I am a Fan of Dostoevsky's Attention to Detail

As I read Dostoevsky I found myself very pleased with his attention to detail. These details enrich the plot and define the work as a whole. What would crime and punishment be without it? An excerpt that was a particular favorite of mine is a good example of the detail he uses. On page seven he describes Lizaveta’s apartment. Not only does he describe the apartment, but he highlights Raskolnikov’s reactions to it. Further, he writes in a way that lays out the most inner thoughts of the main character. This is not easy to accomplish as a writer. Many writers try to do this, but somehow Dostoevsky hits it on the nail. He highlights tendencies in humanity by describing the brutal details inside and out.

P.S. I commented on Chloe's

A Crazy Good Time!

"The lunatic is in my head, you raise the blade,
you make the change, you rearrange me 'till I'm sane.
You lock the door and throw away the key,
there's someone in my head, but it's not me."
-Pink Floyd, Brain Damage

Dark Side of the Moon-buy it, lock yourself in a room, put it in an iPod/CD player and turn off all the lights. It's freakin' awesome (and no, you don't need drugs like some people suggest you do)! But I digress to make a more pertinent point-is Rodya insane? For those looking on the outside of Rodya's steady decline, it would certainly seem so. Just looking at his behavior, we see sarcasm, despair, rage, and an overall disgust with everything around him. He's like all the most annoying types of soap opera personalities rolled up into one! Of course, the inward focus on Rodya's mind is the main focal point of the novel and the ultimate conflict to be resolved, because if he's insane, he has good reason.

If one were to ask Rodya if he were insane, he would probably reply no, but in the back of his mind he'd be going over all the reasons why you asked him that question, what the implications are of that question, whethere you suspect him of anything, whether he really is insane, and then will either get really angsty about the whole thing or just blow up at you! Your first thought would probably be that he's a head case, but is he really? I'm reminded of me Edgar Allen Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart in which the narrator insists that he is not a madman because a madman would not be as genius as he is-genius enough to go through with the master plan of murder! Rodya is clearly a smart man, evidenced by his dissertation on the "superman" (hello, nihilism!), he knows exactly how to handle certain situations, but all that changes when he commits murder. Suddenly, what once seemed so rational and explainable suddenly becomes a living nightmare, as logic and careful planning are dissolved by guilt and fear. Is Rodya's loss of control of his thoughts and actions the extent of his insanity?

What if you were in his shoes? Think about it-when's the last time you were doing something-or did something-you know you shouldn't have done. How did you feel? Did you maintain composure during and after the fact, or did doubts start having their way? Did you start looking over your shoulder uncontrollably, wondering whether someone would figure you, or-please no-how you would be punished?! If insanity is losing your ability to make sound judgements, then Rodya became insane the moment he chose to kill Alena, as that decision really has no good or helpful motivation. But before you start assuming you've never dabbled in insanity, think of all the times you've done something terrible and knew that you could be found out. Think of how you would feel to know that one irrational, evil decision could ruin everything about you. Suddenly, crazy isn't that crazy to think about, is it? Finally, to quote the Joker, an expert on the subject, "AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

So, that's that. Please feel free to comment as you please, thanks for reading! BTW, I commented on Lane's post, Man Complex.

I agree and disagree with you, although in the end I think I'm mostly agreeing with you. Yes, I know from personal experience that men deal with emotions in an equal and opposite manner as women, where we let things explode and things get broken. This is especially true when it comes to fixing problems, as that typically make us happy-the opposite is true when we can't. I could throw in a comment about how the family needs to turn to Jesus and trust Him as their provider, leaning on the church for support, but seeing as how Rodya doesn't believe in an afterlife that kind of compounds the problem and doesn't do anything to help his own male complex. That's sad.

Man Complex

As men we want desire to the one to fix all the problems that our families experience. Washing machine breaks we want to fix it. Grass needs cutting we do that too. Sometimes though things happen that we can't fix. Being unable to pay the bills is the number one reason for male suicide. Raskolnikov is happens to find himself in one of theses situations. He really wants to help his family but at the same time he knows that he can do nothing to help them. His mom and sister give him all they can to help him stay in school but it's just not enough. His sister is even willing to marry a man that she doesn't love just to get Raskolnikov a job so he can continue his education. He wants to stop the marriage but he doesn't know how since he doesn't have the funds. Men hold in anger and frustration until it explodes out of them. This is what happened to Raskolnikov when he killed the pawnbroker. He didn't really want to kill her but he needed the money and in his mind that was the only way that he thought he could make ends meet.

P.S. I commented on Katelyn Osborne's post

Cue The Screeching Violins

I decided to read Crime and Punishment with Alfred Hitchcock's movie, Psycho, playing in the background. As I was reading the first part, I realized how similar Psycho and Crime and Punishment really are. For those of you who are not familiar with the movie, the female lead is killed off about 30 minutes into the movie. This was one of the biggest shocks in a movie that I had ever seen. Crime and Punishment did the exact same thing. The crime was committed in the first part of the book.
Alfred Hitchcock did this so that we would actually relate more to Norman Bates. I feel that Dostoevsky is doing the same, but slightly different. He wants us to be able to see the thoughts that progress through Raskonilkov as he deals with what he has done. We are forced to relate to Raskonilkov now just like Hitchcock wanted us to with Norman Bates. The fact that Psycho was on while I was reading Crime and Punishment is merely coincidental. Maybe this means that I have seen too many horror movies.

P.S. I commented on His Beloved's blog, "No Title"

That Crazy Spy Guy

Ok, I have got to be honest, in the beginning of the book I thought Raskolnikov was a spy because of how aware he was of things, and the way that he thought things through in his head. Later, of course, I realized as he was plotting the murder that he is actually just crazy. The fact that I could confuse a crazy person for an intelligent spy is hilarious to me. It just proves the thin line of character that people sit on. This also really convicts me about how easily I judge people and write them off stereotypically. Please forgive me for using a Biblical reference, it's the only one I can think of right now, but how many people thought that Jesus was crazy when He was actually the Savior of the world? It just makes me want to laugh because it's so easy to pass from the absolute truth into absolute craziness. All of these thin lines in life have really been on my mind a lot lately; I seem to be obsessed with finding the thin line in every situation. I still ponder about the thin line of seeking truth and then going too far, and attempting to be like God in our knowledge out of pride. Anyways, this book really makes me think of how quick I am to observe someone, judge them, write them off, and never again consider who they might actually be, and not just in the realm of craziness and genius, but with everything. I so easily look at someone and immediately think of them as materialistic, or prideful, or dramatic, when I actually have never engaged in a conversation with the person. It's an awful trait to have.

Self- Analysis

Yesterday, I became angry unfortunately at another person for their decision which I did not agree with, and upon arriving at the realization of my anger I realized it was an over reaction (no surprise this happens a lot). Upon a deeper search of self I realized I have had a lot that I have been stressed about (muscle and bone test in anatomy-GAH!) and the other person (who made me mad) probably did too.

Now, I know this seems like a very obvious statement, in fact quite unrelated to this reading of Crime and Punishment. But as Dostoevsky paints the portrait of Raskolnikov he shows the audience not only his actions but the development of his character. The audience learns the situation surrounding this gruesome murder. Yes, murder is wrong (lets not get into an argument about that statement), but sometimes it is important for people watching the situation to understand how and why the circumstance lead to that murder. No, not to excuse the person for their actions; not because if they just understood themselves they would make better decsions. Rather, we need to examine others circumstance to recognize our own reality, we stand on the tip of making possibly deathly decisions everyday...

Don't believe me? Let's talk about texting and driving because it is easy...Every time I get behind the wheel I have a responsibility to drive properly for the safety of myself and others. Now, if I look at someone else who causes a wreck and say, "Wow, that idiot!" but do not examine the situation and recognize my own possible connections with that conclusion then I have learned nothing.

Thus, as Dostoevsky painstakingly puts together the pieces of this puzzle, we should not distance ourselves from the main character nor walk on unaffected, but examine our own selves.

I commented on #iheartvillans by BK

No Title

So in psychology, i'm learning about psychotic disorders. And as many have already said, Hedda definitely fits under this category. She is one of those "villains" who i believe seems to go completely insane as time goes on. Hedda seemed to be fine as we first started to watch the play. It seems that she becomes more insane because she loses control of everything. Hedda only seeks for her own way but everything doesn't always go how we want them do they? It kind of reminds me of the following words:
  "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." Does that sound familiar? ;) It's like Hedda is spinning her own little web and by the end of it, she gets all tangled up.
    Hedda, on the other hand, made it easy to seem like the good person. It was easy to sympathize with her, but at the same time, I did not like her at all. She married a guy she did not love, still had feelings for the guy that did not profess his love for her either. It was like dreamed for a better life while settling for a simple one.

p.s i commented on Amanda's Post

The Cure for Boredom: The Unexpected

While reading Crime and Punishment for class, I honestly did expect the murder to happen within the first part of the book. Why? Because when, at the beginning, Raskolnikov already had the act planned out I knew he was very close to the kill. Again, why? Maybe because that’s the way I think. Why waste an entire book on plotting the kill, when you can perform the action within the first part and then devote the rest of the book to how the action affected the person that committed the murder. I’ve always thought this way, maybe it’s why I’ve always loved detective novels (the possibility is there that this is the reason I expected the murder to happen in the beginning instead of the end).

