wandering

Joel and Travis finish Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in this episode. Why do smart people, like babies, stare at the finger rather than where it is pointing? And what does this have to do with talk of God and debating empirical data? Also, when should we be silent? All that is answered...sort of...in this podcast.

Joel and Travis discuss whether God is a toaster, the metaphysical value of pizza, and why it seems so hard to get anywhere in debates about opposing worldviews (like in apologetics). And all this with just some of Proposition 6 of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. This is the penultimate podcast in this series on the Tractatus.

Joel and Travis discuss propositions 5 and some of 6 from Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a book perhaps most famous for no one in their right mind (outside of professional philosophy) reading it. Nevertheless, it has had tremendous, if confused, influence on philosophy and may be the most important book written last century.

Joel and Travis talk Wittgenstein's Tractatus, propositions 3 and 4. Joel says stuff about what can be said and what can only be shown, how this relates to not saying what cannot be said, and says showing a sad shed should sell said shed's shady sheerness . Well, he doesn't talk about that last bit, but he does try to explain Wittgenstein's thoughts on stuff like the say-show distinction, and related matters, which is almost as interesting as silly tongue twisters.

Joel and Travis talk Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a book that, if you were to read it, would add the "cus" to your "philosophi". But you need not worry, Joel and Travis have your back. They start digging into the book in this episode, working through some of the difficult stuff, while helping you keep an eye on what Wittgenstein is aiming toward--something brilliant, rich, and important.

Wandering Toward Wisdom is back and beginning a series on Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, led by Joel, though Travis will ask some questions and make silly comments throughout. We have all been waiting breathlessly for someone to talk about a book that is drier than its pretentious name, but Joel promises that it has a really good and important point. That is, if he can ever really say what it is. In this episode, Joel starts by telling us about Wittgenstein's interesting and strange life, and how he became perhaps the most important philosopher of the 20th century.

In this final episode, Travis tries to offer some thoughts on how Christians should respond to Nietzsche. He's kind of mean to everyone--the Church, Nietzsche, contemporary culture, and maybe even to you. He focuses primarily on how we deal with our desires, the nature of power, and questions of identity, trying to cram about 5 hours worth of summary material into around 40 minutes. So, good luck.

Joel and Travis talk a bit of an overview of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality, with a little bit of Joel hinting that Travis doesn't care about people, and Travis hinting that we are perhaps all sociopaths. At least if the materialist evolutionists are right about us, and Nietzsche is right about materialistic evolution. That's a lot of "ifs", but you can't spell Friedrich Nietzsche without "ifs".

Joel and Travis discuss the third and final essay of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality. What does it mean that we would rather will nothing than not will at all and that wisdom loves tough guys? How does a degenerating life protect itself from death, and what does this all have to do with morality? Well, listen and find out. You might also hear some stuff that sounds eerily familiar. Part of the Tactical Faith Podcast Network

Joel and Travis talk the second essay of Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morality." What does Nietzsche think guilt/bad conscience is? What about punishment, justice, and mercy? You might not be surprised that Nietzsche does not think our most prized moral affections are particularly...well, moral. Maybe they are just the ways the weak attempt to exert power, in that same love of power that they complain about in others? And maybe Christianity is particularly adept at wielding these elements of weakness? Sound terrible? Perhaps, but come listen and see if Nietzsche might have a point...at least a point about you.

There's good and bad and then there's good and evil--or so Nietzsche says. One is strong, the other weak; one is active, the other passive; one is noble, and the other slavish; one is of Rome, and the other conquered and destroyed Rome. What in the world is Nietzsche talking about? Where does Christianity fit in here? Are good and evil bad? Or good and bad evil? Travis gives a summary of the first essay of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality, and then Joel and Travis discuss it.

