Monday, June 2, 2025

 “Nationalism consists essentially in collective self-glorification and in a conviction that it is right to pursue the interests of one’s own nation however they may conflict with those of others. It is rather odd that emphasis upon the merits of one’s own nation should be considered a virtue. What should we think of an individual who proclaimed: ‘I am morally and intellectually superior to all other individuals, and, because of this superiority, I have a right to ignore all interests except my own’? There are, no doubt, plenty of people who feel this way, but if they proclaim their feeling too openly, and act upon it too blatantly, they are thought ill of.”

Bertrand Russell, Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare (1959), Part II. Nationalism, Ch. X: Some Necessary Changes in Outlook, p. 124

Sunday, June 1, 2025

 


1 Thessalonians: Who, When, and Why

June 1, 2025

BY BART EHRMAN

Now that I have given an overview of the major themes and emphases of 1 Thessalonians, I can say a few more things about what we know about its authorship, when it was written, and why.

The book, of course, is always called “Paul’s” first letter to the Thessalonians but as you’ll notice, the opening verse indicates that it comes from “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy.”  And throughout the letter the first-person plural pronoun predominates “WE give thanks” “WE know” “OUR visit” and so on.

So, was this a letter written by committee?  If so…how does that work exactly?

Aspects of the letter make it pretty clear that the three named authors did not take turns writing (Silvanus writing one passage, Timothy another, Paul yet another) but that it comes from one hand, and the hand was Paul’s.   Timothy in particular does not appear to be involved in the writing of the letter, since in chapter 3 the author(s) indicate that when they were in Athens they were distressed not knowing what was happening among the Thessalonians and so they sent Timothy back to find out:  “we could bear it no longer….so we sent Timothy.”

That means that Timothy was not one of the “we.”  That is, even though he is named as one of the persons the letter is from, he is not actually writing (since the author[s] talk about him).  That leaves Silvanus and Paul.  Did they jointly write it?

I doubt it.  At one point Paul breaks out in the first person:  “I, Paul” (2:18).  So it looks like he is putting pen to papyrus (or dictating the letter).  But he is including Silvanus as if they were doing it together, so that his views represent their views.

That’s a bit different from other letters.  For example, 1 Corinthians claims to be written by Paul and Sosthenes; 2 Corinthians by Paul and Timothy – but in both of them, Paul talks about himself in the first person.  Why is it different here?  I’m not sure.

One other interesting aspect of the authorship is that Paul (or Paul and Silvanus) refer back to the founding of the church in the letter, and there is a narrative about it Acts 17:1-9 as well.  That means it’s possible to compare the two (brief) accounts closely.

Timothy is not mentioned in the account in Acts 17.  Paul and “Silas” travel to Thessalonica from Philippi on their missionary trip.  (Silas is almost always understood to be Silvanus – a shortened version of his name).    According to Acts, Paul preaches three sabbaths in a row in the synagogue, trying to convince Jews that Jesus is the messiah; he has some (not great) success converting a few, along with “a great many devout Greeks” and a good number of “the leading women” (Acts 17:4).

We’d love to know more about all that., especially the prominent women.  Who were they?  How did Paul convert them?  And who are all these Greeks converting?

In the Acts account “the Jews became jealous” and got some “ruffians” together to form a mob and more or less drive the apostles out of town.  They head then to Berea and after that Paul goes alone to Athens..

Among the interesting points of comparison are:

(a) Paul never says anything in 1 Thessalonians about preaching in the synagogues, converting Jews there, or the “leading women.”

(b) On the contrary, he indicates his converts were all former pagans (1 Thess. 1:9-10).

(c) But he does indicate that he had come to Thessalonica after having a hard time in Philippi (2:2), which is exactly what Acts narrates in Acts 16 (Timothy is mentioned there);

(d) Both Paul and Acts indicate there was considerable opposition to the Christian message among non-believers in Thessalonica.

(e) They disagree however on the role of Timothy, who is absent from the account of Paul and Silas in Thessalonica in Acts 17.

(f) In addition, there is a contradiction about when Timothy does go to Thessalonica.  1 Thessalonians 3:1Paul clearly says that he, Silvanus, and Timothy were altogether in Athens after the church was started in Thessalonica.  Distraught over how they were doing, he (and Silvanus) sent Timothy to Thessalonica to check up on the church.   But Acts is also explicit: Paul went to Athens alone without Silas and Timothy (Acts 17).  He meets up with them in Corinth after leaving Athens.   It’s a small detail, but it sure looks like a discrepancy to me.

