Writing with the Ear

A lot of English style guides encourage shortening your writing whenever possible. “Don’t use ten words to say something you could have said in four,” etc.

I think it’s true that we need to avoid being unnecessarily verbose. But at the same time, the meaning of what we say is not limited to the individual denotations of the words that we use. Meaning is also contained in the way that we communicate something. C.S. Lewis said, “Always write (and read) with the ear, not the eye. You should hear every sentence you write as if it was being read aloud or spoken. If it does not sound nice, try again.”

Sometimes you need to use more words in order to achieve a particular tenor or rhythm. So cutting out “unnecessary” words might achieve brevity, but then your writing won’t sound the same way, and that’s something you should also care about. By shortening, you might be sacrificing tone, personality, or passion, all of which contribute to the overall effect that your writing will have on readers. Which is another way of saying they contribute to the meaning of what you’re saying.

Book Brief: Pensees

Pascal's Pensées by Blaise Pascal
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Really good. I like the brief and scattered nature of the material. It’s a reminder that you can say a lot with a little. And not every thought has to be fully-baked in order for it to be useful. Pascal was abundantly insightful about so many things.


View all my reviews

Quotes

“People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.”

“All great amusements are dangerous to the Christian life; but among all those which the world has invented there is none more to be feared than the theatre.”

“The last thing one settles in writing a book is what one should put in first.”

“Those honour Nature well, who teach that she can speak on everything, even on theology.”

“For it is far better to know something about everything than to know all about one thing.”

“Do you wish people to believe good of you? Don’t speak.”

“When we read too fast or too slowly, we understand nothing.”

“I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this, he has no further need of God.”

“How comes it that a cripple does not offend us, but that a fool does? Because a cripple recognises that we walk straight, whereas a fool declares that it is we who are silly; if it were not so, we should feel pity and not anger. Epictetus asks still more strongly: ‘Why are we not angry if we are told that we have a headache, and why are we angry if we are told that we reason badly, or choose wrongly?’ The reason is that we are quite certain that we have not a headache, or are not lame, but we are not so sure that we make a true choice. So having assurance only because we see with our whole sight, it puts us into suspense and surprise when another with his whole sight sees the opposite, and still more so when a thousand others deride our choice. For we must prefer our own lights to those of so many others, and that is bold and difficult. There is never this contradiction in the feelings towards a cripple.”

“These two sources of truth, reason and the senses, besides being both wanting in sincerity, deceive each other in turn. The senses mislead the reason with false appearances, and receive from reason in their turn the same trickery which they apply to her; reason has her revenge. The passions of the soul trouble the senses, and make false impressions upon them. They rival each other in falsehood and deception.”

“When we see the same effect always recur, we infer a natural necessity in it, as that there will be a to-morrow, etc. But nature often deceives us, and does not subject herself to her own rules.”

“I set it down as a fact that if all men knew what each said of the other, there would not be four friends in the world.”

“How useless is painting, which attracts admiration by the resemblance of things, the originals of which we do not admire!”

“I have discovered that all the unhappiness of men arises from one single fact, that they cannot stay quietly in their own chamber.”

“He who does not see the vanity of the world is himself very vain.”

“We do not rest satisfied with the present. We anticipate the future as too slow in coming, as if in order to hasten its course; or we recall the past, to stop its too rapid flight. So imprudent are we that we wander in the times which are not ours, and do not think of the only one which belongs to us; and so idle are we that we dream of those times which are no more, and thoughtlessly overlook that which alone exists. For the present is generally painful to us. We conceal it from our sight, because it troubles us; and if it be delightful to us, we regret to see it pass away. We try to sustain it by the future, and think of arranging matters which are not in our power, for a time which we have no certainty of reaching. Let each one examine his thoughts, and he will find them all occupied with the past and the future. We scarcely ever think of the present; and if we think of it, it is only to take light from it to arrange the future. The present is never our end. The past and the present are our means; the future alone is our end. So we never live, but we hope to live; and, as we are always preparing to be happy, it is inevitable we should never be so.”

“There is no good in this life but in the hope of another.”

“The last proceeding of reason is to recognise that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it.”

“If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysterious and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.”

“M. de Roannez said: ‘Reasons come to me afterwards, but at first a thing pleases or shocks me without my knowing the reason, and yet it shocks me for that reason which I only discover afterwards.’ But I believe, not that it shocked him for the reasons which were found afterwards, but that these reasons were only found because it shocks him.”

