headache in gym, and other stories.

some people have asked me to update, and i understand now that by update, pp usually dont mean posts like 'the fall of practical reason.' ok, point taken.. so here's a slice of my life lately.. :)

went to the gym today with my friends, and my head started aching each time i did a set. (no, i didnt let the weights drop on my head.) somehow i still managed to do 6 different exercises and survived till dinner (albeit thru a spectacular failure of the triceps)... during which i couldnt enter the conversation properly till i went to the provision shop nearby and bought some panadol.. thank God it got better.

well dinner was at a ghim moh coffeeshop with pasta from a former restaurant-chef - this place is one of our usual haunts after gymming or running. so i got salmon alfredo (w/ added pasta) today, one of the favorites, but somehow e headache took away half the enjoyment. and i didnt have the appetite to move on to our usual kaya toast, which has the distinction of being the best kaya toast out of our 5 usual haunts (clementi central, ghim moh (1) - this place, ghim moh (2), sunset way and dover rd).

anyway, it seems like TCC doesn't want me. they haven't got back to me yet after initially offering me the job - seems like after they learnt that i'd probably be committed only for 2 months, they got less than enthusiastic about e prospects of hiring a philosophy masters grad... wat discrimination! haha. looks like i'll have to stick to doing my next SMU assignment for now..(and get paid more!).. and i thought that i could try something veri different for once..

and lastly, really thank God for the roundtable interview i went last week. didnt know wat to expect, but it went ok in the end. the pp there seemed genuinely interested in their jobs and in public service (with an emphasis on service).. 2 days later i got confirmation for the next round, a long way off in jan next year. but i'll leave it to God how everything goes, and whether im really suitable for the admin service..

so tt's a slice of life. and it's not a veri delicious slice too, partly cos im suffering from a paucity of nice sounding words and inspired phrases to use amidst my tiredness. perhaps better sleep will yield a livelier post next time..

New Group Blog!

My YA group in CYYAM has a new blog! It'll contain posts by group members. Others are free to read, tag and comment. :)

Do pay a visit.

The Community of Prayerful Love

Have been reading Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy for devotion e past couple of months.. here's one recent insight into the nature of the spiritual reality that prayer brings us into.

What happens when we pray for others? As we pray for others, we participate in a spiritual community of love. Instead of relating to each other directly, we go through the mediator Jesus Christ. Instead of simply going on our own wisdom, tell others what's "good" for them, telling them to change this and that, doing things to them "for their good" as we judge it, we come to Christ.

This takes us into the deep nature of life together in the kingdom of God. This life is shown in its horizontal (human) and vertical (divine) dimensions. As we wish for the good of others, we do not simply tell them, criticize them, or help them simply on our own terms. As Dallas Willard puts it:

Among those who live as Jesus' apprentices there are no relationships that omit the presence and action of Jesus. We never go "one on one"; all relationships are mediated through him. I never think simply of what I am going to do with you, to you, or for you. I think of what we, Jesus and I, are going to do with you, to you, and for you. Likewise, I never think of what you are going to do with me, to me, and for me, but of what will be done by you and Jesus with me, to me, and for me.

Thought that was a beautiful way of putting it. As we pray, we walk hand in hand with Jesus for the good of others. We ask Him for others as we intercede. That is the best way to truly help someone. Not on our own unilateral terms, knowing how fallible and oft-mistaken we are.

And as Dietrich Bonhoffer says,

As Christ can speak to me in such a way that I may be saved, so others, too, can be saved only by Christ Himself. This means that I must release the other person from every attempt of mine to regulate, coerce, and dominate him [or her] with my love... Thus this spiritual love will speak to Christ about a brother more than to a brother about Christ. It knows that the most direct way to others is always through prayer to Christ and that love of others is wholly dependent on the truth in Christ.
(Life Together)

Indeed, how often we have the temptation to simply "straighten others out" for their own good. How often have we tried to give them our "pearls of wisdom" without so much as talking to God about it first! And how many times have we been frustrated by our efforts on how people don't seem to change, to break through their problems, even after we have pointed them out. How frequent have we tried to offer "solutions" to people's predicaments without truly understanding their position, empathizing with them as only Jesus, the Great High Priest, can.

Let us not forget that the primary way to help others is to pray for them first. Bring them to the throne of grace, and then together, with Jesus, reach out to them. Not that we don't do anything concrete or say anything edifying to them, but that we do not neglect - as we are so prone to - the quiet but indispensable ministry of prayer. Carry them to Jesus always, presevere in prayer, don't give up, look to God, and see how He works.

Sometimes the effect is almost immediate, sometimes it takes time, at times we find that God brings us into a new understanding of that person's situation; other times we learn that we are the ones who need to change, yet other times we learn to trust that God has better plans of which the present reality is already a part.