Okay, so what is the “unexpected”? Webster defines it as, “Surprising, happening without warning.” Okay, well, obviously the murder in Crime and Punishment wasn’t unexpected, like I said. Now, Dr. Mitchell and Tiffany planking in the middle of class, that was unexpected. The book Inheritance by Christopher Paolini, is full of the unexpected, so I’ve heard. I’m only a fifth of the way through it, but seeing as the three books preceding this one were full of twists, I know that there’s going to be a lot of unexpected stuff in it. But since I’m aware that there are twists and unexpected stuff coming, does that mean it’s expected? I don’t think so, because while I know there are things that are going to surprise me in this book, I have no earthly idea where or when they are going to happen; or what they could possibly be. Conversely, after only about a chapter of Crime and Punishment, I knew something was going to happen, and soon, making it a very expected.

To me, the unexpected is what you should look forward too, why? Because if you knew exactly what was going to happen every minute of every day, you’d get bored, and you’d be boring too, despite what Kierkegaard says about boredom. The unexpected is what makes Christmas so fun, especially for little kids. Have you ever watched a little kid on Christmas Eve? They are always so excited for what’s going to happen the next day, though they never have any idea what they are going to get, or what they are going to get to do that day. Here’s a challenge for you, not sure this is allowed but I feel it should be. Be excited for the unexpected things that happen to you over the next few weeks. When something unexpected occurs, be thankful, even if it’s not something necessarily good, because the unexpected keeps the boredom out of your life. And, as Kierkegaard says, boredom is the root of all evil. Embrace the unexpected!!!

Until next time,

~Meghan

PS I commented on Brittany’s #iheartvillains

Hedda Gabler/C&P

I would like to start with Hedda Gabler, and would just like to say that as a whole I felt sorry for her. Maybe it's because I have a bleeding heart for any woman who has to live the kind of life she did. First off she felt like she had to marry George because that was her only option or she would be alone and well that to me is borderline tragic because it's true. If she hadn't married what were her other options for her life? I don't feel like she really had any. Not only that but she never went anywhere, she was so confined to that house and that marriage that it drove her crazy. I feel like she was essentially oppressed by her house wife lifestyle that she had to escape it. It's a shame that she took people down along the way but I sum that up to the madness that plagued her because of her mundane life. I also sympathize with her because I too would be a terrible housewife if there were no television.



Now crime & punishment. Which for the record I was secretly hoping would turn out to be an epic romance... but to my disappointment an old lady took an axe to the head.
Anyways.
"...I only say he is a nice man in his own way! But if one looks at men in all ways—are there many good ones left?”
I feel like Razhumin’s character says some incredibly interesting things. Like he just has random spurts of knowledge (and I'm sitting there like "dang Razhumin... get it boy.") This line to me stuck out a lot. I felt like he was speaking to Raskolinov in a sense. Or at least that line is completely relevant to the predicament that Raskolinov is currently in. I just thought this line was so interesting… and essentially it contains a lot of truth (I say truth specifically because that is the perpetual focus in this class). But as I got to thinking about it not all aspects of a person are all good. So really he’s simply right, there’s always something back within a person and if you look at those things then who is really good? Totally intriguing to me. Cause really if I think about it I have qualities or even thoughts that if that's the only thing people saw then I wouldn't be a good person... man, I feel like I'm calling myself out. But honestly if we looked at every aspect of every person there would be plenty of bad things... I'm not positive where I'm going with this other than I'm perplexed by the whole idea.

My Poorly Titled Blog

“A man possessing character, a man of action, is fundamentally a limited creature.” This line from Notes from Underground really stuck out to me. A few lines before, the narrator was saying that not only could he not become spiteful, he couldn’t become anything at all. At first I found this to be very strange. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I personally have found myself, on several occasions, questioning the defining elements of my character. When I help others and do good things, others may say that I am a good person. I, however, will think back to the bad things I have done and know immediately that this is not the case. On the other hand, if I where to be called into question for doing something wrong, I would immediately defend myself for pointing out my goodness.

If a person is consistently good, they become known as good person. To protect his or her reputation, he or she must do good, thereby limiting himself to goodness. The same could be said for those who have bad character. To truly remain unlimited in thought or action, one must remain unpredictable. However, by this logic, (“only a fool can become something”) I think everyone is a fool. If a person is never defined by any one characteristic, doesn’t that mean he has become unpredictable?

Commented on Katelyn’s “Self-suffering”

#iheartvillians

So, I would like to comment on the literary ability of an author to make the audience sympathize with the "bad guy." We can bring this back to Paradise Lost as some of us found ourselves sympathizing with Satan in all of his troubles. The same can be said of our not so virtuous characters in Crime and Punishment. I love Rodya! The only times I dislike him are when, in his delirium, he almost spills the beans on what he has done. Is it bad that I felt bad that he missed the money that would have been untraceable in his robbery?
One thing that this device doesn't encompass, for me at least, is the drunkard Mr. M. Perhaps the situation hitsa little to close to home for me, but I just can't feel sorry for him. I think he's slime. But maybe you guys can share your feelings, or lack there of, for him based on his description in the text. One of my biggest questions about the whole Crime is WHY? Why exactly did he do it? Was it just for the money? Because if that is the case then he isn't really doing much with it now. Or, should we take what he said in his delirium to Mr. Z seriously in that "if he were the killer" he would go back for the hidden goods when the whole thing has brushed over.
And what happens next? We have seen the crime so will the punishment come later? He seems to be slowly reveling himself to those who could bring about this punishment.

ps commented on Will's

Freedom?

Hedda Gabler was one of those plays that challenge you to think. Ibsen was part of the 19th century but this play means so much to our culture even today. Everybody wants freedom for themselves as well as control over their own lives. For Hedda, death ended up being the only true way to freedom, which is accented in today's society. The problem is that no body really knows what freedom is and I don't believe we can ever have true earthly freedom. There is freedom of sin through Jesus and even freedom of worrying about anything. The way I see it, God is the only way to being free of anything in this world because by surrendering the control He allows us to have in this world is also surrendering our worries and society to Him.

Treadmills, Psychosis, and Suffering

How to blog on this? I don’t know… Crime and Punishment has been a good read, but just finding time to get through it has been a challenge. Hence the late nights in the commons on the treadmill, trying to stay awake and follow the psychotic madness of Rodya/Rodion/Raskolnikov… What is his name, anyway? So, 8.3 miles later, I’ve read Parts 1 and 2, and I’m a little bit confused about what all is going on. Obviously I know about the murders, but the underlying plots remain a mystery, so I will just keep reading. I personally think that Raskolnikov is schizophrenic (thank you, Intro to Psychology). He exhibits many of the symptoms, and his delusions and paranoia make me laugh. It’s no surprise that he’s a bit psychotic, considering he murdered two people and now has to live with himself, but I digress.

The main thing that stood out to me is how Dostoevsky brought out the intensity and brutality of suffering in Crime and Punishment. Whether he’s writing about the death of the horse, or Marmeladov getting run over, or Raskolnikov’s ranting and dysfunctional interactions with others, he does not skimp the specifics but gives “all the gory details.” Many authors gloss over these imperfections and circumstances, because they are messy, unorganized, brutal, and painful, but Dostoevsky revels in such details. Suffering is not sentimental or ordinary, but a living entity that is volatile and unpredictable.
Well, that concludes the jumbled musings of Amanda… :)
Commented on: Katelyn’s “Self-Suffering”

"The Best of All Possible Worlds"

In class, last week, we watched Hedda Gabler, and afterwards we broke up into groups and discussed similarities between Hedda and another story of our choosing that we have done in class. Our group maily chose Voltaire's Candide, because it appeared that in Candide, everyone had a sob story. Stories ranged from Candide's banishment, cunegonde's escape and especially, the tale of the woman with only one buttock. (The story of which Dr. Olsen is particularly fond of) The same can be said Hedda. It seemed like she was living the good liffe until she missed her chance at love, then things spiraled until she had to take her own life. Now as we are reading Crime and Punishment, I'm finding the very same problem. It seems at this pont that everything is going wrong and everything is not for the best (Or at least after reading Part 1). Raskolnikov is a poor man with serious paranoia and various other mental issues. The same with the other characters. Look at the dim-witted sister of the pawnbroker. She spent her whole life under service of her wretched sister until she was faced with a painful death. At that point, she did not even put up a fight because she was used to be abused all of her life. If one more example is needed, look at Sonya Marmeladov. She's living her life in a family in poverty as it is. Then, as if things weren't bad enough. Her step-mother forces her to be a prostitute to make sure their family doesn't starve. Why? because their father is a drunkard and lazy and won't go to work to support them.
All of this goes back to the idea of suffering. It seems like practically every major role in these stories has a terrible life that just keeps getting worse and worse. It seems like what Pangloss says in Candide is false. Everything does NOT happen for the best.