(g) A bigger discrepancy – though not an as absolutely a clear contradiction – is that Acts assumes that Paul engaged in his mission first by going to synagogues and converting Jews before being forced to take his mission to gentiles, whereas Paul himself says nothing about going to synagogues and converting Jews there.  This congregation, he indicates, is all from pagan stock.

 I think this kind of closer analysis shows what I’ve repeatedly said, that Acts gets a good deal right in terms of the overall picture (in this case: Paul goes from Philippi to Thessalonica to Athens, e.g.), but also has a some rather important differences (is he trying to convert mainly Jews? Does he convert Jews?) and is sometimes contradictory in the details.  Well maybe a lot of times.

In short, I think Paul himself wrote this letter but sees himself as doing so with the full participation of Silvanus and Timothy in what he says.

There is no reason to doubt this is one of the authentic letters.

It is usually dated as the first of Paul’s surviving writings, possibly written as early as 49 CE.  That makes it the earliest surviving piece of Christian literature we have.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, that makes it of special interest.  What was going on in early Christianity around the year 50?  This is our best source of information.  What we can say by way of generalization would be the following

  • Paul is going to various urban locations in Macedonia (of which Thessalonica was the capital) and Achaea making converts.
  • The converts we know of are pagans. There is no hint in 1 Thessalonians that any of them is Jewish.  (Paul, btw, never quotes the OT in this letter or refers to the Jewish law)
  • Paul has been facing opposition by outsiders, and apparently it involves some rough treatment (2:2)
  • The churches that he founded are also facing opposition. This must be on the local level, almost certainly has family members, friends, neighbors, and other locals are upset/angry that these people have adopted this new and strange religion and openly opposing it and them.
  • Paul’s message itself is clear. Pagans worship dead and false gods and he convinces them that the God of Jesus is alive and true.  He gets them to abandon “the worship of idols” and to “wait for Jesus” to come back from heaven in the imminent day of judgment (1:9-10).
  • The appearance of Jesus is expected to come any day now and is a central element in Paul’s message (he mentions it in all five chapters of the letter).
  • The Thessalonians expected it to happen already and became disturbed that it hasn’t come..
  • Paul has to assure them that it is coming soon, they need to be ready for it and not be caught unawares (5:1-11); and they should not worry about those who have already died: they have not missed out on the glories to come with the return of Jesus (4:13, 18).
  • The main reasons Paul is writing this letter are to assure them of that, to encourage them to stay true to their new faith despite tough opposition and pressure, and to live moral and cohesive lives together as a new community of believers (4:1-12).

It is a very short letter for all of that, but it packs a lot of information in it when read closely

Saturday, May 31, 2025

 Not too long ago, many Republicans proudly referred to themselves as “constitutional conservatives.” They believed in the rule of law; in limiting the power of government, especially the federal government; in protecting individual liberty; and in checks and balances and the separation of powers. They opposed central planning and warned about emotions stirred up by the mob and the moment, believing, as the Founders did, that the role of government was to mediate rather than mirror popular passions. They recognized the importance of self-restraint and the need to cultivate public and private virtues. And they had reverence for the Constitution, less as a philosophical document than a procedural one, which articulated the rules of the road for American democracy.

When it came to judicial philosophy, “constitutional conservatism” meant textualism, which prioritizes the plain meaning of the text in statutes and the Constitution. Justice Antonin Scalia excoriated outcome-based jurisprudence; judges should never prioritize their own desired outcomes, he warned, but should instead apply the text of the Constitution fairly. “The main danger in judicial interpretation of the Constitution—or, for that matter, in judicial interpretation of any law,” he said in 1988, “is that the judges will mistake their own predilections for the law.”
One of the reasons Roe v. Wade was viewed as a travesty by conservatives is that they believed the 1973 Supreme Court decision twisted the Constitution to invent a “right to privacy” in order to legalize abortion. The decision, they felt, was driven by a desired outcome rather than a rigorous analysis of legal precedent or constitutional text.
Which is why it’s hard to think of a more anti-conservative figure than President Donald Trump or a more anti-conservative movement than MAGA. Trump and his supporters evince a disdain for laws, procedures, and the Constitution. They want to empower the federal government in order to turn it into an instrument of brute force that can be used to reward allies and destroy opponents.
-Peter Wehner in The Atlantic
  • The Book of Acts "At a Glance" and Controversial Questions
May 27, 2025

In addition to my nutshell summaries of each book of the New Testament, I have been providing a post that gives additional materials I present in my New Testament textbook.  These are (a) rapid fire summaries of each book that I call “At a Glance” and (b) a set of study questions that challenge students to take a position on key aspects of the book, that I call “Take a Stand.”

