text:
Latest News
- SEDOS Seminar 2016
- Sedos Summer Workshops 2016
- #UISGPlenary: Tessere la Solidarietà Globale per la Vita
- Quale futuro per la Casa comune? Convegno Università Urbaniana
- Violence and not Violence in the Islamic Tradition
- A Book dedicated to the Pact of the Catacombs
- "Aggiornamento – allora e oggi — Una prospettiva per il futuro" Pontificia Università Gregoriana 11-12 dicembre 2015
- Report International Conference "50th Anniversary of Nostra ætate" — Gregorian University (Rome) 26-28 October 2015
Hugh williams
(June 2013)
1. Christian Philosophy
Gilson always advocated for the integration of faith and reason in a Christian philosophy. For this he was severely criticized in many quarters especially among many Christians who were also philosophers. A recent example from the transcendental Thomist camp is Fr. Richard Liddy's remarks in his book on Lonergan's Insight.2 Liddy, reiterating Bernard Lonergan's extensive debate with Gilson, provides a perspective on the importance, strength, and limitations of Gilson's philosophy. His commitment to the human knowing of things is strong, clear, and necessary yet Lonergan also believed there was in Gilson's position a stubborn obstruction of philosophical learning. Indeed it was seen to contribute to Catholic alienation, a tendency towards intellectual isolation, and even a Catholic ghetto. There is overstatement and harshness in this criticism from the Lonergan camp that in my view stems from a serious misunderstanding and even a profoundly mistaken interpretation of Gilson's philosophy.
The question this review will first consider is whether or not Gilson stubbornly ignores and even opposes the rising phenomena of cultural, religious, and philosophical pluralism and diversity. And we also will consider how Gilson actually treats of this issue in these last of his published lectures. In pursuing an answer for these questions I will focus closely on the first section of this little book partly because of the constraints of space and partly because the two other sections on Species and Matter serve primarily as illustrations of the type of philosophical quest Gilson is arguing for in this first section on the nature of the philosophical quest and vocation.
In certain earlier works Gilson denned Christian philosophy as a form of philosophical practice.
Thus I call Christian, every philosophy which, although keeping the two orders formally distinct, nevertheless considers the Christian revelation as an indispensable auxiliary to reason. For whoever understands it thus, the concept does not correspond to any simple essence susceptible of abstract definition; but corresponds much rather to a concrete historical reality (practice) as something calling for description.3
Gilson was prepared to concede that a unifying philosophical cosmology may no longer be possible and so we are left with the concerns of a philosophical anthropology or at least this may be where we have to begin. But even here in philosophical anthropology, for the Christian philosopher, our relationship to God remains a central theme and fixed center of reference. Gilson suggested that there simply was a weakness in the human intellect when cut off from the assistance of faith and that this results in a type of philosophical confusion and conflict that too easily breeds skepticism and cynicism in individuals and even can spread throughout an entire culture. The picture is simply not hopeful for human reason working alone in the fields of metaphysics and natural theology. He always advised following the guiding lights of Christian philosophy, St. Augustine and St. Thomas of course being the most eminent examples, while keeping in view the important and necessary formal distinction between reason and faith where philosophical truth was always owed to natural reason alone. This then was a philosophy that, according to Gilson, had been influenced in its constitution by faith, and which had provided a moral support for an important aspect of actual Christian practice. This, Gilson argued, had been the actual historical experience and practice as he attempted to show in his earlier works.4
Clearly then, for Gilson, philosophy strictly speaking has no religion, but neither is it a matter of indifference that the actual person who philosophizes should profess one. Nor is it a matter of indifference that there have been philosophers who were Christian where even in their exercise of natural reason we can discern the influence of faith. This especially shows in the choice of problems, which for the Christian philosopher most often has to do with his religious practice in some manner, as well as with his philosophical practice. Gilson's own philosophical project was to a large extent an effort to show, or at least sketch out, the influence of Christian revelation in the development of metaphysics.
Gilson continued to insist throughout his career that in the life of a person where Christian faith plays the role of a regulative principle for practice, there is the possibility of an actual Christian philosophy. He acknowledged that most liberal interpretations of this philosophy were usually in terms of an openness to the supernatural. But this was not adequate in Gilson's view, and he pointed out how this only provides the basis for the avoidance of incompatibility between Christian faith and philosophy and that it did not constitute on its own a Christian philosophy. For a philosophy to be Christian, in Gilson's eyes, the supernatural must enter into the philosophy as a constitutive element yet not into the actual texture of this philosophy. We might say it enters into the structure of the philosophy but not the content, at least not in a manner that would violate the canons of philosophical evidence and argument.5
2. Philosophical Education
For Gilson, philosophical education covers the span of a philosophical life. The process of teaching produces new opportunities to learn about philosophy. No one can say, I know philosophy. It is not primarily a science but a wisdom and no one can claim to be wise. It is something one tries to work at. What are the signs of this vocation, this life of the spirit? There are three principal kinds of life — speculation, action, and production, says Gilson. Philosophy is primarily of the first.6
It is interesting and important to compare Gilson's statements in these last lectures as to how teaching philosophy presents important new opportunities for learning for the teacher and his earlier simpler and perhaps more rigid characterization of the teaching of Thomism in particular as the communication of truth to the student, truth that the teacher has already appropriated through contemplative reflection. Teaching in his earlier work is characterized as simply the outward expression of inward contemplation.7 I would suggest this much later reference to teaching as a new opportunity for learning shows a somewhat surprising flexibility and openness in the older Gilson perhaps because of his continuing philosophical learning from some of those important contemporary philosophers whom he names in this text — Martin Heidegger, Henri Bergson, and Teilhard de Chardin. Heidegger, whom Gilson had a special respect for as perhaps the most important contemporary metaphysician or philosopher of being, especially had characterized teaching as more difficult than simply learning because the one who teaches can do so only as long as he can truly learn.8
The first sign of the philosophical vocation is in the desire to know for the pleasure of understanding truth. Everyone has this desire but not everyone wants to consecrate his life to satisfy it. The second sign of the philosophical vocation is in the nature of the knowledge that is sought. What is the nature of this knowledge? It is not so much to understand the world, but rather to consider that there is firstly a world to understand that is intelligible to the human being and that there is the intelligent human being to know this world in its very intelligibility. This is the first knowledge sought in the philosophical vocation and it is best expressed for Gilson in Leibniz's question — "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Nothing, says Gilson, is much easier to understand than something. He suggests that the nature of this more fundamental knowledge is again pointed to much earlier in Aristotle's question — "what does it mean to be?".9
For the philosopher such a fundamental question takes precedence in importance over the demonstrability of answers. And furthermore the little we know about the most noble objects by the leadings of such fundamental questioning has more value for us (philosophically) than the most perfect certainty we have (often provided by science) over less noble objects. The former area of enquiry, says Gilson, gives us the greatest joy as philosophers.
3. Modern Insights and Modern Errors
Hume and Kant in contrast, says Gilson, are essentially great scientific minds made for the methods of science and when these minds are applied to fundamental philosophy they conclude that these deeper philosophical questions have no answers because they do not lend themselves to the new mathematical-experimental methods. Thus Hume and Kant set out on paths that could not take them where they wanted to go as philosophers.10
Strangely enough, Gilson goes on to say that the basic matter of philosophical reflection is the concept. Such reflection then asks, "What it is?" This question becomes a complex problem of defining again and again the meaning of the concepts one is using — what each concept is in itself and how it is distinct from other concepts. Armand Maurer points out in his introduction that we would seriously misunderstand Gilson here, if we were to interpret him as equating philosophy with a conceptualism that somehow abandons his lifelong dogmatic realism for which he was famous. Maurer remarks how Gilson later says that philosophy only becomes really interesting when it comes to focus on reality — the real thing and the real knowledge of that thing. As a summary statement, Maurer takes this to be consistent with the Gilson he knew so well.11 Gilson in Being and Some Philosophers, for instance, identifies again his concern over the modern philosophical bent towards an idealism or anti-realism. For Gilson this is the viewpoint that sees philosophy as not concerned with what is first in things but with what is most universal in thought and this in terms of broadness of view. This has become normal and he says if a philosopher professes to believe what he teaches is true he may be hard pressed to get a job. It is a strange science where a professor can hold a job not knowing what is true in philosophy or even now believing there is no truth. The man who uses his will to let his intellect see things just as they are is now seen as a dogmatist at best and a fanatic at worst. It is the will to know that a philosopher should begin with and so his choice of first principles is so important. And the principle of principles that should be first in the mind is what also is first in the reality of things. This may not be what is most easily accessible to critical or reflective understanding, or easily expressible in communication yet it is rather that which all the rest of reality depends upon including especially our knowledge of concepts.12 Despite Maurer's disavowal of any significance of this reference to the importance of the 'concept' in philosophy, I will speculate in the last section of this review that the fact Gilson would consider the concept's importance in these last lectures in the manner he did is not without significance and that it may represent a tempering of Gilson's dogmatic realism. It may very well indicate a softening of his views towards what he had characterized and dismissed as critical realism's excessive concessions to Kant and idealism, and that he saw as opposed in important ways to his version of a simpler and even purer realism.13
If we may be permitted to consider for a moment a subtle and representative modern view on pluralism in philosophy and culture from the work of Charles Taylor and examine closely how it contrasts with Gilson's own viewpoint, we find an argument that can be summed up as thus — the days are over when one could consider one's own experience or the experience of one's own culture as the norm for everyone.14 This realization can threaten to result in relativism and the calling into question of the notion of truth in human affairs. What we understand as "human nature" is mediated by our own particular culture, language, and self-understanding. Now some thinkers try to ground our understanding of the human condition or human nature in something more basic than culture such as in socio-biology or as in Gilson, a metaphysics of being. But according to Taylor, we cannot discover species-wide laws for the human being because we cannot operate outside of our historically and culturally specific understanding of what it is to be human. The universality of the language of natural science simply cannot be applied to the study of human beings without serious distortion and inadequacy. Nevertheless, it is simply wrong, according to Taylor, to think this fact of cultural difference means we must abandon our allegiance to (and search for) truth. He insists that we do have a tacit sense of a shared human condition, however he cautions again that this sense of a common condition can in fact block our understanding of others. Obtaining truth then in our understanding of human affairs (or of human nature) requires patient identification and undoing of these facets of our implicit assumptions that can distort the reality of "the other". We must distinguish the peculiarities in our own perspective on the human condition/ nature as first facts about ourselves and not as firm features of this human condition/nature that we wish to understand. We must begin then to perceive without distorting corresponding features in the lives of others. Thus for Taylor some accounts will be more ethnocentric and distortive, some more superficial. But this also means that some will be closer to the truth than others. We then are acknowledging that our way of being human in our own culture is not uniquely natural for everyone, that it represents one among many possible forms but yet Taylor holds that it may still be possible that we can develop an account that is better in expressing the truth of the human condition or human nature than another account.