Josh Goldman
P.S. I posted a link to a youtube video below. It's from a play on Candide, and it really summarizes Pangloss' ideas well.
http://youtu.be/TlIUXvAdpcw

just another post

I would like to start off by apologizing to you as my classmates for me not being in class much recently. Being a music student has caused me to miss a lot of my classes lately.

With that being said, because I haven’t been in class, I’m kind of behind on a lot of what has been covered, so I would love for you all to feel free to pour some of your recently acquired knowledge into me.

From what I have read so far, Crime and Punishment is really interesting. I haven’t gotten into it so much yet that I can pull out some deep thought to analyze, but I will eventually. So far all that I can say is that I enjoy it and I’m glad we’re reading it.

If there is anything that you all have found that you think is something very critical to know and want to share it, I would be very appreciative.

 Kelsey Moore

Habakkuk 1:5

Commented on Katelyn Osborne's post.

Insects: the Bearers of Truth

Dostoevsky's Underground man is the epitome of Kierkegaard's esthetic man. He is questioning everything, tearing down theories, but unable to accept anything as truth himself. The difference in Kierkegaard's description and the Underground Man however, is that the Dostoevsky presents the esthetic man as somehow greater than the ethical:

"an intelligent man of the nineteenth century must be, is morally obliged to be, principally a characterless creature; a man possessing character, a man of action, is fundamentally a limited creature" (1308).

This is much in opposition to Kierkegaard's idea of the ethical. Kierkegaard speaks of the ethical, the ability to choose and to live by laws which have been put in place, as if it is a great revelation which changes man indefinitely. He speaks of the ethical becoming "manifest" to a man. Thus it would seem that Kierkegaard does not view the ethical to be completely limiting as the Underground Man is proposing it to be, or, at least he does not view this limiting nature in a negative manner. For, to speak of the ethical as a power that becomes "manifest" certainly implies that he sees some great advantage or purpose in the ethical life itself.

But what is this advantage which Kierkegaard sees, but the Underground Man completely denounces and trades in for his "disease" of being "overly-conscious?" What is so advantageous about the ethical life that is worth the "limitations" which it implies?

Well, Kierkegaard speaks of the Underground Man's exact predicament. He states,

"Ordinarily we view the ethical altogether abstractly and therefore have a secret horror of it. In that case the ethical is viewed as something alien to the personality, and we shrink from devoting ourselves to it, since we cannot be really sure of what it will lead us to in the course of time." (81)

However, Kierkegaard attributes this fear of the ethical to a lack of transparency. He states, "if a person fears transparency, he always avoids the ethical, because the ethical really does not want anything else." (81)

So quite possibly could the Underground Man's inability to accept the ethical be due to an underlying fear of being "transparent," the fear of realizing that the web of objections and rational theories he has created as a sort of rebelling against society are ultimately "unreasonable" (Kierkegaard 81). Thus, he cannot accept societal norms because with this acceptance comes the confirmation that all of his own theories and reasoning against it are useless and devoid of true reason. In such a theory, Kierkegaard seems to be presenting the limiting nature of the ethical as equivocal with the limits of the truth. In a way, the ethical becomes the truth. This would explain his use of the word "manifest" in describing such an idea.

But, would Dostoevsky agree that one can find such truth within the limits of the ethical life? For after all, if this is true, truth is not found in the individual mind, but instead in the anthill, in the system. Insects hold the truth whereas "overly conscious" men are "nothing."

I commented on Meghan's : "The Cure for Boredom: The Unexpected"

Self-Suffering

I thought about how we talked about "enjoying self-suffering" in class today and wondered why people would actually want to suffer. One reason is to receive more love and attention. "Raskolnikov said nothing and made no resistance though he felt quite strong enough to sit up on the sofa without support and could not merely have held a cup or a spoon, but even perhaps could have walked about." chap. 3. Oftentimes people pretend to be suffering more than they actually are and we look down on them for this, but it could be that they feel the need to be loved more than they are. Suffering can bring you instant popularity and love, though it may not always be real.

Another reason people want to suffer is because their religion says that it is good. Nikolay, for example, believes that suffering is a way to purification and a way to access love. For this reason, some people intentionally inflict suffering upon themselves. I do not believe this to that extent, but I do believe that if we believe in Jesus, he states that we will undergo suffering. Without intentionally causing ourselves to suffer, Paul states that when the suffering comes, we should rejoice in it because God is getting the glory.

PS commented on Anna Rhodes "Self-Love?"

Questions for questions, I've got a question.

Crime and Punishment..what a whirlwind of thought! Initially, I believed Raskolnikov to be an early Ted Kaczynski, but mostly because we have been covering the Unabomber in psychology as of late. Dostoyevsky is absolutely thrilling to read. My attention was easily kept, though more than likely due to C&P being of the novel nature rather than theological/philosophical excerpt. No offense to them, it just becomes drudgery after a while.

As for our friend Raskolnikov, I am really bewildered by his character, especially concerning his sister’s engagement to Luzhin. R sees this as a loss of freedom, as a type of slavery much akin to Sonia’s. Both women lose their sense of self in the attempt to provide for others. But is there something so wrong in sacrificing yourself for the sake of others’ well-being? Perhaps in Sonia’s case as there are immoral or unethical implications there, but is this so much a crime for Dunya? As ever, I am constantly reminded of Pride & Prejudice, but this time my recollection of it is when Charlotte Lucas marries the insufferable Mr. Collins. Her reasoning is that she is a burden enough to her parents, with no future or prospects. So at the age of twenty-seven, Miss Lucas sacrifices herself and her true desires to settle. While Miss Lucas certainly has better circumstances than Sonia, or even Dunya, is this not the same sort of movement? Charlotte was not praised by her peers, but she found comfort and freedom in the life she came to lead.

Back to Raskolnikov, he seems almost envious of the idea. He does not want this sacrifice, but yet he is not willing to deny it. If he denies it, he must make a sacrifice of his own to supplement the one he forbids of Dunya. Would this not make him a hypocrite? “Let my life be ruined so long as my loved ones are happy!” Is there not nobility in such a sacrifice? Or is Raskolnikov’s problem that Dunya can be bought? I have heard that everyone has a price at which they can be bought; is the well-being of her family too lowly a cost for R’s approval? At what point, reader, can you be bought? Perhaps his problem is that there is not real love in this union, and therefore no respect. But how much does respect matter in chronic destitution? Does respect have any worth here, or does it have worth at any time? I do not hate to pull the God-card, so what of Christ’s sacrifice? Did He not die for the sake of many? What about Raskolnikov: does he not kill for the sake of many? Is it simply a matter of how you value human life circumstantially? What is the real difference between Dunya and Sonia, Dunya and the Alonya, Sonia and Alonya? Questions, questions, questions...

COMMENTED ON WILL'S

Recurring Theme

Raskolnikov reminds me so much of Poe's writing. Dostoevsky writes Raskolnikov to be a hypochondriac. This reflects what Poe claims to be a mental problem with Roderick Usher, a possible problem with the narrator in the "Fall of the House of Usher," and a very likely problem with Poe himself. He always thought something was wrong, tricking himself into a psychological problem. Raskolnikov is definitely struggling with this, evidenced by his struggle with the unmentioned act, the odd dream, as well as the way he lives his life. This semester seems to be preparing to throw us back at the darkness that lives in the cave we escaped from.

Ready yourselves.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

Commenting on Joy's "A Guilt He Was Unprepared For"

A Guilt He Was Unprepared for

Crime and Punishment - I am not done with this book yet, but I figured I would write my blog before I forgot to. This guy is very strange. He seems to be repressing a demonized personality from within. However, it comes out and he allows it to rule over him as he brutally murders two people. Then he is tormented from within. He debates admitting he has done it and then the devil in him overtakes him and he decides not to admit his guilt… Or at least that is the case to the point I have read to… He really should find a therapist! LOL :P

My comment on Katinas...about forgetting and unpleasantness

This sentence popped out to me too! It really made me think what a great thing it is that we, as humans, have the awesome power to forget, it really is a useful technique. You can pick and choose what you want to remember and what you want to forget, you can be selective and manipulative with your own thoughts and only remember what you want push what you dont want away. It is, I think as someone already stated, a great defense mechanism as well. You can choose to forget unpleasant events and memories, and then, over time, you forget that you even forgot them in the first place...and then they really become dead to you, they become nothing. Thats the good part. However forgetting is not always ones choice and not always a good, helpful thing. Many in their old age are seized by altheimers and dementia in which their memories, good and bad, are sucked from them and then they are also left with nothing. Good quote!! I like talking about this, there is a lot of aspects you can talk about:)

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I know most of you are just soaking in Kierkegaard with all your might, but I am not going to say I thoroughly enjoy it. As for the reading itself, while highlight-able and undeniably quotable, my mere superficial reading of it makes no sense--and what I think he is saying, he is undoubtedly not saying. I am confused. I am bewildered. I am in honors, and this is normal. Later, rinse, repeat.

