1) that third way is EXACTLY what i'm going to be focusing on and arguing for in my thesis. and it's a pretty meaty subject. i think i can at least get 40 pages out of it. :)
2) character means lots of things. in this context, let's say it is the collection of habits (both in thinking and in action) that determine/limit your scope of possible actions(i realize i'm going to have to flesh this out for the paper). you CAN change it, but it is a gradual long-term kind of change rather than a conservative jew suddenly attending catholic mass or a pacifist suddenly deciding to assasinate the president.....well....maybe that one is believable....but i think you take my meaning. there are actions that we wouldn't take at a given time because A) they just wouldn't occur to us or B) they are so out of character for us as to be distasteful/unthinkable. tautology may be a risk here. i will have to be careful. but i feel my point is valid even if i need to discover a better way to get there.
3) i do not mean to say that rich people cannot see the image of God in others(although i may seem to). there are ALWAYS exceptions to generalizations like these...but i'm not sure you can write a proposal for a paper without generalizations. the thoughts are still unresearched and unfinished. Yes, God is what allows us to be so resiliant that we can overcome whatever our struggles in life are allotted to be, but what do you say to those who fail to overcome these things? i don't believe it is because all those people are lazy or callous. i see some people who actively work and still fail. do we say that God is not with them? that their suffering and blindness is His will? i think this is the point where we start talking about free will and hold it in tension with the things we don't know how to change about life; like death, and suffering, and our own inability to mold ourselves instantly in to the people we want to be.
i hope you will keep talking to me about this, it forces me to clarify my thoughts, and that has always been a weakness in my writing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-28 02:52 am (UTC)2) character means lots of things. in this context, let's say it is the collection of habits (both in thinking and in action) that determine/limit your scope of possible actions(i realize i'm going to have to flesh this out for the paper). you CAN change it, but it is a gradual long-term kind of change rather than a conservative jew suddenly attending catholic mass or a pacifist suddenly deciding to assasinate the president.....well....maybe that one is believable....but i think you take my meaning. there are actions that we wouldn't take at a given time because A) they just wouldn't occur to us or B) they are so out of character for us as to be distasteful/unthinkable.
tautology may be a risk here. i will have to be careful. but i feel my point is valid even if i need to discover a better way to get there.
3) i do not mean to say that rich people cannot see the image of God in others(although i may seem to). there are ALWAYS exceptions to generalizations like these...but i'm not sure you can write a proposal for a paper without generalizations. the thoughts are still unresearched and unfinished.
Yes, God is what allows us to be so resiliant that we can overcome whatever our struggles in life are allotted to be, but what do you say to those who fail to overcome these things? i don't believe it is because all those people are lazy or callous. i see some people who actively work and still fail. do we say that God is not with them? that their suffering and blindness is His will? i think this is the point where we start talking about free will and hold it in tension with the things we don't know how to change about life; like death, and suffering, and our own inability to mold ourselves instantly in to the people we want to be.
i hope you will keep talking to me about this, it forces me to clarify my thoughts, and that has always been a weakness in my writing.