Joel and Travis are back! Whether this is good news or bad, they nevertheless have begun a series on Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality--a troubling and fascinating work. In this episode, Travis gives an overview of the Preface of the book, which explains what Nietzsche is doing in the book and why. Joel then tosses Travis some questions about Nietzsche and the Preface. Was Nietzsche simply a hater of ethics? Wasn't he a Nazi? Did he have any friends? Was he a misogynist? These questions are answered at least partly, as they begin the journey into a strong critique of Christian morality, and attempt to show what even Christians can learn from this fascinating philosopher.

Joel and Travis discuss the miracle of the Second Person of the Trinity become flesh. Everything from whether the Incarnation was only necessary because of sin to the nobility given humans to why it is that children are probably better at Christmas than we are. Hope you all have (had) a Merry Christmas!

Joel and Travis continue talking about Advent—specifically how the 2nd Advent (the return of Jesus and the revelation of him as Lord) affects our understanding of ourselves in history. If history is moving toward an end, and we are in that history, what is our place and purpose? Is it to get souls saved for heaven? Is it to establish political or social justice? Or is it that this dichotomy between the physical world of history and the spiritual world of heaven is itself conquered by Jesus, who is Lord of all?

What do N.T. Wright, Kierkegaard, Advent, and Natural Theology have in common? Well, Joel and Travis talk about them in this podcast. Whether there's a real, meaningful connection between these various topics may take a few weeks to be decided. But in this podcast, Joel and Travis reflect on an important problem and fascinating uniqueness with Christianity: At the center of the faith is the belief that historical events matter to the faith—God become flesh, Christ's life, death, and resurrection, as well as his return and the time we are living in now. What does this all mean? It'll take a few weeks to flesh it out, but maybe they'll get there. For N.T. Wright's talk discussed in the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=749CTPZkV-8

Joel and Travis talk everything from David Foster Wallace to Plato to the claim of 1 Timothy 6 that the love of money is the root of all evil in this last installment reflecting on Christian Miller's book "The Character Gap." How do Joel and Travis, both of which have notable gaps in their own character, think you should develop a virtuous character? Do they agree with Miller or do they think we have some better ideas? And could Travis use the word "more" a bit less, please?

Joel and Travis continue discussing elements related to Christian Miller's book "The Character Gap." They consider questions about the nature of desire, desire fulfillment, and whether these have anything to do with flourishing. There are two central issues that arise that make so that having our desires fulfilled cannot be related to real virtue. But perhaps we need to re-think what it is that we really want.

Joel and Travis talk Christian B. Miller's book "The Character Gap." We start off in this podcast asking what Dr. Miller asks in his book: Why would anyone want to develop a good character? And from that we move to questions about whether flourishing has anything to do with our desires being fulfilled, why we might want to change our desires, and what it is that we actually desire.

Matt (of Tactical Faith Radio fame) and Travis do a TF Radio and W_ndering Toward Wisdom joint interview with Christian B. Miller about his book "The Character Gap: How Good Are We?" Miller references numbers of empirical psychological studies that suggest that we are not as good as we think we are--nor are people as bad as we think they are. Rather, most of us lack both virtuous and vicious character. He also offers suggestions on how to develop truly virtuous character. Hint: Cinnamon rolls are not the answer (unfortunately). This podcast is also available on TF radio: https://www.tacticalfaith.com/how-important-is-character-dr-christian-miller/ Check out Christian Miller's site: https://www.christianbmiller.com/ And look for his book: https://www.amazon.com/Character-Gap-Good-Philosophy-Action/dp/0190264225/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Joel, Travis, and outrage hang out for a half hour or so. They talk about the election, why the people on the other side of the political aisle are reprehensible and moronic....and if you're getting excited reading this, you (just like Joel and Travis) have a problem. They talk about how outrage is addictive, whether it is ever appropriate, and related issues that are sure to make you angry...or hopeful.

In this episode, Joel and Travis continue to talk about politics, specifically about rights. What are rights? What kinds of things constitute rights? Does every right have a correlative duty? How do rights relate to law? To morality more generally? And is health care a (human) right--if it is, what would it mean to be such? In the process, they discuss Nicholas Wolterstorff, Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), but fail to talk about any political figure or party. Go figure.

