Donald Miller and Hauerwas, on the same team?

I would have never thought I’d associate Donald Miller with Stanley Hauerwas. Donald Miller is from my hometown of Portland, OR, and as such when he’s been to Calvin, I’m always really excited. His popularity confirms that where I’m from is a really cool place, which I believe but hardly anyone here really knows. When I picked up Blue Like Jazz last year, though, I wasn’t really all that excited about it. It was interesting, but I wasn’t going to go out and by the precious moments figurines of it or anything. Then, he came last October to Calvin, and I found out last minute and went with some friends. I was horribly disappointed, because that was in the last few weeks before the Presidential election, and he was here as part of Obama’s campaign team, of all things!!! I had written an article for the school newspaper explaining why I thought it was best not to vote, which I can assure you, hardly anyone really understands, let alone believes it themselves. So my friends and I got in a mildly heated debate as we left and I expressed my utter disappointment. But this year he came as part of a book tour he’s doing at 65 cities around the country. The book is displayed on the left, “Searching for God Knows What.” He even had an opener, which was a strange phenomena for an author, to me at least; she was another author who just read her book called “Angry Conversations with God” (Susan Isaccs). But this time, Don did not let me down. I really had low expectations after the previous year, so he way exceeded them. He told the story of his experience when his book was going to get turned into a movie, and how that got him on the track to realize that his life was too boring for the screen… which made him wonder what makes a story good? He then spent a lot of time studying narrative structure, which really excited me, because I think that was part of the problem I had with Blue Like Jazz. It did not have a narrative structure that I could really follow and appreciate, it just felt like it was so disconnected. In his lecture, Miller explained how when you are asked a question like “how did you meet your wife?” you will relate the story in the proper narrative structure, which is to say, express it as a character who wants something, experiences conflict, and then hopefully gets what he or she wants. Now why did I say he and Hauerwas are on the same team? Well, I admit, I am a Hauerwas fan, but I have not read as much of him as I should. I read Resident Aliens and it changed my life so completely, I’m a little afraid to read anything else because it can’t have that same conversion-experience effect. But I do know that what I loved about Resident Aliens from the very beginning (there were a lot of things that I had to be converted before I could fully appreciate, but this I loved from the first), was his chapter on story. I had a teacher in high school who taught the Bible as story, and it was amazing. Literally mind-blowing. Hauerwas, I know, is associated with the termed “Narrative Theology,” and although I don’t entirely know the intricate details of that perspective, I think Miller would subscribe to that view as well. Miller is different because he appeals to the popular culture, of course, and Hauerwas feels as if he has not been truthful enough if at least one student doesn’t get offended and leave his class. However, Miller said that he felt all of our stories were just the subplot of the epic story. Christ was not the climax of our stories. We only find significance in our stories when we associate ourselves with the overall story that appears in Scripture. WOAH! Really, Donald Miller!! Yay! This is wonderful! Now, I did hear criticism that the lecture was very self-affirming, because Miller did tell a ton of stories about himself. However, I thought it was sort of appropriate that while he was talking about how we should live our lives as if they were cinematic stories (that is, good stories) he constructed his lecture as a story in which he wanted to figure something out, experienced conflict, then is now in the process of doing it. For Miller, this happens in the form of a ministry he has started that equips churches to have mentoring programs for young men. (He himself grew up without a father, and cited many statistics of various criminals who grew up in households without a father as well). I look forward to seeing other things from Miller in the coming years.

Update on undergraduate studies

So, you should know that I am studying at Calvin College, and am enjoying it very much. I have modified my original plans for a major, as college students do so often. So here is what I now plan to do: Calvin allows us to choose classes from 3 different disciplines and combine it into an interdisciplinary major. So I am mixing a combination of English classes, philosophy classes, and sociology classes. Then Calvin just added a new department called “Congregational and Ministry Studies” that offers a few minors, one of which is called “Church, Society and Ministry” which I have added. I’m so excited! Now I don’t have to take classes from philosophy and English that are too boring or that I don’t find interesting, and I can add a few sociology classes, which after an introductory course I took last semester, I really wanted to do. Then, even with the minor which really fits my interests into the service of the church, I can graduate a semester early! Just thought I’d share the excitement. =)

Movie Review: Doubt

This movie left me with a lot of doubts, undoubtedly as the director intended to do. But I even doubt whether I liked it or not, which he probably did not wish the viewers to do.

