Dialogue 1: Marxist Estrangement

A short explanation before the post... There is an established history of public conversations. In the heyday of English literary work, authors would debate through newspaper editorials. Many correspondences are published posthumously. Now, my brother and I, living well after the newspaper, and not quite dead yet, would like to publish discussions. Not necessarily because we consider ourselves intelligent enough to listen to, but more likely because it is through discussion that two or more can come to a common understanding of the truth. Further, through discussion ideas are honed and sharpened, made more poignant and brought into better light. Meanings are clearer. And so, I present the first of, perhaps, many.

=======================================

Ambrose: You
I have a question that I wanted to discuss with you
Marxism

Sam Ignes: Umm...'kay.

Ambrose: Marx states that factory labor leads to four kinds of alienation in the worker: (1) alienation from the object, because he works on physical material which he doesn't own; (2) alienation from his human nature (or species being, as Marx terms it), because it is part of man's essential being to labor and shape the earth after his own image, while factory labor places man in service to his labor, working in order to subsist; (3) alienation from himself, because to separate him from physical belongings and his own nature is to separate him from himself, so that he loses what is human and lives to satisfy his animal functions; and (4) alienates him from other men, since this economic state of being places him in adversity (competition) with his fellow man, and especially his employer.
That was what we read - that's my condensation of an essay that Marx wrote
The question is, given that factory labor alienates man in the above way, describe an economic system which does not alienate the laborer.
Any thoughts?

Sam Ignes: ...capitalistic redistribution?

Ambrose: Flesh that out.
Define "capitalistic"

Sam Ignes: I'll do it using your bullet-points above, then, I guess.

Ambrose: Probably the best way.

Sam Ignes: Capitalism is an economic system fueled by the competitive nature of man, embodied in a constant rise in GDP and quality of service.
Redistribution is a means of eliminating homelessness and extreme poverty by providing welfare only to people who have no housing or job for a period of time until they can acquire aforementioned things.
Both are severely more complex than that, but those should satisfy as base definitions.

Ambrose: Ok

Sam Ignes: Okay, I'm gonna have to go out of order of your bullet-points for this to make sense.

Ambrose: That's fine
That's the order that Marx uses for his argument, but you can go out of order for yours.

Sam Ignes: 'Kay
(2) This system allows all men to work in a creative fashion because it creates constant need in every field of labor; the applied interest of men promotes their intuitive ability, thus shaping the world.
(3) The prevention of complete poverty and constant improvement of average quality of life allows man to be "in touch" the the physical and his belongings.
...I don't think you explained (1) in very full detail, since if whatever man works on causes him to be distanced from ALL objects, he's pretty much screwed.

Ambrose: it's not the fact that he's working on an object, it's that he's giving his labor, or his life - there are only so many hours in his life, and he's pouring those hours into an object which he cannot keep, control, or use. Monetary payment doesn't compensate, since he's missing his own life.
You can't buy back life.

Sam Ignes: Marx's first three points rely entirely upon Man's inability to acquire objects.
The fourth is brought about by man's good nature in prosperity.


Ambrose: Keep in mind, Sam, that Marx is talking about mid-1800's London, where there is no general prosperity. The working class lived in slums much worse than poor America. Every member of a household worked at least 12 hours a day in the most unsafe environment for pay which was barely enough to feed them.
Labor is still like this - sweat shops in Southeast Asia come to mind.

Sam Ignes: So?
I wasn't told to make Southeast Asia into a haven in a day.
I was told to describe an economic system.
Moral standards should be applied to personal experience, not vice-versa.

Ambrose: Well, keep in mind that in a capitalistic system, where by definition (as given by Adam Smith), the motivation for increasing the general wealth of society is personal gain, the most profit is made by paying the factory workers least; it will always be, if not standard policy, at least moral temptation to pay workers just enough to keep them alive.

Sam Ignes: Ingenuity promotes automation.

Ambrose: I know, it's a moral problem, but moral problems exist. We're not talking about an ideal society that exists on paper, we're talking about an actual society.
Do you mean that automation will eventually take the place of human workers?

Sam Ignes: On paper, yes.
...oh, wait, in real life, too.

Ambrose: ah
Are you saying that we have replaced manual labor with automation?

Sam Ignes: Yup.

Ambrose: Sam.
We live in a global economy.
Sweatshops in Asia and south America, which produce a large mass of our goods, are part of our economy.
Those sweatshops consist of people working for less than 10% of American minimum wage, in extremely unsafe conditions.
Automation has not replaced manual labor.

Sam Ignes: I didn't say it has.
I said it would.
Sorry, my communication failure. :P

Ambrose: Ok

Sam Ignes: Basically, Marx makes the case in a nutshell that "labor" reduces humanity in some way.
As a solution to the problem he himself creates, one must eliminate labor.
So, on paper, I did. :D
Shit just got reeeeeeeal.