“We can only think of Plato and Aristotle in grand academic robes. They were honest men, like others, laughing with their friends, and when they diverted themselves with writing their Laws and the Politics, they did it as an amusement. That part of their life was the least philosophic and the least serious; the most philosophic was to live simply and quietly.”

“The strength of a man’s virtue must not be measured by his efforts, but by his ordinary life.”

“Contradiction is a bad sign of truth; several things which are certain are contradicted; several things which are false pass without contradiction. Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the want of contradiction a sign of truth.”

“But what will you say is good? Chastity? I say no; for the world would come to an end. Marriage? No; continence is better. Not to kill? No; for lawlessness would be horrible, and the wicked would kill all the good. To kill? No; for that destroys nature. We possess truth and goodness only in part, and mingled with falsehood and evil.”

“During sleep we believe that we are awake as firmly as we do when we are awake.”

“Not only do we know God by Jesus Christ alone, but we know ourselves only by Jesus Christ.”

“It is not only impossible but useless to know God without Jesus Christ.”

“But we say that it must be believed for such and such a reason, which are feeble arguments, as reason may be bent to everything.”

“We understand nothing of the works of God, if we do not take as a principle that He has willed to blind some, and enlighten others.”

“I believe only the histories, whose witnesses got themselves killed.”

“To examine the prophecies, we must understand them. For if we believe they have only one meaning, it is certain that the Messiah has not come; but if they have two meanings, it is certain that He has come in Jesus Christ.”

“Two errors: 1. To take everything literally. 2. To take everything spiritually.”

“It is glorious to see with the eyes of faith the history of Herod and of Cæsar.”

“How fine it is to see, with the eyes of faith, Darius and Cyrus, Alexander, the Romans, Pompey and Herod working, without knowing it, for the glory of the Gospel!”

“Miracles prove the power which God has over hearts, by that which He exercises over bodies.”

“There is a pleasure in being in a ship beaten about by a storm, when we are sure that it will not founder. The persecutions which harass the Church are of this nature.”

Generic Pronouns

The use of feminine generic pronouns on the part of male authors is something I’ve lately been noticing more and more. There might be a more precise term for this, but I’m talking about when an author makes reference to some hypothetical individual whose gender is not specified, yet chooses to speak of this individual as she or her. For example, here’s the statement I came across that originally sparked my reflection on this:

“A maturing believer in Jesus can present herself as a model for others to imitate. In fact, if she is faithful to her identity in Christ, she must become a model.”

This generic “maturing believer” can be either male or female, so which gender pronouns are you going to use in reference to this person?

English speakers don’t have a gender-neutral way of referring to an individual. So we have to use some form of either he or she, as most style guides frown upon the use of the third-person plural they when speaking of a singular person. In the example above, the author decides to use feminine pronouns (herself, she, her). I, on the other hand, virtually always use masculine pronouns in these instances, mainly because an English professor in college taught us to simply defer to our own gender. That advice made sense to me, so I’ve always went with it.

I suppose that’s why it feels odd to me whenever I observe male authors using feminine generic pronouns. I once noticed it in a piece written by a professor of mine, and since I had a good relationship with this professor, I asked him about it one day. He told me that it was an intentional effort to be more gender-inclusive. He also, in jest, called me a he-man woman hater for making a big deal out of it. But I wasn’t making a big deal out of it. It just struck me as odd, that’s all: the practice itself, as well as the reasoning behind it.

But another thing to note is that there are certain scenarios which, by nature, seem to call for male pronouns:

“Suppose an intruder breaks into your house and demands that you give her all your money.”

Now that’s just weird. Sure, the generic intruder might be either male or female, but would I ever seriously suppose that the intruder would be a woman? Of course not. So it would be most natural, in this case, to use the masculine pronoun him.

This reminds me of a certain place in A Series of Unfortunate Events where a scenario is imagined in which a “masked woman” climbs through your window at night. I assume Daniel Handler (Lemony Snicket) intended that to be funny. In any case, it was hilarious to me. Why? Because intruders with concealed faces are always described as “masked men.” But hooray for gender-inclusivity.

The Universal Remote

I distinctly remember a thought experiment proposed by one of my professors in college. We were talking about free will vs. determinism, and the thought experiment went something like this.

First, imagine a decision of some sort. It doesn’t matter what it is. Let’s imagine that Frank gets really ticked off at Steve, and thus makes the decision to punch Steve in the face. Now imagine that you own a remote that controls the entire universe – a literally universal remote, as my professor quipped. And with this remote, you could rewind the universe itself back to any moment in the past. So imagine rewinding the universe back to the moment just before Frank made the decision to punch Steve.

