Happiness

Brothers, I have a confession: I'd like to be happy. My wish is, obviously, built on a couple of presuppositions: 1) I don't think myself currently marked by steady happiness, 2) I think I should be happy, 3) I think happiness is attainable. (Others are contained, but I'll leave off there.) This post isn't a defense of already-reached conclusions. I picture myself like a muddy, half-naked, rain-soaked street urchin with my hand clenched and raised to knock at the door of a great stone castle; through the side-panes of the door I can see a roomful of glad-hearted noblemen feasting at a table laden with delicacies, dressed warmly in rich furs and seated by a blazing fire. Not sure why, but that's the image that came to mind. So, I'm going to draw a rough sketch of what I consider happiness to be and how I think we can go about having (or maybe 'catching' is a better word...) it.

First, I think that happiness is the necessary or inevitable end of a good expectation. By 'good' I mean 'ends which we deem profitable'--certainty doesn't always result in gladness of heart (Ex.: knowing that my sick relative will soon die would give me sadness). How we determine profitability is another discussion. By 'expectation' I mean 'hope'--the future realities of which we are by means of faith certain. So, as a hypothetical proof of my proposition, let's say I get word that someone who I love greatly is returning to me after a long absence; I cannot help but rejoice in that. As for Textual evidence the Apostle Peter immediately comes to mind: 'having not seen [Jesus] you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith: the salvation of your souls'. The believer's certainty about Christ--and particularly the progressive consummation of their belief--must end in joy.

Second, the measure of our happiness is directly proportional to the perceived value of the thing for which we hope. If you say, 'I'll give you a candy bar tomorrow,' I'll be excited, to be sure. Not nearly so much, however, as if you promised me an all-expense-paid trip to North Africa.

Finally, and arguing in reverse fashion, if we would have happiness we should aim at faith. Lewis said (thanks for sending this to me, David): 'Aim at this world and you'll miss it. Aim at the next and you'll get it and this world thrown in.' This is true of happiness as well. If we make temporal gladness our ambition, we'll likely miss it and damn our souls in the process.


Ten thousand little trails run off each propositional highway. These three are kind of a condensation of my explorations though. Run with me down a few of the paths, if you'd like...

Politics

We never talk about politics. My discussions with my parents have gotten increasingly political over the past 2 years, but it mostly stays in-house. Strange... we're in a comparatively highly-educated group, yet we don't talk about politics.
It's true that until recently I've had a quazi-Amish attitude toward politics: do what you want; just don't bother me. Coming to appreciate the "two-cities" analogy for Christian citizenship (cf. Chaucer's London and Canterbury) has convinced me the Amish way is out. No hats, barns, or laissez-faire political attitude; we have responsibilities here because we are really citizens.

So in the spirit of good citizenship let me tee up some free speech and see if anyone wants to free speech back.

After watching CNN's "God's Warriors" tonight I am convinced that democracy must die. Democracy is a provisional cure for disagreement. Ultimately we cannot and will not reconcile fundamental differences through discussion, as if our difference of opinion lies in one of us not having quite all the information. That's all discussion can bring: further information (in any form - relationship, scientific data, personal data, clarification of logic, etc.). Continuing democracy indefinitely is an admission of stifled progress. Democracy is a set of rules whereby we can live with people with whom we disagree. It is a proviso for a schoolyard sounded by conflicting reports about which game will be played b all. The sound reaches such a pitch that a compromised is agreed upon, not to determine the game, but to prevent violence. Areas are set up for groups to play this game or that, but the games all interfere and it would certainly be better if we all played at the same game? This is not the ideal is it? And what will finally remedy? Progress demands democracy die. If we all agree, then democracy dies from lack of need. If we all don't agree, progress demands the death of democracy. Will we go on like this forever?

... and from Eric Lehner

Hey guys, here's an article from Prof. Lehner on paper writing. I asked him the same questions I asked Nate plus a few more. Sorry for the formatting... blogger doesn't have the best editor.