Obviously, I am going to blog about Repetition. Frankly, I have no idea what he is saying. It was difficult to follow, and without the entire text concerning Repetition and remaining confined to what is given, I shall tell of what my experiences are in repetition and recollection. First I shall say K through me off guard when he states that repetition and recollection are the same movement in opposite direction. The image in my head is when I am attempting to look at the back of my head in a mirror by using another mirror--this often occurs after haircuts, to ensure I have not been ruined by my hairdresser. If you shift your focus from yourself, you see the repetition of the same image over and over again. The same is true of the other mirror. It is the same movement from either mirror.

As learned from Dr. Mitchell today (in one of the most engaging conversations I have had in a while), repetition is not about watching the same psychological thriller over and over again and picking up on something different each time around, for me it is namely Donnie Darko. Repetition is not about obtaining new knowledge from the same confined experience. And if there is one thing I am learning from honors this semester, it is that you can learn a lot about what something is not and never fully grasp what it is. For instance, I may have this repetition thing entirely wrong. But as far as I have concluded, it is about sameness; for me, it is going to the same coffee shop (Serda's) over and over again, and trying to retain the glamour of it I first experienced. The time between one visit in the next is nothing if the experience is not the same. Mitchell's reference to deja vu is utterly relevant. It is about that sense of significance, once that experience is repeated. Now, this has never happened with Serda's. In fact, I am downright over the place. I find nothing beautiful in it anymore. However, repetition was successful today when I took a stroll through the woods. This is not uncommon for me, as I dearly love a good romp through the wilderness. But today I found what I was looking for while I was not looking for it. It was the sense of sameness. I often send myself to the woods for solitude and thought, many times leaving unresolved. Today, for the second time in my life, I found complete resolve.

COMMENTED ON AMANDA'S

The Final Movement

"Be it a duty or whatever, I cannot make the final movement, the paradoxical movement of faith, although there is nothing I wish more." p. 98

When I read this, as much as I hate to admit it, all I could think was that he took the words right out of my mouth. I think this situation is actually shared by many christians in their walk. Its almost like we come to the realization that we've been beating around the bush for a long time and that it just wont work any more, but at the same time, its like we cant make that final step to whatever is next. For most of us, I think this is because the longer we beat around the bush, the more and more we realize the magnitude of the inevitable next step. After years of seeking and learning as much as possible, action becomes the only option in continuing forward. And even so, if all the knowledge acquired up to that point is taken to heart, truly passionate, radical action becomes the task at hand. In this respect, I think I speak for most humans when I say that this concept is terrifying in and of itself and even more so in its ramifications.

Thoughts

My favorite part of Kierkegaard so far has been the first five or six pages of either/or. I liked the short paragraphs of random scattered ideas, it reminded me of my ownd journals...anywayssss on page 42, one thing he wrote took my mind back to Tintern Abbey: "To live in recollection is the most perfect life imaginable ; recollection is more richly satisfying then all actuality, and it has a security that no actuality possesses." Also, in a strange way I feel like its an abstract opposite of Ode to a Grecian Urn in which the scene depicted on the urn is in between actuality and not recollection, but expectation.

Another thing I liked was Ks little rant on page 42 as well I think, or near to there, when he was complaining about the wretchedness of life due to peoples lack of passion. He wrote that "that is whay my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare, there one still feels that those who speak are human beings; there they hate, there they love, there they murder the enemy, curse his descendants through all generations, there they sin. " I find this very true. Often I read things in church about people who seem almost too perfect you know? I always find the stories very unrealistic amd hard to believe sometimes. These stories rarely take into account that people get mad, moody and are prone to "brat" fits, we are all guilt of throwing a supermarket fit as a child. We are human, we make mistakes. We are not perfect in any way.



Also, during the lecture on Thursday we got into talking about the kind of people who cannot commit thenselves long-term, people who live in the moment. I found myself thinking about my Dad, who after retiring from a job that already kept him away from home and halfway across the world for eight or nine months a year, still continues to leave whenever he gets the impulse to China, or France, or more recently Spain, just beacuse he wants to and he can. For him, like what we talked about, the ultimate evil is boredom. This boredom always seems to settle in to him like a disease when hes been at home for about 3-4 weeks. Of course, as a child, I obviously found him fascinating; he could speak multiple languages and always bought me the most unique gifts and amazing stories to tell when he did come home. I was enchanted, awe-struck I guess you could say by him as a child, but know Ive grown up and Ive come to realize that as much as I love him and and as interesting and wonderful as he is, these sort of people, these compulsive travelers and moment captureres and spontaneous adventurers, are as Mitchell said, like parasites after time.

The parts that I could understand in K I really did enjoy, but most of the time I just feel like its all over my head, which is not unusual for me haha

I will just make another post for my comment as always since it still wont let me comment on peoples.

Self Love?

I was sitting in my comfy chair reading Kierkegaard. Lucy was in her chair too. We were reading for honors. It was an average night other than the fact that our minds were being blown away by a man whose name begins with a “K”. We were enjoying ourselves as we groaned at the brain bending beauty of Kierkegaard’s Works of Love. It is so good! Lucy would say emphatically. I was “hmm”-ing at an average of every two words. Then I said, “Huh?”

I came upon the part in which Kierkegaard was speaking of self-love. Kierkegaard says that you must love your neighbor as you love yourself. We’ve all heard this right? However, you could take its meaning multiple ways. There are two specifically that I’ve e heard throughout my life at churches or camps, or conferences. One, you can take it at surface value. This is the kindergarten Sunday school version. “Would you want tommy to hit you? No. So you shouldn’t hit.” Or, “If you think you would want a cookie, Susie probably wants one too. Shouldn’t you give her one?” Another approach is one given at many girls’ conferences. It is a statement about self-confidence. You can’t love others until you love yourself. I believe this to be true.

This is what blew my mind. Kierkegaard says, “To love yourself in the right way and to love the neighbor correspond perfectly to one another; fundamentally they are one and the same thing.” Do you ever feel like your bubble has burst? If there was glass in my brain I’m pretty sure the glass would have shattered after this reading.

I was raised a good girl, in a good church that told me to serve others. I always thought I should love others more than myself. Now I am confused. I see this statement as if Kierkegaard implies the as in “as yourself,” is the same thing as an equals sign.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself Love your neighbor = love yourself

Love yourself as you love your neighbor Love yourself = Love your neighbor

This leads me to think that you should love yourself as you would love someone else. You should give care to yourself like you would care for someone else. I believe this, but even still I feel like it is a little selfish. Have I been raised in a non-genuine piety that has no substance because it gains its energy from the wrong source? You cannot heal others until you are healed. In the same way you cannot love others until you have loved and nourished yourself in the love that Christ our Lord has to offer. This has been a point of growth for me this semester. Often we focus so much on others that we tend to wear ourselves out, and lose all our energy. This is a struggle for me. Oh if I could only learn to balance this! Kierkegaard makes me think that this journey to find this balance is what life is about. Life is growing in God, so that we can grow ourselves, so that love for our neighbor will harvest inside of us.

Ask Kierkegaard!

         In the first few pages of 'Works of Love' Kierkegaard thoroughly explores the meaning of loving your neighbor 'as yourself'*. Towards the bottom of page 281, he specifically mentions a 'person aflame with erotic love'  and how they aren't following the commandment as they couldn't bear the relationship without the erotic side. Imposing restrictions/conditions on the other party of the relationship never ends well. I really wish that I had read this little passage sooner, and could show it to a few friends who have been burned by similar situations. So, to prevent bad relationships from happening in the future, Kierkegaard and myself compiled a list of relationship ground rules*.

*Note: Ben has not finished the reading yet, so the list may be amended in the future. Also, Kierkegaard does not in any way endorse this list.


1) Does he/she love you more then his/herself?
      [Yes +2, No -2]  (Kierkegaard)
2) Is his/her love dependent on anything that you must do for him/her?
      [Yes -2, No +2](Kierkegaard)
*3) Is he/she cute?
      [Yes +1, No-1] (Ben)
*4) Has he/she dated one of your best friends?
      [Yes -1, No +1] (Ben)


*Note: The last two questions are actually irrelevant.


Okay, if you scored less than a four then I, and Kierkegaard, would say drop him/her like a hot potato.

