1

BACK TO
SCHOOL
ISSUE
BIBLICAL INNERENCY
Why dont
we study the
Bible like other
texts?
CLASS OF 2014
Two recent
grads kick off
a new Forum
tradition.
WHALING MARRIAGE
Moby Dick (and
some comedy)
provides insight
into love.
HERACLITUSS LOGOS
A book review
by EiC Chris
McCaffery. What
is the Logos?
MAP OF OFF CAMPUS
The Forum
has made a
partial map of
off-campus life.

TheFORUM
HILLSDALE
2 03
01 Essays
03 Columns
02 Reviews
Biblical Innerancy is a modernist mistake by Timothy Troutner 04
We shouldnt check modern scholarship at the door of biblical interpretation.
Marriage and the great white whale by Aaron Schreck 07
What humor, homosexuality, and Moby Dick can teach us about marriage and romantic love.
Lets not go there: the Church of Englands female bishops by Micah Meadowcroft 09
The Church of Englands decision to appoint female bishops hurts attempts at ecumenism and claims at apostolic succession.
The hamburger triumphant by Robert Ramsey 12
Sophomore year sucks by Sally Nelson 14
Ten Ways to Destroy the imagination of Your Child review 15
Lucky Heraclitus to have such a disciple! Brann cuts through the misunderstanding that plagues the obscure in this short book.
The Logos of Heraclitus review 16
Anthony Esolens cutting take on modern child rearing challenges adult imaginations.
Humor: Cup abuse rampant in cafeteria by Andy Reuss 18
A humorous fle from the campus wire service.
Tragically Hip by Sarah Albers 19
Thoughts on a subway from The Forums aesthete, or, music that doesnt suck.
02
M
i
s
s
i
o
n

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
Letter from the Editor
The Forum
Volume III, Issue 5 August 2014
Te Hillsdale Forum is an independent,
student-run conservative magazine at
Hillsdale College. Te Forum, in support
of the mission statement of the college,
exists to foster a campus environment
open to true liberal education and
human fourishing. We publish opinions,
interviews, papers, and campus news. Te
Forum is a vehicle to bring the discussion
and thought of the students and professors
at the heart of our school beyond the
classroom, because if a practical end must
be assigned to a University course, it is that
of training good members of society. Te
Forum brings the learning of the classroom
into the political reality of campus. F
EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Chris McCaffery
MANAGING EDITOR Andrew Egger
EDITOR-AT-LARGE Wes Wright
STAFF WRITERS Sarah Albers
Andy Reuss
COPY EDITOR Chelsey Schmid
CONTENT EDITORS Matthew OSullivan
Taylor Kemmeter
FEATURED ESSAYISTS Timothy Troutner
Aaron Schreck
Micah Meadowcroft
Sally Nelson 14
Robert Ramsey 14
DESIGN
HEAD DESIGNER Meg Prom
BUSINESS MANAGER Luke Adams
I
ts tempting to start here with grandiloquence
about the start of a new year, clichs, freshmen
are part of the family now or this year will be
the best year ever. It is even more tempting, of
course, to ironically distance myself from saying
anything genuine here out of need to be original,
or safe. Truth and genuine writing should come
before our fear of being uncool or insufciently
aloof. Returning students, I think its grand to see
you all again, and to have at least one more year
with the senior class. Lets all make this a good
year. Freshmen, welcome, from the bottom of my
heart. Tis is Te Hillsdale Forum.
Te Forum is a full-color opinion journal
published several times per year at Hillsdale
College. We print interviews, essays, book reviews,
and regular columns. As the mission statement
says, Te Forum exists to foster a campus
environment open to true liberal education
and human fourishing. We want to be the link
between the classroom and the community,
and carry the conversations from the lecture or
ofce hours into our (admittedly small) public
square. You will all soon learn, from President
Larry Arnn if not from Aristotle himself, that we
are all political animalsparticipating in our
community is an essential part of our humanity.
As important as lectures, notes, and papers are
in the rise to self government the Honor Code
enjoins us to, this ongoing dialogue is even more
so. It can be Hegel or Dante over lunch (see p. 18),
late night dorm arguments (you might be the class
to fnally fgure out predestination, who knows?),
or it can be in the Gadfy Group, the Fairfeld
Society, Te Forum, or the Collegian.
Tere are many outlets, but as Aristotle says in
the Nicomachean Ethicsyou did do the summer
reading, right?they all point to the same end, the
good that is our education and human fourishing.
If youre interested, consider contributing your
time or submitting your work. We plan to print
fve issues this year, and youre holding the frst.
Read through, and as you study, think about
the implications your schoolwork has for your
friends, or the school, or the nation. In this issue,
weve featured two essays from the graduated
senior class, a new tradition that I hope to expand
and continue. Also featured here, junior Timothy
Troutner asks why the skills we learn to trust in
class cant guide our study of scripture, and Reuss
reviews Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of
Your Child by campus favorite Anthony Esolen;
much more edifcation awaits inside.
All these articles in some way aim at the purpose
of our education and our community. We are here
to learn, grow, to attain a liberal education, a goal
in some ways essential to our humanity. Tough
you might doubt it during fnals week, humans all
by nature love to know, as R.J. Snell points out in
Te Perspective of Love:
When the animal has its physiological needs met,
it sleeps, but when the human has met its needs,
we do math or theology or go exploring, for our
intelligence is essentially dynamic love; so long as
we want to know, so long as we care and direct our
intelligence towards knowing, our consciousness
continues to operate in a cumulative, self-correcting,
and indefnite process of accumulating data and
acquiring new insights.
Te community of Hillsdale is an essential part
of the education of Hillsdale and the mission of
Hillsdale, and that is why we print Te Forum
because while you may have arrived to be
educated for liberty or rise to self government,
you can only do so in a genuinely human way by
being open to those around you, both students
and professorsopen to their ideas and open to
change, and to change ofen. F
Editor-in-Chief Chris McCafery is a junior
studying history. He is a member of the Dow
Journalism Program
Letter from the editor
SPECIAL THANKS
FACULTY ADVISOR Dr. John Somerville
Intercollegiate Studies Institutes Collegiate Network
LIKE US ON FACEBOOK OR FOLLOW US ON TWITTER!
05
Biblical inerrancy is a modernist mistake
Instead of scientifc
fact, biblical revelation
represented the
infallible guide to the
universe.
01
Essays
The Forum
BY TIMOTHY TROUTNER
W
hile Hillsdale students will gladly
consider difering perspectives
on politics and theology, I
have encountered a strange, silent (until
questioned) unanimity surrounding biblical
inerrancy together with a strange disconnect
between the reading of Scripture and the
liberal arts at Hillsdale.
While conversations about theology
are never lacking (predestination and
free will, anyone?) I have seldom seen the
tools of historical and literary analysis our
education has ofered turned on the Bible
itself (Associate Professor of English Justin
Jacksons Reading Biblical Narrative is a
notable exception.)
At Hillsdale we pride ourselves in the
liberal arts, in close reading of texts, and in
the living tradition of the West. Is it possible
that we have isolated our sacred texts from
the tools we spend years fne-tuning in class?