Ambrose: No, he makes the case that working for a pitiful wage in bad conditions (which scenario is created by a capitalist economy) alienates man from those four things.
It doesn't completely take them away, it just alienates them.

Sam Ignes: Okay.
I didn't say the world IS the way I described.
I was painting an economic system that would solve the problem presented.
Mind you, I didn't provide a step-by-step on how any part of our global economy could get there; for that, I'd have to get more personal.

Ambrose: Right, I don't need a step-by-step plan, I just want a description of a system.

Sam Ignes: Yyyyyup.

Ambrose: But I think you're missing a bit of what Marx is saying, which is possibly due to my bad explanation
It's not the work itself which alienates man from himself, his nature, the object, and other men
It's the conditions under which man works in a capitalist, factory society.

Ambrose: Pivotal things about that condition which lead to that separation: he labors on that which is not his, he is living in abject poverty, and he is forced to work in order to sustain his physical existence.
So, instead of creating out of his own energy under his own directive, he is forced to use his creative faculty in a non-creative manner.
No match-stick factory worker takes pride in his work. "He's lighting that cigarette with one of my company's matches! I take pride in that!" No factory worker would ever think, say, or believe that.

Sam Ignes: And the way I boiled that down in order to change it was to say that the workers had to adapt the economy, and so I made the economy in such a way that it adapted to the workers.
Man can become interested in his work by creating a need for it and the means to achieve it.

Ambrose: Just because it fills an economic need in society does not mean that it fills a need in man's core being.

Sam Ignes: But Marx demands that man's core being is downtrodden by the economy because of the position it places men in.

Ambrose: right.
that is what Marx says.
Let me illustrate it with an example.
Picture your training and bike racing. It's work - you put in your hours intending to reap a benefit in your racing. When you win a race, you have a sense of fulfillment and joy, right? (along with the adrenaline rush)

Sam Ignes: And podium girls, yeah.

Ambrose: You don't get podium girls. You're not that good.
Alright. Suppose you took those same training hours, and instead of working toward your own end in your bike racing career, you powered a generator in a factory for minimum wage. No racing, no podium girls, just $7.45 an hour. Even if that filled a societal need, and you got paid enough to support yourself, it wouldn't be that same exhilarating feeling, would it?
That's the difference between alienating and non-alienating labor, which I think Marx is trying to point out.
It may not be the best example, but it shows what I mean.

Sam Ignes: So, man must be fulfilled by his work in order to not be alienated?

Ambrose: Basically.
That's what I posit, anyway.
It's kind of a mash between the Platonic idea that every man naturally wants to do a certain kind of work (the sword smith is born to be a sword smith, the farmer born to be a farmer, etc.) and a Chestertonian distributist idea, where each man is financially independent, and large corporations don't exist.

Sam Ignes: There's nothing wrong with large corporations.
There is something wrong with oppressive corporations.

Ambrose: Well, let me explain a bit here.

Sam Ignes: Please do! <3

Ambrose: Large corporations originate in the division of labor (division of labor = instead of one man making one thing, 10 men each make one part of that one thing in an assembly line). Dividing labor allows them to produce more quickly, and thus gain an excess - more than what society around them needs. They can thus sell for profit.
That's how capitalism originated back in the 1700s.
In order to have those 10 people (or 1000s of people, depending on the company), you need a large workforce of people whose only job is to do that one tiny piece of making the whole product.
This is only possible in a large corporation - a single-employee small business _by definition_ cannot divide labor, because he simply doesn't have enough men.

Sam Ignes: However, a single-person business cannot apply a service to a large population.
e.g. phone service.

Ambrose: Interesting argument.

Sam Ignes: Hold up a sec

Ambrose: But phone service is something that a government could - and possibly should - handle very well.

Sam Ignes: What I mean to put forth is that dividing labor (government is labor, too) is not necessarily bad; if research and development is labor, and labor shouldn't be divided, then there wouldn't be much R&D getting done.

Ambrose: Research (actually scientific work being done by scientists) is not necessarily unfulfilling, like Marx would posit that factory work is.
Sam Ignes: But you're using "labor" synonymously with "factory work."

Ambrose: Yeah. Research isn't "labor," it's qualitatively different than tightening the same screw on each product that rolls past on a conveyor belt for 12 hours.

Sam Ignes: Then how do you eliminate the need for jobs such as tightening the same nut and bolt 8 hours a day?

Ambrose: By denying that it's a need.
It's only a "need" in a society where the final end is material gain - you have to make a surplus, in order to sell enough to make a profit.

Sam Ignes: So, how do you change the "end" of society from material gain?

Ambrose: Remember, this isn't a step-by-step plan, it's a description of a society.
Suppose you had a society where people lived in groups or villages, not gigantic super-urban cities with millions of people.
Those people could support themselves materially - they could grown their own food, built their own tools, organize themselves in their own affairs...
Granted, they would not have material excess.
But you don't need to have material excess - that's why it's called excess or surplus.
The important thing is that each person could build and work on his own things, selling them or keeping them as he saw fit.