So, what did we learn today class? That men are pigs? That Kierkegaard needs a column in Seventeen magazine? That Ben's priorities are skewed? All good answers. Tune in next week when… I really need to look at the syllabus and see what's coming up next week..

P.S. I commented on Katina's 'I forgot, I swear!'

Kissng, Repetition and Recollection

Ok so to be honest this has been a really long week for me, and this kind of snuck up on me.
I enjoyed reading the Seducer's Diary, from Either/or A Fragment of Life.

      My favorite part is how this 'Johannes' knows exactly how to make 'Cordelia' give him what he wants. The view of kissing was interesting. I found it amusing to read, and it was good to know this was an issue to someone over a hundred years ago.

Then I went on to read about the difference between recollection and repetition, from Repetition. "Repetition and recollection are the same movement, except in opposite directions, for what is recollected has been, is repeated backward, whereas genuine repetition is recollected forward. Repetition, therefore if it is possible, makes a person happy, whereas recollection makes a person unhappy". This was an 'aha' moment for me. Never really thought of what the difference between these two were. Then I tried to picture examples for the two, and since I just finished reading about kissing: I though the memory of my first kiss is an example of Repetition. When I think on that moment, it does cause my happiness. Recollection is something like a memory of me lying to my mom.

Following on that thought path, which could I learn more from? I know that through repetition, I can make that moment eternal and forever think on its happiness but do I gain knowledge from that? I think Recollection can be more useful because I can learn from the mistakes of my past and not try to repeat them again.

Anyways I'm going to bed now lol. These late nights are starting to catch up with me, I need to learn to use my coffee maker!

I forgot, I swear!

"Since forgetting is usually thought of in relation to the unpleasant, it is generally conceived of as a wild force that stifles.”

I really have no idea why this sentence popped out to me, but I want to talk about it. It was in the Either/Or section. Forgetting in relation to the unpleasant… People forget things from doing certain chores (like taking out the trash, ew) to repressing a memory from a certain tragedy that struck close, (ie. Death in the family, close friend). It is not something you can tame or use to your advantage, it just happens. I mean, I didn’t mean to forget to take out the trash. (no, really!) 

Anyway, I get this statement. I don't know about you guys, but I get it.




p.s. I commented on Justins..

A Christian Poet?

I found "Works of Love" to be a refreshingly easy read compared to some of Kierkegaard's other works. And, I found it interesting that Kierkegaard wrote pages and pages of text on one sentence of scripture, certainly putting forth a model for literary, and poetical analysis (even if he be a bit wordy at times).

One thing that really stood out to me was Kierkegaard's analysis of the poet's portrayal of love, versus the Christian idea of love. And this difference is easy enough to understand. The poetical focuses on love that only benefits one's self, and that has the potential to change; whereas the christian love emphasizes a love that is self-denying and eternal. And naturally, Kierkegaard makes the conclusion that this Christian idea of eternal, unchanging love is better - "Christianity certainly knows far better than any poet what love is and what it means to love."

However, his statement makes me wonder if the poetical is in itself anti-christian. Can there be a christian poet? Is there is anything within, or to the purpose of the poetical that is in line with the christian view of love? Or, in other words, is there a poetical component to the eternal, neighborly love of which we "shall" partake?

What about passion? Can it exist in a purely christian sense of love? Or is passion something independent of the choice of love, just an emotion such as anger, happiness, etc.? Have we sinfully put too much emphasis on the role of passion in true, christian love?

I commented on Susan's "Thoughts on Love"

Views

I want to write this blog about the different views we express in class. One thing that honors is based on is the views each and everyone of us has and how it can impact discussion. There is one topic though that I think we should at least have kind of similar views on and that's God. Up until this point we mainly agree on the general aspects of God but thinks kind of went sour yesterday. I'm under the impression that God has complete control of all situations and HE will handle them however HE sees fit. We argued about things like the sacrifice of Isaac but we forgot one small detail. He was never sacrificed!!! We kept going on and on about how God changed his mind or that's not moral and things along that line when in all actuality God had no intentions of actually having Abraham sacrifice Isaac. It was to test the obedience of Abraham. Abraham passed his test with flying colors now maybe we should worry more about passing our tests from God and quit trying to question his ultimate authority.

P.S. I commented on Cameron White's

more works of love

Works of Love.

This is one of the readings I’ve actually enjoyed…

And I will try my very best to form complete thoughts. I’m relatively scatter brained as it is and my roommate is blaring music right now… she’s also singing to me and it’s beautiful but distracting.(It's her 19th birthday and she's a "grown woman!")

Alright, I was a big fan of the idea of testing. Testing faith, testing love. Kierkegaard says that “testing is always related to possibility” and he goes on to say that if you ask God to test your faith then you’re basically calling yourself out on lacking faith, because if you had faith you wouldn’t want to be tested on your faith and to be tested actually prevents you from attaining faith. Well that’s interesting to me, and when I read that I had that inner voice like “daaaang”. So to need to test faith or test love is really just proving yourself to be uncertain of both. I suppose.

“…who is the stronger, the one who says ‘If you will not love me, then I will hate you,’ or the one who says. ‘If you hate me, I will still continue to love you’?” According to Kierkegaard spontaneous love is both love and hate. Well that’s just interesting, that love could be both love and hate. It makes sense to me. In order to hate someone, you have to have loved them first. I mean for the most part. I don’t think that logic can apply to every scenario. There’s not much meat to my thoughts on that, I just legitimately thought it was interesting. His idea’s on jealousy are pretty intriguing to me too. He says that “jealousy loves as it is loved”, which if I understand it right makes sense to an extent. Jealousy is a pretty selfish emotion, and you can really only be as jealous as you are loved or in loved. Or as much as you believe you are in love. Right?

Well Kierkegaard is hard for me to follow… but I’m trying really hard.

Only as yourself

Kierkegaard's explanation of "love thy neighbor" was intriguing and mind-boggling at the same time. It's mind-boggling because I'm not quite sure I fully understand it. As far as my understanding goes, I agree with what he is presenting, not that he needs me to agree with him. I don't think he will haunt me if I don't. What intrigued me was, that he says that we are not to love our neighbors more than ourselves. Yet how many of us follow that supposed misconception and are taught that from birth? We are taught to treat others better than ourselves to the point that, some children become adult "door mats" who then have issues with self-confidence and self-image. Would this still happen if they were taught to love others only as they love themselves? Johnny has a toy. Jim wants the toy. Johnny could give it to Jim because he is forced to, under the law of loving him better than himself. Or Johnny could give it to Jim because if he were Jim that's how he would want himself to act. In the first instance, Johnny grows up giving in begrudgingly. In the second instance, he grows up treating others as himself. I hope that makes sense. According to Kierkegaard, "[t]here is only one whom a person can with the truth of eternity love more than himself - that is God." Earlier he also states that to love a person more than God is blasphemy. That is a pretty strong statement, but a very true one as well. And it also backs up his previous argument about loving only as yourself. Therefore one is to love God more than oneself, this is the highest love one can offer God. Subsequently, loving others as yourself is the highest love one can offer to others.

I was surprised that I liked anything Kierkegaard said, I was under the impression that he was going to be just another crazy German philosopher. But he has some really good points that I think are worth mentioning. "This is the way, I suppose, that the universe will be destroyed --amid the universal hilarity of wits and wags who think it is all a joke." For good reason is Kierkegaard seen as the father of existentialism, because his tone just about sums up the beliefs and lens through which an existentialist sees the world. A view in which nothing is entirely meaningful and yet there is a never-ending search for the meaning in life. This quote sums up the disdain had for those who run through life without thinking of anything with a serious note to it, frivolity running rampant through the hearts of fools. It reminds me a bit of Solomon's writings in Ecclesiasties 2:1 "I said to myself, 'Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.' But that also proved to be meaningless."

commented on Katelyn Osborne

A return to Pope?