How to Pick Your Topic:

1. Pick a topic of personal interest; if you don’t you will bore yourself with the project and find yourself unmotivated.
2. Pick a topic approved by professor; if you don’t you might be taking on a topic beyond the scope of what is deemed appropriate for the class.
3. Pick a topic of considerable difficulty; if you don’t, you will learn little and earn a grade that reflects it.
4. Pick a topic involving a level of controversy or tension; if you don’t, you will have little at your disposal to energize composition at the analytical level. It is critical that a graduate level paper move beyond reporting information to the level of analysis.
5. Pick a topic in which there is at least a some degree of existing knowledge; if you tackle a topic about which you have no knowledge whatsoever, you might be biting off more than you can chew.
6. Pick a topic for which there is sufficient available resources; if you don’t, then you might be forced to abandon your topic later in the semester and start again.
7. Pick a topic which is or can be sufficiently narrowed
8. Pick a topic as early as possible
   

Where to Start Your Research:

1. The first step is to build a select bibliography. These should be (1) sources of the highest caliber and (2) sources you intend to consult. Do not build a bibliography of the first sources you can lay your hands on. Instead, identify the most significant scholars in the field most relevant to your topic. The course bibliography should be of some help; if not, ask your professor. Once you are able to identify the key scholars and their sources, take note the sources that they consider to be the most valuable, and integrate them into your bibliography. As you build your bibliography, take into account the following:
   
   - Organization of sources: Use a organization system such as notecards, or a bibiliographic software package such as Citation or Endnote.
   
   - Credibility of sources: Choose sources of academic credibility; if in doubt, consult your prof.; pay particular attention to the author rather than the title.
   
   - Usability of sources: Make sure they have an index or a very detailed table of contents.
   
   - Variety of source types: Don’t consult only books; periodicals and reference works should also be consulted as they often provide valuable specialized treatments.
   
   - Date of sources: The date of your material says whether or not you are interacting with current thought on the subject.
   
   - Number of sources: 1 to 1.5 per page of text
   
   - Sources to include in bibliography: Do not “pad” the bibliography; include sources that you consulted and which contributed to your understanding of the subject.
   
   - Utilization of sources: Do not expect all the sources to be equally beneficial; 1/4 to 1/3 of your sources will probably function as your main sources, the rest will be minor. Do not build the bulk of the paper on only one or two sources.
   
   - Perspective of sources: The bibliography should reflect a variety of perspectives.
   
   
2. The second step is strategic reading.
   
   - Create a list of the top five terms (names of important people, concepts, events) associated with your topic. This is just a starting point; as your understanding of the topic develops, you will not need to follow this procedure rigidly.
   
   - Prioritize the order in which you will work through the sources you have selected. A suggested approach would be
   
   ~ Begin with the basic sources first: survey your sources and divide them; divide the general from the specific, the surveys from the technical, the easy reads from the difficult. Read the general, survey, and otherwise easy materials first in order to firm up a foundational understanding of the subject.
   
   ~ Second, consult the most significant authors in the field.
   
   ~ Third, consult the remaining sources
   
   - Consult the index of each of books for the appearance of the key terms in the book. For electronic documents, conduct searches of the occurrence of the terms. For works without an index, you will need to skim read.
   
   
3. The third step is to begin a master outline. This will reflect all of your thoughts on the subject: every thought that you wish to explore, as well as every thought that you have found in your research. It should be updated on a daily basis, from the day you pick your topic until the day you turn the paper in. This outline is the ‘garden’ of your paper: it is here that you will ‘grow’ the argument of your paper and the organization of it. As the analogy suggests, the more you feed and water it, the more fruit you’ll pick from it.
   

How to take notes while reading:

1. Take useful notes: this means you need to be purposeful in the kinds of notes you take. If you don’t, the note will not be useful later on. Good notes will:
   
   - Recognize excellent forms of argumentation on the part of an author. Be particularly attentive to lines of evidence in support of or against a particular position, and assess them for their soundness. Spend the majority of your efforts in this kind of analytical reading, and as little as possible in the attending ‘factoids’ of the subject. When you must discuss these, make sure they are necessary to the development of your subject.
   