What struck me about this movie is that, for a movie that has the intrinsic setting of a Catholic church and school, there was very little talk about God, except in a very distant sort of theistic way, like “Praise God” for such and such. The other mention of God was also very questionable, yet central to the plot: while one is seeking justice for God, one must step away from God. Meryl Streep’s character even declares quite passionately that she will step away from the church if she has to in pursuit of justice.

Now let me go to the doubts that the movie-makers probably intended me to have. To outline the plot briefly, there is a priest who might possibly be having inappropriate relations with one of his altar boys. One of the young nuns, who also is very trusting, still notices some questionable clues that when she tells the head nun, becomes grounds for her certainty that the priest is guilty and must leave. The puzzle is never solved satisfactorily for the viewers, or for the characters. The title of the movie comes from a sermon in the beginning of the movie given by the very priest in question, and the head nun has a conversation with the other nuns asking “Where did that sermon come from?” Was the priest having doubts? Did he know someone who did? The reader likewise is full of questions: “Did he do something? Didn’t he do it?” At one point I was sure that the altar boy everyone thought he had abused was the wrong altar boy, and the other one was the one he had relations with. The movie is somewhat slow moving, even for me, but there were subtle fascinating parts and connections that left me thinking after the movie. Like why was the scene where one altar boy said to the other, “Do you think I’m fat?” included, and then later why did they show the priest talking with others in which he was telling a story he found amusing in which he had told a woman that her daughter was fat? It had to be intentional…

There was also an interesting feministic sort of tension in the movie. The nuns have to be obedient to the priests, and even in the principal’s office, which is the head nun, the priest takes her seat and forces her to sit in the guest chair. There’s also the interesting question, what is true love? Tough love, or a lovey-dovey sort of love, embodied in the Streep character vs. Hoffman’s character. As the viewer it is almost necessary to pick sides between Streep and Hoffman, and decide which one you think loves the children more.

But like I said, it left me with doubts as to how faithful it was the Catholic tradition. Catholics aren’t well-known for their brilliant sermons; unlike Protestants that is not the basis of their role as the pastor of their community. However, these sermons were atrocious, in the sense that as pretty and entertaining as they were, they had no Scripture in them at all, and passed as nothing more than motivational themed-speeches. It was a real disappointment to me that God was not dealt with realistically in this film, since there are plenty of films that deal with God more directly and aren’t even set in a religious setting. I don’t really understand why it was in the church at all, really; it could have just as easily occurred in a normal school with a male gym teacher or something. That’s a bit of an exaggeration, since the religious tension is kind of central, but I really felt it was not dealt with adequately.

So my final grade for this movie would probably be a straight up C. It wasn’t a complete waste of my time, yet I would not watch it again.

Tips for the McDonald’s Customer, from Behind the Counter

Before I say anything, I should probably state that all of the comments in this blog post are the sole opinion of the blogger and do not reflect the corporation McDonald’s in any way, shape or form. That I know of anyway; I’m just one of the many McDonald’s workers on the front lines.

I’ve been working at McDonald’s going on 6 weeks now, and I have learned a lot of things about human nature that has encouraged me, but more likely than not, discouraged me. In that spirit, I hope to write a brief post with a few numbered tips for the average McDonald’s customer. Many of them are pretty common sense (but we all know how common common sense really is). Others however might have never occurred to most people. There are some tips that may only apply to me as a worker; I can’t say that I speak for other workers. But with those caveats, here I go. Also, they are in no particular order of importance.

1. Please use a polite voice when ordering. You may think that being rude doesn’t affect the workers; but it does. If you have a tone of voice like we’re stupid, we pick up on it and are probably more likely to get your order wrong just because we’re upset with you.

