Review of 'The Shack' [Article]

I would not state that this is set to become the theologian's first port of call in attempting to understand the nature of God. Instead, it seems to portray itself as an introduction into theology, by way of a novelistic style. It has its roots in orthodox Christianity and I was generally satisfied with the approach, though was in no way swayed by its line of thought to convert myself to Christianity.

Alas, it's very difficult to understand some of the profound concepts that it discusses and there are some who might find the book to be pretentious. As one reviewer stated 'This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for him'. Of course, few appreciate that the Pilgrim's Progress was nothing more than the solidification of orthodox Christian views in John Bunyan's generation. I find it rather amusing that the comparison would be made.

As a novel, however, it ticks all the boxes. I was impressed with the development of the main character and the plot was both thrilling and interesting. In a generation that has become fascinated with crime, horror and thrillers, this was a pleasant change from the norms.

It's not aimed at those people who are 'Christian' in nature. In truth, it doesn't even describe itself as a 'religious text', rather it has religious themes which border upon the lines between theology and human psychology. Most of the book is concerned with questions most people would have - it provides ample opportunity for empathy for the main character, something that was evoked early in the book.

If someone were to ask me if it were aimed at the agnostic or the atheist, I would have to agree with a friend that it is aimed at the agnostic. The declaration of atheism is an absolute statement and this book requires some element of 'openness' in regards to belief. There is no room for scepticism (save for the part of the main character!). It has that element of subjectivity and conditional views that appeals to me.

What would I describe the book as? I'd describe it as a tragic tale of a man's search within himself for answers to questions he never asked. It has a Christian foreground but it does not impose those beliefs. Rather, it provides a chance for the reader to interchange 'God' for their personal beliefs. It's a beautiful and sad story that is written rather well. Its main feature is its simplicity in style.

In regards to a recommendation, I'd offer it to all who have an open mind and are interested in something that might challenge their belief system. For those who empathise this characters, it is a must. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and I suspect that another million have too.

Become the next one!

Buy 'The Shack'.

Understanding the Philosophies of Love [Article]

The nature of love is a complex and confusion principle, one that has led philosophers to consider love with great thought and thus should be considered one of the true mysteries of life itself. It is a philosophical matter that transcends a number of disciplines including that of epistemology, metaphysics, religion, human nature, politics and ethics but still the matter is often argued amongst philosophers. Love, and the nature of, often draws upon central theories of philosophy and is often compared with the philosophies of sex and gender. The philosophy of love itself has the task of present appropriate issues in a cogent manner, considering the relevant theories of human nature, desire and ethics. The matter at hand, however, remains questionable; does love have a nature?

Those that propose that love is conceptually irrational, in the meaning that it cannot be described in rational or meaningful propositions often present a metaphysical and epistemological argument which would insinuate that love is the ejection of emotions which defy rational examination. Some critics also imply the principle of language such as Papuan, which does not admit the concept of love and thus negates the possibility of philosophical examination. In English, however, the word love is broadly defined and hence imprecise, which leads to problems of definition and meaning, resolved to some extent in the reference to the Greek Terms, Eros, philia and agape.

Implying that love has a nature in itself, it should be considered that, even in Greek times, few philosophers could fixate themselves upon a definition of the term love. Plato, in his writings, defines Eros as a common desire that seeks transcendental beauty whilst is also referred to as constituting a passionate, intense desire for something, commonly defined as a sexual desire which leads to the modern notion of erotic. Aristotle, however, implied the notion that love entails a fondness and appreciation of the other, incorporating not only loyalties to friendship, but to family and one's political community, job, or discipline, commonly known as philia. To further confuse the matter amongst Greek philosophers, a final meaning was implied in the reference to the paternal love of God for man and for man for God, known in the Greek language as agape.

Accepting that love has a nature, despite the confusion between philosophers, it should be, to some extent, describable within the concepts of language. Love, to some, may be knowable and comprehensible to others, as understood in phrases such as I am in love with you' or I love you', but it still remains a mysterious concept in itself. It still remains clouded in confusion, deriving from Greek language itself to that of English language but few can define love with such a simple basis. In definition, love is not a nature that is describable except in basic language but the true meaning, both of the emotion and the nature, must be further considered to understand such concepts, including that of romantic love and the ethics of such love.

In a final consideration, the definition of love itself is confused as the ethical aspects are included. The subject raises questions as to whether it is ethically acceptable to love an object, or to love oneself or whether love, in principle, should be considered a duty. Love, to some, can be considered as an instantiation of social dominance in which the structure of language and etiquette of love is designed to empower men and disempower women. If the language and notions of love were discarded from social dominance, women too would be empowered and thus it further confuses the nature; should love be considered dominant to a single group?