Here they are now for the book of Acts.  I hope the summary “at a glance” makes sense, and that you can nail the questions.

BOX 17.8 The Book of Acts

  1. The book of Acts is the second of a two-volume work by the author of Luke. Like the first volume, it is dedicated to an otherwise unknown “Theophilus.”
  2. These books have been traditionally ascribed to Luke, the traveling companion of Paul; there are, however, reasons to suspect this tradition.
  3. Like the Gospel of Luke, the book was probably written around 80–85 c.e.
  4. A thematic approach to the book reveals several prominent themes:
    •  The Jewish origins of Christianity, its fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures, and its continuity with Judaism.
    • The portrayal of Jesus as a Jewish prophet, rejected by his own people.
    • The consequent movement of the religion from the Jews to the Gentiles and a concomitant geographical shift from the holy city of Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.
    • The proclamation to Jew and Gentile alike of salvation through the repentance of sins and the forgiveness of God, with Gentiles who accept this offer of salvation not needing to adopt the ways of Judaism.
    • The delay of the time of the end to make this Christian mission a possibility.
    • The “rightness” of this religion in both the divine sense (it came from God in fulfillment of the Scriptures) and the human one (it did nothing to violate Jewish custom or imperial law).
    • The complete unity and harmony of the church as guided by the apostles, who agree on every issue and resolve every problem through the direction of the Spirit.
    • Ultimately, the hand of God directing the course of Christian history behind the scenes, from Jesus’ own life and death to the life and ministry of the apostles he left behind.

TAKE A STAND

  1. List five similarities that strike you as interesting between Peter (in Acts 1–12) and Paul (in Acts 13–28). What similar things do they do, say, and experience? Is that simply coincidence, or do you think Luke is going out of his way to make their missions reflect each other? If the latter, why is he doing that?
  2. Suppose we did not have any information about Paul other than what can be found in the book of Acts. What does he say to non-Christians to get them to convert?
  3. Suppose you wanted to sum up the major points that Luke is trying to make about the spread of Christianity in the book of Acts. What would you say?

 

 


1 Thessalonians in a Nutshell

May 31, 2025

I now move on in my “New Testament in a Nutshell” series to the letter of 1 Thessalonians, which for-roughly-ever has been one of my favorite books of the New Testament.  It is not one of the most widely read as a rule, but I think it is both unusually important and interesting.  For one thing, it is the first letter of Paul that we have and, therefore, the very first piece of Christian writing of any kind that we have.  That in itself makes it unusually significant in my view.  THE earliest words from any Christian!  Whoa.

When I taught Greek at Princeton Theological Seminary (some millennia ago) this was the book we had beginning students first translate once they had all the important elements of Greek grammar down.  It’s not excessively hard Greek, but it is challenging for first-timers, and it’s the kind of book that if you read carefully – as you have to do when you’re basically going one word at a time trying to figure out the Greek – you find all sorts of interesting features and puzzles.  You can read in five minutes or so in English (and should!); even so, this afternoon when I reread it in Greek I actually came to understand parts of it better than ever before – after knowing it well for, uh, 50 years!

I won’t be able to get into all that here, but I’ll give enough over a series of posts to highlight some of the important aspects of the book.  I begin with an attempt at a fifty-word, one-sentence summary.  (I have a challenge for you.  Even if you don’t know the book, read it a couple of times, slowly enough to follow what Paul’s saying, and then try to write out your own 50 word summary, before reading any further).  Here’s my first ever attempt to do so.

First Thessalonians expresses Paul’s anxiety over his former pagan converts in Thessalonica, fearful they have left the faith because of persecution, worried about acts of sexual immorality among them, and, in particular, concerned because they are distressed about the eternal fate of church members who have died before Jesus returned.

.I will now try to unpack the main themes and emphases in the letter, to explain this book “in a nutshell.”

**************************

The book of 1 Thessalonians was written by Paul along with his companions Timothy and Silvanus to the church in Thessalonica, a city in Macedonia (the northern part of modern Greece).  The opening chapters of the letter are filled with expressions of happiness and concern for the congregation, as Paul remembers fondly his time with them when he preached to them the Gospel and his fears that they are not doing as well as he hopes.  The very personal character of the letter makes it similar to other “friendship” letters from the Roman world, which were generally written to express and promote camaraderie and support for others with whom one was closely related and deeply concerned.