Now the realist position of Gilson's is not directly opposed to Taylor's viewpoint necessarily but there is clearly a different and stronger emphasis on our capacity to know the truth of things and thus to know something of the nature of the human being though it may not tell us very much. Similarly with Taylor the fact of pluralism does not involve the acceptance or tolerance of relativism as a matter of principle. But Gilson's metaphysically grounded counter-position is more systematically focused on certain important essentials. The fundamental point at issue with the anti-realists is the epistemological question of what is the object of real knowledge. Gilson's realism answers that we know things in themselves as external to our own minds, and that this knowing is simply and directly evident in our intelligible cognitive experience. This fundamental metaphysical principle of realism simply cannot be subject to much critical analysis beyond asking one's interlocutor to call to mind their own experience and assumptions or perhaps clarifying that we are not debating the quality of one's mental representations or their correctness. What is at issue is the more basic question of principle - what object is known? The realist answers that it is the thing itself as a real thing external to my own mind. This is not a claim of exhaustive knowledge or of infallibility even though it rejects the (relativist) view that a plurality of viewpoints on the nature of the human being, for example, is in principle required to overcome an alleged inadequacy and distortion in our individual knowing perspectives. Indeed it is only because we are in a knowing relationship with the truth of things that we can make sense of any error and distortion and in turn develop better interpretations of things. So Gilson the dogmatic realist who understands his position with the aid of this Thomistic metaphysical tradition, has no need of an apologetic as we find in Taylor's philosophy at times and that is always contending with those who, it is believed, sell short the human capacity to know the truth of things. This Thomism and its philosophy of being and of the human person as a knowing being as well as a reflective thinker, simply gives us the best account of our human experience that we actually live by, or can live by.15 It really is the best effort "to tell it like it is" or to say what we know in a noetic sense.16
And perhaps we can say even more — the difference here as I understand it is that Taylor sees the ontological as undeniably embedded in the phenomenological, whereas Gilson's Thomistic realism sees the existential in the sensible datum. Taylor backs away from speaking of "the thing in itself" because of Kant's pervasive influence on his thinking whereas Gilson simply begins with the existential (and noetic) judgment of the being of things as the act of existence. This is a self-evident principle of our embodied existence for him. There is this difference in that Taylor argues that the move from a concern for the good to a concern for truth only occurs effectively for the human being when we have developed a common dialogical practice to some degree — it only occurs within the conversation of the shared life world that has been brought to consciousness; whereas in Gilson we have the pursuit of a more classical-absolutist tact and discourse. This is done in the nature of Gilson's dogmatic presentation of first principles and their posited self-evidence. But on the other hand there are strong affinities in Taylor, as a contemporary Christian philosopher, in this deep and abiding concern for the reality of the human person. However, where Taylor the phenomenologist in the face of the challenges of philosophical and cultural pluralism may have the final word from a practical point of view, a view that seemingly better resonates with our times, is in the fact that for our claims regarding first principles to mean anything to our interlocutors we have had to enter into a shared dialogical practice to some degree. Thus, Taylor insists on the importance of the turn towards phenomenology and the work of a philosopher such as Merleau Ponty. In contrast, Gilson for most of his career, had turned to medieval studies and away from modernity. This, however, was not a turn away from reality or concern for the contemporary human situation. It was motivated to some extent by grave concerns regarding modernity's idealism or anti-realism as a type of intellectual deviance, and also by a stubborn realist alternative that insisted on beginning with what we know most deeply so that we do not forget who and what we are as human beings. This is a view that insists philosophically that we are not just thinkers of ideas but that we are knowers of things as well. This for Gilson is an important part of the role of the Christian philosopher who holds the question of the human situation in his focus always. This realism in Christian philosophy — has been shown by Gilson and others to be subject to a great diversity and pluralism of viewpoints and yet he argues there has always been a methodic subordination of speech to thought, and of thought to sensible things — this is the "method" of realism, a realism that always has given epistemological priority to the reality of external things.
Taylor in a recent interview says clearly that we need to learn the nature of our age in order to communicate with it. This clearly is Taylor's abiding strength, but he also says that we need to be free of too close an identification with this age in order to maintain and strengthen our religious life. It is on this particular point that I believe Gilson makes a lasting contribution as a resister to the intellectual enthrallment with modernity. Taylor contends that there definitely is a language of belief and faith that must be kept alive. This reference to language always for Taylor involves some degree and type of ontological commitment as well, though in his own philosophy it always remains undeveloped and inchoate because, in his view, it simply is extremely difficult to clearly and convincingly articulate such commitments.17 Nevertheless, we always are trying to really understand one another and so we must begin by listening to the questions that define the search people are involved in. This must be the basis of any creative interaction and genuine communication. This openness in the face of our pluralistic and secular age simply cannot be rolled back and furthermore it is no longer desirable to do so. Gilson as will be shown in what follows would be in essential agreement with at least the practical elements of Taylor's viewpoint though no doubt there would be serious theoretical differences.18
4. The Philosophical Quest and A Living Tradition
If one has a philosophical aptitude how is one to proceed? Above all one does not proceed alone for one does not philosophize alone. Philosophy is first of all a conversation between philosophers who ask ultimate questions proper to metaphysics (questions of ultimate concern). The fundamental practical question is then from whom to learn of this conversation? What will be one's philosophical formation? Again, Gilson stresses that philosophical wisdom is first of all that of our own time for us. And it has clearly broadened to new areas/places where a new type of mind poses in its name new problems and new solutions for the old ones. We communicate first with philosophy under the form it has in a given time and place (culture). Gilson gives examples of what he means by citing the names of Heidegger, Bergson, and Teilhard de Chardin. These, he says, are the voices that have overpowered us — choosing us more than we have chosen them. This is how one must begin, where one finds oneself already immersed in conversation and culture.19
But is not contemporary thought inevitably a danger to be avoided? Gilson has been misunderstood to be arguing as such.20 In many ways the publication of these last lectures of Gilson's helps to set the record straight on this point. The avoidance of one's own culture of intellectual work simply cannot be done because this is the only living culture, which causes the only living philosophy — the only living philosophy through which we can communicate with that in philosophy that is eternal. Gilson argues that the treasure of philosophical learning of the wise has a real existence only in thinkers of today and in the minds of each one of us living and participating in our present time. The wisdom of old is only accessible to us in a language that is our own and is actually occupied with resolving problems of our own time and of the state of civilization in which we are destined to live. Philosophical education then must be generously and courageously open to the present, again because one enters into the eternal only through present day activity.21
Nevertheless as clear as Gilson's position is here, it is only half the story. What do we mean by the philosophy of our time? For there is so much of it and it is beyond the powers of any one mind to assimilate. It is impossible to be exposed to it all. But we already know something of philosophical wisdom. If it has not already been discovered in some sense, it never will be. So the search is for the philosophical life itself that already exists in our time in which we seek to participate.22
There is the treasure in what exists today that we can discover too late to be of any good before our own disappearance. But even more of a concern is that the philosophy of our youth/past can keep us from perceiving the meaning of what is alive today. And it is here where others can help us; there is the help of a living tradition that is open to the intellectual culture of our times. And yet there are still leadings for this wisdom within the Christian tradition. There is a canon made for us and not by us. There is the real history of philosophy but then one cannot read all the books. We must make a choice. It will be tied to the nature of the problems/questions (of ultimate concern) one seeks to answer in one's own life and it is here on this very point that Gilson can be read as still advocating implicitly for one being involved with a living tradition of Christian philosophy that is open to the culture of our times and its problems and yet still is in continuity with the eternal wisdom of old.23
There are dominant voices and there are principal doctrines or points of view on reality — representative philosophies — an idea or type of an ultimate truth about reality. There are the examples — Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Thomas, Kant, Bergson. This philosophy of our time is incomprehensible if isolated from the past. So then where should the study of philosophy begin today? Begin with the past and that of value in the present conversation that nevertheless has roots and deployment over the whole course of the philosophical conversation. This is its wisdom of today that includes the past. Philosophical wisdom exists because of this interconnection within a living tradition overtime.24