Tis refection is not meant to be an
attack on the Bible. On the contrary, I
believe that factual inerrancy prevents post-
Enlightenment readers from understanding
and appreciating the tremendous value
and truth found in the most central text
of western civilization. God does indeed
speak through the Bible, but I will argue that
appreciating genre, textual development,
and internal contradictions in narrative
form a central part of that dialogue.
For many at Hillsdale, bastion of
conservatism and tradition, those defending
biblical inerrancy are fghting the good
fght against modern heresy and skepticism,
insisting that the text never errs, even on
scientifc or historical fact. I believe that
rather than valiantly defending the Bible
against modernism, evangelicals have simply
embraced modernism in another form.
M
odernisms rise is closely connected
to the enlightenment project of
individualist rationalism, which was
accompanied by an age of scientifc
discovery. Te age of Newtonian science
gave rise to confdence that the universe
was understandable through a few simple
and unchanging scientifc laws which
governed it. Te modernist epistemology
sought to reduce phenomena to bare
(usually scientifc) fact which could
be marketed as dependable truth. Tis
reductionism led to the denial of free
will, the existence of God, and anything
else that could not be discovered through
the scientifc method. When historical
criticism revealed that the Biblical text
was redacted over generations, contained
anachronisms, and recorded events which
could not ft into the historical record, the
modernist saw that the Christian faith was
at odds with the facts and dismissed it.
Te Genesis accounts were totally outdated
and replaced by evolutionary theory.
Richard Dawkins and the more outspoken
atheists demonstrate the confdence, if not
cockiness, which characterizes this way of
viewing the world.
Conservative Christians responded
by vociferously defending the historical
truth of the Bible and the validity of the
fundamentals of the faith. Tis backlash
against the modernist challenge reached
its fulfllment in the Chicago Statement of
Inerrancy, which afrmed that Scripture
is without error or fault in all its teaching,
no less in what it states about Gods acts in
creation, about the events of world history,
and about its own literary origins under
God. Te motivation for this statement was
clear: biblical authority was inescapably
impaired if this total divine inerrancy
is in any way limited or disregarded.
Among others, the conservative
intellectuals R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, and
Francis Schaefer signed this document,
raising a bulwark against the tide of
modernism. Or so they thought.
In fact, evangelicalism simply adopted
the enlightenment ideology in another
form. Instead of scientifc fact, biblical
revelation represented the infallible
guide to the universe. Just as reductionists
insisted that the scientifc method was
the key to all truth, evangelicals insisted
that Scripture, read literally, unlocked
the key to propositional knowledge
of the world. While pre-moderns had
seen the world through the lens of some
living tradition, modernists, Christian or
otherwise, saw reality as a system which
could be deciphered through the use of
a timeless and perfect tool. C.S. Lewis
described the temptation to see in Scripture
an unrefracted light giving us ultimate
truth in systematic formsomething we
could have tabulated and memorised and
relied on like the multiplication table.
In the larger Christian tradition, however,
the Bible has represented the narrative of
Gods work among his people, and the
recognition of the historical development
of this relationship shielded Scripture
from becoming a timeless, static, and
homogenous guide to reality.
In exchange for this dynamic
understanding of Scripture, evangelicals
have substituted a reading which insists that
everything in the Bible is perfectly consistent
and holds up to scrutiny on the level of fact.
While adopting the epistemology of the
modernist enemy makes for a nice and
neat debate with clearly defned sides, it has
come at great cost.
T
he richness of various genres
is silenced to maintain internal
consistency and literal factual truth. Te
modernist believes that the validity of a
narrative is defned by accuracy to the
facts, as if such an objective third-party
conveyance of reality were possible or even
desirable. An education at Hillsdale attempts
to demonstrate that the various liberal arts
all provide us diferent angles and ways of
encountering our complex reality. Afer all,
poets may choose words that do not stand
up to close examination for accuracy, yet
remain as true as ever. Biblical inerrancy
urges us to forget this appreciation for
genre, and treat all texts like scientifc or
historical fact. Instead of realizing the
surprising things the Genesis narrative
does to use and subvert Mesopotamian
creation myth, biblical inerrantists insist on
verifying that this poetic account is backed
up by science. Instead of appreciating the
encouragement the book of Revelation
would have provided early believers facing
the threat of imperial Rome, inerrantists
fnd in these texts a roadmap to future
geopolitical events. English majors at
Hillsdale would be horrifed by such forced
readings of any text but the Bible.
Not only does the depth of the biblical
text sufer, but the breadth of the dialogue
must be condensed to a single unifed voice.
Te participants in the biblical dialogue
are silenced by the need for an internally
consistent propositional truth. Instead
of appreciating the difering creation
accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, inerrantists
perform hermeneutical gymnastics,
changing verb tenses to ensure the account
makes a coherent scientifc explanation
of the worlds beginning. Scripture is not
a coherent narrative, let alone a unifed
propositional truth. Major contradictions
are evidence of multiple voices within the
text, which is an ongoing conversation
among Gods people about how to be Gods
people. For example, in Ezra, marrying
a foreigner got you killed. In Ruth, it got
you enshrined in a sort of love story. Te
Mosaic law prescribed an eye for an eye,
but Jesus went above and beyond, declaring
that you have heard but I say unto you.
Another example: the Pentateuch is fairly
ethnically exclusive, but by the time of
Jonah, Gods love is extended even to
Israels enemies. A Hillsdale education
demands that students not only critically
examine parallel texts for contradictions,
but to notice subtle diferences in emphasis.
Instead, inerrantists spend much of their
time trying to reconcile these diferent
emphases. To homogenize the Bible is to
ignore the progressive development of the
understanding of the people of God. Tese
contradictions show that the works are
products of human voices and not dropped
from on high. To revise them is to remove
the favor. Tere is a beauty in the dialogue
found in Scripture that is lost by attempts
to twist the stories into consistency so they
can ft into an inerrant Biblenot only the
integrity of the individual threads, but in
the beauty of the tapestry itself.
By embracing inerrancy, especially
along with its counterpart literalism, many
Christians have cut themselves of from the
heritage of Christian tradition. For one thing,
many inerrantists would be threatened by
the allegorical interpretations of Augustine,
Origen, or the Greek Fathers. While few
theologians would have gone so far as to say
that the Bible contained error, they were not
picking through the Bible with a modernist
Fighting modernity with modernity places limits on the study of scripture.
07 06
...because Scripture
is important and true,
we must use every tool
we have to study it.
BY AARON SCHRECK
Giving a best mans speech is one of the most difcult things
I can imagine. Not only must you articulate your love and ap-
preciation for one of the most intimate relationships of your
lifewhether it be a relationship with your son, brother, or
best friendyou must also speak about what is perhaps the
most inefable aspect of life in this world: romantic love. Te
only man less ft for such a task is the groom himself, struck
dumb at the sight of his brides white silhouette gliding towards
the altar. Language fades away, and only awe remains.
