will ever more. Practice until you master the craft. Know her intimately and visit her often. She will always be good to you.

------------

Please share this with anyone that you think would appreciate it.

I write articles periodically. If you would like to receive them in your inbox, use this form: http://eepurl.com/csGBOb

See past articles at www.natedallas.com

#leisure #manhood #masculinity #natedallas #recreation #meditation

0 notes

jeremiahrau02-blog · 6 years

Text

Five Description On Why event Is very important.

15 Points To Avoid In party.

7 Important Life Instructions event Taught Us.

Design part thoughts will certainly never ended as well as there are great deals of points you can do to have a motif gathering the most effective. These decorations can be dressed up with devices (either shop purchased or homemade) to the party the look that is preferred. Utensils: Planning the menu will help determine not just the food you will certainly have to have but the types of plates, tools as well as serving pieces needed making the event a success. If you are planning on serving alcohols, take into consideration that a lot of visitors will consume alcohol two each hour for the very first couple of hrs then one per hr after that. Merely search for your event style to locate images of hundreds of children birthday celebrations, cakes, decorations, crafts, food and even more. A lot of people are trying to be the life of the event rather than just being themselves. Then take care of the wonderful bachelorette party gifts that you will certainly present to her at the limit of wedded life. Socrates Newcome is an event coordinator who intends and manages occasions as well as events, he has a bunch of suggestions concerning Surprise Event Suggestions Check out - for even more suggestions as well as interesting suggestions. The Embellishment: The achievement of your party rotates on the correct ornamentation of the hall. These video games in addition to various other similar games are suitable to play throughout a break in the songs as a result adding to the party. Main benefit of working with party bus is that you don't have to worry about the parking and also auto parking costs considering that they are included on the plan. Simply placing food coloring in some water as well as adding it to check tubes or other laboratory products has a basic, yet outstanding impact. Denise Sanger is the proprietor of concentrating on aiding you intend the ideal Sweet 16 event. Design: Decide on the motif of the event and how you are going to boost the event with designs. This will quickly be among the most enjoyable components of the whole birthday celebration celebration for several of the kids. If you are having an evening thanksgiving party, you can select enhance the celebration table with products that represent the value of the festival. Event decorating suggestions are a great way of utilizing your creativity and also making the celebration extraordinary. Having the proper understanding in preparing a party is needed for a party organizer. If you have any from community visitors (Chief executive officers, board participants, honorary or prominent guests) after that you might wish to situate your company event celebration near a flight terminal for ease of logistics. If you intend to your party décor ideas to be a hit amongst your visitors it is very important to begin planning for the occasion well beforehand before the date of the occasion. Just keep in mind, one of the most fundamental part of the event is hanging around with those you like.

This Is Why party Is So Famous!

The majority of brides suffer having the bachelorette event in the style most preferred by their bridesmaids, but not them. Music can establish the spirit of the party high or it could make the event an uninteresting plain. Collect other uncommon and scientific research themed items (bugs, hen bones, etc.) to put in containers for samplings or other lab materials. Lab materials with various results (dry ice, colored water, sampling containers, water beads). Making an Anniversary Party unique could occur with games and also printable activities developed or prepared specifically for the celebration. The city additionally has a number of good comedy bars that include the craziest comedians this component of the eastern shore if one enjoys to watch stand-up comics. This is a wonderful celebration for the women, and also you can reserve massagers, manicures, pedicures, and extra. Utilizing my Mad Hatter's Tea ceremony as an example, I put the special celebration paper napkin I've selected in the center of the board because it provides my color scheme rather nicely. Each restare sempre in linea con i tempi attuali, non perderti il Twitter Celebration Dessert il Lollipop Event. In Houston, The majority of the Quinceanera party as well as wedding party locations stay engaged the majority of the time of the year. Is a Ireland's # 1 resource for celebration supplies for birthday parties, weddings, christening or any type of special celebrations. Or if you favor led excursions in Barcelona, look into Vesping's excursions goinged by their city specialists. Holiday Event Decorations, complimentary games, menus, dishes, coloring web pages, tasks, etc What a better means to go out and enjoy the elegance of the whisky distillery than preparing a timeless Denver Bachelor Party. Inexpensive birthday celebration event prefers from Buy Wedding event Prefers Online are suitable for a 60th birthday celebration or a 16th birthday. It will certainly be a lot more enjoyable if you disclose several of your secret strategies compared to seeing your buddy self-conscious and wishing the event to end as soon as possible. Invites: I comprised VIP Party hands down business cardstock as well as handed them out personally. Ask those thinking about participating in a Panty pipe Limousine Party for their part of the cashes up front, so you could schedule the Limo early and know how many are going. These event invites must know regarding the party along with theactivities that will be taking celebration host may recommend that the party visitors put on 20s style clothing as well as outfits to the event. In this case, you can bring along drinks as well as some party supplies warehouse (emagrecimentotreinador.info) treats to delight in while everyone enjoys the film outdoors. You could have the party at a buddy's house or in a fancy cafÃ© if you want to indulge. In regards to cost, it is determined by the number of hours for the leasing, type of pictures, as well as different other basics which one wants. The city is definitely remarkable ... you can locate anything there, specifically when it pertains to music!