Joel and Travis talk rights - human, moral, legal, what have you. What is the source of rights? Why do we have rights? Is there a correlation between rights and duties? What do we get wrong about rights when we look at them through the lens of an agonistic society? (And what in the world is an agonistic society?!) Get mad that Joel doesn't support your side in the political war in today's podcast!

Joel and Travis discuss Tim Keller's article "A Biblical Critique of Secular Justice and Critical Theory". Keller details various approaches to justice and where biblical justice is similar and different from each. And Joel takes it one step further, discussing how Keller may in fact share in a fundamental error about justice that is present in each account. (Don't blame Travis! He likes Keller!) For Keller's article: https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/a-biblical-critique-of-secular-justice-and-critical-theory/ For the pdf of "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas": https://sites.asiasociety.org/asia21summit/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/3.-Le-Guin-Ursula-The-Ones-Who-Walk-Away-From-Omelas.pdf

So, have you had enough of people telling you that your political view is wrong? Well, Joel and Travis are here to tell you that you're wrong: You haven't had enough of people telling you that your political view is wrong. They'll do it again, but perhaps in a different way than you're used to. What really is politics? Is government the central part of politics, or does the heart of politics lie elsewhere? And someone fix Joel's road, for crying out loud!

Joel and Travis discuss virtue in Plato's Republic--what is it like, why would it be hard to teach, and how it might relate to politics. Virtue is not a mere obedience to rules, nor is it some ordering of the soul where reason uses shame to control the appetites. It is rather a ordering of the soul by love of the Good/Beautiful. How does this relate to biblical virtue? How can we grow in it? Teach it? And who should you vote for in November? Some of these questions are almost answered in this episode.

Joel and Travis talk about teaching virtue--particularly how teaching virtue is really a training of the desires, or an opening of one's eyes to the goodness and beauty that we are so often blind to. What blinds us, so that our desires are badly directed and confused? Is there a way to fix this? What do we learn from Jesus, Socrates, and others (like Dallas Willard) about learning to love what is truly good?

Joel and Travis discuss the strange (and annoying to some) method of teaching virtue that both Jesus and Socrates seem to use. The goal? To discover their methods for teaching virtue, and specifically to see how these methods are not as direct as we would like virtue-teaching to be. Rather than starting by telling people they are terrible and need to be better, both often seem to use methods that make their interlocutors show themselves to have failed morally and epistemologically. Do we need to adapt how we teach today, particularly in the Church? Are we teaching like sophists, or like Jesus?

Joel and Travis discuss how Jesus and Socrates—perhaps the two greatest teachers of virtue in history—received some negative reviews on their teaching styles, but also transformed history. What specifically about their teaching both fostered virtue and aggravated so many people? Strangely, it was likely the same element of their teaching that makes them more difficult to understand than what they seem and to many, really annoying. And better at teaching virtue than any of us. Why is teaching virtue so difficult, annoying, and inspiring? How is it different than normal teaching? We explore that topic here.

Joel and Travis ask the same question that Meno asked Socrates: Can virtue be taught? And they ask a lot of the same questions that followed: What is virtue? Are there people that have taught it? What did their teaching look like? And so on. Over this and the next couple of episodes, they try to answer how to teach virtue...in the hopes that maybe they can start!

Joel and Travis give an account of the Christian story that is non-sophistic. Or, put another way, an account of the Christian story seen through a Jesus-centered lens. This provides a solution to the view of the divine that led to the Euthyphro Dilemma, as well as to a recognition that most critiques of the biblical God arise from a sophistic interpretive framework. We are all "natural" sophists, so this episode paints a picture of how it is to look at Christianity that is no longer corrupted by our tendency to sophistry.

What would the story of Christianity--from creation to redemption to the eschaton--look like if it were told through a sophistic lens? Well, it looks familiar, but more like a terrifying caricature. These little distortions, though they contain what seem to be the central propositions about Christianity, make God into a monster and redemption more like an abusive relationship. But arguably our default way of perceiving is sophist, so that often this is the Christianity we have learned. So, Joel and Travis try to show how ugly the beauty of Christianity becomes within a sophistic metaphysics, with the intention (in the next podcast) to show how seeing Christianity within what is in fact a Christian metaphysical framework.