In reading Kierkegaard's Either/Or, I noticed a simple fact he tries to make: That outer beauty and the aesthetic falters in comparison to the ethical and the moral. He emphasizes that true importance comes in making the right choices. Kierkegaard also stresses that those who focus on the aesthetic are prevented from making significant choices. While the aesthetic offers a wider variety of choices, the ethical choices are those that make the biggest impact. This reminds me of Pope's Rape of the Lock. One of Pope's underlying themes is also the emphasis of wisdom over vanity. Both Kierkegaard and Pope stress the dominance of the inward qualities of existance compared to the outside qualities. Wisdom trumps beauty. Morality conquers the Aesthetic. These documents were written 100 years apart, yet they hold similiar ideas and themes. What I take from that fact is the importance of it in every generation. Look at modern society. Take a glance of what is important in today's world. The highlight of pop culture today is how much skin is shown, because the outward appearance is what we love! Yet, I'm waiting for the next Pope or the next Kierkegaard to show people what is truly important.
Josh Goldman. :)

Honoring the Sacred Vows of Marriage

My mind is a little jumbled tonight so I'm going to try my best to make sense of what I'm thinking. I really enjoyed the paragraph in Kierkegaard on page 285.
"In such a way this love swears, and then the two add to the oath that they will love each other 'forever.' If this is not added, the poet does not join the two. He turns away, indifferent, from such a temporal love, or, mocking, he turns against it, while he belongs forever to that eternal love. There are, then, actually two unions--- first the two who will love each other forever, and then the poet, who will belong to these two forever. And the poet is right in this, that if two people will not love each other eternally, then their love is not worth talking about, even less worth singing praises about."
This part really stuck out to me because it is incredibly accurate. Why waste time and celebrate for a couple who will only be together for a few months before they decide to divorce? Why not praise the couple who survive through thick and thin and cherish every moment with each other? It is more beautiful to watch a couple who truly love each other and want to be together for the rest of their lives rather then watching a couple who fight constantly and complain about each other. There aren't a lot of movies about couples who get married and divorce. There are more stories about how a couple truly falls in love and stays together through the ups and downs. Why would we want to learn about a couple who fight and don't try to stay together? There are enough troubles in the world dealing with violence and suffering. It's better to know that there is still good in the world whether it be a good deed or a couple simply falling in love and honoring the vows that they speak on their wedding day.

P.S. I commented on Susan's blog, "Thoughts on Love"

I and the Boy

There is a lot to be said about someone who executes teleological suspension of the ethical. In Abraham's situation, it is astonishing to see this man break the system of morals for a purpose many see as extreme and unnecessary. Abraham carries out what many of us fail to do, which is to obey EVERYTHING God asks of us. He was willing to question what he thought was moral to fulfill what God had asked of him. What amazes me is that during this time, Abraham has such a trust in God that it appears that he knows God will spare his son Isaac. He has a confidence in Genesis 22 that affirms this trust in God. Verse 5 says "then Abraham said to his young men, 'Stay here with the donkey, I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you". Then after Isaac asks about the sacrifice, Abraham says in verse 8, " God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together. Abraham is sensitive to God's will and by obeying in Him fully and trusting Him, Abraham was able to give an adequate sacrifice to God as well as walk away with his son... and I believe this principle could be something Kierkegaard would agree with......


I commented on "You Shall Love." (Brittany Hilbun)

You Shall Love

Alright.

While reading the bit on love I pondered on some things that in my busyness I have forgotten. For those of you who don't know I have just recently quit my job as a resident Intern at the International Ministry Center and moved back to my home in Lucedale, Mississippi. It is about a 45 minute to an hour commute every day. I am barely moved in, I still have stuff everywhere, and I am stressed out beyond comprehension. Moving back home is something I never thought I would do and any of you who know my situation would think the same thing. With this stress comes many different emotions and it all ties into what I received from Mr. K tonight. Coming home is hard because my family leads a very different lifestyle than me. Bouncing back and forth this year as a commuter is hard because I am missing different things and situations. I have lots of people I know on campus, but I know hardly any of the newer students. This, as you can imagine can bring forth lots of different emotions. Lets wind this down a little.
You shall love.
It is our greatest commandment and something I have learned to embrace and something I am still learning to embrace fully.
You shall love.
I want to focus more seriously on the "love your neighbor" part.
I took this very literally to mean "be a friend" Look at the people around them and be their friend. Not because it benefits you. Just love them. For me, family love is rough. But the love of a friend is where I can find rest. Once we are able to find contentment in that great love that is the love of Abba, we are allowed to and by nature want to rest in the love of someone else. I believe friendship is of even more importance than romantic relationship. After all, one cannot have a romantic relationship that is worth a hill of beans if you have not at first pursued friendship with him or her. In other words, earthly companionship has it's foundations in friendship. In addition to these things, we cannot stretch ourselves thin. I think it is foolish to have many, many, friends at the expense of having not one close friend. But that makes us feel insecure. We think we need to have lots of friends and be kinda known by lots of people and pour a little into this person and this person and this person..... it is a lie! To truly love your neighbor you must invest into them. To truly make a difference in someone's life you must completely pour EVERYTHING. If you are spread out between many you are not pouring yourself out to anyone... you are only putting drops in their mouths... And a drop wont satisfy a thirsty soul. An injustice! Jesus invested in only a few when he was in the flesh because he knew his effect on them would be weaker if it was 40 and not 12. Do you understand?
The sweetest things to me is to just have a friend.
One friend is many, two are a blessing, and three are nearly impossible. Maybe one of those sweet friends will be in a romantic relationship, but don't be so shallow as to think that those are the only relationships worth fighting for. Seek out someone vulnerable who may not always delight you, but needs you. A beautiful season of growth can occur if we would only sharpen each other as our Lord so desires. Let us do so without personal agendas. Let this be a challenge to all who read to be that refuge, to be that representation of Christ to someone here. If it is pure, it will only lead each of you closer to Him.

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel:
The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The
second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment
greater than these.” Mark 12: 29:31

You shall love.




commented on Will's

To Flout Old Ends (Much) Further

"Jesus is my friend, Jesus is my friend.
He took me far from this land, He took me by the hand.
Jesus is my friend, Jesus is just alright with me."
-Doobie Brothers, Jesus is Just Alright

How about THAT for universalist lyrics, huh? With a name like Doobie Brothers I can't help but think of an aging stoner sitting outside his trailer with a blunt saying those lyrics in a hazy, hallucinogenic fog (DC Talk also covered it, but I digress). It seems that for every new thought pattern or ideal there has to be a sobering corrective, and Kierkegaard is the total package. When the church (again) relapses into stale, unfeeling dogma, Kierkegaard is the man to pull them out and show them the passion and glory of God. When those same people start to treat Yahweh less like a God and more like a common buddy, however, Soren must once again set the record straight. He says in Fear and Trembling that "he who loves God without faith reflects upon himself, but he who loves God in faith reflects upon God." (94)

First (no, I will not be using bullet points, that kills Kierkegaard apparently) is that to love and serve God requires absolute dependence and trust, not logic (or bullet points). I love me some apologetics, but I feel like Kierkegaard would spit in the face in all that and say "oh, ye of little faith!" A lot of times apologetics helps my personal understanding because I feel like I'm seeking wisdom by trying to understand God. It has nothing to do with the Miltonesque idea of justifying the ways of God to man. I just want to learn more about Him in the most logical way I know how. Yes, faith is absolute dependence, but in any relationship you need to learn about the other person and keep learning every day-that requires faith, that is faith.

Second, and this brings me back to the above song, I respect that Kirkegaard is genuinely afraid of God, AND HE SHOULD BE! So many times we think of God as someone who won't judge us, won't condemn us, and accepts us just the way we are. There is a terrible heresy circulating the pews suggesting that, because God made everyone in His image, that we are perfect just the way we are and don't need to change (Born This Way, anyone?). So what if you're a homosexual, porn addicted, masochistic, cynical, foul-mouthed, liar? As long as you believe in Jesus, apparently that's all you need and that's how God made you to be. WRONG. The same God that asked Abraham to kill His son despite His hatred of murder, that can bring up and destroy kingdoms in a single day, that holds the entire universe in check, that sent His Son to die on the cross to REDEEM you-Kirkegaard says that obedience to Him and conforming to His way is the only thing to do. How can you love God but not fear and obey Him? How can you remain in your sinful ways and claim you are perfect already when Jesus died for so much more? There must be correction against personal individuality and for Christian individuality or the whole thing is ruined.

That's my spiel for now, be sure to comment as you please. Thanks for reading. BTW, I commented on Will Drake's Queasy Yet?

So true, you hit the proverbial nail on the metaphorical head. Anxiety is more than just fear of the unknown, but also is the sinfulness inside of you wanting to be free. To be anxious for something screams that you want something and to be in control, which explains why Phillipians tells us to not be anxious or worry about anything, for He truly will provide the desires of our hearts. That's what grace is.

Comment on Will Drake's "Queasy Yet"

HEBREWS 5:7-9 Amanda touched on this but I really would love for each of you to go read it. It has a lot of weight for all of us.

Choices, choices, choices. Everyone is blogging on choices. Coincidence? No. Irony? Maybe. God piecing things together in my life? Most certainly. And to hear it from my best of friends. The support that I feel from you all is becoming overwhelming. It is an odd sense of "we don't really want you to go but if the Lord is leading you, then we do". And it's a blessing.