Tis illustrates a paradoxical feature of the human experi-
ence. We fnd that the closer we get to the heart of things, the
less ft we are to speak about them, to reduce them to the level
of language. Perhaps great poets and artists fnd their great-
ness in capturing these fundamental experiences without los-
ing what makes them so signifcant. Regardless, to speak about
these things ofen eludes us. It is likely for this reason that the
contemporary debate over the defnition of marriage is one
of the least coherent or efective instances of public discourse
in recent memory. Tis is not surprising. In trying to address
such fundamental questions, each interlocutor is giving their
own best man speech, trying to craf words strong enough to
hold the weight of the romantic mystery. No one has sufcient
distance from this question to speak about it objectively. In our
attempts to do so, we fnd ourselves as speechless and inartic-
ulate before the rawness of our subject matter as the groom
fnds himself before his bride on his wedding day.
But, as in Shakespeare, the veneer of comedy ofen grants
the fool clarity which escapes those passionately invested in
the situation. Australian comedian Jim Jeferies reaches this
level of insight in his stand-up routine, Alcoholocaust. Al-
though the title gives a representative sample of his comedic
register (read: low), his segment on relationships cuts right to
the heart of what I believe to be a signifcant question underly-
ing the contemporary marriage debate.
Amid a series of jokes based on stories of his own failed re-
lationships, Jeferies says, Ive been a heterosexual my whole
life; I would not call the experience happy. I would call it a
struggle at best. Tese lines come as the punchline to a series
of jokes about the putative happiness of homosexual men, de-
rived from both the original meaning of the word gay along
with various stereotypes and Jeferies personal experience. At
one point during his musings, he says, It must be wonderful
to be in a relationship where if your partner is being a dick-
head, you can punch him in the head. In Jim Jeferies mind, at
least for sake of the joke, one of the great allures of the homo-
sexual relationship is the ability to treat ones romantic partner
like oneself. It ofers the possibility of erotic love independent
of both sexual diference and its accompanying challenges.
Under the veneer of comedy, these jokes question the funda-
mental purpose of the erotic relationship. Although his com-
ments tend toward homosexuality, the answer to this question
is equally as relevant to advocates of traditional marriage. Do
we pursue such a relationship for pleasure and exhilaration
in the same way we might ride a rollercoaster or eat a deluxe
fudge brownie? If so, Jeferies might be right in suggesting
that the complexities of an encounter with femininity ruin the
net beneft of the relationshipjust like a screaming child or a
disagreeable sauce ruin a ride or dessert. Or, does an encoun-
ter with sexual otherness bring its own goodness, something
more sublime, something beyond sensual pleasure and exhila-
ration? Te married life is never easy, and Jeferies bids us ask
whether such difculties are worth it.
To help us consider this question, let us consult American
literatures favorite swashbuckling homoerotic couple, Que-
equeg and Ishmael. Troughout Moby Dick, Melville develops
a perplexing construction of marriage centered around the re-
lationship between the island native and the Nantucket sailor.
Te morning afer the awkward bedroom encounter, Ishmael
awakens to the savage's tattooed arm draped across him such
that [y]ou had almost thought I had been his wife. Later on,
Queequeg performs a native marriage ceremony and declares
them bosom friends, such that he would gladly die for [Ish-
mael] should the need arise.
Te strange marriage between the two men gains further
defnition through the chapter entitled Te Monkey Rope.
As Ishmael gazes over the railing at the laboring Queequeg
and contemplates the rope which binds them together, he re-
marks to himself that, for better or for worse, we two, for the
time, were wedded. Although the imagery of connection and
protection correspond to mans everyday understanding of the
marriage relationship, little else from the shared lives of these
two men seems to warrant such nuptial language.
Melville's bizarre construal of marriage becomes clearer
when understood as a thematic alternative to Ahab's solipsis-
tic quest to punch through the pasteboard mask and con-
front whatever divinity or nothingness lies behind the mate-
rial world. Looking out upon the ship's deck just a short time
before the epic three day chase, Ishmael describes a clear day
on the water such that the sun seemed giving this gentle air
to this bold and rolling sea; even as a bride to a groom. In this
image, we have a blueprint for Melvilles anti-solipsism: two
lovers reaching out of themselves towards the girdling line of
the horizon, [where] a sof and tremulous motion...denoted
the throbbing trust, the loving alarms, with which the poor
bride gave her bosom away. In Melvilles mind, one fnds the
real substance of human love only afer breaking out of ones
lens,
i ns i s t i ng
on historical or
scientifc accuracy. Instead,
church fathers heavily utilized
allegorical interpretation, creatively
mining the text for new and fresh ways
of listening to the voice of God. Biblical
inerrancy renders consulting tradition
more or less unnecessary. Why consult
a living tradition of fallible men when
you already have the perfect, self-
explanatory guide to all of reality? Much
of the intellectual and historical poverty
of modern evangelicalism can be traced to
the modernist view of scripture.
Biblical inerrancy causes confict with
modern scholarship as well as ancient
tradition. Te doctrine forces Christians
into some awkward situations when faced
with scientifc and historical evidence. No
matter what conclusion one might draw
from the scientifc evidence for evolution,
biblical inerrantists cannot even consider
the possible that the evidence might lean
that direction. Tis environment is not
a healthy one for pursuing truth. Te
entire Christian faith has been staked on
the literal truth of every text. Your entire
faith could be destroyed by the discovery
that the existence of domesticated camels
in Genesis is a historical anachronism. Te
great achievement and profound lessons of
Shakespeares work are not lost because of
inaccuracies in his historical dramas. One
would never argue that Shakespeare failed
because of these errors, yet this is the
standard many apply to the biblical text.
Tus all the attention placed on apologetics.
The
B i b l e
can no longer
speak for itself; it
was intended for
a role far diferent
than the perfect
propositional guide
it has become.
All of these
consequences mean that young
Christians are being presented
with a version of Christianity which is
difcult to defend in the academic world.
While it is one thing to be an inerrantist
at Hillsdale, which is very friendly toward
evangelical faith, Hillsdale students will
face a totally diferent world in graduate
school or the world at large. Te biblical
inerrantist worldview generally provokes
one of two reactions when faced with this
onslaught. Either the student doubles down
and continues to refuse to use the tools of
historical or literary analysis or the student
is faced with a sudden and traumatic crisis
in faith. Hillsdale should be a place where
students are encouraged to challenge their
faith and examine it critically, instead of
setting them up to either retreat into their
assumptions or founder when faced by the
challenges of modern scholarship.
B
iblical inerrancy at Hillsdale seems
to make the Bible the exception to
everything we learn here. Inerrantists have
raised the bar for truth so high that not
even the greatest text in human history can
reach it, placing Christians in the awkward
position of constantly having to defend the
faith against modernity on modernist turf.
Even Hillsdale Protestant hero C.S. Lewis
recognized that the Scripture could not
bear the demands of biblical inerrancy:
Te human qualities of the raw materials
show through. Navety, error, contradiction,
even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness
are not removed. Te total result is not
the Word of God in the sense that every
passage, in itself,
gives impeccable science
or history. It carries the Word
of God.