0 notes

johnchiarello · 7 years

Text

Christianity- Philosophy

CHRISTIANITY- PHILOSOPHY

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Hebrews 10:7

https://youtu.be/Cu6BnzfU7MQ Christianity- Philosophy

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/2-5-17-christianity-philosophy.zip

ON VIDEO-

.Objective Truth

.Epistemology

.Derrida

.Descartes

.Do words have meaning?

.Tower of Babel

.Plato

.Socrates

.Tertullian

.Logos

.Intertestamental period

.Development of the ‘Tradition of the elders’

.Man not made for Sabbath [law] but Sabbath for man [‘s benefit]

.Cop did 8 years in prison for murder

.He was framed- and now free

.Finality of the law theory?

.Hannah Overton case

.It’s not just speaking words

.But a demonstration of truth

NEW- [past teaching below]

Words communicate ideas- truth.

Language is a ‘mystery’ to some thinkers.

In scripture we see man created in the image of God-

He is unique in his ability to communicate through language.

We read of the beginnings of various languages in the account of Babel- where man was on a mission to achieve something- and because he had a common language- he was about to do it.

Yet God confounded them- gave them different languages- and the mission stopped.

In the field of philosophy some have challenged objective truth [is anything actually true].

They have challenged that language- words- actually ‘mean’ anything.

They view words- truth- as being relative.

In order to make this argument- well yes- they use words themselves- and write books about it.

I hope you see the irony here.

In scripture we read that Jesus is ‘The Word’ of God.

He is the Logos.

Yet- he is more than just words- he is the incarnation- the embodiment of all that the prophets spoke under the influence of the Spirit of God.

So believers are not just people of the book- we are also manifestations of the Word of God- we are actually the Body of Christ on the earth.

One of the early church fathers asked ‘have we chased God into a book’?

He saw the danger of the early church losing the reality of God among us- and simply seeing our mission as reading the words- and teaching the words- that the prophets spoke.

But we are to be the 'living epistles’- people who have the nature of God written in us- not with ink and pen- but by the Spirit of God.

The religious thinkers of Jesus day elevated the written law- over the incarnate Word [Jesus].

They challenged him for healing people on the Sabbath- Jesus responded ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not man for the Sabbath’.

Yes- the law of God is good- but man is created in the mage of God- and when you use the law- and elevate it- above the intent- the benefit of man- then you have forgotten the law giver himself.

Jesus challenged their elevating of the words in a book- which could never truly give life.

We do not challenge objective truth—or say that words have no meaning.

No- Jesus challenged the idea that the law- words- should be elevated above the value of men.

I recently saw a case of a man who was wrongfully convicted of a crime.

He appealed while in prison- and during the process it was revealed that another man committed the crime.

The prosecutor in the case found a loophole- she challenged the release of the man from prison- because during his appeal process- he filed something out of order.

But they already knew he was the wrong man.

The judge asked her ‘is it the position of the state- to hold an innocent man in prison- because he failed to file the appeal properly’.

The prosecutor said ‘yes’.

She held the view that the ‘finality of the law’ was more important- then the release of an innocent man.

Meaning- if he initially had a fair trial- and the jurors decided on the evidence they had at the time.

Then the courts should not later rule on new evidence- of his innocence- the courts should only overturn the conviction if it was shown that the initial trial of the man was unfair.

This woman held a view of the law that is not unique-

Some exalt the law- even if it is wrong- because they feel the viability of the system would break down- if the initial ruling is now overturned.

They make the mistake of the Pharisees- who saw their idea of the Sabbath- to be honored over the healing of a man on the Sabbath.

To them- the words written down [the commandments on stone] took priority over humans- over the act of Jesus- the Logos in flesh- healing a man.

And in so doing- fulfilling the intent of the words of the prophets- him being the Logos- the Word made flesh.

As believers we hold to the Word of God- we have the Spirit of God within us- the letter kills- but the Spirt gives life.

It was said of Jesus ‘I come to do thy will O God- in the volume of the book it is written of me’.

Yes- the book had words about Jesus-

When he came- he demonstrated the reality of those words.

He took upon him the sins of man- he went to the Cross- he rose from the dead.