It is clear that this congregation was made up of converts from paganism – Paul reminds them how he converted them away from worshiping idols to “serve a living and true God” (1:9).  He also indicates he instructed them “to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1:10).

These two verses at the outset are unusually significant for showing what Paul preached to gentile pagans to convince them to become followers of Jesus.  Their pagan gods are “dead” – they don’t exist – and therefore are “false” in contrast to the one God who lives and embodies the truth.  Paul’s “evidence” for the true and living God is Jesus, the son of God that God raised from the dead (about which Paul convincingly testify, since he claimed he saw him alive afterward).  But just as important, the resurrection shows that the “wrath of God” is soon to hit this world – and so believers are waiting for Jesus to reappear (any time now), to “save” them from the destruction soon to come.

Paul somehow convinced polytheists to give up their entire religious traditions, the ones they and everyone around them held and had held for time immemorial, to worship the resurrected Jesus in anticipation of the imminent day of judgment.  Whatever else you can say about him, he must have been a persuasive fellow.

One of Paul’s pressing concerns in this letter is that the persecution of these Christians by their local townsfolk may have proved too much and members of the community had committed apostasy (2:1-16).  He is exceedingly pleased to hear they have remained faithful despite local opposition, and are staying true to his teachings, which he insists were not “the words of humans” but “the word of God.”  He indicates that this kind of persecution is experienced everywhere among Christians, starting with Jewish followers of Jesus in Judea who were opposed by the Judeans who had “killed both the Lord Jeus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God, and oppose all people” (1 Thess. 2:14-15).   Paul is not overly fond of Jews in Judea who do not follow Jesus….

Paul indicates that he has learned that the Thessalonians have not yielded to persecution and remain committed to his gospel message (he sent Timothy to find out and is gratified what he has now learned from him).  He then launches into his other major concerns.  The first is notoriously difficult to figure out – though presumably his Thessalonian readers knew exactly what he was referring to.  He urges them to keep seeking to please God by living “holy” lives and indicates that this means abstaining from sexual immorality.  He alludes to the problem by saying that men need to “obtain” or (possibly?) “hold” their “vessel” in “holiness and honor,” not like the pagans do “by the passion of desire” since they “do not know God.”

Hmm…  Translators have to figure out what that means even to put it into English – is he talking about men who need to keep proper control of their private parts or about men who need to obtain a wife in a proper way?  The matter is confused more by what he says next that it is important to follow his instruction so as not to “offend his brother in the matter” or “defraud his brother in business.”   In a couple of posts I’ll take this on and explain what I think it means.  For now I’ll just say that it’s more confusing in the Greek than it is when reading an English version where the translator makes some of the hard decisions for you!

From there Paul moves to another issue that is clearer and almost certainly of more pressing importance to him, since it is alluded to in every chapter of the letter.  The Thessalonians have misunderstood something very significant about his teachings of the second coming of Jesus and it has led to some serious consternation in the congregation.

The key passage is 4:13 – 5:11, a passage that I will also discuss more fully in a separate post.  For now I can give the basic issue.  When Paul converted the Thessalonians, he taught them that Jesus who was raised from the dead is now about to return from heaven in judgment.  When he returns he will bring destruction on all people who oppose him, but salvation for his followers, who will enter into a glorious existence in the coming kingdom.  The Thessalonian Christians took him at his word that this all was to happen soon, but now, since it had not happened yet, some of their members had died, and those who were left are deeply distraught, thinking that they – the dead – have missed out on the glorious kingdom soon to come.  They died before it arrived.

Paul writes to comfort them (as he expressly says, 4:13 and 4:18).  When Jesus returns, those believers who have already died will be the first to meet him, rising to greet him in the air.  Only then will those who are alive rise up to join them.  The dead have not lost out; they actually have an advantage over the living.

Paul continues to think this is going to happen soon. When he talks about the living who will join the dead in the air, he includes himself “We who are alive, who are left” will then rise up into the clouds.  He expects to be one of the living at the time.

This passage, by the way, is a principal text for evangelicals and fundamentalists who believe in the “rapture,” when (allegedly) Jesus returns to take his followers out of the world before the seven-year period of horrible tribulation here on earth (with the rise of the Anti-Christ) leading up to the final Day of Judgment.  In a later post I will explain why the passage is clearly not talking about a “rapture” at all.  Quite the contrary.  Stay tuned.

Paul closes out the letter by giving some important injunctions both about how to live ethically and to worship God faithfully.

In my next post I will dive a bit deeper into the author of the letter (Paul and his companions, or just Paul?), when it was written, and why.