It’s important to remember here that since you’re rewinding the entire universe, this means that everything is going to be exactly the way it was in that particular moment when Frank decided to punch Steve. So Frank’s physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual conditions will be exactly as they were before, as well as any and all factors external to Frank (his environment, etc). Everything will be exactly the same. And once you rewind the universe back to this particular moment in time, you press play and watch what transpires. What would you observe? Would Frank punch Steve again?

But imagine that you rewound the universe repeatedly – let’s say an infinite number of times. The question is, would you ever observe Frank making a different decision than the one he originally made? Would you ever observe Frank deciding to refrain from punching Steve?

Regardless of how you answer this question, there are difficulties that arise. If you contend that Frank would always punch Steve, every single time, then it makes the universe seem programmed, as if there really isn’t any such thing as free will at all. In that instance, it seems that Frank is just doing what he’s hard-wired to do.

But on the other hand, if you argue that sometimes Frank would make a different decision, then how would you explain the alternate decision? Remember, we’re rewinding the universe back to the exact state of affairs in which the original decision took place. So if the exact same Frank in the exact same circumstances can somehow produce alternating decisions, then those decisions don’t tell us anything about Frank. Where do those decisions come from? Do they even belong to Frank? In that instance, it would seem like Frank’s decisions are entirely random.

Granted, this thought experiment is hardly realistic, but it’s just an elaborate way of asking a question that’s actually quite simple: For any decision that you make, would you ever have done otherwise given the exact same circumstances? And either way you answer, you’ve got problems to deal with. So I think the notion of “free will,” even on a bare philosophical level, is difficult to pin down.

Nature, Being, and Essence

The doctrine of the Trinity says that God is one being who exists in three persons. In God’s essence, he is one. In God’s personhood, he is three.

Does the hypostatic union flip these categories around in a sense? The hypostatic union says that Jesus is one person with two natures. So in the Trinity, there is a singularity of essence, but a multiplicity of person. But in the hypostatic union, there is a singularity of person, but a multiplicity of essence.

Now I understand that the word nature is traditionally used in the context of Christology. Jesus is one person who has two natures. That’s the traditional language. But I’ve also heard it said that the word nature is basically equivalent to the words being or essence. So could we say that Jesus has two essences? Is Jesus two beings?

Perhaps that would cause confusion, but if nature is basically equivalent to being or essence, then would it be accurate?

Trump on Abortion

Note: I’m aware that Trump has since retracted his recent statement that women who have illegal abortions should be punished. Which just goes to show his own willingness to be a political chameleon at times. Is Trump genuinely pro-life? Beats me. I probably wouldn’t put very much money on it. But I would certainly rather vote for him over someone who was decidedly pro-choice. In any case, these are my thoughts on what he initially said.

If Trump’s initial comments about illegal abortions being punishable were somehow contrary to the pro-life position, then I’m not sure I understand the pro-life position.

Of course, I’ve never felt like Republicans were very strong on the issue of abortion anyway. Making exceptions in the cases of rape or incest doesn’t make even a little bit of sense. Republicans make those exceptions for political reasons. They don’t want to lose too much approval. And that’s shameful. Trump’s problem is that sometimes he’s willing to say something that traditional Republicans have always been too scared to say.

And of course, the anti-Trump crowd has come up with a way to spin this against him. “See, he doesn’t even understand the pro-life position!” When in all reality, it might be that he was simply willing (at least in that moment) to be more consistent than the people for whom “pro-life” was always just a political category.

I don’t think Trump was trying to advocate some sort of retroactive punishment for any living person who has ever had an abortion in the past. That would obviously not be feasible. The question here is about the policies of a nation in which abortion is illegal.

So imagine for a minute that we live in that kind of nation – not the kind of nation where abortion doctors can dupe women into thinking that there’s nothing wrong with what they’re doing, but the kind of nation where abortion is illegal and everybody knows it. Who should be punished for abortion in that kind of nation? Am I being unreasonable to say that the answer should be anyone who was directly involved? That would include the doctor who performed it, the woman who gave consent, and any husband or boyfriend who might have helped the whole thing along. This is the basic legal concept of being an accessory to a crime.

Book Brief: Let the Nations Be Glad

Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions by John Piper
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Good.


View all my reviews