Because of the difficulty and challenges in all this there is no getting rich quick in philosophy. There is no such thing as the young philosopher; there are instead candidates to the dignity of philosophical maturity that only comes in time. Metaphysics as the highest and deepest philosophy comes late not so much at the end of a program of study but rather as one nears the end of one's life. Philosophy is not a profession in which one's intellect grows rich quickly. And so what does one do in the meantime? One prepares for the arrival of the light.25 And how does one prepare? (And here we have what I'd argue is a somewhat unique and important proposal for philosophical formation). By acquiring positive scientific knowledge of one or several orders of reality — those of which one desires to know their first principles. Remember one knows, one wants to be a philosopher, if one has questions of ultimate concern.26
These are questions that no science as science neither wants to nor can raise for itself. But this ultimate concern can only be addressed in relation to less general ones, which in themselves are more practical and do not directly address the speculative concern. (Gilson illustrates this in his next two sections on Species and Matter respectively). It is in relation to such practical disciplines that the future philosopher will pursue the search for first principles. One prepares for metaphysics by entering into a practice, a particular discipline studied for itself and yet it also can serve as the point of entry for the speculative, for the consideration of the first principles of knowledge (and being) and the acquisition of metaphysical wisdom. This is the truth of Aristotle or Thomas on the acquisition of philosophical wisdom. A philosopher thinks about thought not in the sense of trying to philosophize about philosophy for this is to risk bringing on boredom and fatigue in one's philosophical speculations. Rather philosophy must focus on reality and yet it must lift itself above thinking about sciences, attending to what it knows as philosophy — first principles and their meaning, to consider these principles in themselves, beginning again and again with the experiences of the senses, connecting intellect and sense, first principles and sense experience.27
This requires intellectual abstraction proper to metaphysics, but one cannot remain at this level of abstraction nor is it one's destiny. It is at the end of a heroic effort to observe first principles at work in the interpretation of sensible reality that one truly grasps their meaning. They are wisdom as they confer meaning and intelligibility to the knowledge of which they alone are the ultimate justification. One attains this metaphysical understanding at the end of a long period of effort that begins with some science and what one comes to know of it by progressive habit, and then eventually interpreting all this knowledge in the light of first principles.
Our supreme happiness is not in the contemplation of first principles for this is of the general and universal — a knowledge of things only in a virtual way. This is abstract knowledge — real knowledge is to know real things in the light of (these) principles. One never knows these principles if one doesn't know actual things in the light of these principles. Metaphysics as the search for first principles is not content to look at them as abstractions. It rather seeks to see them at work embodied in concrete reality.
So then what are you to philosophize about? Anything you choose so long as it is about some real thing and not just philosophy itself. Begin with any given fact in your experience of the present times and ask what does metaphysical wisdom teach about it, and think about these things and the doctrines meant to interpret them.
Begin with real first hand knowledge of a real object alive in your own thought. If philosophy begins by trying to feed on itself, it can degenerate into empty verbalism. Let your metaphysics bear on the physical sensate reality as its highest elucidation. Take courage and be patient in the search for the first truth and in the elucidation of reality in the light of that truth. There is plenty of material for a life's work here — though it be not the supreme happiness, it is its earthly image, a joy flowing from truth.28
There has always been recognized by careful and sensitive readers of Gilson that there was legitimacy in his realist polemic against modern philosophy's tendency to lose sight of the original unity in our experience of thought and the real things thought about. There was a tendency for the internal images and objects of reflective thought to be turned into sorts of things operating in themselves. There was a tendency in the accounts of knowledge for a reduction to entities and instrumentalities. Gilson's ontology and metaphysics was always an effort to recover the original integrity in human knowledge and to acknowledge a non-instrumental openness of language and thought to the real world in which it was situated. The limitation in Gilson's metaphysical corpus may be conceded to be in the fact he does not clarify adequately the distinction between the copula and the act of existence of the thing.29 Perhaps this is because he believed such a distinction might again too easily reduce the significance of existential judgment to that of the mental structures of reflective thought. This always for Gilson is the great temptation in modern philosophy.
Nevertheless, without a better-developed account of this distinction, the coincidence of the act of existence of the copula and the act of existence of the thing remains accepted as only a happy accident that remains an assertion without an adequate account. Kenneth Schmitz for one believes the role of perception in knowledge and its relationship to the thing itself can be further grounded in terms that also show the possibility of truth and thereby greatly deepen the philosophical significance of the copula. Nevertheless, there remains great value in Gilson's existential-Thomism and in its insistent recovery of the concern for the concrete singular through the primacy of existential-judgment and sensible perception in knowing. This work sets us upon the most fruitful direction philosophically. Yet, this commitment and stance does not so much threaten the importance of conceptual knowledge or the importance of concepts implicitly acknowledged by Gilson in the early part of these last lectures, but instead it can serve their necessary completion and perfection.
In these final lectures it becomes very clear that Gilson fundamentally has a threefold approach to philosophical formation though most of his casual readers only see one aspect. Gilson in these final lectures clearly enunciates this threefold approach — 1) involvement in the contemporary conversation and with at least some of the dominant voices in this conversation; 2) attention to and study of the historical roots of the questions and ideas embodied in this contemporary conversation; and 3) the attention to and study of some practice (or science) that embodies metaphysical principles and indeed gives these principles sensible content so that they do not become or remain mere abstractions. Most people in their cursory reading of Gilson only see the historical aspect and often reduce him to "only a historian of philosophy" albeit an able one. But this is to miss his important engagement with contemporary thinkers and to miss his significant advocacy of philosophers having considerable involvement with matters of practice or some science as he tends to characterize this concern for practice. This I believe is somewhat unique and indeed it is also progressive and highly relevant for any discussion of the ongoing relevance of Christian philosophy as Gilson understood it. I would conclude that Gilson's standard and vision for the philosophical vocation is of the highest quality, and of continuing relevance.
End Notes
Etienne GILSON, Three Quests in Philosophy, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008.
See Richard LIDDY, Startling Strangeness: Reading Lonergan's "Insight", New York NY, University Press of America, 2007, pp. 18-23.
See Etienne Gilson, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, Notre Dame IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, p. 37.
4 See especially Etienne Gilson, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, Notre Dame IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1991. This issue is crucial for the entire review (and any evaluation of Gilson as a philosopher) and so we must consider again the question "what is Christian philosophy?". This has been an issue of contention between many philosophical friends in the Christian tradition for some time and it is usually and most generally characterized as the issue of the relationship of faith and reason. In Gilson's Christian philosophy faith and reason, theology and philosophy are distinguished and yet they are not separable. Gilson's historical work spent a great deal of time and effort sifting through the cultural ambience within which thinking was undertaken during the medieval period and how this differed from our modern times. Modern rationalism has regarded philosophy to be something independent of any extraneous considerations such as faith and belief. There was also, according to Gilson, a neo-scholasticism in Christian circles, which systematically tried to deduce and formulate philosophical conclusions from purely rational premises that had nothing to do with faith or theology. This rationalism saw the truth of philosophy as completely independent of faith. Gilson was always suspicious and critical of this view of philosophy, especially when entertained by Christians. Gilson tried to show how Christian philosophy was actually intelligible only in the light of one's view of this relationship between faith and reason and for him faith was not extrinsic to reason instead it was very much intrinsic to philosophical reason in Christian philosophy.
But then we might ask if this faith is intrinsic to the essence or to the exercise of philosophy? And to answer this Gilson examined what the acceptance of faith actually did for the philosophy of the philosophers who became Christian. What is the relationship between our rational knowledge of the true and the good and revealed knowledge? There is the medieval view that there was a natural revelation of God — the Word, and through this revelation we participate in the light of Christ. And so in a sense pagans and Jews who live according to this Word were regarded as Christian. Gilson's historical studies clearly validated the claim that there is a Christian philosophy where there is an intrinsic relationship between Revelation and reason. This does not mean faith is a kind of cognition in Gilson's estimation, somehow superior to rational cognition nor does it mean that by proceeding from premises of faith one can arrive at conclusions of pure (philosophical) science. In Christian philosophy there is no effort to transform faith into knowledge; rather the question is whether there are truths accepted in faith that also can be known by reason to be true? If so then there is a progression from faith to knowledge (and from knowledge to faith) and the latter knowledge can be called Christian philosophy, according to Gilson, because of the origins of this truth for the believer. Thus among the truths held in faith there are also some we can come to know by natural reason as true. A Christian philosophy then, for Gilson, is more than one that is simply open to the supernatural, rather the supernatural is a constitutive element but not of its texture. This means that the two orders of faith and reason are kept formally distinct, yet Christian philosophy considers Christian faith and revelation as an indispensable aide to reason.