 The Weaponization of Expertise

by Jacob Hale RussellDennis Patterson (M.I.T.)
Nonfiction

This critical examination of technocratic expertise approaches the covid-19 pandemic as a case study of what happens when tolerance for open-ended inquiry is restricted. There was something “deeply ironic” about liberals’ formulation of support for science as a religious creed, Russell and Patterson observe; in a time of crisis, this support veered toward dogma, and veneration of expertise became a shibboleth on the left. The authors decry the marginalization of dissenting voices, pointing to deplatformings that they consider “intellectual tyranny.” Their persuasive account illustrates how tentative conclusions proclaimed by the powerful can harden into orthodoxies

Thursday, May 29, 2025

Sophia Dembling - The Introvert's Way - Notes

 Introverts vs. Extroverts: An old never-ending subject.  A defense of Introversion even though such a "defense" is not necessary.

Living a quiet life in a noisy world.

MISTAKES INTROVERTS MAKE P, 172

Thinking Extroverts are shallow.  I am guilty of this.  Some extroverts ARE shallow, but Introverts can be shallow also.  Thinking a lot does not by itself make you deep.  It depends on what you are thinking about.    A blanket dismissal of extroverts is itself shallow.

I am not a fan of small talk, yet small talk connects people and greases the gears of society.

Small talk can lead to deeper talk.

ESTABLISH  YOUR  TERRITORY P. 176

Establish boundaries with people.  "I'm not going there.  That's not my thing."

Introverts should establish their territory.  Some things we need not apologize for.  Like our aversion for the telephone.  Our aversion for fast talkers.  Our aversion for pointless talk just to be talking.

Unwanted people should be evicted from your mind, people who are not deserving of renting a place in your mind and heart.

We need to persevere.  Motivation is more important than a precise plan, which can change over time.  The "why" is more important than the "how."  Plans come and go.  Some succeed; some fail.  Motivation must remain.

Do not be negatively swayed by others.  Fight the scolding voices inside your own head.  A little starch in the spine.

Mantras: Staying home is doing something.  You do not have to do everything that is asked or expected of you.

I like who I like.  I do not like everybody.  I am not require to like everybody.  I assume everybody doesn't like me.  Just because I don't like everybody doesn't mean I hate people.  It's not my problem if somebody is a bore or a boor.

"Nice of you to do that."  Sure, it's a good feeling to do all the good you can for as long as you can.

I reserve the right to conserve my energy and use it as I please.

The freedom to say "no" and the pleasure of saying "yes" when you really mean it.


Buckley

 Buckley 

by Sam Tanenhaus (Random House)
Nonfiction

This biography of William F. Buckley, Jr., offers a history of postwar American politics through the life of one of its most theatrical participants. Buckley—a swaggering, inimitable opinionator—wrote three nationally syndicated columns a week, edited National Review, hosted the weekly television show “Firing Line,” and published some fifty books. Though he advised candidates and worked closely with a few, he understood that he was, above all, an entertainer, not a theorist or a politician. Tanenhaus aptly calls him a “performing ideologue.” The book is a smart, stylish, and clear-eyed portrait of a complicated man—and of the rise of American conservatism, with Buckley in a starring role.

Wednesday, May 28, 2025

How the Internet Really Works

 How the Internet really works


There was, however, an alternative theory. The internet was not primarily a channel for the transmission of information in the form of evidence. It was better described as a channel for the transmission of culture in the form of memes. Users didn’t field a lot of facts and then assemble them into a world view; they fielded a world view and used it as a context for evaluating facts. The adoption of a world view had less to do with rational thought than it did with desire. It was about what sort of person you wanted to be. Were you a sophisticated person who followed the science? Or were you a skeptical person who saw through the veneer of establishment gentility?

-Gideon Lewis-Kraus in The New Yorker

 Upsides/Downsides of Technology

-Video calls so you can see with whom you are talking. But why am I usually not properly dressed for a video call or in a place where I'd rather not be seen?
-Car Range showing. To not end up on the wrong side of town after dark.
-Email. Oh, I missed your email. Sorry. (Too easy to lie)
-Spreadsheets. Nightmares from the working yrs.
-Conference calls. Worse nightmares from the working yrs.
-Zoom calls. Trying not to doze off. Is everybody here yet? What do you think, Fred. Have some responses prepared. "Very interesting. Something to think about. I'll get back to you on that." (As soon somebody clues me in what I'm supposed back on and to whom)
-Caller ID. Best tech yet to avoid getting ambushed.
(Continuing list updated daily)

 It's hard to deal with unremitting complexity and endless detail and points-of-view. Easier to just pick a side or point-of-view and just go with it, but some of us can't seem to go that way.