He actually did this- he redeemed us.

We read about this in a book called the bible.

But it was the actual historical event of the Cross- meaning the fact that it happened- that redeems us.

Yes- people can challenge the limitations of words- speech- language.

Truly they are limited.

But the demonstration of what Jesus did- his life- his death- his resurrection.

Those who witnessed of it- and still do- cannot be denied.

The church in the earth today- all the people of God- are a testimony of Jesus Christ.

We too are called upon to carry the Cross- to lay down our lives for others.

To challenge those in society who would prefer a man be executed- or spend his life in prison- because of the ‘finality of the law’.

We are called to defend the defenseless- to not fear retaliation if we speak out against power.

We are to demonstrate the boldness of the early church- and take a stand against injustice in the earth.

Yes- we are the people of God- not just people who read the words about God- in a book.

PAST LINKS [Teaching I did before that relates to today’s post- Christianity- Philosophy]

Talked about Genesis 11- Here’s my study- https://ccoutreach87.com/genesis/

Philosophy too- https://ccoutreach87.com/overview-of-philosophy/

https://ccoutreach87.com/1st-2nd-corinthians/.

I quoted from these as well- Here are my studies-

https://ccoutreach87.com/john-complete-links-added/

https://ccoutreach87.com/galatians-links/

[parts]

(1242) Read a few chapters from Brian McLaren’s ‘everything must change’ thought I’d comment. I like Brian’s writing style, I agree with him on believers needing to be challenged to see things differently, but I disagree on some of his ‘everything’s’. He challenges the idea of objective thinking as defined as foundationalism. He explains well the questioning of modern intellectuals after the world wars and Holocaust of the 20th century. He shows how certain thinkers began looking for answers to the problem of society’s failure as seen in these events. He also shows how some blamed the events on ‘foundationalism’ which is a way of ‘seeing things’ [epistemology] as defined by Rene Descartes. These thinkers diagnosed the problem as society’s acceptance of absolutes, they felt that this led to an ‘overconfidence’ in right and wrong and this in turn allowed for these atrocities to happen. Many modern thinkers would disagree with this conclusion. I find it interesting that Brian makes some statements about Evolution that seem to say he accepts the theory, but yet he fails to see the role that Social Darwinism played as a precursor to the Holocaust. You could make the opposite argument that it was the rejection of absolutes, and the rise of liberal theology from the universities in Germany that led to these events. Many scholars began questioning Gods truth and laid a foundation that said ‘we really can’t trust Gods truth’ [or even know it]. To be honest these debates are a little philosophical and I didn’t think Brian would go down this road, but he does so I will deal with it. Many ‘post moderns’ believe that one of the things that must change is the ‘old’ [what is termed modern] way of thinking. These new thinkers assert that truth itself, as an absolute thing that people can know for sure, is out of mans reach. They question the modern way of thinking that teaches there are certain absolutes [preconceived ways of thinking that everyone accepts]. These new thinkers say this ‘foundationalism’ is the problem. Did the enlightenment invent this mode of objectivism? No. Thinkers from Aristotle to Aquinas to Descartes all approached thinking this way. It was defined more clearly during the enlightenment period. But this is a philosophical debate that goes on in these various camps. You have had very smart people disagree on these things. The great theologian Karl Barth would say you are not truly educated until you can ‘affirm both sides of an argument, accept contradictory definitions of the same thing’ many believe this would lead to lunacy! The two greatest theoretical physicists of the last century also disagreed on this. Neils Bohr would say that you can have two contradictory truths about a subject, and they could both be true, Einstein disagreed. So these things have been around for a while, many of the eastern religions teach the same [Zen]. So I would disagree with Brian on this, but do agree with him on the need for believers to expand their concerns from simple ‘going to heaven when I die’ concerns, to social justice concerns in the nations. He does give some good examples along these lines.

[parts]

WHAT’S REAL? And HOLY SAVIOR

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/12-18-20-whats-real.zip

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/12-20-15-holy-savior.zip

https://youtu.be/1xlAC-2CHPw What’s real?

https://youtu.be/7RQ85MGE-8I Holy Savior

I made these videos in Texas. Then didn’t have time to write the usual teaching. So I stuck them together and did the best I could.

ON VIDEO’S- note- I mentioned on the video the philosopher who ‘doubted everything’. I wasn’t sure if I got it right. I said ‘maybe Blaise Pascal’- but it was Renee Descartes.

.Kill Muslims?

.Bruce Jenner- 2nd thoughts?

.Little people

.He eats with sinners

.Philosophy/Physics

.Arianism

.Islam and Christianity

.Abrahams kids

.Ishmael too!

God and Allah

.Chaz Bono

.End times war?

