Alexander Pruss is
a philosopher at Baylor University and maintains a philosophy blog at
alexanderpruss.blogspot.com. He is a Christian philosopher, and he recently
wrote a blog about his theories on the idea of “Limbo” in Christianity. This
blog post provides many examples of the author’s creation of a sense of voice
as well as a philosophical Christian perspective that is unfamiliar to me. It
is interesting to read about Christian ideas presented in a philosophical
context without the conversation being centered on theism vs. atheism. The
sense of voice that the Pruss creates is one of a knowledgeable academic who is
also creative and thoughtful in his examples and explanations.
In his most recent
blog post, Pruss writes, “The theory of limbo holds that some people--those who
die in infancy are often given as an example--have not had the kind of life of
faith that is required for heaven but nonetheless have done nothing to deserve
hell. They are, thus, in limbo: a happy state that, nonetheless, falls short of
heaven.” This is written in a very scholarly manner, with the assumption that
everything that is being said is certainly true, despite the fact that the
entire concept is actually a manner of faith. This choice of words is done to
appeal to the readers that frequent this blog, so that the author that they are
reading is speaking in a voice most similar to their own. They are not reading
this blog to debate their religion because they are already certain about that,
rather, they are reading these posts to further their own beliefs.
At the end of the
same post, Pruss writes “What I don't like about this theory is this: I have
the intuition that God shouldn't force people to love him. But perhaps I should
simply say: it is better to love freely, but loving unfreely is still good?”
This is an important example with regards to the author’s voice because it
shows that despite seeming completely knowledgeable about this subject, he is
still humble and willing to admit that there are some answers that he is unsure
of. His choice to conclude with a question solidifies this point.
In another post
discussing morality, Pruss used the example of a mob boss ordering the murder
of a person if they didn’t accept a bribe. Pruss writes, “…the depravity in
giving the order is tantamount to murder, plus an additional dollop of
depravity in corrupting public officials.” The usage of the word “dollop”
develops the author’s playful and casual voice, because it is a seemingly
casual word to be using in such a grave example. In the end of this post, Pruss
simplifies moral depravity in willing an action morally reprehensible action to
happen to a mathematical formula, that is, the level of moral depravity of an
action is A+pB, where A is the immorality of willing the act to occur, B is the
immorality of the act itself, and p is the probability of the act actually
occurring. It is very interesting that this philosopher would try to reduce
something as complicated as morality into something as logical as mathematics,
yet that itself contributes to the voice of the author. To ascribe a
mathematical formula to an abstract and subjective idea such as morality
conveys a lot of confidence. This shows that the author has a sturdy set of
beliefs about what morality is, which is unlike philosophers who are not
Christian.
This post can be
found at http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2015/10/russian-roulette.html