2. If I ask you a question, it’s because it’s important. I’m trying to make sure we make your order as accurate as possible; so it is worth your time to answer my question instead of getting angry that I’m asking it.

3. If you have a big diesel truck or some sort of vehicle that makes a lot of noise, please turn it off while ordering. You might not realize how loud it is for the person taking your order, and so plead ignorance on that case. But if there is any doubt at all, please go ahead and turn it off real quick. If the order taker is repeating your order incorrectly every time you get something, that may be a clue that they can’t hear you, they just might be too polite to tell you.

4. Please do not get angry at the McDonald’s workers for high prices or anything of that nature. It really is out of our control, and we can’t do anything about your complaints. Also, keep in mind, at least for my area, there may be different prices depending on which McDonald’s you go to. For instance, the McDonald’s I work at has fudge sundaes for 1.29, but the McDonald’s a town over has them for a dollar (remember, Oregon doesn’t have tax).

5. If you have a complicated order, please consider going inside. Really, you will probably save time by being able to explain face to face with an employee instead of trying to explain it to a box. There is a person in the box, but depending on how many people are staffed, the drive thru person might be responsible for not only taking your order, but also taking your money. That reminds me of my next point…

6. If we ask you to repeat something, it might not be because we are stupid and didn’t understand English the first time you said your order. A lot of times I go ahead and tell someone to order before taking someone’s money, because I can give change and plug in the order at the same time. But if the person who is giving me money has a question and needs to change their order, or just wants to complain or something, I may have to listen to them and miss your order while you’re rattling off in my ear. Please just have some ounce of understanding that I am doing the best I can to multi-task.

7. If you are going to order your sandwich special, state how you want it at the beginning. Don’t say, “I want 3 hamburgers.” And then wait a few seconds before stating, “Can you take off the pickles on only two of them?” This is a bad example, because that’s pretty easy, but just take my word for it, please state how you want to change them quickly and clearly.

8. But not too quickly either… if you’re rattling off an entire order, and you throw in some specialized sandwiches in the middle, it’s going to take me longer to make sure I get them the way you want them in the computer. Most McDonald’s have a screen that you can follow the order on. You may want to track with what I’m putting in, and pace yourself according to what’s on the screen.

9. Also, I realize this might be hard with big families or a lot of people in a vehicle, but if you can say the total amount of sandwiches you want, that is often helpful. I realize it is usually easier to go by what each person wants. If that’s how it has to be,  I definitely understand; however, if it is a case where you have two separate people who want the same sort of special sandwich, say a cheeseburger with no onions or pickles, it is more complicated for me, and if it’s more complicated, it will take me longer to ring it up. Let’s see if I can try and explain the process. So say Jim orders a cheeseburger with no onions or pickles. I hit “GRILL” then “Cheeseburger” then “no pickles, onions.” The end. But then if Jane also orders that same sandwich I would either have to hit “Cheeseburger” then “grill” then do the same thing. Most of the time I get flustered though and I forget that’s how I can do it, so I end up hitting “zero” for cheeseburgers, and then hitting “2 Cheeseburgers” then “Grill 2″ then do the no pickles, onions thing. It’s much easier to start off putting “Grill” “2 Cheeseburger” “No pickles, onions.” I don’t know if any of that make sense; if not, just take my word for it. Some of it might just be habit. I get in a habit, and if you don’t put your sandwiches together, it cramps up my habit for how I ring up the order. Which again, means the more time it takes me, and possibly the more chance i’ll get your order wrong.

10. Changing your mind results in the same problem as above. If you originally wanted a cheeseburger with only ketchup, but then after I plug it in you decide, oh wait, you want pickles too, that’s complicated. Especially if the cheeseburger is the only thing you wanted. I can’t make an order zero, so I just have to plug something random in while I delete the original sandwich order and start over, then I have to go back and delete the sandwich i plugged in that you didn’t want.

11. If there is a big line behind you, please do not take a long time ordering. Or let me rephrase: take as little time as possible. While you’re in line, why don’t you try and figure out what everyone wants? Often times you can see parts of the menu, or you’ve probably seen enough commercials to at least guess. If you come up to the thing and you haven’t considered what you want at all, and there’s a whole line behind you, that makes people impatient, and usually they take it out on me, so please be courteous to them, and by extension, to me.