.In defense of cops

.Hung jury

.Columbus- Aztecs- Conquistadores

PAST POSTS [verses below]

. REMINDER- This is a commentary I wrote years ago- the videos are new.

.CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS;

1- Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose him?

2- When Paul says ‘he makes our bodies alive’ is he only speaking about resurrection?

3- Does God use difficulty- or is it to be rebuked?

4- Was Paul a ‘hyper- Calvinist’?

(839)ROMAN 8:1-4 ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh [sinful nature] but after the Spirit [new nature]’. Now, having proved the reality of sin and guilt [chapter 7] Paul teaches that those who ‘are in Christ’ are free from condemnation. Why? Because they ‘walk according to the Spirit’ the ‘righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in them’. Having no condemnation isn’t simply a ‘legal function’ of declared righteousness, and Paul didn’t teach it that way! Paul is saying ‘all those who have believed in Jesus and have been legally justified [earlier arguments in chapters 3-4] are now walking [actually acting out] this new nature. Therefore [because you no longer walk according to the flesh] there is no condemnation’! This argument helps bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant theology, part of the reason for the ongoing schism is over this understanding. After the Reformation the Catholic Church had a Counter Reformation council, the council of Trent. They dealt with a lot of the abuses of the Catholic Church, things that many Catholic leaders were complaining about before the Reformation. They did deal with some issues and reformed somewhat. To the dismay of the more ‘reform minded’ Catholics [with Protestant leanings] they still came down strong on most pre reform doctrines. This made it next to impossible for the schism to be healed. But one area of disagreement was over ‘legal’ versus ‘actual/experiential’ justification. The Catholic position was ‘God can’t declare/say a person is justified until they actually are’ [experientially]. The Protestant side [Luther] said ‘God does justify [legal declaration] a person by faith alone’. Like I taught before, both of these are true. The Catholic view of ‘justification’ is looking ahead towards a future reality [The same way James speaks of justification in a future sense- He uses the example from Genesis 22, when Abraham does a righteous act] while the Protestant view is focusing on the initial legal act of justification [Genesis 15]. Here Paul agrees with both views, he says ‘those who walk after the Spirit [actually living the changed life] have no condemnation’.

(840)ROMANS 8:5-13 Paul will teach the impossibility of the ‘carnal minds’ ability to submit to Gods law. Those who are ‘in the flesh’ [the unregenerate nature- not simply ‘in the body’. We will get into these distinctions in a minute] can’t submit to God. Society spends so much time and effort trying to get the ‘lost man’ to do what's right. The prohibition movement [outlawing liquor], the increase in the severity of punishment for crimes dealing with drugs. Making the child kidnappers crime

[parts]

NEW STUFF- On the video I taught some about Francis Xavier [1506-1552] - one of the founding members of the Jesuit order [Society of Jesus] along with Ignatius Loyola.

He met Ignatius at the University of Paris- while pursuing an intellectual career.

Over time Ignatius example [and prodding] convinced him to abandon his own plans to live a comfortable life and serve as a scholar- and become a very effective missionary to the Far East.

Much like the story of John Calvin- who too was persuaded to abandon his own plans to simply be a scholar- and to serve in forming the community in Geneva.

Xavier arrived in Goa [India] and eventually went to Japan.

The king of Portugal- John the 3rd- requested missionaries for the areas Portugal was colonizing in India.

This century [16th] was one of exploration and colonization.

In Japan Xavier had great success- the city of Nagasaki was started to simply provide a place for all the Japanese converts!

There were reported miracles of healing under the ministry of Xavier- and he became one of the most successful missionaries from the Jesuit order.

Xavier came into some controversy- initially in his missionary efforts he was ‘more conservative’ in that he tried to get new converts to abandon all former cultural ties- in order to embrace the faith.

Over time- he sort of ‘mixed’ [called syncretism] the eastern religious practices with the faith.

When the Dominicans and Franciscans saw what was happening- they reported it to the church.

This became such a controversy among the Japanese- eventually the priests were martyred along the road to Nagasaki.

A sad event indeed.

The Protestants neglected the Far East in their missionary efforts- they were primarily trying to reform the church in Europe.

Yet Ignatius and his society were spreading the gospel- in areas that never heard either the Catholic or Protestant message.

All in all- Xavier did a very effective job- and is well respected by both Catholics and Protestants for the work he did.

PAST POSTS-

. ROMANS 8-10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqIktzp8Xc

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2-24-15-romans-8-10.zip

VIDEO- [I cover stuff on the videos that are not in the post- here are a few]

.Council of Trent- what did the Church say?

.Do we get the final say- at the Judgment?

.What are the Catholic virtues- did Paul teach them?