Joel and Travis start describing what the nature of God would need to be like in order to avoid the Euthyphro Dilemma. Along the way, they suggest that perhaps clear, systematic descriptions of God are part of the problem, offer a few attempts to describe what "the Good" is supposed to be, and suggest that perhaps God's nature must be propositionally unclear in order for God to be essentially good. This all serves as a preface to prepare for the following two podcasts, which will offer a comparison of sophistic view of Christianity and a...uh...Christian view of Christianity.

Joel and Travis talk about how Euthyphro's sophistic view of the gods leads directly to the Euthyphro Dilemma, why the two horns of the Dilemma are a problem, and suggest that you probably have a sophistic view of God. And you should be ashamed of yourself for this, particularly if you're a Christian. We also hint toward what it might look like to view God in a non-sophistic way—if that is even possible for us silly humans.

Joel and Travis suggest that maybe what we think of when we think of God's power is sophistic and therefore flawed. In this podcast, they mostly discuss biblical evidence that the power that God wields is not like the power that we usually wield (or seek to wield)- and how this confusion about power corrupts talk about God, and ultimately leads to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Find Plato's Euthyphro here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Joel and Travis discuss Euthyphro's sophistic view of the gods, and the problems to which such a view leads. Specifically, they set up how Euthyphro's view leads directly to the (in)famous Euthyphro Dilemma. More annoyingly, they suggest that perhaps we Christians, like Euthyphro, have more of a sophistic view than a truly Christian one. The discussion leads to the more-complicated-than-it-sounds issue of the relationship between power, goodness, and God's nature.

Joel and Travis discuss Plato's enemy, the sophists, specifically through the creation story told by Protagoras in the dialogue named after him. How is the sophist's view of human nature echoed in contemporary views of humanity? How does the Christian view compare to Plato's and the sophist's view? Are even Christians these days incognito sophists? Find the Protagoras here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/protagoras.html

Joel and Travis continue talking about how learning how to read Plato correctly might help us read the Bible better. After all, as Plato wrote a few thousand years ago, writing is a dangerous thing, which has the tendency to make us arrogant and ignorant, and thus failing to change us in a meaningful way. But some writings, like Plato and the Bible, have a different approach. What is different about these? And how should we read them differently? For the text of Plato's Phaedrus, go here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html

Joel and Travis complain a lot about how much Christians make the Bible boring and/or irrelevant. They then suggest that learning how to read Plato correctly (that is, the somewhat unusual way that Travis reads him) could help us read the Bible better. What exactly is wrong with how we read the Bible? How could reading a philosopher who wrote hundreds of years before Christ possibly help us read the Bible? Is this such a stretch that Joel and Travis would make Mister Fantastic jealous? Come find out.

Joel and I (Travis) talk briefly about what we've been talking about. We also say a bit about how we are far less rational than we think, toss in a bit of Pascal, and make some general suggestions about apologetics, or really the way to navigate any disagreement. Also, this will be the last podcast until July 1. Have suggestions for topics? Email us at w_ndering@tacticalfaith.com. Do it, or we'll talk about Iris Murdoch novels for the next 6 months!

Joel and Travis talk the Republic to show how Plato supports the idea of evaluative outlooks giving form to our perceptions, so that even our perception of justice can be twisted and deformed by our perceiving of justice through the value of what might be its opposite (pleonexia). In fact, recognizing what Plato is saying about evaluative outlooks might be the key to reading him well. Along the way, we talk a ring of invisibility, the problem of the tedium of immortality, whether might makes right, and why most of us really don't care about justice, righteousness, or perhaps even God at all. We just want the things that these get us. And, of course, how changing the values that form our perceptions might very well fix this.