   - Summarize the key thoughts of another author in your own words. You should be able to summarize this in your own words, without plagiarizing. If you are not sure whether or not you are plagiarizing, or you do not know how to rephrase and summarize the thought of another author, consult one of the sources listed in the ‘additional reading’ section.
   
   - Remember that you can take different kinds of notes for different purposes:
   
   ~ location notes: tells the writer where to go to revisit a significant paragraph
   
   ~ quotation notes: the actual verbatim representation of another author (be careful to keep in context)
   
   ~ restatement notes: representation of an author’s idea with the writer’s wording and sentence structure
   
   ~ original notes: the student’s record of his own observation(s)
   
   - Links your notes to their sources: nothing is as perplexing as having a great note and forgetting where you got it from!
   

What is the best order to follow in the paper writing process?

1. The order of writing should always be determined by whether or not you have something in mind worth remembering. If you have something worthwhile in mind, write it down. If not, read until you do; then write more. At the end of your day, update your master outline.
   
   
2. 2 things to avoid as you write:
   
   - Don’t be a slave to your outline; if your research takes you in a direction not anticipated, then adjust your outline. Remember, the outline is simply a reflection of your idea of what the paper will look like. The more you learn, the more your picture of the paper will change. That means that the outline will constantly be changing, especially in the early stages. The research is the master, and the outline is the servant, not the other way around.
   
   - Don’t do all your reading, then all your writing. The reason why note taking is so critical along the way is that most students don’t have photographic memories, and thus they forget some of the best thoughts that they have had.
   

On Writing a Paper Against the Position of a Professor

1. It is generally not advisable to write a paper against the position of a professor without communicating your intent to do so beforehand. Beyond that, it is generally considered courteous to secure the permission — and advice — of the professor before doing so.
   
   
2. A paper that is critical of a professor’s position will normally be scrutinized more closely, and graded more critically, than other papers. For that reason, it is critical that such a paper
   
   - Accurately represent your professor’s position; failure in this area will make the paper guilty of creating a straw man of your prof’s position. An error of this kind will be very costly.
   
   - Accurately represent and interact with your professor’s line of argumentation; failure in this area will make your line of argumentation irrelevant.
   
   
3. Interact with what your professor considers to be the key sources on the issue; failure in this area will also render your line of argumentation irrelevant.
   
   
4. Subject your conclusion to the scrutiny of a third party who is sympathetic to the position of the professor. This may give you an unexpected glimpse of how your professor might respond.
   
   
5. Compare your arguments with a guide to logical fallacies as an extra measure to ensure that they are clear of faulty argumentation.
   

A Couple of Thoughts for Reducing Stress and Improving Results:

1. By far, the most helpful thing that a writer can do is to start early and visit the paper often throughout the course of the semester. If you want the paper to present a penetrating analysis, it will take time for your thoughts to mature; thus the paper should be viewed as a semester-long project, not a week-long or a weekend-long project. This will help create the extra time needed at the end of the project for putting the paper in proper form and for proofreading.
   
   
2. Make the most of automated computer functions, such as macros (helpful for creating special spacing and for switching from one language font to another rapidly), generating table of contents, generating bibliographies and footnotes, etc. These are huge time savers.
   

Additional Reading:

1. Tim Dowley and Beth Wright, eds. “A Short Guide to Writing Research Papers on the History of Christianity” in Introduction to the History of Christianity, CD-ROM (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006).
   
   
2. Henry A. Virkler, A Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993)
   
   
3. Gordon Fee, New Testament Exegesis, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox, 1993); see p. 57 for Fee’s advice on using quotations.
   
   
4. Turabian, Kate L. A Manual For Writers, 7th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2007). This edition of Turabian has for the first time, included as a part of the book, a complete 128 page guide to writing research papers, adapted from The Craft of Research, by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. This is perhaps the single most valuable summarization of paper writing strategy in print today.
   
   
5. “Academic Integrity” in Ph.D. in Theological Studies: Handbook for Participants (Deerfield, IL: Trinity International University, 2005), 22-25. This portion provides an excellent summary of what does and does not constitute plagiarism. It may be viewed in its entirety online at: http://www.tiu.edu/files/divinity/academics/phd-ths0506hdbk.pdf