While much of this piece is about how not
to read the Bible and what the Bible is not,
I believe that understanding problematic
ways of reading of Bible opens up the door
to greater engagement with the text. Lewis
understood this, and argued that because
Scripture is important and true, we must
use every tool we have to study it:
We (under grace, with attention to tradition
and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and
with the use of such intelligence and learning
as we may have) receive that wordfromit not
by using it as anencyclopedia or anencyclical
but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper
and so learning its overall message.
Tat overall message emerges only through
the contradictions, the dialogue, and the
various genera which biblical inerrancy
covers up.
As Hillsdale students, we spend four
years learning how to read texts. We believe
that as we encounter the dialogue we call
the Great Tradition, we are entering a space
where truth will happen. As we approach
that vibrant and messy dialogue, it would
be sad indeed if we allowed concepts like
biblical inerrancy to deprive us of the
literary and historical tools we have learned.
So I encourage you to heed the words of
Lewis and consider the possibility that the
Bible is not the timeless, fawless guidebook
to certainty about the universe that modern
man seeks. No, it is something deeper
and more meaningful than that. Scripture
does not present us with a coherent set of
propositions or facts which are infallible or
inspired, but rather a dialogue containing
competing narratives, and it is this dialogue
which is inspired (Gods voice can be heard
in it.) It is the record of men and women
who wrestled with God and with each
other, and through that dialogue the voice
of God emerges, calling us forth to greater
beauty and truth. F
Timothy Troutner is a junior studying
history and philosophy.
Marriage and the great white whale
Marriage should mean embracing the other, not self-fufllment.
8 9
self and submitting to another. Trough the grammatical jux-
taposition of throbbing trusts and loving alarms, Melville
suggests that the experience of love in this world is inextri-
cably bound up in uncertainty. Love requires that we ofer up
mastery of ourselves to another with no guarantee of kindness
or reciprocity. To embed onself in fallible, human community
is to be always vulnerable to imminent disappointment. While
relational solipsism provides security, it also covers over the
vulnerability which allows for genuine love.
So what does this strange construal of marriage from a
19th-century novel about whaling contribute to a contempo-
rary discussion of marriage? I doubt that Melville was really
all that interested in making any normative claims about the
institution of marriage. Rather, he uses it as a vehicle to oppose
individualism, and to ofer his audience a binary vision of life
in this world. A man can see himself either as a radically free,
individual beholden to nothing but what lies beyond the
pasteboard mask, or as inextricably bound up in
relationships to those around him, an
idea perfectly captured by
the image of the
mo n -
k e y
r o p e .
So, although
marriage in Moby
D i c k has very little to do
with ordi- nary human marriage, it
is worth not- ing that Melville saw marriage
and romantic love as the best analogue to depict
in narrative an exis- tential embrace of otherness.
In light of this philosophical project, the homosexual nature
of their relationship becomes more or less insignifcant. Afer
all, there is hardly a feminine option within the novel's uni-
verse. Aunt Charity, Mrs. Hussey, and the pale squid would
make a poor season of the Bachelor. Te relationship more
primarily provides Melville's novel with a concrete example
of embracing what is existentially foreign in another human
being. Just as a married couple must overcome diferences of
body, mindset, and perspective to achieve domestic harmony,
so does the relationship of Queequeg and Ishmael require each
man to embrace alien aspects of his partner. Physically, Que-
equegs tattooed, dark skin opposes that of the Caucasian Ish-
mael; religiously, Queequegs little god Yojo challenges Ishma-
els Presbyterian sensibilities. Socio-economically, Queequeg's
royal islander blood looms over Ishmael's nondescript Ameri-
can birth. Te two men even work in diferent positions on the
ship, Queequeg a harpooner and Ishmael a regular sailor. Tey
are opposites in almost every way possible aboard a
Nantucket whaler. Teir relationship em-
bodies both the struggles and joys
which accompany a
deep, holistic
embrace of
another human be-
ing. Even as Ishmael grows in
his love for Queequeg, he must embrace
a whole host of Queequeg's eccentricities, ranging
from the savages benign and comedic practice of changing
clothes under the bed to his much more divisive worship of the
little god Yojo and observance of the Ramadan. To love another
is to sufer, just as even the gentlest breeze from the sun makes
waves upon the sea.
All this is to say that perhaps when Jim Jeferies says his life as
a heterosexual has been a struggle at best, he's more on the right
track than he knows. If we accept Melville's vision of marriage
and erotic love, then the struggle gives us hope that we are on
to something. Any great object is won at the expense of great
efort, and perhaps we are wrong to think love is any diferent.
As anyone who has run a marathon or built something out of
wood knows, you cannot separate the making and the having.
Te struggle becomes a great part of the awe a groom feels be-
fore his bride, and it makes the experience of romantic love so
inefable. F
Aaron Schreck is a junior studying English.
Rather, he uses [love]
as a vehicle to oppose
individualism, and to
offer his audience a
binary vision of life in
this world.
BY MICAH MEADOWCROFT
Lets not go there: the
Church of Englands female
bishops
By voting to allow female bishops the
church of England risks becoming like their
liberal counterparts.
Te Church of England General Synod voted recently
to allow women to become bishops. Tis follows the or-
dination of female priests in 1994. While the measure will
now need to be approved by the ecclesiastical committee
of parliament and receive the assent of the Queen, observ-
ers expect the frst female bishops to be appointed by the
end of the year.
While one can argue that the installation of female bish-
ops naturally refects the ordination of female priests,
doing so merely pushes the theological debate back two
decades and ignores the signifcance of the escalation.
Tat and a number of other recent moves by the Church
of England cause me to fear that, in the footsteps of the
Episcopal Church, her estranged daughter in America, the
Anglican mother could fast be becoming Monty Pythons
Camelot, a silly place.
To consider the stakes, the most orthodox choice made
by the Episcopal Church of late was its decision to defrock
a priest, Ann Holmes Redding, who claimed to be both
Muslim and Christian. Te church ordained gay and les-
bian priests 18 years ago, and appointed its frst gay bish-
op 11 years ago. Tat bishop has since both married and
divorced his partner. Te church began blessing same-sex
marriages in religious ceremonies in 2012. In 2011, an
Episcopalian diocese in Georgia attempted to have Pela-
gius, the ffh century heretic, reinstated. Pelagius denied
man is born sinful, and claimed man was capable of sav-
ing himself apart from Gods grace. Individual congrega-
tions have broken away from the Episcopal Church as it has
strayed further from historical Christianity, many joining
conservative Anglican dioceses in North Africa.
Tis has prompted Episcopalian leadership to
engage in ugly feuds over church prop-
erty and underhanded, certainly
uncharitable, methods of
penalizing departing
focks.
T h e
Episcopal Church denies its departure from historical
Christianity, and nominally afrms the historical creeds
that defne the Christian faith, writing on its website, we
join Christians throughout the ages in afrming our faith
in the one God who created us, redeemed us, and sanc-
tifes us. It has to, to consider itself Anglican, a tradition
that is built on the Elizabethan religious settlement of 1558
claiming to be both catholic and reformed. Tat frst title
of catholicity hearkens back to the creeds and councils up
to the Protestant reformation and lays claim to the contin-
uation of apostolic succession in the Church of Englands
hierarchy of bishops, priests, deacons, and the laity. Te
second term, reformed, is theological and points to the
truly Protestant beliefs of the church found in the Tir-
ty-nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Tus
the Church of England can be understood as catholic in
form but reformed in theology.
