The Christian Vanguard

There is this common saying that once you cease desiring a thing, you will then obtain it. A friend recently told me that I will finally have a girlfriend when I stop looking for one. This seems paradoxical. Take some other desire, like the well-being of your child. Then, some maniac who likes to see you suffer tortures your child because he will get the response desired from you. However, when he sees that once you become indifferent to your child's well-being, he stops torturing your child. So, what is the right thing here to do? In the same way, there is a sense in which pursuing marriage and pursuing a relationship is a good thing, like pursuing the well-being of your child is a good thing, and so the refusal to pursue that good is an immoral thing to do. One difference that can be appealed to here is that one has a duty to your child, but not a duty to pursuing a relationship, so the dilemma doesn't exist in not wanting to want to be in a relationship (whoa...meta). O...

There is a sense in which we wanted to share experiences with friends. It isn't so much that we want conformity, but unity. Conformity may be something like watching a TV show while you are at your house and he is at his, and then you text about it. You two are conforming to the same habits and same tasks. However, when there is unity, you are sharing a screen, you are sitting next to each other, and perhaps even sharing a meal. Unity is a perfected form of conformity. How strange would it be if I invited you over to watch a program and I told you to watch in the living room while I watched in my bedroom? You would think there was a serious disconnect there, and you would question why I invited you over in the first place.  So it is with friends in general. Friends do not desire just conformity, but unity. It makes me wonder about the quality of my friendships, or I guess the quality of friend that I am to them. While I do have this general desire to do things with friends, I ...

Today was my debate with Professor Garcia at LBCC. It went really well. I went in a bit worried, which is not normal for me when I do debates. Why was I worried? I was worried because Garcia had requested that I specifically do a medieval argument, and then he later requested I do only Aquinas. I've not defended Aquinas or scholastic metaphysics in any depth as I have done with arguments like the Kalam or Liebnizian Cosmological arguments, so, not only did I have to defend it, but I had to defend it from someone who has at least a Masters in Philosophy (I'm unsure if he has a PhD). It would be a challenge, but I suppose philosophy isn't worth doing if it's not challenging.  I had tried to email him so we could collaborate on some slides, but it just didn't happen for a number of reasons. There was some comfort that I took in thinking that I would be able to see his presentation so I could prepare some remarks, but that didn't happen and I had to think on my...