Anxiety as the dizziness of freedom? I think so. In my decision I felt so overwhelmed with the feeling of freedom. We so often beg for it, but when it is upon us, do we enjoy it as much as we thought we would. Contrary to it's outward appearance, my choice was entirely my own. My parents did not call me and say, "Lucy, we cannot afford to send you to UM". Instead they said, "it isn't easy, and there are some things that we are all able to do without but we can do it if it's really what you want". And this is what made the difficulty of my decision skyrocket over the course of fall break. (Don't get me wrong, I greatly respect and appreciate my parents for allowing me the choice and don't think I would have handled it well if they demanded that I transfer. My parents are wonderful in this aspect.) Choices are only true choices when there are two very appealing options. As Amanda and I were talking about today, pro and con lists don't work with the tough decisions because they most often seem to even out. But if there is one thing that I can say I learned in high school it is that the only pro is "this choice is the center of God's will" and the only con is "this is outside of God's will". And from there I make my choice. Catch ya on the flipside.

P.S. here is some applicable scripture -
Galations 1:10
Romans 5:19
2 Corinthians 9:13
Hebrews 5:7-9

Comment on Amanda's

Dear Amanda,
This is my life.
Sincerely,
Lucy Beth

Dear Honors Family,
For more information regarding my decision to transfer to TMC, just read this and you will have your answer.
Sincerely,
Your loving council member

I Dreamt About An Honors Lesson... Is That Sad?

Yesterday in class, Olsen talked about the difference between true faith and obedience and he used the example that if he imagined a fire that wasn't really there and threatened to throw Brittany in it, she would not be experiencing faith because she doesn't fear the imaginary fire. However, if there really was a fire, she would have faith that the fire would go out. Coincidentally (or maybe not....) last night I dreamt that me and my friends were swimming in the pool on campus and some punk decides he wants to to throw his lit cigarette lighter into the pool. Our reaction was to scoff at him because we knew that once he threw it in the water, the fire would go out. But instead, because this was a dream and natural laws of nature do not apply in dreamland, he was successful in starting an underwater fire and we all ran away screaming. When I woke, I immediately remembered Olsen's demonstration and realized that at no point in my dream did I experience true faith. Is this also true in my life? Ih ave led a very blessed life living in America, with a roof over my head, food on the table, I can afford to go to a private college, and am allowed to attend even though I'm a girl. I have never had to hide my Bible or lie about what I believe for for fear of my life. Yes, I have faith that if something were to happen, god would protect and provide for me and my family, but my faith has never been tested as extremely as others'. Needless to say, I am thankful for this but at the same time I can't help but wonder, would I have as much faith as Shadrach, Meshcach, and Abednego if put in a similar situation?  

Intrinsically Bothersome

My dearest Honors family,

You know that feeling when a text simply bothers you and you know this means that you have no choice but to write your paper on it? Well...this is my feeling about Kierkegaard's "Works of Love".

This little chapter has completely enveloped my heart in some sort of crazy machine, kneading and pulling it into some doughy substance. It has taken a single presumption of my existence and challenged it to an intellectual duel. The subject of contention is this: what is love? Do I really know what it means to love?

It's not so much that I've always said of myself, "I know how to love completely and entirely". It is more that I thought that the importance of knowing how to love was for the sole purpose of loving another, whether human or God. Kierkegaard seemed to be saying to me throughout my reading: "Lucy Beth...how can you know how to love them if you don't know what it is to love yourself?"

He makes the point that one is to love his neighbor "as himself" and that God is the only one whom one can love "more than himself". If I am to understand how to love anyone as or more that myself then I have to first know how to love myself. I think that I have always been under the impression that I should first forget about myself and learn to love God and others and after that all thoughts of loving myself just get forgotten. Not to say that my life has been void of selfishness, but that I saw loving God and others as a way to get rid of my selfishness. But Kierkegaard put this crazy idea in my head that if I cannot love myself then I cannot love others and therefore my attempts to love were simply a failed means of escape from the ever-present, underlying selfishness that is inherent in those who do not know how to truly love themselves. This loving of oneself is not how it would outwardly appear: selfishness. On the contrary, it is a discovery of the true self; a union of the existing self (one that is uncomfortable in its own skin, always desiring to be someone else) and the pure self (the self that God created each of us to be). It is only when one is his or her true self that he or she can love God and others.

I questioned before that if we love God more than ourselves, then how can we love Him if we don't first love ourselves? But we cannot love without Him so we must love Him first:

"How could one speak properly about love if you were forgotten, you god of love, source of all love in heaven and on earth; you who spared nothing but in love gave everything; you who are love, so that one who loves is what he is only by being in you"
pg. 278, "Works of Love"

I can only love by being in Him who is love. So I first must allow my self to "be" in Him. Then I will see how He loves me. Then I will love Him as He first loved me. Then I can love myself as I was meant to, me who has my being in Him who is love and who loves me and whom I love. Then and only then can I begin to love my neighbor.

This carries even further with the definition of "the neighbor". The neighbor is not distinct, extraordinary or rare. He is not loved out of interest or specific desire. He is loved because he is the neighbor and is loved as he is. He is loved out of eternal duty, yet not out of habit. There is an incredible balance of personal, deep love and dutiful, required love. It is not one or the other.

All of this is very scattered, I know. But it is one of those things that you know, yet at the same time you do not know. Furthermore, you feel, no you know, that you must know it to continue living. Because if you do not know then you will go on not really living. For to live is to love and to not know how to love is to keep oneself from living. So please, spell it out for me. But please don't. Because if love can be compressed into a neat little package with step-by-step instructions, then it is not what it claims to be and loses its value and therefore is not worth the having. So Lord, open my eyes and my heart, and help me to understand love.

Kierkegaard

Pg. 282 "To love yourself in the right way and to love the neighbor correspond perfectly to one another..." How can we expect to love and respect a person the way they are suppose to be when we can't even respect and love ourselves. Sometimes I think it is easier to love others than to love myself. I can be caught up in criticizing myself. It shows the need to not focus on oneself but be more loving through actions. They would have to let God's light shine through for others to see love.

ps. katelyn osborne need to need god

Melancholic Chuck (Ben Folse Do Not Read)

The title is to keep Ben from reading spoilers that may appear in this post, no matter how vague I have been.

This last Friday marked a bittersweet day for me, the final season premiere of my favorite show in the whole world, Chuck. This is the one show I have watched since it started and have stuck with through the many ups and downs the writers have created. That being said, after watching the premiere, I was struck with inspiration as to how I could relate Chuck to Kierkegaard, so here I go.

During the first two seasons of Chuck, the titular character had something that he regretted having, and he constantly complained about having it. During the next two seasons, this something he had changed in form and he soon knew he would regret it if he didn’t have it.

Is anyone seeing a pattern here? Anything that might possibly be familiar or similar to what we’ve been talking about recently?

At the start of this, the fifth season, he no longer has the item he had before, and he truly regrets not having it. He is insecure about his position in life now and wishes he had the item back. I wonder though, what would happen if he were to get it back. I think that once he gets used to not having it, he would regret having it again. And then he would regret not having it if he were to lose it again. And so on, and so forth.

This is really starting to look like a passage in a book I have that may or may not be marked yellow with highlighter.

I am now much more excited about watching this last season to see how this pattern of regret plays out. Ever since reading that passage in the book though, two phrases have been running through my head. The first is; Catch 22. The second is one that Eleanor Roosevelt coined initially and I don’t think I’m going to write it out on this blog, because, well, yeah... If I write it out, I’ll regret it, and yet if I don’t write it out people may not know what phrase I am talking about, so I will regret not writing it out. I could write it out, or not write it out, I will regret it either way.

Until next time,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Jaime’s post “Thoughts”

haunting thoughts

I absolutely love Kierkegaard! It is by far my favorite of the readings.
I would just like to say, i decided to randomly open the book and read wherever. This is what i opened to:   There are two possible situations -- one can do either this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: Do it or do not do it-- you will regret both." I literally laughed out loud! At first i laughed because this really is an oxi-moron. But then i did realize that i needed to read the context of this. I still found it funny, and i guess this would be why i love this reading so much! :)
In the reading this week, especially the reading "works of love" i find it interesting how Kierkegaard goes into deep detail of how we are supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves. Speaking of what God had in the ten commandments, this is one of them. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves. This seems simple, right? Well, Kierkegaard goes into what the real deeper meaning of this would be. If Scripture says we are to love our neighbors as "ourselves" would that not provoke self-love? Is it saying we are supposed to love ourselves and therefore love others like this? It seems to make sense. But then again, self-love seems to place yourself before others and ultimately before God himself, does it not? I dont know, i could be taking this completely wrong. Kierkegaard then takes it a step further: who is our neighbor? Would our neighbor not be those closest to us? Family? a loved one? So what does this mean for us? I find it easy to love those closest to me. And these are the things that haunt me ;)

p.s I commented on Jamie's post!