Whichever way it is, let us continue to intercede for the good of those around us, and then those who are not so near, but nevertheless are instantly reached by a request to God.

heck tick wick. hack tig wic. hag tic wig. heg teak whig. haak tik weak.

hectic week...

first, got to teach everyday..

second, got to do up my thesis final submission - need to do some minor changes, get all the formatting correct, print a few copies plus binding, then bring to school to submit at some office... quite troublesome.. and just found out that i have to pay like 200 plus for thesis examination!

third, ministry stuff like revival camp stuff, CC worship song planning, meeting people, etc. finally, trying to keep up with my exercising routines.. but looks as if the running might have to go for this week, unless i find some other day besides today..

well, thank God that although i havent been getting enough sleep, i dont really feel that tired. (apart from really wanting to sleep in the office...). and im getting the hang of teaching... and a bit better at controlling the class.. hopefully i can keep more in focus on Him and not just handle one thing after another thru the week..

oh ya, and i've got a job interview on fri.

sleepyhead.

im getting up before sunrise this week in the name of education.

having to wake up before 6 is a challenge, really. but the real challenge, actually, is sleeping early enough. managed 11 plus last night - the earliest for a long time... but still, my head feels like lead today. think it's from the sleep debt the day before, when i slept at 1 plus..

they should put beds in staffrooms so that people can take quick naps. or at least, some sleep capsules.. haha.

The Fall of Practical Reason 3

As promised, here's part 3 of my thoughts on the issue of practical reason and how it relates to our fallenness as humans. But first, a recap.

In post 1, I highlighted the apparent tension between the biblical account of man's fallenness pervading his reason, and the phenomena of seemingly very smart people using their practical reason very well. Practical reason, as mentioned previously, is reasoning with respect to what to do; it has to do with the actions we perform. In part 2, I suggested a way to look at this problem by drawing a distinction within the realm of practical reason itself, namely, the distinction between

(a) how we should achieve our goals/desires/aims (instrumental reason), and
(b) the kinds of goals/desires/aims we should have (telic reason).

I suggested that there's basically not that much a problem with people with regards to (a) - that is to say, most people function not to badly with respect to their instrumental reason. Sure, there are those who are subject to conditions such that even with instrumental reason, they fail to act rationally. One might take for example, a person suffering from depression who actually desires to get well, and believes that the best way to do that is to seek medical attention, and somehow just cannot find the motivation to do it. (There is, of course, to a lesser extent, the same phenomenon whenever we just want to laze in bed despite all reason not to.) But these are the exceptions rather than the norm. For most of us, fallen as we are, we nevertheless function ok in being motivated to do the things to achieve our goals.

Now in this 3rd part, I want to say what has gone wrong with our telic reason. I wish to highlight just how fallen this aspect of our reason is, and also why it is a part of our reason as opposed to merely our desires. Consider first a simple case, The Incredible Sulk.

The Case of The Incredible Sulk:
Tommy (5 years old) is unhappy that his mother did not buy him the $3 million Ferrari he saw zooming past on the street. As a result, he wants everyone around him to be unhappy as well. So he tries to sulk for the whole day, knowing that his parents do not like it. He also knows that by doing that, he would have to miss his favorite dinner as punishment. Moreoever, it is pretty tiring to sulk the whole day and pretend no one else exists. Yet, he simply wants to do it to spoil everyone's mood.

Here, it seems that Tommy prefers his own unhappiness as long as others around him can be made unhappy as well. We might say that he was rebellious, recalcitrant, or incorrigible, even. But at the same time, it seems that his desire is irrational, unreasonable. One might want say to Tommy, "Hey, look here boy. It's silly to do that!" And by "silly", we don't just mean something that is morally wrong, but rather that there's something intellectually, rationally deficient about him. And this is the point I wish to highlight here. It's downright foolish of Tommy to have such desires. What good might be gained from making everyone, including himself, unhappy?

But on further reflection, don't we do that all the time? We desire temporal comfort more than eternal security - many would rather laze around on Sunday than go to church when invited. We desire things that we know would lead to short-lived pleasure and long-term consequences. We do and say things that hurt others and don't benefit ourselves. Our desires are directed to the immediately pleasurable rather than the ultimately good, to convenience rather than right principles. Our goals become the mere satisfaction of current desires, without reflection on whether these are worthy, righteous, honourable, commendable desires. Indeed, these words have been rendered almost 'out-of-fashion' by the relativistic, do-whatever-you-want, respect-my-rights (including my right to be downright stupid, we might add) culture of today.

In fact, the whole question of life's purpose, or teleology, is swept aside under the carpet. (Only to re-emerge in the angst of teenage life, the stark reality of mid-life and the quiet desperation of old age.) Ask the question today, "what kinds of goals/desires/aims should I have?", and you are likely to get a strange reply along the lines of, "do whatever you really want. Follow your heart." Which sounds oh-so-nice, until you realise the question hasn't been answered at all. Phrased another way, the original question is simply "What should I want? What should my heart desire?", and the reply becomes just "Want what you want, and desire what you desire." Some help that gives.