What is essential and constitutive in this philosophy is the source in faith of certain truths held philosophically that thus become constitutive. This then influences the questions considered by such philosophy — questions that affect the conduct of a religious life. These truths of faith from which Christian philosophy takes its rise are truths also considered necessary for salvation. It is the issues having to do with the human beings relationship to God that are so central for this philosophy. Thus the constitution of the philosophy could not be achieved without the aid of faith and revelation acting as a moral support for reason. This then is the meaning of Gilson's Christian philosophy — the Christian philosopher has a certitude that shares in the certitude of faith about some naturally knowable truths. This Gilson showed to be historical fact about how philosophy actually developed. There are notions about God and morality, person and nature, relation and separated substances, time and eternity that all have this status in Christian philosophy. The philosophical development of these notions is simply inconceivable apart from the Christian faith of the thinkers who developed these notions.
It is often argued that once these notions and truths are known philosophically the fact that they had their origins as truths of faith is philosophically irrelevant. Gilson would not accept this because he saw philosophy as a practice over the course of a life — a prolonged dialectical undertaking that cannot be reduced to a collection of propositional arguments. There is also the state of philosophy as that which characterizes one's life with all its surprises and happenstance, and it is inseparable from the moral context of the philosopher's life. The nature of philosophy can limit itself to a consideration of the essences of its propositions and discourse, i.e. its correctness as an exercise in natural reasoning. But there is also the deeper evaluation of one's engagement with it as a matter of one's life and a matter of one's moral condition as a thinker, which subtly interacts with one's success or failure as a thinker. This is an area where the moral and the strictly intellectual interpenetrate. Ralph Mclnerny points out how even Aristotle believed that the quest for intellectual virtue would be frustrated without the moral virtues (The Question of Christian Ethics, Washington DC, The Catholic University of America, 1993, p. 61).
Gilson saw in some believers who were philosophers a tendency to apologize for their faith and a strong wish to reassure their secular colleagues that this faith had no relationship to their philosophizing. In effect their faith was seen as an embarrassment to be hidden. This attitude and reality has been playing itself out in the question of the future of the Catholic university and the concern that these institutions be "real" universities despite their Catholic origins. Gilson had little patience for these concessions to secular modernity. He was convinced that the Christian philosopher was sustained in his philosophical activity by his religious faith that has deep existential and noetic roots that simply cannot be reduced to a set of logically ordered propositions epistemically appraised as points of debate. (See Ralph Mclnerny, The Question of Christian Ethics for a thorough and succinct discussion of Gilson's Christian philosophy).
5 In keeping with Gilson's view on the importance of an actual integration of faith and reason in Christian philosophy, we can cite how Vatican II's discussion of Christian Education repeated this same fundamental concern of practical principle. The Council said that the Church was and must be concerned with the whole human being and that this clearly includes our material and earthly existence. The foremost concern then was for a Christian education for Christians that was not merely an add-on to conventional secular education but an education that integrated both truth and love into its life. This statement on education however, is largely agreed by commentators to be only a holding pattern for the Church on the issue of Christian education saying little that was new or helpful for an age where Christians everywhere are now confronted by the question — "How is this to be made concrete and real in the face of a growing pluralism and diversity and the often accompanying counter claim that we as Christians simply are not the only custodians of 'true religion'?" Many now are arguing that any "resolution of this tension will involve a profound change in Christian self-understanding" (Raimundo Panikkar, "Chosenness and Universality: Can Christians Claim both?" Cross Currents 38 (1988); See also my Listening to a Pope in a Secular Age, Symposium 5 (2001), pp. 197-214 for a more extensive discussion of these issues. See also Richard Renshaw's recent Dealing with Diversity: Questions for Catholics, Montreal, Dunamis Publishers, 2009. Gilson's stubbornness or faithfulness, depending upon one's point of view, is again in his adherence to this fundamental principle enunciated again at Vatican II of the necessary integration of faith and reason in Christian education and yet, as we will see in what follows, this concern for education and Christian philosophy becomes significantly more nuanced in his later years as he does attempt face up to this problematic for both faith and reason of modern cultural pluralism. For a more recent discussion of the character of Christian philosophy see Kenneth Schmitz, The Texture of Being: Essays in First Philosophy, Washington CD, The Catholic University of America, 2007, pp. 48-49.
6 Etienne Gilson, Three Quests in Philosophy, p. 3.
7 Etienne Gilson, Thomism: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2002, pp. 1-2.
8 Martin Heidegger, Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, David Krell, ed., New York, Harper and Row, 1977, pp. 251-252.
9 Gilson, Three Quests in Philosophy, pp. 3-4.
10 Ibid., pp. 5-7.
11 Ibid., pp. viii-ix.
12 Etienne Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1949, pp. vii-ix.
13 Etienne Gilson, Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge, San Francisco CA, Ignatius Press, 1986.
14 See Charles Taylor, Sources of The Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1989; see also Taylor's more recent work, A Secular Age, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 2007.
15 See Marc Griesbach, "Truth, Realism and Philosophical Pluralism" in John Knasis (ed)., Thomistic Papers VI, Houston, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas Press, 1994, pp. 153-169 for a succinct version of this realist argument in the tradition of Gilson's existential-Thomism.
16 There is an important distinction between noetic and epistemic knowing recently articulated by Kenneth Schmitz, who has been very much influenced by Gilson's approach to Thomism as well as by the traditions of Kant and Hegel. In many ways Schmitz's work can be seen as a helpful development of Gilson's philosophy. Schmitz's project is characterized as a sophisticated effort to bring this older concern with "being" into dialogue with the modern concern for the "subject". This then is an example of an important distinction that could prove to be very helpful for understanding those philosophers, such as Gilson, who have always insisted that there is an important sense in which the fundamental concerns of metaphysics and ontology have a primacy over epistemology. In brief noetic knowing, according to Schmitz, is present in more or less open discourse arising within the ontological truth relation. It is saying what we know and so it is spontaneously receptive in the concrete situation and is the stuff of ordinary conversation both innocent and wise. Epistemic knowing is a special modification of noetic discourse and is the methodical description, explanation, or interpretation of the way matters stand. This theoretical use of a critical method is more than just a commitment to consistency and coherence. It involves a semantic context that involves a theory of knowledge, canons on valid argument, and preconceptions of what counts as evidence. Epistemic discourse is methodically assertive in that it is a conceptual, rational, and argumentative effort to state veridically/ correctly just how things are. In contrast to the noetic "saying what we know", it is focused much more on "knowing what we say". According to Schmitz, noetic discourse is not opinion to be measured by epistemic discourse. It is the source of truth whereas epistemic discourse is not the source of truth. The noetic is the transcendental ontological relationship in which truth consists and out of which cognition arises. Epistemic discourse modifies discourse according to the presuppositions and restrictions of its founding project that is naturally selective and involves some degree of noetic closure. There is an implicit preference for explicit epistemological decisions taken in favor of a project ordered towards methodically justified truth. Noetic discourse does not provide such foundations nor does it have them. Epistemic discourse requires its discipline, noetic discourse requires an asceticism, a self-disciplined openness to the other, an inteliectus habitus. See Kenneth Schmitz's important paper "Neither with or without Foundations", Review of Metaphysics, 42 (1988), pp. 3-25; see also his more extensive treatment of these issues in his The Recovery of Wonder: The New Freedom and the Asceticism of Power, Montreal & Kingston, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2005, and The Texture of Being: Essays in First Philosophy, Washington DC, The Catholic University of America, 2007.
17 See Hugh Williams, Dialogical Practice And The Ontology Of The Human Person: A Study Of The Philosophies Of Charles Taylor And Norris Clarke, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Philosophy, Dominican University College, Ottawa, 2008. In this thesis I examine this persistent hesitancy and indefiniteness in Taylor's ontology in comparison with Norris Clarke's who works out of what I argue is a stronger philosophical tradition that can and does make more definite ontological claims.
18 Much of this elaboration on Taylor's views can be found in recent interviews with Taylor in the electronic media concerning his most recent book, A Secular Age, see http://www.theo-therjournal.com/article.php?id=375.
19 Gilson, Three Quests in Philosophy, pp. 11-13.
20 This certainly has been the interpretation of his somewhat polemical Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge, San Francisco CA, Ignatius Press, 1986.
