Comedy Central Roast of Bob Saget (Tenth Planet Productions: August 17, 2008).
Go
The Comedy Central Roast of Bob Saget represents the apotheosis of a certain brand of comedy, that brand sold on the idea that it is outrageously funny to say whatever is most scandalous to public modesty and morality. One might have expected that the proceedings were intended to honor Saget in some way, with some good natured ribbing of course. No such luck. In the course of this roast, Saget is insinuated for raping and killing a stranger, of voracious homosexuality, and of bedding high schoolers and of intercourse and fellatio with his very underaged costars, the Olsen twins. His and Cloris Leachman's genitalia are as often as not the punchline. Saget's rap for being notoriously unfunny on Full House and America's Funniest Home Videos is also well lambasted, most cleverly by Norm MacDonald whose set is a dreadful series of jokes of the sort that were Saget's bread and butter. "Old", "fat" and "ugly" jokes round out the material. Saget's roasters, the insult comics, receive as well as they give, each of them the recipient of similar barbs. Saget is renowned for being the antithesis of his television persona, of being exceedingly raunchy himself, so the nature of this roast was to be expected. But apart from the harping on his years of delivering bad jokes — "You are a vortex of artistic compromise." — the roast doesn't evince even a clue about the man Bob Saget. The insults are almost entirely generic. Virtually anyone could have been the butt of the jokes on offer. The roasters, including John Stamos, are presented as Saget's longtime colleagues and friends, but it would seem he is as much of a cardboard cutout to them as he was to his television audience. Each roaster's set concludes with a "sincere moment", but the most we get from these moments are platitudes and a hug. It goes without saying that Bob Saget's Roast would suffice as Exhibit A in any lament at the coarsening of society. That, however, is not my interest here. Rather, my question is, Does it Blend? That is to say, Is it funny? Or, more specifically, Why is this brand of offense and offensiveness funny? Be advised. What follows is clinical but uncensored.
Go"Prosblogion was established in June of 2004 following the
suggestion by Jeremy Pierce (Syracuse) that the blogoshpere needed a
group philosophy of religion blog. Our contributors range from
advanced graduate students to senior figures in the field of philosophy
of religion, and include theists, atheists, and agnostics. Because so
many of us work in places where we may be the only one in our field
interested in issues in philosophy of religion, Prosblogion
often serves as a platform for those hallway conversations one might
have if they had more likeminded colleagues. Much to the credit of
our contributors and readers, a number of those conversations have made
the journey from blog posts to published articles."
William E. May (Our Sunday Visitor: September 2003), 314 pages.
Go
An Introduction to Moral Theology, offers a clear, complete, and convincing examination and explanation of Catholic doctrine. Here — carefully documented, annotated, and indexed — is not only what the Church teaches but also why it is obligated to do so. And why its members are obligated to examine and to apply that teaching. This updated and expanded edition of a text long trusted and widely used in colleges, universities, and seminaries, as well as in high schools and parish religious education programs, offers the latest Catholic teaching on moral theology, including: Moral theology: its nature, purpose, and biblical foundation, Human dignity, free human action, virtue, and conscience, Natural law, moral absolutes, and sin, Christian faith and our moral life. Read why — and how — living what the Church teaches can transform hearts, minds, and souls. ~ Product Description
Ernest Sosa (Oxford University Press: February 2009), 240 pages.
Go
Reflective Knowledge argues for a reflective virtue epistemology based on a kind of virtuous circularity that may be found explicitly or just below the surface in the epistemological writings of Descartes, Moore, and now Davidson, who on Sosa's reading also relies crucially on an assumption of virtuous circularity. Along the way various lines of objection are explored. In Part One Sosa considers historical alternatives to the view developed in Part II. He begins with G.E. Moore's legendary proof, and the epistemology that lies behind it. That leads to classical foundationalism, a more general position encompassing the indirect realism advocated by Moore. Next he turns to the quietist naturalism found in David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and P.F. Strawson. After that comes Thomas Reid's commonsense alternative. A quite different option is the subtle and complex epistemology developed by Wilfrid Sellars over the course of a long career. Finally, Part I concludes with a study of Donald Davidson's distinctive form of epistemology naturalized (as Sosa argues). The second part of the book presents an alternative beyond the historical positions of Part I, one that defends a virtue epistemology combined with epistemic circularity. This alternative retains elements of the earlier approaches, while discarding what was found wanting in them.