12. I’ve mostly just talked about ordering food items so far, but what about when you come to the window? These are kind of random preference things, but I’d prefer if you didn’t give me a$100 bill at 7 in the morning. Or $50 for that matter.

13. Also, keep in mind that the money you give me I’m going to have to give to someone else. I guess I understand it’s McDonald’s, we’re not that fancy of a restaurant, so we are the first on your list for getting rid of your raggedy bills. But I always feel bad when I have to give someone beat up money because that’s what I have in my drawer. Not a big deal, but something you might want to be aware of.

14. Oh I forgot to mention, there are those who speak really quiet in the speaker. Please don’t. We can’t hear you. You don’t always have to yell, but if you’re talking as if you’re telling someone a secret in a crowded room– don’t.

15. And in that line of thinking, when I first say, “Hi, Welcome to McDonald’s, can I take your order?” Or something of that nature, please at least acknowledge that you heard me. This is probably just a preference thing, but if you just sit there, maybe because you’re still deciding or whatever, it’s fine that you need more time to decide, but why don’t you tell me that? Otherwise, I get worried that maybe my headset messed up and you didn’t hear me, and then I end up repeating myself and feeling foolish. Also, you might get mad if I repeat myself after I already said I could take your order, but it’s not because I’m trying to rush you, I’m just not sure if you heard me.

16. Cell phones don’t bug me too much, but I know some McDonald’s have signs saying please don’t use them in the drivethru. What really upsets me actually is when people are having domestic disputes in their car as if I’m not there. It doesn’t happen too often, but it is awkward, whether I can hear them through the intercom or outside the drivethru window.

17. Another thing: Cigarettes. I get it if you want to fill your car up with cigarette smoke; that’s your right. But please don’t sit there and smoke while you’re in the drive thru if you can help it. I had one guy I had to take his money from him and give it back to a hand that held a cigarette. That just bothers me. It just seemed a little rude, is all.

18. This one doesn’t happen too often, but if you do want me to break a bill for you, don’t want till I’ve given you your change, tell me right away. That way I can do it while the drawer is still open. If you wait till I give your change back, I have to go get a manager’s code to open the drawer again.

19. Flirting. Easy. Don’t do it. Okay, it might be funny, in a creepy sort of way… but I’d really prefer if you didn’t wink at me, or stare at me funny. Common courtesy and respect apply; just because I’m wearing a uniform doesn’t mean I’m not a person just like you, with thoughts and hopes and feelings. And a boyfriend.

20. Just a common rule of thumb; if it’s a bigger McDonald’s there will be at least two windows, and the first one will be the money and where we originally took your order. I can change your order until I plug in the money you gave me and get the cash register to open, so take advantage of that. If you want things like jam, syrup, ketchup, dipping sauce, etc. just ask at the last window.

Well, 20 seems like a relatively round number. Sorry some of them are kind of long… maybe I’ll go back and condense this at some point, leaving only the most important stuff. But for now, please don’t eat too much McDonald’s… but if you do come thru, and I happen to be working… these are some good rules of thumb.

Words of wisdom… from an adulterer?

I was reading an Op-ed piece about the governor of South Carolina who just ran off with his mistress in a huge scandal. I didn’t realize that’s what it was about; the subheadline declared, “Conservatives used sexual morality as a weapon and now it’s shooting them in the foot,” which caught my attention. A few lines in however I found a link to the emails sent between the governor and his mistress, and I was curious and began reading. I was a bit surprised to find myself feeling sorry for the man, because although his actions are inexcusable, his humanity dropped from every line and I found myself pitying him. “I remember Jenny, or someone close to me, once commenting that while my mom was pleasant and warm it was sad she had never accomplished anything of significance. I replied that they were wrong because she had the ultimate of all gifts — and that was the ability to love unconditionally. The rarest of all commodities in this world is love. It is that thing that we all yearn for at some level — to be simply loved unconditionally for nothing more than who we are — not what we can get, give or become.”

