Cornelius Van Til sucks.

(That's an insider Presbyterian insult)

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

An interestig book on historical bloodshed (of the high gear variety) is 'the History of Warfare' by John Keegan. He is cosidered pretty readable by the historians writing standard... aside from a little editorialization at the end about the necessity for everyone to get along (which should be left to another forum in my opinion) it's fascinating stuff. Seems to indicate that wider scale bloodshed occurs when populations are under greater pressure from forces which deprive them of sustinance. (land [food]...)
I think an interesting question is why did MLK... Ghandi...JC... reject traditional violent/political solutions? Paired with their infamous opposites, already mentioned, they make up a set of choices that have presided over human history.

ditto the 'nice thread'..MS

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showpost.php?p=831799&postcount=13
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showpost.php?p=831807&postcount=14

Around here ( I'm about 90 miles from Westminster Theo Sem)--they might be fighting words. I found Van Til, much as Bot found Darwin; difficult to read.
I am more of a follower of Francis Schaeffer whose apologetic follows a completely different tack.

I have a number of friends who went to Westminster or Reformed Episcopal. I agree Van Til has no sense of humor. But at least he recognizes that there's no hope of rationally convincing anyone of Calvinism anymore so he just presupposes everything.
I was telling some students the other day that the first book I ever read which made me start thinking philosophically was Os Guiness' Dust of Death. (Son-inlaw of Schaeffer??)

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Thanks, Kerry,
I had all but forgotten trudging thru that tome.

I tried reading Newton's "Principia" when I was taking lots of math and physics. I found him not much more difficult a writer than Darwin. Newton was the last of the pre-scientific natural philosophy giants and Darwin, the last of the biologists who felt badly for the theological rift.

At least Newton preferred to be succinct while Darwin never lacked for more words than necessary. My problem with Newton was symbology rather than concept. With Darwin, I was already convinced of the argument but I just haven't the patience for the obscure verbosity affected by 19th century Brits.

I can only admire and feel sympathy for the integrity of these men. Their intellectual honesty destroyed that which gave their contemporaries hope. What a burden to assume! And for what?

B

It's critical in the humanities that you read the texts that are the basis for what you are studying since this is the meat of your discussion and directs your thought. In sciences it's not so critical as it's a starting point and, for example, in Darwin's case there's been much work since then and thus the value added would be negligable. It's not about the person's idea it's about what the person was studying.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

I think that's pretty close to a universal opinion among scientists, Peragro. Most of them would say that studying Aristotle, Darwin, Nietsche and even Popper is pretty much a waste of precious time. In point of fact, most research scientists refuse to burden themselves with books. By the time a book is published, science has advanced 3-5 years. Why study some compilation 3-5 years out of date? Tenure depends on being current and publishing in high-impact science journals. Scientists with ambition wont waste their time.


http://www.isinet.com/
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i08/08a01201.htm
http://alpha2.infim.ro/~ltpd/Jo_rankingb.htm

Bot

But, as a double major in History and biology in undergrad I understand that there is great value to be had in the classics. It's just that Darwin is so damned boring - Victor Hugo too - tried 3 times to get through hunchback, only ever made it to page 50.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Try an abridged version of Les Miserables. The Somerset Maugham version was good. I liked it better than Hunchback, which I didn't finish either. Read Les Mis twice and got about half way through the unabridged, which has some dandy extra scenes, mixed in with a bunch of mind-numbing details about Napoleonic battles.

Great book. Almost impossbily heroic and noble. Inspiring.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

With the demands on everyone's time, it is harder to commit the time to do much reading. Especially when they write in an unfamiliar langauge ( 17th-19th Cent English). Their thought processes are pretty foreign compared to the way arguments are conducted today. Back then, at least most people could agree on facts and then discuss the implications arising from that common body of facts. Today, we can't even agree on basic facts.
When I do make time for reading, I prefer classics. At least I know they have some merit as they have stood the test of time. At least in Christian literaure, today's efforts are often poor. I prefer Bunyan to LaHaye.

No argument from me, but I am not in a 'publish or perish' research position. I doubt anybody in that kind of position would be wasting time jawboning on a car forum.

B

This is playing out on our campus in a debate about the library. Our president (who claims he chose his undergraduate courses by which classes did not have textbooks!) wants to downsize the library, reduce books and focus on electronic resources. The science department is not at all troubled by this as far as their own department goes. The Humanities dept on the other hand, is up in arms.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

It seems like a reasonable response to the intellectual division of labor. But it does have some problematic social/cultural implications. Marx might argue that the luxury of intellectual history will only become possible in his classless society????

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

What I dislike about scientists being forced to think so narowly is that they are only rarely articulate outside of the field in which the are masters. So if you ask a climatologist what the long-term social implications are of being wrong about some projection (say, for or against global warming) the chances are you'll get a blank stare and a shrug of the shoulders.

I would argue that a more general education, say an undergrad degree in liberal arts heavy in philosophy, history and literature, would better prepare any graduate with for dealing with life. After successfully completing an undergrad degree let them go to grad school and specialize.

Bot