Thoughts On Love

In Kierkegaard's "Works of Love" the author asks if it is possible to "love someone more than oneself." considering that the Bible commands people to "love thy neighbor as thyself." When I first read that quote I thought yes! Of course it is possible or a person to love another more than they do them self. Most mothers certainly love their children more than anyone can would even die for them, and people in love might give up their own lives for the one they care about. Then my bubble was popped when I read the line "There is only one whom a person can (love) with the truth of eternity love more than himself-that is God." I stopped right there and started to blog. I thought that I loved my mom more than myself, and my boyfriend more than myself, but then I realized that it is all for selfish reasons and I am actually loving myself. I love my mom because she takes care of me and is always there for me. I might say that I would die for the person I love as others have done, but that is because I wouldn't want to live after the person I cared so much about died. It is all selfish. The only person we can truly love more than ourself is God, and I think that even that may be for selfish reasons. I'll admit that when I was 5 and "got saved" the main reason was because I didn't want to go to hell. I've gown in my faith now, but the promise of heaven is still the main reason I became a Christian 14 years ago. I never realized how selfish love is, and it's really upsetting to figure that out.

-Susan

I commented on "Thoughts" by Jamie Kilpack

Queasy Yet?

According to Kierkegaard, anxiety is the dizziness of freedom. I completely understand where he is coming from. The angst experienced when we realize our choices and the implications of choosing incorrectly is enormous. Anxiety-inspiring indeed. Kierkegaard says that this anxiety can cause sin. It definitely can, as it may render people useless in delivering the Gospel, but it can also prevent sin when it is placed correctly. The fear of God is a potent attribute. It wards people from the fires of Hell, allowing people to see the power of God and His judgement.

This is something I think we've lost; harken back to our discussions of Edwards in "Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God." The Church, I believe, has trouble fearing God. It's now so much about grace covering everything. Indeed, it does! A life with God after death is nothing to discredit, of course. Grace covers every sin, but have we forgotten why? The sin was not merely shrugged off by God. He didn't simply accept us in our sinful state and say, "It's really no big deal, man. Come on back inside and I'll let it go." No, no, no! He paid for it. He grasped Christ in His hands, a burning, raging fury in His heart, and crushed every last bit of life out of Him. He ground Himself to a paste, then vomited a viscid, sticky, scorching liquid in the form of wrath all over that blackened, tainted paste. He took that for us. Where is our fear of that wrath in this life? A holy fear of a holy God who despises our rebellion (not failure, or mess-ups...rebellion), where is it?

This is the Word from the mouth of God:

Proverbs 1:7

Proverbs 9:10

Deuteronomy 10:12

Luke 12:5

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

Thoughts

First of all, I want to start off by saying I actually like Kierkegaard. Something I read just made me think of this and I wanted to write it. Also, I'm tired, so if this makes little to know sense, I'm sorry.

In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard says “In our age, everyone is unwilling to stop with faith but goes further.” The idea is that people can’t just be satisfied with what the Bible says or with the knowledge that there is a God; they have to keep searching. It is true that genuine faith is important in the Christian life; however, this has given science as a whole a bad name among many Christians.

Yes, I am one of those “science people.” I constantly question and analyze. I put things in groups, and I like to understand why things are the way they are. However, I’ve never seen science as a hinderance to my faith. Science allows me to see tiny glimpses of who God is through His creation. All aspects of science, from a hydrogen ion to the biggest star in the universe, were designed by Him. Through science, I am reminded that I could never even come close to understanding the mind of God. Sure, there are numerous scientists who don’t believe in God, and many who try to find evidence supporting the idea that He does not exist. But science, as a whole, is not in itself an evil just because of certain scientists.

good word.

Let me just start off by saying that I love Kierkegaard! Once I start reading, I don't want to stop, and I'm constantly highlighting passages and exclaiming "Good word!" ...Thank you Samantha Mowdy, I think I picked up that expression from you :)
Works of Love is undoubtedly my favorite section so far, but I'm not going to blog on that because Kierkegaard nailed it so precisely that I don't think I could elaborate on it without simply repeating him.
(p.101) "A person can become a tragic hero through his own strength- but not the knight of faith. When a person walks what is in one sense the hard road of the tragic hero, there are many who can give him advice, but he who walks the narrow road of faith has no one to advise him- no one understands him. Faith is a marvel, and yet no human being is excluded from it; for that which unites all human life is passion, and faith is a passion."
Faith is personal. It's your relationship with the God of the Universe, and it is a marvel. I love how Kierkegaard parallels the tragic hero and knight of faith in this excerpt. The hard road of the tragic hero is a broad path some have traveled before, and many are able to advise him. However, the knight of faith is faced with a narrow road (Matthew 7:13-14). No one can advise him because faith is personal, and God calls each of us to do different things with our lives. So although people may have walked the same general path as the knight, he still has his own personal problems to overcome, which makes his path diverge from the common. In the walk of faith, each person is following God, with their eyes on Him and ears open to His commands, and it is their responsibility to obey His Word. It is very likely that others won't understand, but they don't have to, and neither do you. That's the beauty of faith, as Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." That's what makes faith so hard. You can have friends who walk beside you part of the way, but no one is with you for the duration of your journey. When the journey gets tough and others don't understand, it comes down to just you and God. What a beautiful picture.
My analogy: I think of hiking through the forest on a well-traveled trail with friends... Then you see a smaller trail off to the side, overgrown and obviously unused, but you know it's where you're supposed to go. So you and a couple others break away from the group and go down this trail. It's harder, and you lean on each other to balance as you cross a slippery tree trunk. Then the path intersects with another, and you are left to go alone as they take another trail. You know this is the direction you are supposed to go, but you're by yourself, and the path is becoming more and more overgrown, until you wonder if you're even going the right direction anymore. So you look up, and listen, and hear His voice encouraging you to keep going. The path gets darker and you have to cross ravines and walk along a cliff's edge... but you have a strange peace in this darkness... Someone is right beside you, He's holding on to your hand, and lighting each step. Even though you can't see far ahead, you know you're safe in His care as He shows you where to place your feet, one step at a time. When the darkness passes, He's still there, showing you the way to go. Then your path might intersect with another, and you find a friend with whom to journey for a short time, as you help each other over fallen tree trunks. But this journey of faith is your own, so the paths diverge once again, and you are left alone... yet not alone, for there is One who is with you every step of the way.
Maybe that made sense :) #rambling #carriedaway

p.s. commented on Joy's "I love Kierkegaard"

Need to Need God

p. 94 "It was different in those ancient days. Faith was then a task for a whole lifetime,"

Back in the Old Testament I believe that people had more faith than we do today. They had to trust God for everything little thing that they needed and relied fully on Him to take care of them. Now days we are more prideful and independent. We have so many things that we, in our minds have "created" when in reality have simply used the resources God has given us to make something different. We have faith a little here and a little there, but in the past people needed God throughout their whole life. The thinking of today is that we can take care of ourselves and do not need anyone else. Even when I was little, I wanted to be able to do things "all by myself" and refused to get help from my parents. This is a part of worldly ideas and reliance on all these things instead of God is not healthy. Instead, we should put faith in God and, without distractions, need Him in our lives.

Not life changing

"When someone asks a stupid question, care should be taken not to answer him, lest he who answers becomes just as stupid as the questioner." K

I remember my math teacher in the 8th grade had a sign in her room that said something like "Never be ashamed to ask a question, there are no stupid questions...And someone else may have the same question!" I almost failed that math class....but I doubt asking more questions would've help me. But that is completely off topic. Apparently, there are stupid questions...

We had an interesting reading from Kierkegaard this week. I am not going to lie, every time I started to believe I really knew what he was talking about...I was then bombarded by a whole new set of ideas and words. I noticed a lot of veiled criticism of antagonistic beliefs just like we talked about in class. He often links together ideas I never would have associated with one another....Foolishness should be avoided. The end.

I love Kierkegaard. I think I am going to have to buy this book!

“That to need God is nothing to be ashamed of but is perfection itself, and that it is the saddest thing of all if a human being goes through life without discovering that he needs God.” p.87
Wow! I love the way he says this. Every time I read this sentence it is just as profound as the first time. I think he is really hitting on something that is especially big for the American culture (Dr. Mitchell, I think I got it!!! :D). Americans are very independent people. We hate to say we need other people. It embarrasses us to say “hey, I am struggling will you help me”. Why? My guess would be it is, more often than not, to do with our pride. But there “is nothing to be ashamed of” that we need God. He is the creator of everything! Our perfection is in Him alone. I can not even elaborate any more on what he said because it speaks for itself.

“indeed, what is as beautiful as feminine generosity.”
I think this is funny because the guy is talking about how his wife remarried thinking that he was dead, releasing him from his duty as a married man. But is he really released? He is not dead, the only thing is his wife does not know that. If he did not want to be married, he should have never married…

PS - Commented on Rachel K.

My comment on Kelsey Parrish's

The opening scene was the worst for me too, there was something so stale and desensitized about it all. I think it would have even been preferable to have them celebrating or something, then it would have at least showed that they felt something even if it is happiness. I find that it is evident alot today that funerals are a kind of bother to th poeple involved. They seem to get and and get out like a school fair, or something they have to attend; like its a duty. Its sad, really.