If the Anglican mother church, rooted in the Bishop-
rics of Canterbury and York, continues down the path it
appears to be setting for itself, it will cease to be Angli-
can, for it shall cease to be both catholic and reformed.
Female bishops, and female priests for that matter, are not
found in the Biblical descriptions of church structure, and
as Catholic blogger Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry pointed out
on Patheos.com, Christianity is a revealed religion. Tat
the apostolic church described in the Book of Acts or by
the apostle Paul contains no women preachers ought to be
informative, if not prescriptive. History and tradition both
deny female priests, pastors, presbyters, what you will
bishops certainlyand the Church of England makes ex-
plicit claim to history and tradition. Te confrmation of
female bishops will cripple many claims to apostolic suc-
cession.
Te General Synod has made much of
the increasing secularization of Brit-
ain, and in attempts to appeal to
post-modern sensibilities
is seeking to let Low
Church Angli-
c a n i s m
b e -
10 11
The Hillsdale Forum is proud
to present two essays from the
recently-graduated class of 2014. A
new tradition wed like to continue and
expand greatly, we hope this can be
a way for graduation seniors to have
their fnal word to campus and share
the fruits of their years at Hillsdale with
their peers and an incoming freshman
class. Get thinking now, class of 2015!
History and tradition
both deny female priests,
pastors, presbyters,
what you willbishops
certainlyand the Church
of England makes explicit
claim to history and
tradition.
come very low indeed, promoting vestment free commu-
nion services in alternative locations like cafs, pubs, and
parks. It is a minor, but another, sacrifce of tradition on
the altar of popularity. More worrying is the alternative
baptismal service leaving out renunciation of the Devil,
leaving out Satan entirely actually. Te Synod has decided
to respond to the sentiment that he doesnt exist not with
preaching like the apostle Peter to, Be sober-minded; be
watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a
roaring lion, seeking someone to devour, but with si-
lence. Moreover, there is now even discussion of support
of assisted suicide, a step away from the sanctity of life.
Tis is not the kind of responsive development of Chris-
tian doctrine that John Henry Newman wrote about in
1845. Empty pews are not heresies to respond to. While
his exploration of theological development led him from
Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, Newman set forth
principles that should teach the church he lef behind.
Doctrine should become more precise as it is tested, not
loosen and dissipate in response to disinterest or popular
opinion. Te Church of England has done well in response
to gay marriage and homosexuality. Te church will not
ofciate gay weddings, nor ordain those who practice the
homosexual lifestyle or are in same-sex marriages, but it
recognizes that it is a new reality in England. It recog-
nizes the need to love and shepherd homosexuals, while
standing strong for marriage between man and woman,
and condemning adultery and fornication as grievous sin.
In marriage, the Church of England is afrming both
form and theology. While it is sacrifcing itself, a church
both catholic and reformed, in its desire for increased at-
tendance and relevance, it is not too reduced. It is, how-
ever, further alienating itself from traditional Anglican
dioceses and other apostolic denominations. It needs to
realize that it remains relevant inasmuch as it does not re-
fect the populara light to a dark world. It cannot reject
either its form or its function without ceasing to be itself.
If it does, English Anglicanism will fast become the Amer-
ican Episcopal Church, and lets not go there. As King Ar-
thur said, it is a silly place. F
Micah Meadowcrof is a junior studying history. He is a
member of the Dow Journalism Program.
12
displaying utter minimalism: bun, patty, cheese,
ketchup, and mustard. Somehow, the bun becomes
infused with the grease of the burger, forming a semi-
cohesive mass that tastes like only heaven can. Do not
stop with the burger, though. The Coney Hut makes its
own root beer, which leads to the one of the best root
beer floats you will ever have. Add some battered fries
to your order and you will have just begun to scratch
the surface of the menu.
Broad Street Downtown Market: If you are a
freshman reading this, appreciate two things: the
absence of Saga Inc. and the presence of Broad Street
Downtown Market. When I arrived in Hillsdale in
2010, the on-campus food was terrible, and there was
not a decent restaurant in town to meet or hang out
at for several hours. Now the opposite is true, and,
among other qualities, the burger at Broad Street is
great. Its primary downside is the cost, which can hit
over $9, but you are getting everything you pay for:
the burger can be hard to finish it is so large and all the
ingredients are premium. It gets the burger parents
should buy when they come to town award.
Rays Tavern: Rays is in Reading, Michigan, and was
once rated as the best burger in the country by USA
Today. That was a long time ago though, and now
one should go primarily for the experience. Rays,
like the Coney Hut, is a relic, but even older. It is the
quintessential midwestern dive-bar, the place that
Tom Petty wrote about in all those songs. The last time
I was there, they still had one beer on tap: Bud Light.
It is truly a vestige of days past. F
Robert Ramsey 14 studied history and political
economy at Hillsdale.
The hamburger is the
perfect medium to deliver the
delicious, favor-giving fat. In
a steak, it requires a perfect
balance of fats, proteins,
and temperature to deliver
something wonderful, and
all of these things require
money, from the cows birth
to the steak on your plate.
The hamburger triumphant Rob Ramsey
I
would like to make an argument for why the
hamburger is the greatest of all American foods,
and how, within Hillsdales community, one can
find superb examples of this culinary art form. The
hamburger embodies the soul of our culture: it is cheap,
accessible, and convenient, all the marks of American
production at its finest. Its history did not begin in a
palace of gastronomy or five-star hotel, but in a small
vendors wagon in New Haven, Connecticut, where
the owner, Louis Lassen, was a Danish immigrant.
Like most staple foods, the hamburger spurns attempts
at complexity, denying a seat in the pantheon of
hamburger greatness to those who place more than the
most essential items on top of the hallowed patty.
How does something so simple and cheap, taste so
good? One can make a hamburger for less than a dollar
that will rival the flavor and depth of a $15 steak, and
this is due to one simple ingredient: fat. Fat equals flavor,
and it is universally recognized throughout the world
as the essential element of rich cooking. Enjoy that
croissant or that piece of tuna sushi? Like Indian curry
dishes, fresh cheese, or chocolate chip cookies? The key
is fat. The hamburger is the perfect medium to deliver
the delicious, flavor-giving fat. In a steak, it requires
a perfect balance of fats, proteins, and temperature to
deliver something wonderful, and all of these things
require money, from the cows birth to the steak
on your plate. In a hamburger, the perfect
balance of fat can be ground into the
beef along with everything else.
Just grab whatever extra
beef fat you have lying
around and toss it
in the grinder.
(This is
what makes the idea of a Wagyu beef burger so
absurd; Wagyu steaks contain an amazing balance and
distribution of fat, but when ground down it merely
becomes just like every other patty.)