 The promise of the Internet was that you could go online, find the right information, a video, a podcast, conduct your own research, find the help you needed. Perhaps you latter day Einsteins could do this, but the rest still need expert, educated help. Bless you, you Einsteins.

A Good Idea at the Time

 The internet—it seemed like such a good idea at the time. Under conditions of informational poverty, our ancestors had no choice but to operate on a need-to-know basis. The absence of pertinent, reliable, and commonly held facts was at first a matter of mere logistics—the stable storage and orderly transfer of knowledge was costly and troublesome, and entropy was free—but, over time, the techniques of civilization afforded us better control over the collection and transmission of data. Vast triage structures evolved to determine who got to learn what, when: medieval guilds, say, or network news reports. These systems were supposed to function in everybody’s best interests. We were finite brutes of fragile competence, and none of us could confront the abyss of unmitigated complexity alone. Beyond a certain point, however, we couldn’t help but perceive these increasingly centralized arrangements as insulting, and even conspiratorial. We were grownups, and, as such, we could be trusted to handle an unadulterated marketplace of ideas. The logic of the internet was simple: first, fire all of the managers; then, sort things out for ourselves. In the time since, one of the few unambiguously good things to have emerged from this experiment is an entire genre of attempts to explain why it mostly hasn’t worked out.


-Gideon Lewis-Kraus in The New Yorker

Just Pick a Side and go with it

 The upshot of all of this was not that people had abandoned first principles, as liberals came to argue in many tiresome books about the “post-truth” era, or that they had abandoned tradition, as conservatives came to argue in many tiresome books about decadence. It was simply that, when people who once functioned on a need-to-know basis were all of a sudden forced to adjudicate all of the information all of the time, the default heuristic was just to throw in one’s lot with the generally like-minded. People who didn’t really know anything about immunity noticed that the constellation of views associated with their peers had lined up against vaccines, and the low-cost option was to just run with it; people who didn’t really know anything about virology noticed that the constellation of views associated with their peers had lined up against the lab-leak hypothesis, and they, too, took the path of least resistance. This is not to say that all beliefs are equally valid. It is simply to observe that most of us have better things to do than deal with unremitting complexity. It’s perfectly reasonable, as a first approximation of thinking, to conserve our time and energy by just picking a side and being done with it.

-Gideon Lewis-Kraus in The New Yorker

 

Antimemetics: Why Some Ideas Resist Spreading Kindle Edition 


Why do some ideas spread like wildfire, while others resist being seen — despite their importance?

It's easier than ever to share ideas, yet some of the most interesting ideas are burrowing deeper underground, circulating quietly among group chats, texts, and whisper networks. While memes – self-replicating bits of culture – thrive in an attention-driven economy, other ideas are becoming strangely harder to find. 
Antimemetics: Why Some Ideas Resist Spreading explores this paradox, uncovering the hidden forces that determine what we remember, what we forget, and why some ideas – no matter how compelling – resist going viral.

Drawing on historical examples, internet phenomena, and the mechanics of attention, as well as her experiences in the technology sector, Nadia Asparouhova examines how cultural and technological systems shape what enters the public consciousness. She argues that while some ideas spread effortlessly, others are structurally resistant to spread, whether due to their complexity, our personal discomfort with these ideas, or a lack of incentives to share them.

As we collectively navigate a highly charged, memetic world where the hive mind dictates what we see and think about, Antimemetics offers a new way to think about our place in the information ecosystem. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by the tide of viral noise, and often it seems like the only options are to either disengage or be swept away. But withdrawing from the conversation isn’t the only answer. By noticing what gets lost in the memetic churn, we can reclaim our attention, find thoughtful ways to participate, and shape the exchange of ideas – rather than letting it unconsciously shape us.

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

Philosopher Agnes Callard on Travel

 What is the most uninformative statement that people are inclined to make? My nominee would be “I love to travel.” This tells you very little about a person, because nearly everyone likes to travel; and yet people say it, because, for some reason, they pride themselves both on having travelled and on the fact that they look forward to doing so.

