So when someone introduces me as a great bassist (or whatever), there's always a moment where I freeze for a second and hope that the people listening aren't themselves great bassists (or whatever), or they might see right through me and know that I'm just a fake who deceives people less knowledgable on a subject. Yet, I still thrive on compliments - I like to surprise people and show them I'm more than what they'd expect.
Two, I have a very difficult time moving past a failure. I've noticed this in small ways, like when I make mistakes on tests or homeworks. If it ever happens to be that the mistake is a stupid one (which happened recently with a test), I tend to obsess over it, suddenly lose drive over everything. It happened at Rice a lot; however, it probably showed most clearly when my first real dating relationship ended. For the next year (and possibly even longer; I kid you not), I'd obsess over what I could have possibly done differently to change the course of things, so much so that I feel I've changed my views on relationships because of this.
In other words, I have issues with not exceeding other's expectations. I feel like I'm being cheated when other people see me on an off day, and in the chance that my best doesn't stand up to someone else's skill level, it's usually ok because they saw me at my best and usually my best is above what they'd expect of the average person. But failing to live up to what people expect of me makes me feel like I've failed a qualifying exam to be accepted, noticed, or to be part their lives.
Somehow, I can't seem to accept that, for some people, my character and my person are more than just the sum of my actions and abilities.
-----------------------------
Now for the open question. Are the existence of transcendent moral imperatives and the existence of God necessarily mutually exclusive? i.e., can there be a moral law without a moral lawgiver? I read a blog argument where a commenter noted that concluding God from moral law is simply pushing the question back a step. Quoting his comment
Why can’t morality just “be”, in the same way — to your mind — God just “is”? i.e., If God doesn’t require an explanation/origin, then why should morality?Thoughts?
2 comments:
In brief - and we could discuss this further - morality does not seem the sort of thing that explains itself. Morality cannot be its own reason: the Principle of Sufficient Reason, I think (I'm not sure if I can invoke that here, but I'll darn well try), would dictate that morality have a sufficient cause for its own existence, which it fails to be. God, on the other hand, is a sufficient cause for God's own existence.
In short (or, to clear up my own muddlings): Morality and God are categorically different. Appeals to morality as a brute fact ring false (there is no good answer to the question, why morality?); appeals to God as a brute fact ring more true (there do seem to be sufficient, if not entirely convincing, answers to the question, why God?)
wow, i haven't checked your blog in a long time - maybe you migrated from xanga? Don't know - miss you!
I personally think God is the the law - law is an aspect of His being, as is His personhood. Kind of like the Trinity. I think John hints at that when he says the Word was made flesh. I think the law was not given or created but is God, as your body is you, although not the sum total of you.
Post a Comment