Comments on: Book Review: Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:04:00 +0000

Tim, as people clarified how they were using it, I undertsood they were using the same semantic meaning as paradigm. Until then, I understood it to be something very different. That is why I posted my questions in my opening post. I am still uncomfortable with the word, but as I said, I just keep thinking to myself that I'm saying paradigm instead of worldview, and I'm okay.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:20:00 +0000

Bill, I agree that this has gone on too long, although I think at some point bringing the issues of ideas and how they relate to people who make them would be good to explore further. My attempt to sketch it out here was woefully incomplete, and I'm not sure when I will be able to revisit the relationship between nominalism and the kind of postmodernism I see at Fuller. And for the record, I was not so much offended by your definition of “worldview” as I was just baffled by the extent to which such an oblique understanding of it would be the first thing that comes to mind upon hearing the term. Your comment on my explanatory post shows you have a much better understanding of the term than your comment here gave the impression you did. I think what continues over there could be a really good conversation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:17:00 +0000

The first brief reflection on this, Tim. It is true that I do not hold that you can mock an idea without at the same time mocking the people who have just put the idea forward.
I do believe you can argue forcefully against an idea, and even call it flat wrong without implicitly attacking the people who have just put it forward.
In general, I believe mocking should be avoided wherever possible when interacting with people of opposing views.
I appreciated Roger's earlier statement that he found the critique silly as a member of the worldview in-group's perspective. Knowing how members of the in-group use and view the term, the critique seemed silly, and even amusing to him.
As to my feelings. I wanted to respond to Roger's comment about my feelings not being relevant, but I decided it wasn't worth the effort. I had gotten the clarification I was seeking. Since, though you've brought it up, Tim, I will put in what I would have said.
Roger, I agree with you that if we were looking to find the truth about how folks thought and intended to use this term within the in-group of people who read and write and talk about this set of books, my feelings are not relevant to finding that truth. However, my feelings regarding worldview were relevant if for no other reason than because I was the one having the conversation with you. Beyond this, though, my concern was not to argue that those who use the term were one way or another, but was specifically to share how I and other critics would hear the terms you were using and have you offer how you intended them. I was reflecting to you the perception of an out-group for your own public relations benefit.
Roger said he believed my views were an extreme minority of those receiving his words. That is really neither here nor there. I doubt, though that the group I represent is a substantially smaller percentage of Christianity than the substantially small percentage of Christianity that uses or thinks in the term worldview.
To answer another open question, I understand, Roger, why you would be surprised that I didn't bring it up earlier. It is true that I have had these same reactions every time I've come across your use of the term worldview on the blog. It wasn't until now that I felt it was worth the effort to try to bring up how I received it and ask for your clarification.
This is all going on so much longer than I desired though. I knew when I was bringing this up that it would be a hot issue, so, though Micah would rather I just entered an argument, I chose my tone and my words very carefully and restrained my statements intentionally. I did this because it was not my desire to offend or accuse. Despite my efforts to moderate my tone and statements, Tim was still offended. Micah says he did not find offense in my statements, Tim seemed to believe that he was not alone in finding my statements offending.
Lastly, Tim, directly back to your post, I appreciate your attempt to find a more fundamental root to the problem, and your suggestion is very thoughtful and intelligent, but I don't identify with the perspective you are suggesting. I do not have a philosophical problem with separating ideas from people. Nor have I made the connection as to how Fuller, Postmodernism, psychology or pastoral ministry would lead me to believe we could not separate the idea from the thinker. Again, I appreciate your attempt to find a perspective to make this easier to unravel, but this doesn't seem to make it any more clear for me. In this particular conversation, I was focused on my feelings and other critics for the particular purpose I mentioned above. If it is still not clear what my purpose was, I can try to spell that out again.
When a conversation becomes predominantly about what a previous conversation was and not about the present, it grows inefficient, and as efficiently as we can resolve our thoughts on the past conversation and move on to a present conversation, the better I believe we would all be served. This is not to say that I think we should sweep conflict under the table. I dearly desire that we we in the Christian faith should seek to resolve issues between us. Rather, I wish not to belabor a conversation from the past.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:32:00 +0000

I am sure there are others here who would be glad to drink for you until you've fulfilled your lame contract.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:45:00 +0000

I'd drink to that, except that I'm at TalBiola and signed this lame contract- so I can't…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:43:00 +0000

No, my friend, I don't think you intended any offense, and I did not take any.
My point is I think we spend too much time taking, and worrying about, offense. You seem to want to avoid “arguing”, as if this is a bad thing in itself. I tend to think it's bad to “quarrel”, but not to argue. I could be wrong about this, I guess it''s the impression I get from your seeming to want to avoid making statements that might contradict something someone else has said (you are much more likely to report the inner state of your own thinking or feeling, which is not without value but can cut off further discussion).
I don't mind having folks contradict what I've said, if they think it's wrong, and they give me reasons for it. In fact, that's more or less what I do for a living.
As we've agreed before, we would probably enjoy “arguing” with each other (all of us) with a beer or Dr. Pepper and in person. Perhaps we need to think seriously about a CC reunion (though not restricted to CC).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:23:00 +0000

I've responded here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:22:00 +0000

[Note: I wrote the following during the State of the Union speech, so forgive me if it is shaky. I don't have time to rewrite this, but will be able to clarify it later.] I think what is going on here is essentially a clash between two views over the nature of the ideas which we are discussing, and this analysis will be assuming the first view. The first view is the traditional, universalistic view of ideas. The ideas espoused by a person are distinct from the person, and can exist independently of the person espousing them. Thus, criticism of an idea is not necessarily a criticism of the person espousing the idea. This view is widely held by those of us here who have philosophical, apologetic, and political science (theoretical) backgrounds. The second view is the more postmodern, nominalistic view in which the ideas espoused by a person cannot be separated from the person espousing them. This view is held by those with pastoral and psychological (practical) backgrounds. Additionally, the first view is a given at TalBiola, while the second view is more in line with Fuller. So, I think what happens is that when Roger or Amy or myself, who adhere to the first view described here, write a post, our intent is to debate the ideas and their content, not the person or persons who espoused the ideas (a notable exception to this, of course, is David Hasselhoff). In this post, Roger discussed the book, but Bill, who adheres to the second view, addressed how the "worldview" idea came across to him. This prompted Roger, who adheres to the first view, to question the relevance of Bill's feelings about the term worldview, and I think this alone demonstrates that very different views of ideas are being used. I mocked the idea that 'saying that there are no worldviews' is itself a worldview, yet Bill, because he believes ideas cannot be divorced from the person(s) espousing them, took me to be mocking the seriousness and brilliance of those who espoused the idea, not the idea, or more accurately, the holding of the view, which is a corollary of the first view. So, I believe that once we acknowledge the different approaches to ideas be used here, things will be much better for everybody.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:54:00 +0000

If my statements were offensive, I apologize for the offense. I do not desire to have offended anyone.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:42:00 +0000

Micah, did you perceive my statements differently than I intended them? Did I err in how I presented them? I would appreciate your feedback.