Sunday, July 17, 2005

1700/1200 words. Wow.

"Dear sir, in response to your article--'What's wrong with the world'--I am." - G.K. Chesterton, qtd in Jesus Among Other Gods.

In a comment on the last post, nana (nja) commented: "tolerance is relative term. do you really think anyone can be totally tolerant? Or did I miss that point totally?" The question is worth addressing. Tolerance is a relative term, if by relative you mean that different people define it differently. Both tolerant exclusivism and tolerant pluralism shoot for a certain idea of "total tolerance," and neither meets the mark it sets for the definition of "total tolerance." Pluralism fails by default--it is obvious that its definition of "total tolerance"--at least when revised to include its implications--is not really total. Exclusivism doesn't fail by default--its standard could be attained under the standard of total tolerance. However, it's worth noting that we are all humans. As such I do not believe the it is really possible for us to attain any ideal, at least not right here in this life. Not that we should not strive for ideals; the famous cartoonist Charles Shultz once said that "ideals are like the stars. We may never reach them, but we chart our course by them." So the only thing we can do, if we are to be tolerant exclusivists, is to reach for the ideal we have set, and do our best. We have no guarantee that we will necessarily meet our ideal. I know that's not much of an answer. But it's what I've got, at least right now...

Oh yes, my huge honkin' paper on Descartes is now, well--at least in terms of being a rough draft--done. I get to take it in to the guy teaching my workshop at UP to have it corrected tomorrow. It clocks in at a total of around 1700/1200 words. 1200 was a guideline, but I think I may have gone a little too far over that guideline. My worst fear at this point is twofold (is this the right word?):

1. My paper turns out to be way too long, and I have to find 500 words to cut.
2. My paper is completely illogical, rather than just being acceptably illogical.

By way too long I mean way too long to be graded, and I'm afraid it is. By completely illogical I mean that rather than simply having the quasi-logical flaws that I am thinking might exist, that the thing turns out to be totally and fatally flawed, so that I have to go back and redo everything.

No matter. Earthsuit is playing in my iTunes, and life is good. I got to play bass at my church this Sunday, and life is good. I've now written two college rough drafts, and life is good. I thank God that life is good, and that kokosmasher finally figured out how to join the blog (not that I was much help to him.)

Speaking of kokosmasher, man. (This part is written TO kokosmasher.) It's awesome that you've joined the saga. In response to your last post, that was an interesting comment about George Fox. You really think they'd brainwash? J/K, I know you don't. But they really are heavy on mentioning their Christ-centered education. Not a bad trait to be sure, but mentioning it in the first paragraph of every brochure is definitely unneccessary.

That's all for me, today!

3 comments:

L-Po said...

Glad to see you blogging at a godly (rather than ungodly) hour.

nana said...

thanks for these words, "neither meets the mark." It is both depressing and comforting to know that the goal of tolerance we set for ourselves is, as you say, probably a goal we will only achieve when we have reached heaven. But, as you so aptly quoted the great philospher, Charles Schulz, we still reach for the stars. Perhaps because we see the stars as a representation of heaven. Good job, Daniel. Good job on the bass. Nice smile.
nana

k-po said...

i am tolerant of intolerance, therefore....what was the question? oh yeah. i am intolerant of idiot behavior. just don't have time for it. to much to do in life. does this make me a bad person? at least your mom gets me.