I will be the first to admit that hamburgers, like
everything else, often come down to personal taste. I
dislike McDonalds and the similar food chains, while
just the other day, I met a very well educated, very
cultured man who claims to eat McDonalds up to
seven times a week. Other friends of mine love what I
call the Leviathan: one of those towering hamburgers
with one inch thick patties, numerous tomatoes,
cheeses, and other accouterments threatening to
topple at any time. I prefer cheap, drive-in style
hamburgers, relics from another era that can only be
found in run-down, roadside establishments. For me,
scoring a greasy quarter-pounder with cheese and a
steamed bun for a buck-fifty is one of the greatest
privileges I have as an American.
Where, then, can one find a good hamburger in
Hillsdale, so far away from civilizing forces? I shall
give you four options, all of which I have frequented
and all of which deserve your patronage.
The Bowling Alley: Growing up, my local bowling
alley was known for only serving nachos and pizzas
whose origins were highly dubious, and therefore
I tend to make a habit of avoiding eating at the
restaurants found in bowling alleys. In Hillsdale, the
opposite is true of this bowling alley. If you want to
find the epitome of a classic hamburger, go to the
bowling alley. They use quality patties, good cheese,
and a pretzel bun. The restaurant is closed off from
the rest of alley, and the staff is friendly. The bar is
decent, as far as cheap drinks go, in case you would
like something to chase down your burger.
The Coney Hut: The Coney Hut up on US-12 just
outside of Jonesville is my ideal burger joint
incarnate. Still an authentic drive-in from the
era when such things were prominent,
it is truly a relic from another
age. The hamburgers are
fantastically cheap, and
a dollar will get you
a cheeseburger
13
14 15
02
Reviews
The Forum
Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child by
Anthony Esolen (2010) ISI Books: Irvington, Delaware
T
he title says it all: ten ways to destroy the
imagination of your child. At once funny
and serious, light-hearted and profound, Dr.
Anthony Esolens book is an excellent and incisive
cultural criticism in the guise of a satire.
At frst glance, the contents of this book appear odd
and perhaps dangerous. Certainly, any rational person
fnds the notion of destroying a childs imagination
surprising and appalling. However, Esolen capitalizes
on this surprise by demonstrating how we carry out
this destruction every day. He explains the ten primary
methods, from detaining children indoors to distracting
them with the shallow and the unreal. Tough clearly
satirical, his points are nevertheless very familiar to
most of his readers. Afer all, who cannot sympathize
with the desire to protect children from all harm, to
ensure their confdence and guarantee them all the
love and afection they desire? Esolen plays out these
scenarios to their conclusions, demonstrating how all
result inevitably in personal decay sadly typical of this
modern age.
Tere are times when Esolen threatens to ofend even
his most sympathetic reader. In the chapter Cut All
Heroes Down to Size, he writes that rather than attacking
excellence, we should call anything and everything
excellent. You democratize heroism. Everybody is a
hero, and simply for doing (and ofen not well at that)
the ordinary tasks of living as a half-decent person. Of
course we can agree with this idea. But he continues:
Does your mother fx your breakfast? She is a hero.
Does your father visit you every weekend without fail?
A hero If everyone is a hero, then no one is a hero;
genuine heroes will go unnoticed in all the mindless
self-congratulation. Tis is when the indictment begins
to set it. How ofen do we fnd ourselves praising the
accomplishments of those close to us, or even ourselves,
when in fact they can barely be called such? Is it truly
so extraordinary that a mother care for her family, or a
father love his child? It may seem as though raising the
bar is hard, but Esolen shows us that we have merely
lowered it to suit ourselves.
Yet another aspect of the contradictory nature
of this book is the way in which Esolen carries his
reader along. It is remarkable how efectively the book
captures and thrills the very faculty it seems bent on
destroying. Enthralling descriptions of seminal tales in
the Western tradition are used in order to explain the
dangers found in these tales. Not only does Esolens
satire clearly indicate why the imagination must be
allowed to fourish at all costs, but also his brilliant
storytelling gently stokes the forgotten embers of this
power in the reader.
I cannot recommend this book to the unassuming,
careless reader who is content with a culture of
sterility and mere appearances, of shadows cast on a
wall. I cannot recommend this book to the individual
possessed by the desire for material goods at the cost of
family, friends, and personhood. I cannot recommend
this book to anyone raised in an age and environment
that admires mediocrity, spurns curiosity, encourages
debauchery, despises ambition, and venerates cynicism.
If, as the author states, above your head has been fxed
the lowest ceiling of all, the truth of this book is not
for you.
Because it will reopen your mind and soul to a world
whose beauty and wonder will surpass anything your
imagination has seen before. F
Senior Class President Andy Reuss studies politics
and English and is head resident assistant of Simpson
Residence. Tank you to the Intercollegiate Studies
Institute for the review copy of this book.
Book review: The lowest ceiling of all
There is a world of beauty lost to chldren (and adults) who dont pay attention.
BY ANDY REUSS
previous tenants. Te Love Shack has a new name, Rivendell
is gone, and the Palace doesnt throw the same parties. Tose
losses feel all the more acute when you see one of the three-
hundred odd freshmen sit in the booth you always sat at with
a senior friend.
Sophomore year presents to you more and harder choices
than you had to make freshman year, and thats what makes
it so difcult. You can either choose to work hard and
learn from upperclassmen or you can continue working at
a freshman level and stagnate academically. You can dive
into your reading, homework, projects, and research or you
can coast on the 3.89 you got last year. You can create new
traditions and make new of-campuses houses feel like home
or you can live in the memories you made last year. You can
welcome the freshmen into your friend groups even though
its painful and frustrating because you just cant explain to
them how cool Annie Laurie Setten is or what it was like to
have Abi Wood as a mentor or how much fun it was being
around Garrett Holt. Or you can ignore them because they
just dont get it.
You can choose to love people despite your stress, pain, and
all of the varied feelings sophomore year entails. Tis is the
choice to love your neighbors actively and tirelessly that
Father Zosima presents in Fyodor Dostoevskys Te Brothers
Karamazov. Its is the choice that Class President Josh
Andrew 14 talked about in his wonderful commencement
speech this spring, a choice that appeared sensible at the
time, and whose ramifcations we did not understand. And
that was the choice to love. To give ourselves to each other,
to do this education together, transient and permeable as we
are. If you havent read it, do. Its on the Collegians website.
Sophomore year can be a beautiful, soul-enriching kind of
hard or the kind of hard that makes you consider dropping
outor both.
Its up to you. F
Sally Nelson 14 studied English and was a member of the
Dow Journalism Program at Hillsdale. She works as a wedding
photographer and freelance writer and, in October, will marry
Nick ODonnell 14.
C
lass of 2017: prepare for what will be the hardest year
of your college career.
Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Some
student tank, academically or socially, their junior or senior
years. Some freshmen party too hard. But for many, the
illusion of stability and understanding cemented at the end
of freshman year shatters by the middle of sophomore year.
Combined with emotional, social, and academic pressure,
that shattering can make sophomore year your most stressful,
challenging year.
Academics, the center of your college experience, will get
much harder than you are used to or expect. Especially for
students taking the new corewhich splits up the GPA-
wrecking duo of Great Books I and Western Heritage
your workload will grow much heavier. Part of this is just
an appearance: you might feel busier because you are more
plugged into extracurricular activities like the Greek system,
the Collegian, or your sports team.