Words of wisdom from an adulterer. Who would have thought. But perhaps it is not all that surprising that an adulterer ends up hitting the nail on the head when it comes to humanities desire for love.

“The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.” ~ Moulin Rouge.

Colleges in Poor Economic Times: Where Does Calvin Fall?

Upon recommendation of one of my teachers to read the New York Times, I get the headlines sent to my email every day. Usually I read the headlines if nothing else. I realize that’s sort of cheating… but that’s not my point. Today I actually read a number of articles, one of which caught my attention because it concerned a college from my home state of Oregon: Reed College. I’ve been to Reed a number of times, often for Latin gatherings, and it is well-known for both its academic rigour and anti-Christianity, despite being “free-spirited.” This article talked about how Reed had to pick students they thought were less qualified to be admitted because they had more money and could pay their way. No longer was the choice about only merit. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10reed.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th.

Within that article was a link to another article on the word “climbing walls.” The article was talking about how colleges were in the business of meeting consumer needs, although Reed was trying to resist that, because as Reed’s president put nicely,  “The whole point of higher education is we know something you don’t.” It’s not supposed to be about what the consumers have claimed they want so you give it to them. You offer them something that they don’t have and inspire them to want it: education. Maybe that’s too idealistic: maybe nowadays education is not attractive enough for people. People were once concerned with things like duty and honor but now are only interested in fulfilling their wants and their self-seeking: like the Dursleys from Harry Potter. (Thanks to Mr. Plato for making that connection so brilliantly: Voldemort is certainly evil. But so are the Dursleys, and they are the ones that we could easily become if we aren’t careful). Here’s the article I read about consumerism in universities: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/us/jacuzzi-u-a-battle-of-perks-to-lure-students.html.

So with these two things in mind, where does my own university fall? It has recently made a huge sports complex, undoubtedly for the sake of having a perk that attracts mainly athletes. I think if a vote had been taken with all the Calvin community as to whether that was a good idea or not… well those who weren’t excited about it might be in the minority, but they would at least be well-represented. But, what’s done is done. What’s next for Calvin is renovating the Fine Arts Center. New classrooms, and better facilities for music and other fine arts. That, I certainly approve of for its educational value, perhaps because one of my majors (English) is one of the departments being renovated. And, to be fair, I do appreciate Calvin’s understanding that we are embodied creatures and our bodies are important, unlike the Christian strain that is so platonic and only focused on our soul(er, form) that will one day be freed from our body and will get to go to heaven. Christ said the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! It is here, but not yet- but even when it is fully here, it will be a physical kingdom, not simply spiritual. But forgive me; I’ve run off on a non-related tangent.  I just hope Calvin does not fall prey to the patterns and habits of educational institutions in the world, and instead holds to a more Christian understanding of what it means to run an institution. That’s a hard balance, and I wouldn’t suggest that I would do any better. But I do hope that it is at least continually thought about.

Movie Review: Angels and Demons (And my return back to this blog)

I have another blog now at theotherjournal.com. When I agreed to blog for them  I was an enthusiastic new college student, ready to take the world by storm. Throughout the year, I discovered that despite my good high school education, I still had more to learn. Much more than I anticipated, really. Along with finding other things made a priority in my life, since blogging during my high school days tended to be a defense against loneliness. Those things made blogging a chore, and something I had to do, and many weeks I just couldn’t think of anything blog-worthy. I hardly read blogs anymore, either, so that didn’t help.

But, this summer,  I am no longer living with 40 people. My boyfriend is roughly 2,000 miles away. I have a part time job, but who knows how much that will occupy me (or have any sort of fulfillment in my life). So, I have decided to resurrect this blog (for something other than school projects). This will give me an avenue to blog about whatever. The other blog they said I can write anything, the important thing is that I write, but I can’t just write thoughtless things on that site. I feel like it has to really intertwine the theme of church and culture, and if it doesn’t, I’m at a loss.

