This Post is Untitled

Currently reading: The Beauty Of The Infinite: The Aesthetics Of Christian Truth by David Bentley Hart

So, life has just gotten a lot less hectic. The semester is over (I should be getting grades back tomorrow - I'm still a trifle apprehensive about that), and I am done with Starbucks as of last week Tuesday. So now I have some time off to study effectively, and make up for the fact that I've been mostly a general studies philosopher until now. Of course, what happens is that on any given day, I'll have either discipline or concentration, but never both; I can either sit and stare at a text for hours on end and get through 30 pages, or goof off online most of the day and cram 30 pages into a well-oiled brain. Plus or minus 1/2-1 page of a Latin text with 16th century Italian shorthand as I start reading Henry of Ghent (it's still easier than reading Sanskrit). I'm frustrated by the fact that I seem to tire so easily; my mind has a set amount of energy at the beginning of the day, whatever I actually need to get done, and it never seems to be apportioned the way I need it.

In other news, I just came across the following website: http://www.meontology.net. I think it's a little too cluttered, though.

Potential Thesis Topics

One more day left of finals; I'm done studying for the night and waiting for the energy drink to wear off so that I can go to bed. As I'm up anyway, here's two potential thesis topics concerning Scotus that I've been batting around:

• Scotus' notion of contingency. Modern modal accounts make contingency out to be such that if x is contingent, then it is possible that x and it is possible that not-x. Contingency thus gets relegated to the realm of possibility; that is all there is to it. Thus, that which is contingent can be viewed as random or arbitrary, though not necessarily so. Scotus grounds contingency purely in the will, and predominantly in the divine will; all other contingency comes back to this. Thus, we explain possiblity in terms of volitional contingency, rather than contingency in terms of (logical or metaphysical) possibility; room is opened for that which is neither determined nor random.
• Eternal generation in the Trinity. This has been a big debate at Trinity; many have abandoned the view for a sparser Trinity, or merely kept the judgement behind eternal generation (that which is begotten is of the same nature as the begetter) while either rejecting or remaining silent on more than that. Aside from arguments that biblical exegesis really doesn't support the view after all (an argument outside my area of expertise), there are the philosophical arguments that EG results in ontological subordinationism. As one who has been on the side of EG (at least in maintaining its logical possibility, with further decision needing help from both systematic and biblical theologians), I would be interested in looking at a medieval view which I could take as an example which both puts for a rigorous account of EG while has the conceptual tools to defend itself against the contemporary philosophical arguments. I guess for this Scotus is as good as Aquinas or perhaps Anselm, but it provides a different explanation for those who have difficulties with Aquinas' theory of the divine persons as relations.

Reflections on Academics

Thinking through last semester as to why it was so stressful, I think one of the things is that I feel like I have to effectively study for three different reasons, each with a substantial amount of stuff to get through.

1. Short Term: I need to get through school and get my degree. Further, I need good grades to get into a good doctoral program. At the same time, classes seem to tie into the other two areas of study at a depressingly low rate; often, it feels like I simply need to get through a class in order to jump another hoop. Better classes provide atlases for the topic in case I want to return in my own time, but I still feel overwhelmed at the end of the class by the subject matter and not prepared to deal with it.
2. Long Term: The research which follows more-or-less stable interests and which gives me an area of specialization. I need something which I can write on, and afterwards feel like I actually knew about what I was writing. Also, I need an area of interest which reminds me why I am in philosophy and theology. Sometimes I can tie this into class papers, but when classes are all across the board or are intro classes (or both, like this semester), I'm not quite sure how to pull this off.
3. Edifying: I have specific questions at specfic times, and I want to be able to study more about them. These questions change around, so this isn't a long-term study project, but it is something which would help me immensely if I had time for it. Unfortunately, the other two areas are more practical and I feel more pressured into studying them so that I can eventually get a job.

The long and short of it is, I don't have time to do all three at any level of quality (especially when making time for my wife and working a draining job with unstable hours), but I need all three for one reason or another. Trying to do all three often leads to burnout, which leads to doing none of them. Further, I don't always know who to trust on given issues, especially when it comes to reading theology; there's always another argument, always another exegesis, and quite frankly, I am less than impressed by much evangelical writing (not that I'm typically any more impressed by liberal, or postmodern, or non-evangelical Reformed writing). So I don't feel like I can know anything about an issue without spending tons of time and energy which I don't have researching it. I am at the point where I am afraid to start researching more than a single topic at a time; given the real world, I feel pulled apart in all different directions, and in the end going in none (or in all, grisly results included).

Anyone have any tips for getting out of the mire?