21 Ibid., p. 14.
22 Ibid., p. 15.
23 Ibid., p. 16.
24 Ibid., pp. 17-18.
25 In keeping with Gilson's reading of Heidegger and his emphasis on the philosopher's involvement with some concrete thing and a "scientific" practice, this passage calls for some reflection on the fundamental relationship between the "light of truth" and "the openings of practice" [See Martin Heidegger's essay «The End of Philosophy and The Task of Thinking» in David Krell (ed)., Martin Heidegger Basic Writings, New York NY, Harper and Row, 1977, pp. 373-392; see also Reiner Schurmann, Heidegger on Being and Acting: From Principles to Anarchy, Bloomington IN, Indiana University Press, 1987, pp. 235-245 on the "practical a priori" in Heidegger]. Gilson here is concerned with being prepared and open for the "light of truth". But as well with his emphasis on science and practical involvement with real things and not just derivative philosophical abstractions, he seems to be proposing an alertness and attentiveness to the occasions and openings for a deeper reasoning in actual practice. Heidegger has argued that this in a way will involve some degree of resistance to a particular historical destiny that is being played out in our culture and in our philosophy. This destiny is called "technological" by Heidegger and "monological" by Charles Taylor (Charles Taylor, A Catholic Modernity?, New York NY, Oxford University Press, 1999. Each of these contemporary philosophers, and now Gilson in his own way are proposing a type of philosophical practice that can be conceived as a form of resistance to this destiny. In doing so, Gilson is not advocating the abandonment of philosophy, which the more radical versions of this call to practice can sometimes be read and interpreted. He is instead trying to recall something in philosophy's history that has been forgotten or eclipsed because of the preoccupation with, and dominance of, something else. Because of certain leadings in Plato, philosophy has become very much concerned with the "seeing of reason" made possible by the "light of truth" ultimately best secured by theory for us as thinking beings. At its worst this line of development has consummated in a type of mono-logical objectifying philosophical thought. Much of post-modern thought can be read as a strategic reaction and resistance to this development in philosophy. It is a conception of philosophy that is forgetful of practice and it is this, I believe Gilson along with Heidegger and some of his contemporaries, sensed to be such a profound error in orientation and balance. It is an error because the "light of truth" presupposes and depends upon the "openings or occasions" of practice. There is no real light without the opening for its occurrence. We of course are speaking metaphorically but the relevance of this insight can be tested in actual practice and Gilson seems convinced of this in these last lectures. And I would further suggest these insights have particular and profound relevance for his understanding of Christian philosophy. (See note 5 above for a somewhat different but complementary perspective on this same theme).
26 Gilson, 77iree Quests in Philosophy, pp. 19-20.
27 Ibid., p. 21.
28 Gilson, Three Quests in Philosophy pp. 22-24.
29 This insight borrows much from Kenneth Schmitz's more sensitive and critical reading of Gilson and the existential-Thomist tradition in his The Texture of Being: Essays in First Philosophy, Washington DC, The Catholic University of America, 2007; see especially pp. 90, 97, 114, 115. The copula, according to Schmitz, is the "is" that connects subject and predicate in propositions. But philosophically for Thomism it is a crucial notion that has to do with the existential judgment that terminates not in a mental construction but in the thing itself known in its very act of existence. Many Thomists have argued that this question of realism has not been adequately worked out in Gilson nor in Thomism generally. [Robert Schmidt, addresses this question directly in his essay "The Evidence Grounding Judgments of Existence" in An Etienne Gilson Tribute, Milwaukee WI, The Marquette University Press, 1959, pp. 228-244. See also Fr. Norris Clarke's "The "We Are" Of Interpersonal Dialogue As The Starting Point Of Metaphysics", The Modern Schoolman, 69 (1992), pp. 357-368 and his "Interpersonal Dialogue: Key To Realism" in Robert Roth (ed)., Person and Community: A Philosophical Exploration, New York NY, Fordham University Press, 1975, pp. 141-153]. Clarke asks if the depth dimension of this immediate contact with existing being in itself can be shown phenomenologically in a way that is more helpful for a contemporary philosopher like Charles Taylor who is always struggling to say something about the way things are necessarily, especially with the human being and his/her relationship to the transcendent and yet to do so in a way that resonates effectively with our actual everyday human experience? (See Taylor, Sources of The Self: The Making of the Modern Identity). Clarke argues that there is an obvious key/clue in our direct experience and knowledge of other human beings. This direct knowledge is assumed in the actual practice of any philosopher but that this actual practice is not adequately accounted for by the dominant epistemologies of modern philosophy. Those sympathetically critical of Gilson say he in effect makes the assertion of our relationship to the thing in itself as a first principle and thereby avoids providing a more satisfactory account that these critics believe is called for. This is at least how some see it. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that Gilson in his existential Thomism points philosophy in the proper direction — and that this continues to be an invaluable contribution.
University of New Brunswick Saint John, N.B.
Ref.: Science et Esprit, 63/1 (2011), pp. 85-100.


text:
Search Results for:
Video: Diving Turtle makes big splash again at Players
Three years after he made his first big spalsh at the Players, Diving Turtle was back Sunday at the par-5 16th to show off his new routine.
PGA Tour statement on rescinding of Justin Rose penalty
The PGA Tour's statement on the rescinding of Justin Rose's two-stroke penalty.
For Kaymer, Sawgrass is the home of the brave
Martin Kaymer faced intimidating shots at TPC Sawgrass. He's The Players champion because he refused to back down.
Will anyone step up in Tiger's absence?
Tiger's absence has left a big void, and the PGA Tour's biggest stars have yet to stamp their mark on the season.
Els (68) off to best start in 10 years at TPC Sawgrass
Ernie Els is looking to battle through the illusions architect Pete Dye created at TPC Sawgrass. He is also looking to turn back the clock with a short putter, using a stroke that worked in his youth.
Cut claims Mickelson, Bradley; McIlroy rallies to make it
Notable names fell on both sides of the cut line in The Players Championship. Phil Mickelson and Keegan Bradley were sent home, but Rory McIlroy rallied to make it.
Spieth ties Kaymer for lead on 18th hole
After a daylong battle, Martin Kaymer and Jordan Spieth are tied for the lead through 54 holes in The Players Championship.
Stat attack!: Players Championship review
Martin Kaymer led from start to finish at TPC Sawgrass to join select company as winners of the Players, a major and a WGC event
Scott on 10-shot turnaround: Didn't play much better
Adam Scott's 10-shot turnaround Friday was enough to make the weekend – and keep him in pursuit of the world's top ranking – but after the Australian signed for a second-round 67 at The Players those consolation prizes didn't make things any better.
Spieth: 'Bad round,' but not because of pressure
For the second time in less than a month, Jordan Spieth neared the pinnacle of one of golf's biggest events but couldn't quite get to the top.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
So... watching neighbours for the first time in months and I'm intrigued to note that Callum has morphed from charming young jester into barbaric teenage sulkist.
Also, strangely unable to come up with anything smutty despite the Sonya and Toadie shenanigans. Either I'm out of practise or they're the least erotic couple in Neighbours history.
The Neighbours Soc
|Posted on
|Take our short survey, £100 of Amazon vouchers to be won!
Anyone see the preview for tomorrow's ep. Looks like Toadie's boss has her sights set on him. I think the whole soap needs a massive storyline, it's dragged a little in recent weeks. Karl and Susan need to just get back together. Whilst the love triangle with Mike, Lucas and Amelia is a good side plot, we need more then just Sophie going insane, cause she is ridiculously annoying
Have we got to the end of season episode yet?
I've heard it's an explosive one, so all these storylines must be building up to something big.
Loving the male bonding between Paul and Karl in last night's episode. Oh sweet irony.
Also, is Callum going through a growth spurt?
there is something about erin that i massively like. and i can't quite work out what it is
No great storylines in Australia at the moment
I'm really behind, I love Lucas trying to find out if Aiden is gay
And then Tash is just like "So Aiden, gay or straight? Lucas wants to know..."
Omg, I wish they'd just leave Kate alone. She's only 20, let her live her life.
Naked Zumba ey
Jade looked amazing today
(Original post by SilGathien)
Loving the male bonding between Paul and Karl in last night's episode. Oh sweet irony.
Also, is Callum going through a growth spurt?
(Original post by Amandeep_Psych07)
Omg, I wish they'd just leave Kate alone. She's only 20, let her live her life.
Gutted for Summer though, thought Michael would continue his care-free streak and not turn her in - Edit: Somebody spoke way too soon. Keeps me on my toes these Aussie Soaps
Chris and Aiden today- so cute!
Summer needs to get over herself and just go away! I'm finding her whole 'wracked with guilt' thing incredibly annoying. It's like 'OK producers of Neighbours, you've made your point, you do not condone cheating in exams.'
Also Tash, thought the whole feeling guilty about what happened to your Dad thing had passed, obviously not.
When Paul jumped in that boat I was hoping for a 'Live and Let Die' style boat chase. Alas, I was left disappointed.
I had a big smile on my face for every Chris and Aiden scene. I'm such a loser.
Offline3ReputationRep:(Original post by little_wizard123)
I had a big smile on my face for every Chris and Aiden scene. I'm such a loser.
Yes! I've finally been able to watch an episode of Neighbours, that's taken my episode count for the last month to 2!! and I was not disappointed...well I was a little. Does anyone else find Summer as tedious as a 10,000 piece jigsaw picture of a grey sky?
Check Neighbours challenging soap relationship convention with a gay relationship. You wouldn't see that on Eastenders, Brookside or Hollyoaks...oh wait...Still I, like LittleWizard123 was cheering them on.
Also has anyone actually checked on youtube for the Paul stealing a boat clip, I haven't...
For a long time Paul stopped hobbling along or it was very slight that it was impossible to tell he was hobbling, now all of a sudden it's like they've remembered he's meant to limp and now you can really notice. Ha.