The opposition team is small but articulate. G. K. Chesterton wrote that “travel narrows the mind.” Ralph Waldo Emerson called travel “a fool’s paradise.” Socrates and Immanuel Kant—arguably the two greatest philosophers of all time—voted with their feet, rarely leaving their respective home towns of Athens and Königsberg. But the greatest hater of travel, ever, was the Portuguese writer Fernando Pessoa, whose wonderful “Book of Disquiet” crackles with outrage:

I abhor new ways of life and unfamiliar places. . . . The idea of travelling nauseates me. . . . Ah, let those who don’t exist travel! . . . Travel is for those who cannot feel. . . . Only extreme poverty of the imagination justifies having to move around to feel. If you are inclined to dismiss this as contrarian posturing, try shifting the object of your thought from your own travel to that of others. At home or abroad, one tends to avoid “touristy” activities. “Tourism” is what we call travelling when other people are doing it. And, although people like to talk about their travels, few of us like to listen to them. Such talk resembles academic writing and reports of dreams: forms of communication driven more by the needs of the producer than the consumer.

One common argument for travel is that it lifts us into an enlightened state, educating us about the world and connecting us to its denizens. Even Samuel Johnson, a skeptic—“What I gained by being in France was, learning to be better satisfied with my own country,” he once said—conceded that travel had a certain cachet. Advising his beloved Boswell, Johnson recommended a trip to China, for the sake of Boswell’s children: “There would be a lustre reflected upon them. . . . They would be at all times regarded as the children of a man who had gone to view the wall of China.”

Travel gets branded as an achievement: see interesting places, have interesting experiences, become interesting people. Is that what it really is?

Pessoa, Emerson, and Chesterton believed that travel, far from putting us in touch with humanity, divorced us from it. Travel turns us into the worst version of ourselves while convincing us that we’re at our best. Call this the traveller’s delusion.

To explore it, let’s start with what we mean by “travel.” Socrates went abroad when he was called to fight in the Peloponnesian War; even so, he was no traveller. Emerson is explicit about steering his critique away from a person who travels when his “necessities” or “duties” demand it. He has no objection to traversing great distances “for the purpose of art, of study, and benevolence.” One sign that you have a reason to be somewhere is that you have nothing to prove, and therefore no drive to collect souvenirs, photos, or stories to prove it. Let’s define “tourism” as the kind of travel that aims at the interesting—and, if Emerson and company are right, misses.

“A tourist is a temporarily leisured person who voluntarily visits a place away from home for the purpose of experiencing a change.” This definition is taken from the opening of “Hosts and Guests,” the classic academic volume on the anthropology of tourism. The last phrase is crucial: touristic travel exists for the sake of change. But what, exactly, gets changed? Here is a telling observation from the concluding chapter of the same book: “Tourists are less likely to borrow from their hosts than their hosts are from them, thus precipitating a chain of change in the host community.” We go to experience a change, but end up inflicting change on others.

For example, a decade ago, when I was in Abu Dhabi, I went on a guided tour of a falcon hospital. I took a photo with a falcon on my arm. I have no interest in falconry or falcons, and a generalized dislike of encounters with nonhuman animals. But the falcon hospital was one of the answers to the question, “What does one do in Abu Dhabi?” So I went. I suspect that everything about the falcon hospital, from its layout to its mission statement, is and will continue to be shaped by the visits of people like me—we unchanged changers, we tourists. (On the wall of the foyer, I recall seeing a series of “excellence in tourism” awards. Keep in mind that this is an animal hospital.)

Why might it be bad for a place to be shaped by the people who travel there, voluntarily, for the purpose of experiencing a change? The answer is that such people not only do not know what they are doing but are not even trying to learn. Consider me. It would be one thing to have such a deep passion for falconry that one is willing to fly to Abu Dhabi to pursue it, and it would be another thing to approach the visit in an aspirational spirit, with the hope of developing my life in a new direction. I was in neither position. I entered the hospital knowing that my post-Abu Dhabi life would contain exactly as much falconry as my pre-Abu Dhabi life—which is to say, zero falconry. If you are going to see something you neither value nor aspire to value, you are not doing much of anything besides locomoting

Ehrman on the Book of Acts

 


  • The book of Acts is the second of a two-volume work by the author of Luke. Like the first volume, it is dedicated to an otherwise unknown “Theophilus.”
  • These books have been traditionally ascribed to Luke, the traveling companion of Paul; there are, however, reasons to suspect this tradition.
  • Like the Gospel of Luke, the book was probably written around 80–85 c.e.
  • A thematic approach to the book reveals several prominent themes:
    •  The Jewish origins of Christianity, its fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures, and its continuity with Judaism.
    • The portrayal of Jesus as a Jewish prophet, rejected by his own people.
    • The consequent movement of the religion from the Jews to the Gentiles and a concomitant geographical shift from the holy city of Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.
    • The proclamation to Jew and Gentile alike of salvation through the repentance of sins and the forgiveness of God, with Gentiles who accept this offer of salvation not needing to adopt the ways of Judaism.
    • The delay of the time of the end to make this Christian mission a possibility.
    • The “rightness” of this religion in both the divine sense (it came from God in fulfillment of the Scriptures) and the human one (it did nothing to violate Jewish custom or imperial law).
    • The complete unity and harmony of the church as guided by the apostles, who agree on every issue and resolve every problem through the direction of the Spirit.
    • Ultimately, the hand of God directing the course of Christian history behind the scenes, from Jesus’ own life and death to the life and ministry of the apostles he left behind.
  • Trump's War on Knowledge - Adam Serwer in The Atlantic - The New Dark Age