.Augustine, Calvin, Whitfield and Wesley.

.Infusion or Imputation? How bout both!

At the bottom I added some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic church- to show that the official teaching of the church DOES NOT TEACH SALVATION BY THE LAW- BUT BY CHRIST.

. REMINDER- This is a commentary I wrote years ago- the videos are new.

.CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS;

5- Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose him?

[parts]

ATHEISM- APOLOGETICS [links added- long version]

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/history-of-everything-1/

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/history-of-everything-2/

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/qm/

MY RADIO LINKS-

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-7R Kant, Hume, Sartre

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-6E Apologetics- Kant, Hume

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-62 Apologetics

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-6F DaVinci code

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-7Q Something from nothing- Quantum Leap

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-7O Multiverse

MY VIDEOS

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/10-18-15-nietzsches-twilight-of-the-idols.zip

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/10-28-15-jean-paul-sartre.zip

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/protestant-reformation-luther/

I cover some church history on this post- here’s a study I did in the past that gets more in depth.

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/1st-2nd-corinthians/ On today’s videos I talk about Paul’s teaching on being single- here’s my complete teaching on Corinthians where it is found

[parts]

. Let me cover some church history. I have had someone argue with me about the history of Islam. Not a Muslim, but a Christian who was saying ‘why do you say Islam started in the 7th century, it started around the 11th’. My answer was ‘Muhammad lived in the 7th century’. Not to hard to see this. So I thought I should cover some history. During the time of the rise of Islam, the Christian church was already dividing from east and west. After Constantine [4th century Roman emperor] consolidated the Roman Empire in the 4th century he set up the capital city of the eastern empire, Constantinople [named after him]. As time progressed the western church would take on the form of Roman Catholicism, the

[parts]

(835)ROMANS 7:1-4 Paul uses the analogy of a married woman ‘don’t you know that the law has dominion over a person as long as he is alive’? If a married woman leaves her husband and marries another man she is guilty of breaking the law of adultery. Now, if her husband dies, she is free to marry another man. The act that freed her from sin and guilt was death! Every thing else in the scenario stayed the same. She still married another, she still consummated the new marriage. But because her first husband died, she has no guilt. I always loved this analogy. For years I wondered why these themes in scripture are for the most part not ‘imbedded’ in the collective psyche of the people of God. We have spent so much time ‘proof texting’ the verses on success and wealth, that we have overlooked the really good stuff! Now Paul teaches that we have been made free from the law by the ‘death of our husband’ [Jesus] so we can ‘re-marry’. Who do we marry? Christ! He has not only died to free us from the law, he also rose from the dead to become our ‘husband’ [we are called the bride of Christ]. Paul connects the death and resurrection of Jesus in this analogy. Both are needed for the true gospel to be preached [1st Corinthians 15]. Notice how in this passage Paul emphasizes ‘the death of Christ’s body’. The New Testament doesn’t always make this distinction, but here it does. In the early centuries of Christianity you had various debates over the nature and ‘substance’ of God and Christ. The church hammered out various decrees and creeds that would become the Orthodoxy of the day. Many of these are what you would call the ‘Ecumenical councils’. These are the early councils [many centuries!] that both the eastern [Orthodox church] and western [Catholic] churches would all accept. Some feel that the early church fathers and Latin theologians [Tertullian, Augustine and others] had too much prior influence from philosophy and the ‘forensic’ thinking of their time. They had a tendency to describe things in highly technical ways. Ways that were prominent in the legal and philosophical thinking of the West. Some of the eastern thinkers [Origen] had more of a Greek ‘flavor’ to their theologizing [Alexandria, named after Alexander the great, was a city of philosophy many years prior to Christ. This city was at one time the center of thinking in the East. That’s why Paul would face the thinkers at Athens, they had a history in the east of Greek philosophy]. Well any way the result was highly technical debates over the nature of God and Christ. The historic church would finally decree that Christ had 2 natures, Human and Divine. And that at the Cross the ‘humanity of Jesus’ died, but his ‘Deity’ did not. I think Paul agreed by saying ‘we are free from the law by the death of Christ’s Body’ here Paul distinguishes between the physical death of Jesus and his Deity. Note- actually, Augustine would be in the same school as Origen. Alexandrian.