I think Stefan Dennis must have really p***ed off the writers for them to do that to him. It mut be so annoying to have to remember to limp in every scene FORVER.
And yes, Summer is very tedious. So damn whiney.
He doesn't remember....
"Your character has a fake leg. Do you ever forget to limp?
They made me a splint which actually makes me sort of limp, but keeps my foot rigid so it looks like I actually do have a non-moving piece. One time I did change my leg, as in I swapped it over and limped on the other one to see if anyone noticed. I just did it as a gag one day. Nobody in the cast or crew noticed. There was only one person. I got a letter from someone in the UK."
Submit reply
RegisterThanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post Already a member? Sign in
Oops, something wasn't right
please check the following:


text:
September 12 2006, 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.
6th Floor Flom Auditorium
Woodrow Wilson Center
1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20004
with Dr Charles Gati, Author and Senior Adjunct Professor of European Studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies
Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA)
Dr James G Hershberg, CWIHP Series Editor and Associate Professor of History and International Affairs, George Washington University
Charles Gati is a political scientist who fled his native Hungary during the 1956 revolt, and is now Senior Adjunct Professor of European Studies at Johns Hopkins University. His previous positions have included teaching Central and Eastern European as well as Russian politics and foreign policy at Union College and Columbia University. He served as a Senior Adviser on the Department of State's Policy Planning Staff in the early 1990s. His publications include The Bloc That Failed: Soviet-East European Relations in Transition (1990), and Hungary and the Soviet Bloc (1986).
Congressman Tom Lantos was born in Budapest, Hungary in 1928. As a teenager, he was placed in a Hungarian fascist forced labor camp. He succeeded in escaping and was able to survive in a safe house in Budapest set up by Swedish humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg. In 1947, he was awarded an academic scholarship to study in the United States on the basis of an essay he wrote about US President Franklin D Roosevelt. Just a few weeks after he left Hungary, the communist party seized control of the country. Lantos received his PhD in economics from the University of California, Berkeley. For three decades (1950-1980) he was a professor of economics, an international affairs analyst for public television, and an economic consultant to businesses. He also served in senior advisory roles to members of the United States Senate. Since 1981, he has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing California's 12th congressional district, located just south of San Francisco. He is the ranking Democratic member of the House International Relations Committee.


text:
Indoor Air Quality
The quality of indoor air inside offices, schools, and other workplaces is important not only for workers' comfort but also for their health. Poor indoor air quality (IAQ) has been tied to symptoms like headaches, fatigue, trouble concentrating, and irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. Also, some specific diseases have been linked to specific air contaminants or indoor environments, like asthma with damp indoor environments. In addition, some exposures, such as asbestos and radon, do not cause immediate symptoms but can lead to cancer after many years.
Many factors affect IAQ. These factors include poor ventilation (lack of outside air), problems controlling temperature, high or low humidity, recent remodeling, and other activities in or near a building that can affect the fresh air coming into the building. Sometimes, specific contaminants like dust from construction or renovation, mold, cleaning supplies, pesticides, or other airborne chemicals (including small amounts of chemicals released as a gas over time) may cause poor IAQ.
State Standards
There are twenty-eight OSHA-approved State Plans, operating state-wide occupational safety and health programs. State Plans are required to have standards and enforcement programs that are at least as effective as OSHA's and may have different or more stringent requirements.
The right ventilation and building care can prevent and fix IAQ problems. Although OSHA does not have IAQ standards, it does have standards about ventilation and standards on some of the air contaminants that can be involved in IAQ problems. OSHA responds to questions about standards with letters of interpretation. OSHA's letters of interpretation specifically addressing IAQ issues can be found in Other Resources. The General Duty Clause of the OSH Act (the law that created OSHA) requires employers to provide workers with a safe workplace that does not have any known hazards that cause or are likely to cause death or serious injury. The following States have Indoor Air regulations:
The purpose of this webpage is to give workers and employers useful, up-to-date information to identify, correct, and prevent IAQ problems. See the Contents sidebar for more detailed information, including Frequently Asked Questions, building operations and management, and a special section on Schools. Under Other Related Topics in the sidebar are links to a variety of specific topics.
How do I find out about employer responsibilities and workers' rights?
Workers have a right to a safe workplace. The law requires employers to provide their employees with safe and healthful workplaces. The OSHA law also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for exercising their rights under the law (including the right to raise a health and safety concern or report an injury). For more information see www.whistleblowers.gov or Workers' rights under the OSH Act.
OSHA can help answer questions or concerns from employers and workers. To reach your regional or area OSHA office, go to the OSHA Offices by State webpage or call 1-800-321-OSHA (6742).
Small businesses may contact OSHA's free On-site Consultation services funded by OSHA to help determine whether there are hazards at their worksites. To contact free consultation services, go to OSHA's On-site Consultation webpage or call 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) and press number 4.
Workers may file a complaint to have OSHA inspect their workplace if they believe that their employer is not following OSHA standards or that there are serious hazards. Workers can file a complaint with OSHA by calling 1-800-321-OSHA (6742), online via eComplaint Form, or by printing the complaint form and mailing or faxing it to the local OSHA area office. Complaints that are signed by a worker are more likely to result in an inspection.
If you think your job is unsafe or if you have questions, contact OSHA at 1-800-321-OSHA (6742). Your contact will be kept confidential. We can help. For other valuable worker protection information, such as Workers' Rights, Employer Responsibilities, and other services OSHA offers, visit OSHA's Workers' page.
- Indoor Air Quality in Commercial and Institutional Buildings*. OSHA Publication 3430, (2011).
Other Related Topics
- Asbestos
- Asthma
- Carbon Monoxide*
- Diesel Exhaust
- Dust/Fine Particulates
- Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) - Also known as Second Hand Smoke (SHS)
- Green Buildings/Jobs
- Legionnaires' Disease
- Mold
- An Office Building Occupant's Guide to Indoor Air Quality
- Pesticides
- Protect Yourself: Cleaning Chemicals and Your Health*. OSHA Poster (Publication 3569), (February 2012).
- Spanish*. OSHA Publication 3570, (February 2012).
- Tagalog*. OSHA Publication 3571, (February 2012).
- Chinese Traditional*. OSHA Publication 3572, (February 2012).
- Protecting Workers Who Use Cleaning Chemicals*. OSHA Publication 3512, (February 2012).
- Ventilation
- Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
*Accessibility Assistance: Contact OSHA's Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management at (202) 693-2300 for assistance accessing PDF materials.
All other documents, that are not PDF materials or formatted for the web, are available as Microsoft Office® formats and videos and are noted accordingly. If additional assistance is needed with reading, reviewing or accessing these documents or any figures and illustrations, please also contact OSHA's Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management at (202) 693-2300.
**eBooks - EPUB is the most common format for e-Books. If you use a Sony Reader, a Nook, or an iPad you can download the EPUB file format. If you use a Kindle, you can download the MOBI file format.Back to Top


text:
Video: News
Cause Determined in Tragic Texas Fire
Fan in the kitchen reportedly had a faulty cord
Published Wednesday, February 20, 2013
BRYAN, Texas (KBTX.com) - A press conference on Tuesday has revealed the cause of the fire that took two Bryan firefighter's lives late Friday. A fan that was located in the kitchen of the building had a faulty cord that caught on fire. The initial report states that this incident was an accident.
This Video Appears in:


text:
Girl Scout Grade Levels
What interests you? Do you love to camp, hike, bike or canoe? Are you into Web design and fashion? Or maybe photography is your thing. Whatever your interests - Girl Scouts has something for you. We can make it happen! Click on your age level below for more info on what Girl Scouts your age are doing.


text:
KALAMAZOO, MI -- Kalamazoo-based Keystone Solutions Group is doubling in size thanks to demand from the medical device industry, the company announced today.
Keystone's manufacturing subsidiary will occupy 9,000 square feet in Grand Rapids for new offices, warehouse and manufacturing space, and clean-room facilities, it said in a written statement.
"With a new location in Grand Rapids, in addition to our facility in Kalamazoo, Keystone is better positioned to continue growing in the burgeoning medical device industry," Jim Medsker, principal of Keystone Solutions Group, said in the statement.
The company, which in July changed its name to Keystone from Alliant Engineering, performs manufacturing, assembly, packing and distribution of medical devices and supplies. It also serves the automotive and aerospace industries.


text:
The authors have drawn on their great experience to illustrate a full picture of disease of the food and air passages caused by foreign bodies and have presented in this volume all the information on the subject that any general physician is likely to need.
Why and how foreign bodies gain access, in what manner they cause harm, how their presence may be suspected and proved and how they may be removed are considered with great detail and clarity.
While much of the material has appeared in previous writings of these authors, here it is organized in readily available form and presented in a clear and fascinating style. There are many illustrations, including roentgenograms and fine plates of colored drawings of endoscopic images by Dr. Chevalier Jackson.
That the subject is important is illustrated by many instances in which the presence of a foreign body was not considered or was
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Pediatrics editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers' bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Need assistance?
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.


text:
Donny Dattolo scored 20 points, including 15 in the first half, to lead Hanover Park to a 67-55 victory over North Warren in East Hanover.
