Personally, I've never seen the reason for the dichotomy between the two. I have never truly been able to put my thoughts into words, and due to that, have been unable to justify my vague opinions. Boethius, centuries ago, already put it into words, as his Lady Philosophy so eloquently states, "Just as foreknowledge of present things brings no necessity to bear upon them as they come to pass, so also foreknowledge of future things brings no necessity to bear upon things which are to come."
Basically, this post is not one of a ridiculously complicated nature. The main point I would like to make is that sometimes, we as post-moderns and millennial, try to create something new, to spend on our minds and opinions to come up with the next world-shaking discovery. We think we have so much figured out, and we think we are the first ones to do so, yet we neglect millennia of knowledge that is right there for the taking. My advice--let us take and eat of this feast of wisdom, laid out for us by the authors and orators of the past.
P.S. I commented on Wendy and Sierra's posts.
Don't know if i would classify us as all post modernists, considering what that truly means to be a post modernist. I do agree that sometimes we can romanticize things and attempt to always change things or "improve them". Always a part of our pride we must check. Let us feast indeed.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, just to clarify-- post-modern time period as opposed to philosophy. Two very different ideas.
DeleteI agree. The debate of true free will has yet to cease, because in all honesty whatever you believe goes back to faith. I know that God has foreknowledge, but whether it determines our choices is all up to ones own personal belief, and I do not believe that one answer will be satisfactory to all.
ReplyDelete