I’ve ended up writing about TV shows a lot on my other blog, sort of on accident, but that’s the only thing I’ve been doing for entertainment. I haven’t had time to read much, and so it’s just TV and movies. So here’s a blog about a movie. Maybe I can get the entertainment stuff out on this blog (although most of my seasonal shows are over). Then I can find more academically rigorous and philosophical things to say on the other one. =)

I watched the first Dan Brown novel made into a film after reading the book. I, unlike  the predominant church culture at the time, was not scared out of my mind for how people would take the book/film in terms of Christianity. It certainly is not that kind to religion in general, since the plot of the book basically argues that the Catholic church has been harboring all these secrets for so long. That’s not why I enjoyed the story, however. I really liked Brown’s way of piecing together the puzzle pieces in an action-packed novel that I couldn’t put down. The movie couldn’t quite do it justice, but it wasn’t bad.

This time, watching Angels and Demons, it’s been a while since I read the books, I just remembered I enjoyed this one more than the last. And after watching the movie, I remember why. This one has all the puzzle piece mystery thriller aspects that I enjoyed the first time, while being much more sympathetic to the church. Religion is not just a side-plot in this movie as it is so often if it is brought up at all…  Roman Catholic practices are integral to the plot. Thousands of extras were used to play devout Catholics who were upset about the Pope’s death, and they were not shown to be just mindless sheep who turned to religion out of fear. Instead, faith was praised. The Harvard Professor, who as an academic, could not understand God because his head told him not to. He was asked what his heart told him, and he said that his heart told him he didn’t need to. (His substitution for “belief” by answering with “understand” is interesting to note). He said faith is a gift, one that he had not been given yet. Weird! The atheist got religion right in a way that many Christians would not be able to articulate. I pity Brown, because that character is probably him. He’s the one who knows church history better than those in the church do, and yet his heart-head battle is too strong, and he is not receptive enough to the gift of faith yet. But there is definitely hope.

In the film, there are also corrupt priests, of course, and Brown certainly does not paint a clear and easy picture of right vs. wrong. The character who would be most likely to be called the antagonist saved the lives of thousands of people, and everyone had the impression that he should be made a saint and recognized as a martyr. I remember in the book the struggle between religion and anti-matter in the hearts of individuals was much more pronounced, like the priest who helped research it and discover it. He wanted to create anti-matter as a testimony to God, not as a way to show that science could out-do God. But of course, often the church tries to create something (like watches) for spiritual purposes, but the secular forces are much to strong and use the item for their own purposes. (Watches were meant to keep order for monks who had a set schedule on which they prayed the psalms. Now watches serve the purpose of the god of capitalism).

While I watched the movie, I could not help but wonder how on earth they filmed everything, and how much it cost! So much artwork is included in the movie, just as it was last time, and historically places. It was beautiful, and you’d have to check another site to see how much of it took place in a Hollywood studio and how much didn’t. I did read a source that was remarking how much the Pope disliked this movie… well, or what he thought this movie must be. The Vatican staff said they did not even read the script, just heard the name “Dan Brown” and assumed it was anti-religious. Because of that, they refused that it be filmed in much of Rome and the Vatican. Ewan McGregor, who plays the most controversial and perhaps anti-Catholic character, does not think the movie is anti-Catholic: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7586038&page=1. But regardless of whether it was actually filmed in the Vatican, it was very convincing,  and very well filmed, I thought, from the point of view of someone who has never taken a class on the subject.

And with that, I am going to move on again to thoughts of my time in college. Because college really kept me humble. I mean, I thought I had everything all figured out in high school; I felt my education was better than all my friends, and so when I went to school, of course I would still be a step ahead of everyone. And while that was true in some senses, in others it was completely wrong. So many people were smart in their respective fields of interest, whether it was film studies, or even my own major, philosophy. I could hardly keep up with conversations about philosophy in class and out of it, despite being a philosophy major. It worried me. Thankfully I found a home in English… there I could talk about things intelligently, among other intelligent people that I didn’t feel simultaneously threatened by.