Dattolo hit four 3-pointers.
Matt Olah had 22 points and 13 rebounds and Glen Nanius had 22 points and 11 rebounds to pace North Warren.


text:
Advanced Search
September 2016
Back to Archives
| February 2011 Contents
Ten years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States is on high alert. The threat of terrorism remains real, and the evolving nature of the threat has made the chances of a successful attack more likely.
Preventing the Next Terror Attack
Learning from the Lessons of the 2008 Mumbai Terrorist Attacks
Improving Criminal Intelligence Sharing: How the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council Supports Law Enforcement and Homeland Security
Nationwide SAR Initiative Delivers Value to Fusion Centers
It Can and Does Happen Here: Somali Youth with Terrorist Ties in the Twin Cities
Fusion Centers: Strengthening the Nation's Homeland Security Enterprise
Updating Ethics Training—Policing Privacy Series: Respecting Society's Evolving Privacy Expectations
IACP Foundation: Motorola Imparts Key Training Concepts for Law Enforcement Leaders
President's Message
Chief's Counsel
Technology Talk
Legislative Alert
Advances & Applications
IACP News
From the Director
Highway Safety Initiatives
Line of Duty Deaths
New Members
Products & Services
Product Update
The official publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
The online version of the Police Chief Magazine is possible through a grant from the IACP Foundation. To learn more about the IACP Foundation,
click here
All contents Copyright © 2003 -
Copyright and Trademark Notice
Member and Non-Member Supplied Information
Links Policy
44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA USA 22314 phone: 703.836.6767 or 1.800.THE IACP fax: 703.836.4543
Created by
Matrix Group International, Inc.®


text:
We are global research university with over 12,000 students, 92,000 alumni and 5,000 faculty and staff.
The Pittsburgh region has thousands of open jobs across a range of sectors. The City of Steel has transformed into a robust, diversified economy rich in science and technology innovations and a supportive environment for startups and entrepreneurs. And yes, we still make things here. Click on a sector to learn more.
ImagineP!ttsburgh.com is a program of the
Allegheny Conference | AlleghenyConference.org


text:
This one is about my trip last November 17, with Delta. Both aircraft were MD-88s, N907DL and N944DL.
DL 1114- This flight left at 7:10 AM, and was on time. There were a couple of ground holds, but neither lasted more than five minutes. The plane was in the air within 10 minutes of pushback. However, the joy of on-time departure was slightly marred by the fact that the cabin was freezing cold because it had overnighted at MCI. Before pushback, though, the lead F/A informed us that due to the relatively small passenger load, seating was open so long as you remained in your assigned class. Luckily, as a result, I had seats 13C & D all to myself. About an hour into the flight, the snack and drink service began. It was rather spartan, comprising a granola bar, a drink, and a choice of Biscoff cookies or cheese sticks. Fortunately, the crew was friendly and accomodating, and brought around extras at the end. Because this was an early morning flight, plus it was cloudy, there was nothing really to see. However, I did get to see a beautiful sunrise after takeoff. The plane actually landed about 5 minutes ahead of schedule, at about 10:05 AM. This afforded great takeoff shots of other aircraft as we crossed the runway. That said, this was definitely one of the better flights I have had with Delta. Keep up the good work!
DL 578- My connecting flight to Savannah was scheduled to depart at 12:20 from gate A33, only one terminal away from where 1114 came in at T8. We had to make a brief stop on the way to 27R due to a passing Korean Air 747. Thanks to its proximity to our plane, I got a couple of good shots of it. Our plane quickly reached cruising altitude, and turned to the southeast. Since the flight from ATL to SAV is only 35 minutes, there was no inflight service except in First Class. The plane soon began to descend, and landed around 1:05 PM. Our plane rolled up to the gate, and was right next to N729CA, the Cincinnati special livery CRJ. This was definitely a highlight of my trip! Despite there being no service, it was a pleasant flight, and I look forward to flying Delta again soon.


text:
Trying to figure out how a dome team will fare in inclement weather is always difficult especially if the opposing team ices the field. If anyone is up for the task it's the team at Advanced NFL Stats who tells us there may be something to the idea that dome teams suffer outdoors:
Sample sizes get smaller as the temperature drops. In the 11-20 degree bin, there are 17 cold visitors, 8 dome visitors, 9 moderate visitors, and 6 warm visitors. In the 21-30 bin there were 45, 15, 32, and 19 cold, dome, moderate, and warm visitors. Taken as a whole, however, the trends appear undeniable: The less acclimated a team is to a cold climate, the worse it fairs.


text:
Woman Will Fight Injustice By Defying Ticket She Got for Helping Ducks
A woman ticketed by police for stopping to help a group of stranded baby ducks is fighting the charge brought against her.
A woman ticketed by police for stopping to help a group of stranded baby ducks is fighting the charge brought against her.
Watching these little guys splash around in a very nice bathtub and get fed is almost hypnotic. They are so cute and fuzzy.
Al Qaeda. The Ebola virus. Earthquakes. Tainted McDonald's meats. We know the dangers; we're prepared to be attacked. But there exists in this world an even more terrifying danger—one that we are just now beginning to become aware of.
How come an animal snoring isn't only not annoying, but is actually kinda the cutest?
I don't know — it's just that tonight is so filled with tension, I thought we needed something to relieve it. Or heighten it. Point is, let's watch it and talk about how cute animals are for a little, okay?
This duck momma did the right thing — she saw something, and she said something.
OMG, Republicans. STOP. Stop ruining everything that is hilarious. You know how once in a while conservatives get together and make a list of all the government-funded stuff they don't think is worth spending money on, in order to make liberals look like wicked cutpurses swindling bewildered old grannies?* (In this…
After two dozen ducks were rescued from a mainland hoarder and rehabilitated, having suffered years of improper nutrition and exercise in their old home, the good people of the Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary showed them what a pond is!
At a the Emmanuel Nursing Home in Minnesota, Piper and the Pipettes — who are ducklings — help deliver mail, which sounds both adorable and remarkably inefficient, since every time they stop in someone's room, they demand to be petted. Still, it's not a bad impulse to have civic-minded animals help out with different…
Eh, this video's not all quacked up to be.
• The weird, curly, gelatinous thing in the image at left is actually a duck penis. And, curiouser and curiouser, the female duck has a similarly corkscrew-shaped vagina - only it curves the opposite direction.
• Did you know there was a such thing as a "Stripper-mobile?" Yes, it's exactly what it sounds like. But some people are worried that driving around in a clear plastic truck while pole dancing may not be safe.
• This poor duckling was going to be put down following an accident that left him with a fractured leg, but his owner enlisted the help of a local cobbler and ended up with an adorable corrective sandal. •
[Seehausen, Germany; June 11. Image via Getty]
When trucker Joe Mansheim spent $700 on a duck hunting dog which refused to hunt ducks, his boss joked that he should have just spent the money on a duck instead. And so he did.
[Moscow, January 4. Image via Getty]
[Wuerzburg, Germany; December 30. Image via Getty]


text:
His high school letter jacket. His Boy Scout uniform. His Texas A&M Corps of Cadets saber.
Mementos from throughout Tim Kerlee Jr.'s life adorned three tables in the front of Germantown United Methodist Church on Saturday as about 1,300 people gathered to mourn the A&M freshman.
Kerlee, 17, of Bartlett, Tenn., died the day after a Nov. 18 bonfire accident on the campus of Texas A&M in which a 40-foot stack of logs collapsed during its construction. Of the 12 people killed, Kerlee was the youngest and also last to die. His parents rushed to a hospital in Bryan to be at his bedside when he stopped breathing.
Kerlee was working on one of the upper tiers of the bonfire structure when the pyramid of logs collapsed. He suffered internal injuries, a crushed pelvis and a broken arm.
Twenty-seven others were injured in the collapse.
The bonfire, lit the night before the Aggies' annual game against arch rival Texas, is a 90-year-old A&M tradition.
Many attending Kerlee's funeral wore the maroon and white ribbons that have come to symbolize the bonfire victims.
"If Tim Kerlee did anything, he had fun doing it," said senior pastor Rick Kirchoff. "He could turn the mundane into a celebration."
In a service that lasted over an hour, Texas A&M representatives lit the last of 12 candles for Kerlee and read from "The Last Corps Trip," a poem about Aggies marching to the gates of heaven.
Boy Scouts throughout the crowd stood to recite the Scout Law and Scout Oath in honor of Kerlee, who was an Eagle Scout.
His mother Janice Kerlee spoke of her son's faith, which she said gave him the strength to cling to life until she and her husband could arrive to share his last hours with them.
"(God) kept him alive for us to say goodbye," she said.
She said her son died knowing he was loved and admired and had touched his friends' lives.
"I know Tim Kerlee's life is not in vain," she said.
Kerlee graduated earlier this year from high school in Germantown, Tenn., a Memphis suburb.
© 2016. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
Penn State football coach Bill O'Brien was interviewed Tuesday morning for the first time following the NCAA sanctions by Bonnie Bernstein on "The Dan Patrick Show."
O'Brien said his top priority right now is keeping the current football team together, and he is stressing to current players and recruits the value of a Penn State education and the chance to play football in front of big, supportive crowds at Beaver Stadium.