The modern world is particularly prone to this paralysis of purpose. And it is not surprising, because we have lost the ability to reason properly with ourselves what is best. We either think that there is no best, that the best is unknowable, or that everyone's best is up to them. We are blind, in fact, to the all-surpassing worth of Christ, to the glory of the eternal God, to the satisfaction of our deepest needs in Him. At least, until He does a special work in us.

And that, I think, is the crux of the fallenness of practical reason. We can diagnose it in many ways, we can identify it's failings as we did above; we can also sum it up in 4 words: we don't desire God. And that is the worst kind of answer one could give to the question in (b): what should I desire?

The one object that is supremely good, righteous, loving, glorious and worthy, we have failed to seek Him and want Him. We have irrationally rebelled against Him, to our own detriment. The telic aspect of our practical reason is found sorely wanting. Of course, this is inseparable from the moral dimension. But it is also a matter of reason. So then, the Biblical writer reminds us,

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:10

The Fall of Practical Reason 2

In my last post, I raised a potential problem: The Bible tells us that we are fallen. This surely includes our reason, in particular, our practical reason. But looking at many people around, they seem to be using their practical reason perfectly well. (see examples in last post.) Now i suggest a way to look at this that resolves the problem.

First, we must be more precise. Practical reasons, as I said, are considerations in favor of us performing certain actions. What then, counts as a reason, or gives us a reason to act in a certain way? Standard examples in philosophical literature consist of beliefs and desires combined in a relevant way. Consider:

1. Arthur desires to have a cold Ribena.
2. Arthur believes that to have a cold Ribena, he needs to walk to the fridge.

Most people agree that the truth of 1 and 2 gives Arthur a reason to walk to the fridge. (Of course, Arthur might not necessarily walk to the fridge as a result of 1 and 2, for this reason might be trumped by stronger reasons (e.g. He is actually a surgeon perfoming a delicate operation at the moment, and so on.))

If Arthur is rational, he would acquire a motivation to walk to the fridge (again, this motivation could be overridden by other considerations). He is, in a way, responding to the reason provided by the truth of 1 and 2. (Of course, this example is so simple that most of us don't even consciously reason this way. But it is nevertheless very plausible.)

This sort of practical reasoning is called instrumental reasoning. It helps someone to achieve his/her desires, or more broadly speaking, his/her goals. I want a car. Instrumental reasoning helps me to think of how to get one (rent? buy? earn more money? loan?), depending on the beliefs I have about cars and so on. I want to get A for my module. Instrumental reasoning tells me (via my beliefs) that I should study hard and practice exam papers. And so on.

I want to submit that there is nothing very wrong about our practical reason, insofar as it pertains to instrumental reasoning. (There could be other things wrong, such as lack of willpower to achieve the goals, etc.) But on my view, that is not all there is to practical reason. In particular, a truly rational person should not only know what he should do to achieve his desires/goals, he should also know what kinds of desires and goals he should have.

In other words, a truly rational person should desire the right things, the good things, the best things in life. And by the right things, I obviously don't just mean what an individual thinks is right to do. I mean it in an objective, absolute sense. I mean it in the sense in which rightness is not a function of a person's desires and beliefs, but something that is independant of whether people think it as right or want to do it.

(The philosopher David Hume was famous for denying this. To him, all practical reasoning was instrumental. Thus, according to Hume, " 'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. 'Tis not contrary to reason for me to chuse [choose] my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me." I don't buy Hume's view, but I will not argue against it here. I simply assume that it's false.)

This last aspect of practical reason can be referred to as telic reason. (Kant calls it the categorical imperative, but we shall not go there in this post.) Now think about it. Is the telic aspect of our practical reasoning gone astray? I would say yes. Try thinking of some examples, before the next post comes out. :)

The Fall of Practical Reason 1

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:10

Practical reason refers, roughly speaking, to whatever counts in favor of us performing certain actions. For example, I might say that you have reason to save a drowning person. You might have reason not to cheat in an exam, or to go get some food at the hawker centre. (There is also theoretical reason, which are also known as reasons for us having certain beliefs. But I will not discuss that here.)

Now the Bible tells us that we are fallen, and in Reformed theology, the understanding is that a proper reading of the text entails that the 'fallenness' affects all aspects of the person - the emotions, the desires and the mind. So then, this implies that there must be something very wrong with our rationality. And if our rationality includes practical rationality, then there is something very wrong with our practical rationality.

Now the problem is, this last part might not seem apparent to many. Consider, for example, the fact that many brilliant scientists, philosophers and politicians are non-Christians. Or the fact that my neighbour can very well perform actions rationally - when he is hungry, he goes to the fridge to get food, and not to the wardrobe. Our non-Christian classmates might know how to score on an exam better than we do. The upcoming entrepreneur whose business is growing fast due to his innovative products might not believe in God at all. All these people seem to be using their reason rather well. In particular, the latter examples seem to be examples of good usage of practical reason. And since Christians are on the road of sanctification and having their fallenness, so to speak, redeemed in a sense, shouldn't Christians be doing much better than non-Christians in terms of acting in accordance to reason? What's the difference?

How then, is our practical reason fallen? I suggest a possible way of looking at this in the next post.