     he warlords who sacked rome did not intend to doom Western Europe to centuries of ignorance. It was not a foreseeable consequence of their actions. The same cannot be said of the sweeping attack on human knowledge and progress that the Trump administration is now undertaking—a deliberate destruction of education, science, and history, conducted with a fanaticism that recalls the Dark Ages that followed Rome’s fall.

    Every week brings fresh examples. The administration is threatening colleges and universities with the loss of federal funding if they do not submit to its demands, or even if they do. The engines of American scientific inquiry and ingenuity, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, are under sustained attack. Historical institutions such as the Smithsonian and artistic ones like the Kennedy Center are being converted into homes for MAGA ideology rather than historical fact and free expression. Libraries are losing funding, government-employed scientists are being dismissed from their jobs, educators are being cowed into silence, and researchers are being warned not to broach forbidden subjects. Entire databases of public-health information collected over decades are at risk of vanishing. Any facts that contradict the gospel of Trumpism are treated as heretical.


    These various initiatives and policy changes are often regarded as discrete problems, but they comprise a unified assault. The Trump administration has launched a comprehensive attack on knowledge itself, a war against culture, history, and science. If this assault is successful, it will undermine Americans’ ability to comprehend the world around us. Like the inquisitors of old, who persecuted Galileo for daring to notice that the sun did not, in fact, revolve around the Earth, they believe that truth-seeking imperils their hold on power.

    By destroying knowledge, Trumpists seek to make the country more amenable to their political domination, and to prevent meaningful democratic checks on their behavior. Their victory, though, would do much more than that. It would annihilate some of the most effective systems for aggregating, accumulating, and applying human knowledge that have ever existed. Without those systems, America could find itself plunged into a new Dark Age.

    Perhaps the most prominent targets of the attack on knowledge have been America’s institutions of higher education. Elite colleges and universities have lost billions of dollars in federal funding. Cornell has had more than $1 billion frozen, Princeton had $210 million suspended, and Northwestern lost access to nearly $800 million. In some cases, the freezes weren’t connected to specific demands; the funding was simply revoked outright. Johns Hopkins University is reeling from losing $800 million in grants, which will force the top recipient of federal research dollars to “plan layoffs and cancel health projects, from breast-feeding support efforts in Baltimore to mosquito-net programs in Mozambique,” The Wall Street Journalreported.

    In some cases, the administration has made specific demands that institutionsadhere to Trumpist ideology in what they teach and whom they hire, or face a loss of funding. Some schools are fighting back—Harvard, for example, is suing to retain its independence. “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Harvard’s president said in a statement.

    The Trump administration’s purge of forbidden texts and ideas at West Point offers a glimpse of what its ideal university might look like. At the military academy, TheNew York Times reported, leadership “initiated a schoolwide push to remove any readings that focused on race, gender or the darker moments of American history.” A professor who “leads a course on genocide was instructed not to mention atrocities committed against Native Americans, according to several academy officials. The English department purged works by well-known Black authors, such as Toni Morrison, James Baldwin and Ta-Nehisi Coates.”

    Some institutions have tried to appease the administration. Columbia University, which agreed to Trump’s orders in an effort to retain $400 million in federal funding, discovered the hard way that deals with the president aren’t worth the sweat from the handshake. After Columbia acceded to Trump’s demands, the administration reportedly began considering new ones, including potentially requiring the school to submit to a judicially enforced consent decree that would prolong the government’s control over the institution.

    The money these institutions have lost (or could still lose) is not merely symbolic. Federal grants fund research, scholarship, and archival work on college campuses. Without this money—unless schools raise the funds from other sources—labs and departments will close. The right-wing activist Chris Rufo recently told The New York Times that in addition to using funding to force universities to teach or adhere to conservative dogma, he would like to “reduce the size of the sector itself.” Students will have fewer opportunities. Research in many fields will be put on indefinite pause. America will make fewer scientific breakthroughs.