Joel and Travis take the idea of evaluative outlooks and show how it relates to issues of unity in the Church, as well as the importance and role of (the central) doctrines, particularly those in the Nicene Creed. Is unity to be formed around the idea of disagreement with "respect," or is there some deeper unity that should drive us--not merely unity based on sharing a good number of beliefs, but rather one founded on perception formed by the evaluative outlook of love? That is, where is the unity of the Church found? And if you said, "Jesus," so did we. But we try to explain this in a way that gets us beyond Sunday School platitudes.

Joel and Travis finish up the series on evaluative outlooks and apologetics by drawing a contrast between that value that gives rise to scientific perception and that value at the heart of Christianity. What are these two values? What do they cause us to see? Are they at odds with one another? And how might apologetics be influenced by a clear recognition of the role of evaluative outlooks? I'm not sure they answer all these questions, but these are good questions nonetheless!

Joel and Travis get into how love affects one's perception of the world, and show, in outline, how embracing love as a fundamental value results in a rather radical metaphysical claim. They review some of the description of love (and of the bad view of love most of us hold), and then apply this to how we think of ourselves and our origin.

Joel and Travis talk about what love is, how it affects how we perceive, and how our values affect how we perceive love. Can you love someone to death? What is the relationship between our "whatness" and our "whoness," and why in the world would someone use such atrocious locutions? We mention a bit about the danger of Gnosticism, and begin to show how values can form our way of looking at evidence. Travis also keeps calling the audience "baby" for some reason.

Ever wonder why different people look at the same bit of evidence, and one sees it as compelling, while the other sees it as essentially nothing? Joel and Travis discuss evaluative outlooks: What are they? How do they affect the way we see evidence? How do we derive evidence from them? And how might apologetic method, and our view of Christian doctrine, shift when we recognize the values that lie beneath them?

Joel and Travis continue to use the deconstruction stories of Rhett and Link to push into how we do apologetics--specifically, how evidence seems to impact our view of a relationship, but our relationship does not seem to impact how we perceive evidence. Should one's relationship with Jesus translate into a different perception of what constitutes evidence? Does one's relationship with a friend do so? Is this just sloppy thinking? And how might all this impact how we view the place and nature of apologetics?

Joel and Travis begin to respond to the deconstruction stories of Rhett and Link, but not in the usual apologetic manner. Instead, they begin to look at how evaluative outlooks play into how we weigh evidence--from issues of benefit of the doubt/burden of proof to our understanding of the nature of truth and an obsession with certainty. Perhaps we've all been doing our "defense of the faith" in a truncated manner that in fact discourages faith?

Rhett and Link (of "Good Mythical Morning" and "Ear Biscuits") recently described the deconstruction of their faith. We start by talking about some of what we think they got right. We talk about the danger of holding rigidly to non-essential beliefs (and how they get confused with essential beliefs), the ways in which we say "love" but are actually teaching the opposite, and so on. One of us even goes on a strange tirade about denominations and division in the Church. The goal of this series is to evaluate our approach to faith and apologetics, and to see if there is a better way to talk about both.

Recently, Rhett and Link (of "Good Mythical Morning" and "Ear Biscuits") shared their stories of how they left the faith. Many have responded in various ways. Joel and Travis start a series that will ultimately dig into the heart of apologetics itself--how the method of apologetics may be faulty, and how it supports a view of Christianity that may have the right information, but not the right perception of that information. This episode introduces some of the themes and ideas that will come out in this series.

Joel and Travis talk about the last of the Seven Deadly Sins: Lust. What counts as lust versus just appreciating beauty? Is sexual pleasure bad? What is the purpose of sex? Has Christian tradition ranked lust as one of the worst or least bad sins? How have we created strategies for dealing with lust that might really be exacerbating the problem? And what are some good responses to lust? Answers to these questions, along with perhaps a bit of TMI, in this podcast.

Joel and Travis talk about avarice (greed). How is it different from envy? What does Aquinas think about your shoe collection? Where should you send your money so that you can stop being avaricious? What in the world is pleonexia? Answers to all these questions and more can be found here, as we w_nder through another of the Seven Deadly Sins.