I hope to continue writing here throughout the summer, perhaps as a relief from my McDonald’s job. Yes, you heard right, McDonald’s. I have a blog post somewhere about the evils of consumption, and McDonald’s is as good a corporation as any to represent that whole world. But, I am just a minimum wage employee who will work my designated shift, making sure the well-oiled machine that is McDonald’s continues to see another day with happy customers. It has to be better than using marketing ploys to get my friends’ parents to buy knives. The most important difference is: these customers come to McDonald’s. They have already decided they want to buy things. Now maybe my mannerisms and friendliness and efficiency will have an affect on whether they will come back, or if I can get them to add anything to their meal, but I dont feel like I’m constantly trying to trick them into something they didn’t ask for. Perhaps I’ll change my mind, but right now, I have no ethical qualms about working for McDonald’s.

VS.

Phaedrus Part 5: Rhetoric, Writing, and Friends

The semester is wrapping up, and finals have begun. I just got done with my sociology exam, and one of the questions was how did sociology relate to my major. Plato’s statements about what make a good rhetorician go hand in hand with my answer: he says, “a nature needs to be analysed,” reflecting the infamous phrase, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” It is true though; my sociology textbook explained that sociologists try to examine things in a way that does not take the “natural” for granted as being “natural,” but instead makes the familiar strange. So it is in philosophy, an authentic person is someone who is aware of things and thoughtful, contemplative, and perhaps analytic– not just on autopilot, going through the motions. Because being thoughtful in this way makes people closer to truth, according to Plato, their natural skills as a rhetor are going to be more wholesome if coupled with the mindset of examining life.

Of course, for Plato, the nature that needs to be most examined is the nature of the soul as opposed to the body, but we can forgive him that. He says that it is the soul that must be convicted, and in my rhetoric class we certainly were taught to act with that mindset; we were taught to develop an emotional connection with the audience. But at the same time, the body is important, not just the words: we were graded on tone of voice, volume, the frequency of crutch words, hand motions, and all around physical presence. Socrates speaks about knowing the audience well, too, which is good– recognizing that different people will accept different methods of employing emotion.

Then, the dialogue ends with some criticisms of writing. I came across this before from a secondary soure (I believe it was Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman when he gives a brief history of media in the beginning of the book). Although Theuth, the Egyptian god who invented writing, wanted to improve the wisdom and memory of the people; Socrates’ assessment, however, is that writing in fact decreases the skill of memory and consequently wisdom; by relying on writing they do not rely on their own mind. It makes sense that Plato would have this understanding in terms of his ontology; the immaterial realm (the mind/soul) is the only real, whereas material things are more often than not hindrances to the world of the Forms. Also the recollection theory of education is recognized; the soul already has in it all the knowledge it needs– the best writing can do is remind it of that, but it is more proximate for the soul to be reminded by voice, which is mutable just like life, whereas writing is immutable and “dead.”

The ending of the Phaedrus is beautiful. Socrates offers a prayer, a wonderful prayer that displays the realm of all truth lies at the heart of the philosopher, the lover of wisdom. He asks Phaedrus if anything else needs to be asked for except for inner health, saying he thinks his words seem sufficient. Phaedrus says “Offer it for me too, Socrates; friends should share everything.” How wonderful! Socrates a good friend! Friends share everything, including speeches, which are hopefully not written, but spoken so that they can share in wisdom together. Friends share shade of a tree in a hot day so they can keep one another awake as they contemplate the real world. And friends journey through life together, as Socrates ends the dialogue, “Let us be going.” (Italics mine).

Phaedrus Part 4: Introduction to Rhetoric

Again I am amazed at the imagery that Plato invokes of the surrounding scene. While Plato is setting up for a discussion about rhetoric and writing and what makes it good as opposed to bad, he starts talking about the cicadas, and the heat, and how normal mortals would be prone to sleeping because of mental incompetence; but they are engaged in philosophical dialogue, and as such, they can be “deaf” to the cicadas, get away from their senses, and think upon higher matters. Yet at the same time, I am noticing a more positive treatment of the material world than I usually allow myself to see in Plato; he does not deny the beauty of the world, on one level, I think I now understand; he just says that ultimately it is unfulfilling.