But part of this stems from realityyou are now expected
to perform on par with upperclassmen who have studied
your topic more, know each other and how to study much
better, and have better relationships with your professor.
Work that might have set you apart from other freshmen
now pales next to to a senior writing an honors thesis on
your topic.
Further, social circles get somehow messier and more
dramatic. Friendships die over the summer, breakups
splinter friend groups, and the exciting newness of freshman
year is gone.
But hardest of all, Hillsdale can seem like an entirely
diferent school than the one you grew to love your freshman
year. Certainly, much about Hillsdale remains the same:
people will always talk too loudly in the library, the line to
Sagaor whatever were calling it nowwill take twice as
long on Mondays, and not enough students will attend the
football games.
Yet the three hundred seniors you looked up to last
year are gone, pursuing careers and marriages and lives
separate from you and your world at Hillsdale. Te of-
campus houses you spent hours atwatching Gossip Girl
in the backroom at the Treehouse, reading poetry at the
Donnybrook, or Dance Dance Revolution at the West Bank
have new identities, probably distant from those of their
Sophomore year sucks
Things have changed; its going to suck;
embrace the suck.
BY SALLY NELSON
16 17
disagreements as to how Heraclitus meant his Logos to be
understoodrationality, structure, wisdom, word, deity,
sayingis, like
the memetic taco
ad, Por qu no
las dos? (Or in
this case, todos).
Branns writing is
compact, clear, and
at times poetic. She
leads the reader
through each stage
of her argument
quickly and
without confusion.
Beginning with
this standard
translation:
Listening not
to me but to the
Logos, it is wise to
acknowledge that
all things are one.
Brann transforms
it to:
For those hearing
not me but the
Saying, to say the same is the Wise Ting: Everything [is] One.
[Branns italics]
Bringing out more meaning. Tis Logos speaks to us and we
are obligated to say the same; we agree and echo, and in a
sense obey, the Saying or Speech which is also a Speaker. Tis
Speaker says a Wise Ting, but also seems to be the Wise
Ting itself. Is bracketed shows another layer of the puzzle:
Heraclitus does not identify or predicate, Everything is
One, he simply juxtaposes, panta:hen. And so the fragment
is further transformed:
Listen not to me but to Te Speaker, there is a wise things to
agree withOne:Everything.
Tis sort of unpacking is exhilarating to watch. Brann
builds upon herself and incorporates each new fragment into
the grand story of the Logos. She touches on mathematics
and music, myth and etymology, to draw out the meanings
folded into the Greek sayings. On the aphoristic mode itself,
Brann see parallels with the core of Heraclitus philosophy:
I have no doubt that Heraclitus intended all the possibilities,
and intended them all at once, not from sheer linguistic ability,
but because his style of aphoristic succinctness, exploded by his
punning resonances, so exactly conveys his discovery: the all-at-
onceness of all things in their multiplicitylightly girdled speech
sweeping along vast skirts
of signifcance.
Like each aphorism, this
160 page book is written
with such economy
I wont endeavor to
outline Branns entire
train of thought, lest this
magazine explode. Tolle
lege, you wont regret it.
Heraclitus is the source
of the long philosophical
history of logos, and
Brann devotes a section
to the later use of the word
and other Heraclitian
concepts, from Zeno and
Saint John the Evangelist
(who receives only the
barest mention, perhaps
to avoid any theological
stance) to James
Madison. Te Logos of
Heraclitus is well worth its
compact look at the frst
philosopher of the West
on its most interesting term, paying careful attention to his
historical context. It does not rely on late interpretations,
even from Socrates and Aristotle, who Brann claims in an
interview had their own agendas and misunderstood his
insistence on true paradox, saw him as unifying opposites.
Logos is the key word of the Western philosophical tradition,
which acts as a tradition because its moments are bound
together and driven apart by dialogue: the back-and-forth of
the logos.
Tat might be the key to grasping Heraclitus, to become
comfortable with discomfort, accustomed to his ratios
that can never be resolved into one term. Juxtaposition
of opposites, divided and spread out across each other in
perfect proportionality with everything but never together.
In this restless world we must hope there is room for love,
for as Marilynne Robinson put in Gilead, there is no justice
in love, no proportion in it, and there need not be...It makes
no sense at all because it is the eternal breaking in on the
temporal. F
Editor-in-Chief Chris McCafery is a junior studying history.
He is a member of the Dow Journalism Program
Book review: The paradox
of Heraclitus
The oft-misunderstood frst philosopher of
the West casts a long shadow.
BY CHRIS MCCAFFERY
Te Logos of Heraclitus by Eva Brann (2011) Paul Dry
Books: Philadelphia
A
large book is a large evil, Callimachus says;
Hillsdale students might be willing to agree. Eva
Branns Te Logos of Heraclitus is neither, but the
pithy saying is like Heraclitus aphorisms: compact, tense,
and dismissive. Brann, a St. Johns College tutor, sets out to
explain in this little volume what Heraclitus means by the
word Logos, how it relates to the rest of his philosophyor
our idea of it: panta rhei, fre, all those wet feetand who
the enigmatic aphorist drew from in the murky world of pre-
Socratic philosophy.
We receive no full text from Heraclitus, only fragments
and quotes in other authors. His composition is lost to us.
Brann pays careful attention to the important aphorisms
that we have, ofen making her own translations to bring
out key facets of the compact original Greek. She discusses
Pythagoras and Homer and shows how Heraclitus took from
both while claiming to despise them and his fellow Milesian
Physicists (Diogenes Laertius, the third-century A.D.
biographer, tells us that Heraclitus said Homer deserved to
be driven out of the lists and fogged; Brann calls
him the greatly absorptive despiser).
Heraclitus project was to discover
what, if anything, was intelligible
about the world. His answer
was the Logos, a ratio and
principle of exchange
between all matter that in
a lawlike manner guides
all the transformations
of the world. Rather
than a static peace, the
world is constantly in
tension as the Logos
forces every thing into
relationality with every
other thing. Is this a deity?
Heraclitus says that this Logos
is unwilling and willing to be
called by the name of Zeus.
Logos has a long history before and afer Heraclitus. Its
earliest meaning, found in the verb legein, is to pick up and
lay down of lay by, that is, to collect, hence to count up, to
tell, re-count, and thus to give an account. From this origin
we get meanings related to speech, with speech as the sign of
human reason. As we speak, we tell and relate taleslogos
also means fame. Just as we speak to others and address
them, so too does logos bring things into relation with each
other, and this is how Pythagoras, Heraclitus immediate
predecessor, used the term. In this way, Latins ratio translates
to logos as well. Te ratio-relation connects two terms in
mutually determining juxtaposition, especially in respect to
their common measurability.
It is this key meaning of logos that Brann expounds upon.