[parts]

But man could not know all the truths about God and his nature without ‘special revelation’ [the bible and church tradition]. All Christians did not agree with Aquinas new approach to Christian truth, the very influential bishop Bernard would initially condemn Aquinas over this. Bernard said ‘the faith that believes unto righteousness, believes! It does not doubt’. The Scholastic school taught that the way you arrive at knowledge was thru the continuous questioning and doubting of things until you come to some basic conclusions. These issues would be debated for centuries, and even in the present hour many argue over the issue of Divine revelation versus natural logical reasoning. Tertullian, an early North Afrcian church father, said ‘I believe because it is preposterous, illogical’ he became famous for his saying ‘what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens’ meaning he did not believe that Greek philosophy should have any part with Christian truth. Origen, his contemporary, believed the other way. So the debate rages on. Why talk about this here? Some believers ‘believe’ in a type of knowledge called ‘revelation knowledge’ they mean something different than the historic use of the term. Historically ‘revelation’ meant that which God revealed to us THRU THE BIBLE, not something outside of the bible. For instance, the first canon of scripture put together was by a man called Marcion. His ‘bible’ contained the letters of Paul and parts of :Luke. He believed the revelation God gave Paul was for us today, not the Old Testament or the historical gospels. He was condemned by the church as a heretic. The point being some took Paul’s writings about receiving knowledge from God as an indicator that what God showed Paul was different than what the church got thru the other apostles. In point of fact the things that God revealed to Paul, or to you or me; all truth is consistent, it will not contradict any other part of Gods truth. Paul’s letters are consistent with the gospels, not in contradiction. When believers cling to an idea that their teachers are sharing ‘special revelation’ or a Rhema word that is somehow above the scrutiny of scripture, then they are in dangerous territory. Paul did appeal to his experience with God as a defense of his gospel, but he backed up everything he said with Old Testament scripture. God wasn’t ‘revealing’ things to Paul that were outside of the realm of true knowable ‘truth’. You could examine and test the things Paul was saying, he wasn’t saying ‘because God showed it to me, that’s why I’m correct’. So in today’s church world, we want all the things we learn and believe to be consistent with what the church has believed thru out the centuries. Sure there are always things that are going to be questioned and true reform entails this, but beware of teachers who come to you with ‘revelation knowledge’ or a ‘Rhema word’ that goes against the already revealed word of truth.

[parts]

THE CROSS- 1

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/11-6-15-the-cross-1.zip

https://youtu.be/v85WoYe1Fkk

On video-

.Alone in a crowd

.Marcion

.Tertullian

.Uncle Joe

.Did we chase God into a book?

.Law v Grace

.What was the leaven?

[parts]

This fits in with the theme of a harsher punishment for those who reject the covenant of grace as opposed to those who rejected the covenant of law. I know these themes are not popular, but this is clearly the way Paul is presenting them. I also am not saying the ‘God’ of the Old Testament is different from the ‘God’ of the new [this is the heresy of Marcion! I think that was his name. He was an early Christian heretic who comprised the first canon of scripture for a ‘new testament’ it included basically Paul’s letters, and he taught that The God of the new testament was different from the God in the old] but Paul is presenting the new covenant in a way that says ‘don’t neglect this new way of salvation, those who do will receive a harsher judgment than those who rejected the law’.

END NOTES-

A HEAVENLY CITY.

DON’T BE SAD, HE’S TREATING YOU LIKE A SON.

NO REPENTANCE- OUTSIDE OF CHRIST THAT IS.

CULTURE SHOCK IS HARD ON US ALL.

Once again we see the contrast between ‘he that spoke from earth’ [Moses- the law]- and he that ‘speaks from heaven’ [Jesus covenant is more strict- to those outside of it and reject it- because he has heavenly authority- Moses had earthly]. Hebrews 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

The writer says ‘don’t be sad- God disciplines every son who he receives’- though this certainly applies to Christians- Hebrews 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

[parts]

PLATO

Plato was born in 427 BC- he was the most famous student of Socrates.

He is best known for his theory of Ideas/Forms.

He believed that the material world was an imperfect copy of the Idea world.

That is he believed that Ideas exist apart from the construct of the human mind- that they were the perfect forms of the things we see in the material realm.

He could also be referred to as a Realist- because he believed these Ideas actually existed [for real]. Where did he get this from?

As we study Philosophy- each one that comes down the line has been influenced in some way by those that preceded them.

There was a famous thinker- Pythagoras [his followers were the Pythagoreans] who taught a concept called the Transmigration of the Soul [a sort of Reincarnation].

They believed that the soul of man went thru various stages- and existed independently of the body.

In Greek thought the soul is immortal- it exists before the body.

In Christian teaching the Soul [mind- Spirit] comes into existence when God creates man [the bible says ‘and man BECAME a living soul’- referring to the creation of Adam].

The Greeks saw the soul as preexisting before the natural life.

In the mind of Plato- the body was a receptacle- in this life we recollect the knowledge that comes from the Idea world.

He ascribed Ontological status to ideas themselves.

In Philosophy there are 2 basic ways knowledge comes [we study this in Epistemology- an offshoot of Philosophy- which deals with how we know things].