Trenton Merricks (Oxford University Press: Dec 11, 2003), 216 pages.
Go
With ontology motivated largely by causal considerations, this lucid and provocative work focuses on the idea that physical objects are causally non-redundant. Merricks "eliminates" inanimate composite macrophysical objects on the grounds that they would — if they existed — be at best completely causally redundant. He defends human existence by arguing, from certain facts about mental causation, that we cause things that are not determined by our proper parts. He also provides insight into a variety of philosophical puzzles, while addressing many significant issues like free will, the "reduction" of a composite object to its parts, and the ways in which identity over time can "for practical purposes" be a matter of convention. Anyone working in metaphysics will enjoy this book immensely. ~ Book Description
The great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize that you are preaching Christianity soley and simply because you happen to think it true; they always suppose you are preaching it because you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort. Now a clearly maintained distinction between what the Faith actually says and what you would like it to have said or what you understand or what you personally find helpful or think probable, forces your audience to realize that you are tied to your data just as the scientist is tied by the results of the experiments; that you are not just saying what you like. This immediately helps them realize that what is being discussed is a question about objective fact — not gas about ideals and points of view.
Gary R. Habermas (College Press: June 1, 1996), 298 pages.
Go
In this very influential and widely respected volume, Habermas provides evidence that a man named Jesus really did live in Palestine in the first century, using the ordinary canons of historical research (artifactual evidence, inscriptional evidence, and literary evidence). Habermas shows the difference between honest literary/historical investigation & bias proclamations. He's not afraid to take on skeptics, meeting their hypotheses head-on. He not only details opposing viewpoints, but provides heavily footnoted sources to back up his argument that Jesus is not a myth "created" by man, but a real man whose "historical" life is "reported" with so much evidence that it's hard to ignore.
Go
Strobel, whose apologetics titles The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith have enjoyed strong popularity among evangelicals, approaches creation/evolution issues in the same simple and energetic style. The format will be familiar to readers of previous Case books: Strobel visits with scholars and researchers and works each interview into a topical outline. Although Strobel does not interview any "hostile" witnesses, he exposes readers to the work of some major origins researchers (including Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe) and theistic philosophers (including William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland). Strobel claims no expertise in science or metaphysics, but as an interviewer he makes this an asset, prodding his sources to translate jargon and provide illustrations for their arguments. ~ Publishers Weekly
Frank Burch Brown (Oxford University Press: Feb 20, 2003), 336 pages.
Go
Many Christians regard artistic taste as a matter of religious indifference, irrelevant to theological conviction. Brown insists otherwise, arguing that in responding to art, we may draw nearer to or pull away from God and other believers. But developing a well-grounded aesthetics requires serious reflection on conflicting traditions within Christendom: Brown does so by contrasting the views of Kierkegaard (who viewed art as a sensual distraction from the stern demands of discipleship) with those of Blake (who reveled in the artistic imagination as a conduit to heaven). As a composer and church musician, Brown naturally resists Kierkegaard's strictures, yet he concedes the risks of letting the artist into the sanctuary, especially at a time when a lax cultural relativism often paralyzes the critical faculties. Without dictating any narrow orthodoxy, Brown challenges Christian readers to cultivate an aesthetic discipline flexible enough to forge fresh ecumenical artistic styles but rigorous enough to ward off the cliches of kitsch, old and new. A provocative analysis, sure to open new lines of dialogue between artists and believers. ~ Bryce Christensen
Ethics without God, rev. ed. (Prometheus Books: 1990), 10-11.
Go
It is more reasonable to believe such elemental things [as wife-beating and child abuse] to be evil than to believe any skeptical theory that tells us we cannot know or reasonably believe any of these things to be evil... I firmly believe that this is bedrock and right and that anyone who does not believe it cannot have probed deeply enough into the grounds of his moral beliefs.