Heraclitus makes use of analogy in the same way Homer
used metaphor, which says poetically what analogy says
prosaically; the thought structure is the same. Brann
claims that Heraclitus learned metaphor from Homer, in
characteristic creative ingratitude. It perfectly suit[s] the
expression of his way of thinking and the construction of
the cosmosby the bond of all-pervasive logoi. Homeric
metaphor, such as:
As in heaven the stars shine so splendidly,
So in the plains of Troy shone the Trojan campfres. (Iliad 8.555)
Show the fundamental way that things may be compared
to each other when put in relation. Tese smaller logoi
connect the numbers 3:4 and 6:13 along the same
thought structure as heavenly stars:Trojan
fres. Te Logos is the sum of all smaller
logoi, forcing and binding all together.
Aphorisms are designed to be
unpacked, to have layers of
meanings held in
tension. Branns
solution to
Heraclitus project was to
discover what, if anything, was
intelligible about the world.
His answer was the Logos, a
ratio and principle of exchange
between all matter that in a
lawlike manner guides all the
transformations of the world.
19
03
HILLSDALE COLLEGE, Knorr
Family Dining Room (Collegian
wire) asingle plastic cup in the
Knorr Family Dining Room has been
used to illustrate at least 46 distinct
philosophical points since students
returned to campus this week.
Im really only here to do one job,
which is to transport and contain
liquids, said the cup, which cannot
even choose to remain anonymous
because it was not created with a
free will. But every time someone
sits down and needs to make a
distinction to their friend, Im the
first thing they reach for.
The cup has been used to
distinguish Aristotelian causes,
demonstrate phenomenological
being, and improperly articulate
predestination, among other
concepts.
You get out of the washer and
think its going to be a relatively
simple, normal lunch hour. Hold
some Mountain Dew, go through the
dish line, and youre good, it said.
Once you hear cupness, its all over.
Junior Roger Walker has admitted
to using a cup to show a friend how
its essence preceded its existence,
though cannot confirm that it was
the same cup that at one point he
accused of being pure extension.
Its just the most convenient
thing available to my hands when
I get worked up about something,
he said. I know [Jean-Paul] Sartre
used a book or a paper-knife in his
Existentialism Is a Humanism, but
I didnt have one with me!
Walker says that if a cup doesnt
want to be used to indicate literally
anything he is thinking about, he
finds it troubling that a plastic cup is
capable of wanting.
Thats a whole nother ball of
wax, he mused.
The cup relates that the most
strained argument it has ever been
used for was an impassioned defense
of Medieval cosmology, in which
it played the part of the sun. It
described the entire experience as
highbrow, but poorly executed.
Freshmen are the worst every
year, it explained. Im constantly
being waved about as the success
of the free market and the
exceptional economy of America.
Upperclassmen do not get a
pass, however.
I dont care how much you love
[Immanuel] Kant, it said. I am not
a hypothetical imperative acting on
liquid. Thats a terrible example for
any cup in any situation.
It added that it is not mediating the
experience of a beverage, an image
formed by sense input, the worth of
the labor that produced it, or in any
way shaped like Dantes Inferno.
Instructor of Philosophy Lee Cole
explained that this cup is simply
participating in a long history of
philosophical explanation using
innocuous objects, as well as several
other accidental qualities, such as
translucence.
Its fairly common, Cole said.
If the cup is there, a philosophical
demonstration will probably inhere
in it.
Whether the cup has helped any of
the arguments its been involved in
hold water is up for vigorous debate
today at lunch.
Senior Class President Andy Reuss
studies politics and English and is
head resident assistant of Simpson
Residence. His humor and satire
column is entering its third year in
The Forum.
Columns
The Forum
CUP ABUSE RAMPANT
IN CAFETERIA
BY ANDY REUSS
TRAGICALLY HIP
I was being jostled by tourists on the Washing-
ton, D.C., rush-hour Metro the frst time I heard
New York Kiss. (Harry Reid could smell them,
Im sure of it.) Te fnal track of Spoons new
album was gorgeous: smooth, polished,
but graced with the sharp, poppy
spunk shared by Britt Daniels
myriad projects.
Te train hurtled along. I
listened rapturously. But all
things in life must end; so,
too, the song and train ride.
Te Metro decelerated. Te
squat, swarthy woman in
front of me was thrown
violently backward and
lodged her elbow in my gut.
My iPhone went silent. Te
sticky horde disembarked
and went their various ways.
Spoon has had a long and pro-
ductive run in the indie music
industry, beginning in 1994 with
Nefarious and ending in 2010 with
Transference. Te albums produced
with Merge Records (Love Ways of 2000
being the frst) were released to increasing
acclaim. Tey Want My Soul, released only
last week, doesnt look like it wants to break
the upward trend.
Tere have been a few alterations to the out-
ft, though. Loma Vista Recordings, Spoons
new label, has ties to the major-label music
industry that the band previously abhorred.
Additionally, two new producers were brought
on board: one, Dave Fridmann, has worked with
the likes of Te Flaming Lips and MGMT; the
other, Joe Chiccarelli, has worked with
outfts including My Morning Jacket.
Te result is a much more palat-
able album. Te tousled hair of
early Spoon has been combed,
to some extent; its swagger-
ing, dissonant guitar rifs
refocused. But the explosive
energy is still there. Rent I
Pay, the frst track, is posi-
tively bombastic. Chugging,
infectious rhythm drives the
song from the very begin-
ning. At the other end of the
spectrumand albumis
New York Kiss. Its ground-
ed on a solid, danceable
groove but retains a fuid, shim-
mering, ethereal aesthetic.
Im just glad to fnally be able to lis-
ten to them without getting elbowed.
Summer Anthems (In Case You Missed em):
Chandelier by Sia
Habits (Stay High) by Tove Lo
I Wanna Get Better by Bleachers
Sweet Ophelia by Zella Day
Hard Time by Seinabo Sey
Tragically HipSpoon
Thoughts on a subway from The Forums
aesthete, or, music that doesnt suck.
BY SARAH ALBERS
12

28
H
i
l
l
s
d
a
l
e

S
t
.
Montgomery St
.
S
u
m
m
i
t

S
t
.
Galloway Dr.
Barber Dr.
N

W
e
s
t

S
t
.
P
a
r
k

S
t
.
M
c
C
l
e
l
l
a
n

S
t
.
U
n
i
o
n

S
t
.
Fayette St.
M
a
n
n
i
n
g

S
t
.
E College St.
River St
.
Howder St
.
O
a
k

S
t
.
Mead St
.
G
a
r
d
e
n

S
t
.
Vine St.
2
7
4
1
9
8
17
24
13 11
10
16 15
14
3
6
5
OFF-CAMPUS HOUSES
(WELL MOST OF THEM ANYWAY)
18
19 20
21
22
23
25
26 27
1 The Nest
2 Ithika
3 Pi Beta Phi
4 Sigma Alpha Iota
5 The Mansion
6 Chi Omega
7 The Donnybrook
8 Kappa Kappa Gamma
9 Mu Alpha
10 The Drive In
11 Delta Tau Delta
12 Sigma Chi
13 Alpha Tau Omega
14 Brooklyn
15 The Love Shack
16 The Womb
17 The Yellows
18 The Treehouse
19 The Bounce House
20 The Waffe House
21 The West Bank
22 Hundred Acre Wood
23 Asgard
24 Corinth
25 The Crib
26 The Byrdcage
27 The Speakeasy
28 The Wasteland