A Priori knowledge is knowledge obtained independent of experience.

A Posteriori is knowledge obtained thru the senses- what we call Empirical evidence.

In Plato’s schema he believed that the knowledge that comes to us from the Formal world [ideas- forms] was A Priori knowledge- that the human mind recalls- and in the present material world- knowledge comes to us from the perfect idea world.

The Greeks believed that all matter was flawed- that the Body was an imperfect vessel- and after death we are released into the perfect world- and free from the material realm.

Christian Tradition does not hold to this view.

The Church teaches that the created world is good- not evil.

Among Christians there is some confusion about this- because the older versions of the bible [King James] seem to teach that matter [world, flesh] is evil.

Why?

Paul the apostle talks about no good thing being in The Flesh- he talks about the Carnal mind- the apostle John says ‘all that is in the World- the lust of the flesh- the pride of life- is not of the Father but is of the world’.

There are many references like this in the bible- but they are speaking about the sinful nature of man [the flesh] and not about the human body itself [For instance Paul says in Romans ‘present your BODIES as living sacrifices unto God- Holy and acceptable’ in Corinthians ‘your BODY is the temple of the Holy Spirit’- there are many references in scripture that speak of the Body as Holy.

When the bible says ‘satan is the god of this world’ it is not speaking of the earth- which God created- and calls GOOD- but it is speaking of the ‘world’ system- an age of wickedness.

So- at times Christians have confused this- and have held a sort of Dualistic view of matter- that is not the biblical view- but a Gnostic view- that all matter is evil.

Plato saw the unseen world of Ideas as the perfect- pure world.

He taught that in this life we obtain the knowledge of the pure- by reason of recollection- that these pure ideas come to us ‘are recalled’ in this life.

He is famous for founding the first Philosophical school- it was called The Academy- named after a man by the name of Academus.

The land was donated for the school- it was previously used as an Olive Grove- and in honor of the donation- Plato named the school after the donor.

This is why we use the phrase ‘The Groves of Academia’ today.

Plato was actually a nick name- he wrestled in Athens- in a sort of precursor to what would later become the Olympic games- and he was broad shouldered- that’s where his name comes from- Plato means broad shouldered.

So- to sum up- Plato believed that Forms [ideas] were eternal, the cause of all that is.

He believed we are born with innate ideas- these are not learned thru sense experience- but exist independently of the mind- and in this bodily life we retrieve [the body is a receptacle] these ideas.

Does the bible teach anything along these lines?

Not exactly.

Christians believe that God himself is infinite- without beginning or end.

That wisdom- ideas- ‘forms’ of things do indeed exist- prior to our own life.

But these ideas are not without a Mind- God is Spirit- and he is everywhere [Omnipresent] he knows all tings [Omniscient] - so- in a way- there are indeed ideas- forms- but they come from the ultimate Mind of God.

A good example would be the building of the Tabernacle- and later the Temple- under Moses and King David [his son Solomon actually built it].

God told Moses ‘see that you build it after the Pattern shown to thee in the mount’.

In the book of Hebrews we read that the earthly Tabernacle [Temple] was simply an image- a symbol- of heavenly realities.

That God himself had the ‘form’ in his mind- indeed- like Plato taught- the heavenly form is perfect- the earthly expression imperfect.

But these patterns- forms- ideas- are from the Mind of God- they are not Innate in the soul of man- nor does the soul of man exist before his birth.

In the past few months I have had several Christian friends tell me that they feel like they existed before this life- a type of reincarnation.

I explained to them that in the Christian faith we do not hold to this view.

But- the bible does tell us that God had a purpose for us- Predetermined- before the ‘foundation of the world’.

Meaning that yes- in the Mind of God- in a way- we did exist- but we did not have actual being [called Ontological status in the field of Philosophy] until we were created by God.

God’s purpose for us was already in the Mind of God before our birth.

The bible says that Christ is made unto us wisdom- we are not Receptacles in the sense that Plato taught.

But yes- in time God reveals to us this Hidden Wisdom- about his love and purpose for us.

And in this life we act out- we fulfil this eternal purpose.

Man [or woman] can never find true happiness- true meaning- until they tap into this purpose.

We were created by the hand of God- to bring glory and honor to him- and we in this life can ever find true fulfilment- until we make it back to God.

[parts]

RENAISSANCE ARTISTS-

The famous renaissance artists- DaVinci- Michelangelo- Raphael- used their artwork as a form of knowledge- the images taught things- they were not just paintings.

DaVinci’s most famous work was his painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel in the Vatican.

It took him 4 years to complete.