As for the four-year bowl ban, O'Brien talked about how PSU players can play six to eight bowl games a year in front of 108,000 fans at home.
The entire Q&A between O'Brien and Bernstein.
Q: When did you first find out about the sanctions? Did you know before the rest of us did?
A: No, I found out about the sanctions at 9 a.m. with the press conference.
Q: Did you have any suspicion of how things would play out?
A: Well, I knew at that time that going into that press conference that there was a chance that these would be, like I said in my statement, harsh penalties, but I didn't know exactly what they would be.
Q: What message did you share with your players Monday?
A: The first thing I told them was I talked about why I came to Penn State and why I brought this staff to Penn State. And there's so many things that go into that. But No. 1, I thought that this was a place that could combine great academics with good, tough, hard-nosed football. And none of that's changed. And I talked to them about the discussions that I had with my family in coming to Penn State. And I talked to them about the fact that I felt like I could coach good, tough, hard-nosed kids that really cared about getting a great education. And none of that has changed. And I've been very proud of this football team to this point over the last few days, and really over the last six months, Bonnie, they've been through a lot of stuff and have really -- in our line of work it's about the players -- and I couldn't be associated with a better group of players.
Q: Being a woman, I always think about family first. What have your discussions been like with your wife as all of this has been playing out, because there are so many coaches who probably wouldn't have touched this thing with a 10-foot pole? And the risk you're taking, at least from afar, is pretty extraordinary.
A: I think the first time we spoke about Penn State, back when the job was offered to me, we're both very well-educated people, Colleen and I, and we knew that we have a very strong belief in the combination of academics and athletics because that's the way we were brought up in our respective families. We've been faced with challenges in our personal life up to this point, and we knew that that's really the most important thing -- that anything that had to do with football and our football program and being a first-time head coach was something that we could definitely take on, and no matter what the circumstances were that we were positive people and we felt good about the people that were in charge here at Penn State that hired me, and none of that's changed.
Q: Who's staying and who's going? Can you shed any light on reports that USC is pursuing Silas Redd and if the two of you have had a conversation?
A: When the NCAA handed down their sanctions yesterday, one of the things that they stated -- as everybody knows -- is that these kids could transfer without penalty and that other schools could contact these kids virtually by just emailing our compliance office and just letting them know that they're going to contact them. I'm not going to get into any conversations that I've had with individual players. I'm going to tell you that I've been very proud of these players over the last two or three days. I know that there's some tough times that they've had to deal with over the last six, seven, eight months. They're talking to their families right now. But again, what I've reiterated to these kids over and over again is why they're here. And they're here to get a fantastic education. That hasn't changed. They're here to play really, really good, tough football. That hasn't changed. We're on TV. We've got the chance to play six, seven bowl games per year in front of 108,000 people at home. I don't know how many bowl games have 108,000 people, but the last time I checked there aren't any. So I feel really good about where we are right now as a football team. I realize that things can change. But we're moving forward. We already have plans in place to ho we're going to deal with different things, and we feel very positive about the direction of where we are right now.
Q: Have you had conversations with current players or recruits who have said they are at Penn State to stay?
A: No question. I feel that we have some younger players, some players that are in the middle of their careers and certainly some older players -- the leaders of our football team that have been
Q: Could you shed some light on specifically who?
A: No, I'm not going to get into that. I'm not going to get into individual conversations that I've had, but I can tell you that I've had many, many positive conversations about kids that believe in our staff, our ability to develop these kids as players and as people, our ability to develop them for the next level, our ability to make sure that they go to class and receive this great education here, and I've received a great number of positive feedback from our players.
Q: Of the sanctions, which is the hardest pill to swallow?
A: I would tell you that in my opinion the one that was the hardest is the fact that these kids could transfer without penalty. But at the end of the day, that just means that we have to reiterate to our players over and over again, which we're doing, why we came here, what this place is all about moving forward with me as the head football coach. I can't pick out one sanction versus another that's just that much harder. But I tell you that right now, my main goal is to keep this 2012 football team together, and that's what I'm working very hard to do every single day.
Q: Who have you sought advice from?
A: It's hard to seek advice from other coaches right now in college because a lot of those guys are obviously interested in our players, so it's hard to do that. I've always seeked advice from my wife, I've always seeked advice from my father, and I've seeked advice from people like Bill Belichick, George O'Leary, guys that I really have looked up to in my time in coaching. I've seeked advice from people that I've coached in the past. And everybody that I've spoken to believes in the fact that I'm here, believes in what we're going to try to do here and has been very positive with me. I can't tell you, Bonnie, I've probably received over 150 emails, text messages that have been extremely positive about us being here and where we're headed.
Q: What do you think is the most sage piece of wisdom you've received?
A: The best piece of advice is you can't dwell on the past. You've got to move forward, and you've got to play under the rules of which you've been sanctioned under right now. So that's what we're doing. We're not dwelling on the past. We've had two great staff meetings over the last two days. We've already put plans in place of how we're going to play under these rules, and we're going to play under these rules and we're going to field a competitive team. And I hope that many of our fans are listening to this interview because I expect our fans to understand that we're moving forward and we're not settling for anything but to try to be the best football program that we can be. And at the end of the day, we're competitive people, we've got competitive players here, and we believe again in the mission of Penn State, which in my opinion again is a great combination of athletics and academics.
Q: Are all of your coaches sticking around?
A: There's no question about that. A lot of the coaches here that I've coached with before, we're in it together. We've all been in tough situations before. There's no other group of men that I'd rather be in a foxhole with, and that's what we're doing right now. We've got a great staff. We've got a fantastic staff of teachers, of recruiters, of fathers, great husbands. We've got a great mix of experience on the staff, pro experience, college experience, and I really enjoy coming to work every day with these guys.
Q: You kept two coaches from the previous regime, Ron Vanderlinden and Larry Johnson. Why did you decide to do that.
A: These were two guys that, after talking with the new leaders here at Penn State, Rod Erickson and Dave Joyner, and then also talking to some of our players here at Penn State, that these were two guys that were held in high regard on this football staff and these were two guys that were excellent teachers, had a proven track record of recruiting. And I'm proud to have them on my staff.
Q: What would your sales pitch be to a recruit coming to a game this season?
A: Where do I begin. Number one, I would tell you that we [offer] a fantastic education here. Bonnie, we offer over 150 different majors here at Penn State. We have so many different things to choose from. We've got 45,000 undergraduate students here. They sold out the 25,000 seat section of our stadium very, very quickly, the student section of our stadium very quickly. And this is a place where you can come and achieve all of your goals, meaning you can come here, you can receive a great education and you can play fantastic football. Now, what I'll say to them from a football standpoint is, again, you're not going to go to a bowl game, you're not going to be eligible for a Big Ten championship, we understand that. Let's think forward, OK. This staff will develop you to be able to play at the next level, we know what it takes to play at the next level. This staff will make sure that you understand the meaning and the value of this education here. This staff will make you and show you, if it's the Ohio State game, what these fans are all about, which is 108,000 people strong that will be coming in here this season ready to support their football team. And again, we'll come up with different ways to think about championships during the season here. We'll come up with different bowl game scenarios within our regular season here. But again, at the end of the day, it's about being able to be developed the best you can as a football player and being able to come here and get a world-renowned education.
Q: How valuable of a carrot is it for you to dangle that you just came from being the offensive coordinator for one of the most prolific systems in the NFL in the Patriots?
A: Well I think it's very valuable because of my relationships with the guys that I coached for there, coached with there and the guys that I coached. I would never put words in anybody's mouths, but I can tell you that I learned a lot from Bill Belichick. The five years that I spent there were invaluable. He taught me a lot about putting a team together, he taught me a lot about how to strategize, he taught me a lot about evaluation of talent. I was able to coach with a great staff there. ... I worked with some of the best coaches in the National Football League with the Patriots. And obviously I was able to work with guys like Tom Brady and Wes Welker and Gronkowski and Hernandez, and those are highly talented guys that are competitive guys. So there's no question that I learned a lot there. We have great relationships with those guys. I do personally, my family does, and I'll bring a lot of what I learned from the Patriots obviously to Penn State.
Q: Agree or disagree with the Joe Paterno statue coming down and why?
A: My job's pretty simple. I'm here to really talk to you about the football program. And I have three jobs: I have to educate young men on the football field and off the football field; I have to develop young men of character; and I've got to win football games. Now, what I'll say about the decisions that have been made over the past six or seven months, I support Rod Erickson, our president. I support Dave Joyner, our athletic director. They've had to make tough decisions, and these are good men, these are good leaders, and that's what I'll say about that.
Q: You have a five-year contract. What's the percentage of likelihood that you will be in State College when those five years are up?
A: I'll tell you what I told my team yesterday, and again I said it to them again this morning. I'm committed to this football team. And I'll tell you this, I feel very proud to be associated with this university, I'm proud to be leading this football team and I'm proud to be coaching these young men. These guys are fantastic kids that have been through a lot that are working extremely hard, and I'm committed to this football program.
Q: You know that's not a percentage, don't you?
A: I'm not a mathematician, I can't even get into percentages.