In the beginning of the speech the word “seem” appears; Phaedrus is under the impression that an orator will be classified as good if he knows what will seem true to the people; true knowledge does not necessarily matter. What a platonic word! Things that seem to be one thing, but really are not… that could be described as the philosopher’s goal, to get beyond what seems to what really is. Socrates fascinatingly addresses rhetoric herself, and refers to the arguments against rhetoric as an art as “noble creatures.” Again the notion of dialectic tension arises, but is not seen as a hindrance, but a benefit.

They then follow the correct methodological approach and define what rhetoric is: the art of persuasion, whether it is in a court room or in politics or in any form of conversation. He then turns to the speeches that were read/ given earlier. Socrates starts talking about whether we all have the same notion in mind when a word is uttered; he distinguishes between some words that are “obvious” and everyone would clearly have the same notion, and other words that have more uncertain of a meaning. Other philosophers would disagree, and say that every word is uncertain, and every word needs interpretation. Also interesting is that Socrates criticizes Lysias for the order in which his speech is delivered; that his beginning statement should have been at the end, mostly. I took a rhetoric class in high school my junior year, and we were taught that as well; the structure of the speech was intrinsic to how it was delivered. Oddly enough, he then says that it is better to have begun with a bad definition of love than with no definition at all, even though his point earlier was that rhetoric can only be good if it is concerned with true knowledge. A bad definition of love does not seem like true knowledge to me.

The section on definitions the editors included a note that said this might be the most boring part of the dialogue for modern readers… but it brought back memories of my classical education! I feel like the rhetoric class was Plato reworked… it probably had plenty of quotes from Socrates that I neglected to put to memory in my ignorance. The structure of a speech as follows: Introduction, Statement of Facts, Argument, Proof and Refutation, and Conclusion. So many of my speeches that year had to follow that format, and it was obnoxious… but beneficial I’m sure.

The final installment in this series will be on Rhetoric and Philosophy and the Inferiority of the Written to the Spoken Word.

Phaedrus Part 3: Love and the immortality of the soul

This is the last section in the series until Socrates switches gears and begins discussing rhetoric. Here he argues that love is a good sort of madness, since it is divinely inspired, and in fact it is linked to the immortality of the soul, since it is the “wings” of the soul as they ascend to the heavenly reality.

This is especially interesting for me, since I have looked at the immortality of the soul as argued in other dialogues, but here Socrates is just giving a speech; there is no real “dialogue” for any sort of dialectic discussion. Instead, I’m just supposed to take what Socrates is saying about the gods as true, or else be deemed heretical, undoubtedly. His explanation about the different levels of incarnation that the soul can experience that is more in tune with reality or not is interesting; I had heard it explained, but never from Plato’s own mouth. Before he gets into the incarnation stuff, however, he quickly states his argument for the immortality of the soul that it is that which moves the body, and is not moved by anything other than itself, making it immortal. Apparently, unlike the other arguments given in other places, this one is so self-explanatory that it needs no further discussion.

I found really interesting Socrates’ assessment that people find what they love in people based on which god they follow. If they follow Zeus, they will find wisdom-seekers and leaders attractive, and the same goes for the other gods and their attributes. Although Socrates thinks that all souls are immortal and ultimately will love everything real, I couldn’t help thinking about this in a Christian way.

I watch a television show called Dollhouse in which people give up the right to their personalities… they become just shells of bodies that various personalities and skill sets can be uploaded into, like a computer. There is one guy, a former FBI agent, who is trying to figure out where the dollhouse is, so he can free everyone, since he believes you cannot get rid of a person’s soul; it is going to leave a residual imprint on the body, no matter what. Simarlarly, Christians tend to have the notion that every person, while having a universal vocation as human beings, has a very particular imprint, that often is called their “soul,” that is unique to who they are. So I’m wondering, if as Christians who have unique imprints, if we find love and attraction in other humans based on what we have been uniquely imprinted to love in God.Perhaps that is an obvious conclusion to reach… but interesting nonetheless, and pretty easy to relate to one’s own life. When I find someone attractive, if I contemplated why, would I find that it was because they resembled what I love in God? What does that say about my particular imprint of a soul?