The renaissance period- from about the 13/14th century to the 17th- [though there was a sort of Renaissance that took place- yes- in the Islamic world before the European Renaissance] was marked by what we term Humanism.

Today we associate this term with ‘secular Humanism’ which often has a bad connotation- especially among Christians.

But it meant something different back then.

It was a new focus on breaking the limits off of man- and for man to excel in knowledge and skill- and to see man as having value.

There was somewhat of a break away from the church in a sense- in that the church and its teachings were not the only source of wisdom for man.

But- Jesus himself taught that ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not man for the Sabbath’- so- the Humanist spirit- elevating the value of man- does have a Christian basis in my view.

Leonardo daVinci [15/16th century] was what we refer to as a true Renaissance man- meaning his knowledge was in many fields- not just art.

He actually considered himself a sculptor first- then an artist- though he is most famous for his Fresco mentioned above.

Here’s my study on The Reformation-

https://ccoutreach87.com/protestant-reformation-luther/

And my past teaching on the Western intellectual tradition-

https://ccoutreach87.com/western-intellectual-tradition/

[parts]

Okay- Einstein.

As I read a few chapters every few days- I want to comment on the important- relevant stuff.

One of them being the very word Relativity.

Now- I am tempted to go back and review all the posts we did on physics [you long time blog readers might remember?].

But this book is not a physics book per se’- but a biography.

Yet a quick review might help.

Einstein became famous for a few things- most of us know the famous equation E=mc2.

Simply a conversion of mass into energy formula- it works for all things- not just Nuclear.

His theory of Relativity shook up the world of physics- and Einstein is indeed the father of what we call modern physics [and Quantum theory].

Okay- what he did was he took the centuries old ideas of Newton [the father of classical physics] and he said that time and space were not absolutes.

That’s is- that depending on the observer [and his speed] time actually changes.

Some in the scientific community could not fathom what he was saying.

The book has actual headlines from the NY times- they openly doubted some of Einstein’s work

I remember reading this years ago- but this time I saw the real headlines.

They said stuff like ‘what is this new theory- that space might be limited- this defies the actual definition of space’.

Now- it would take too long to tell you what they were covering- but it is one of the various theories of the universe.

In actuality- the times might have been right in this one case [it’s a theory that the universe is curved- has no detectable edge- if so- you can than argue for an infinite universe in a closed space- because there is no edge- or end].

As a side note- logically- the times was correct.

Just because you can’t find a ‘sharp edge’ to a thing- that does not mean the thing is ‘endless’.

I covered this years ago in our apologetics posts- it was interesting to have re –read this from this author [Isaacson].

He is a good author- and explains stuff well.

Okay what was the other stuff that some objected to?

Some associated- wrongly- the theory of Relativity- with the modernist philosophy called Relativism.

Relativism [remember the philosophy stuff?] said that there was really nothing as objective truth- that what you see might be just as true as what someone else sees.

You might both be looking at the same thing [morally- murder- etc.] yet to one it might be wrong- to the other- right.

This idea- Relativism- was strongly rejected by many philosophers- especially those with a Christians/Theist background.

Even today this is one of the major debates going on in the world of the philosophy.

But- some confused what Einstein was saying- and they thought [or used it] to back up the ‘moral’ philosophy of Relativism.

This was a mistake.

Einstein himself- as I mentioned in an earlier post- was not a relativist at all- that is when speaking about moral absolutes.

So some began to associate him- as one of the new ‘Jew’ scientists- who were introducing dangerous doctrines to the world.

Yes- some of the objectors to Einstein objected on the basis of this new ‘Jewish science’ that was breaking away from the moors of Christian science- whose father was Isaac Newton.

See how both anti Semitism- and religious belief played a role in this?

I’ll end with a quote from a famous man of the time- an up and coming politician- I mean he could awe his audience like no other.

Obama- Clinton- even the great communicator- Reagan- were no match for this man when it came to giving a speech.

He said ‘Science- once our greatest pride- is today being taught by Hebrews’.

Who said this?

The future leader of Germany- Adolph Hitler.

[parts]

VERSES-

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

2 I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved.

2 And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

Genesis 11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

Genesis 11:3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

Genesis 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

Genesis 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Genesis 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

Genesis 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

Genesis 11:11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

Genesis 11:13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

Genesis 11:15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

Genesis 11:17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

Genesis 11:19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

Genesis 11:21 And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

Genesis 11:23 And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

Genesis 11:25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

Genesis 11:28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

Genesis 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.

Genesis 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

Genesis 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

4 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

https://vimeo.com/user37400385

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.linkedin.com/home?trk=hb_logo

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

http://johnchiarello.thoughts.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on- Thanks- John.#

|�z|�>kyt��

#bible #religion #philosophy

0 notes