A Fundamental Flaw in Adam Smith's Conception of an Industrialized Capitalism

I wrote this as a school paper, but thought that the topic was relevant enough to post here.

=============================================

There is a fundamental flaw behind Adam Smith's great, wealthy, stable capitalist economy. Perhaps Smith, who wrote during the innocent beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in Britain,1 could not foresee the consequences his theory would inevitably bring about, as industrialization progressed. Perhaps, as an academic, he simply could not sympathize with the plight of the worker. At any rate, the ungoverned capitalistic manufactories, which The Wealth of Nations describes, while enriching the whole nation, forces the individual worker into a position of dependence upon a large, impersonal corporation. Such a position is detrimental to the well being of the individual worker. This flaw, however, is not apparent. In this paper, I will attempt to demonstrate that this flaw is present in any capitalistic industrial economy.

Before showing the flaws inherent in the capitalist utopia which Adam Smith describes, it must first be examined. I will do this by looking to Smith's Wealth of Nations itself. Smith begins by pointing out that the wealth of a nation consists in its material goods and its monetary holdings.2 A country can increase its wealth substantially by means of the division of labor. As Smith states, “The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labor, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity and judgment with which it is anywhere directed or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labor.”3 The division of labor consists in breaking down the process of manufacturing some item into its component tasks, and then assigning each of these individual tasks to a single person. This allows a group of people together to make significantly more of the product than the same amount of people could individually. Smith demonstrates this with the example of the pin-making industry,
One man draws out the wire, another straightens it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pin is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands...[they] could therefore make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day.4

Because the wealthiest nation is the one which has the most money and goods, and the division of labor thus produces the most goods for the least amount of money, the country which has most subjected its industry to the division of labor and industrialization is the richest. The factory, then, where workers perform one out of the multitude of tasks required to make a pin, is the centerpiece and cornerstone of Adam Smith's capitalist economy. This glorious factory will make the whole nation rich.

This economic theory which Smith proposes seems to make sense. The whole nation is enriched by factories. However, Smith does not take the individual's well being into account when he discusses the wealth of the whole nation. In fact, his factories are detrimental to the well being of the individual worker. To attempt to prove this, I will first point out that not every citizen of a rich nation is himself wealthy. Second I will show the worker is entirely dependent upon the large company who owns the factory for his livelihood. And third, I will show that the same company does not need to support the worker.

First, whether every citizen of a wealthy nation is wealthy. After all, if the whole nation becomes wealthier because of factories and the division of labor, and if the nation is made up of individuals, then the individuals should be made wealthy by industrialization. However, that hypothetical syllogism does not completely take into account how the wealth of a nation functions. Even if the total wealth of a nation is great, the wealth of individual people is not necessarily so. If the average national wealth is ten thousand dollars, then both individual A and B might have ten thousand dollars. However, it could also be the case that individual A has twenty thousand dollars, while individual B has none whatsoever. In that second case, the national average remains the same as the first, but individual B is living in poverty. Thus, I cannot conclude from the premise “the nation is wealthy” that “the individual citizens are wealthy.”

Second, the hired factory laborer is under the unfortunate circumstance of being unable to provide for himself without wages from the factory. The workman is unable to produce food except through wages in the living conditions demanded by factories. Because the factory needs quite a few workmen, the owners of the business construct large housing developments near the factories so that their workers can live close by. Dramatic numbers of people moved into these factory slums during the industrial revolution. In 1801, the population in British cities comprised twenty percent of the total population of Great Britain. This increased to forty percent by 1851, and to 75% by 1901.5 I have seen such slums myself in Middletown, Ohio. Near the old factories are rows and rows of small, identical houses on quarter-acre lots. Any laborer living in such housing developments cannot grow his own food on such small property or under such conditions. Hunting or raising livestock is completely out of the question, since there simply is not enough room, and wild animals are scared away by so many people. As a result, the only option a laborer has to acquire food is buying it. Since all of the money which he has comes from the factory wages, he is completely dependent upon those wages for his food.

Further, Adam Smith himself admits that the factory worker does not become a skilled worker,6 thus preventing him from using his “trade,” if it can be called that, independent of the factory. If the process of making a pin is split up into eighteen different parts, each individual worker only knows one of these. The worker, if fired, cannot go elsewhere, relying on his pin-making to support him. He only knows how to “draw out the wire,” “cut it,” or “grind it at the top to receive the head.”7 He could not make a single pin on his own, as Smith admits.8 Even another pin-making factory, if there is one, might have different machinery, which the laborer would have to learn to operate from scratch. The workman who depends upon his wage for food, then, is not a skilled workers, with a definite trade by which to make a living. He therefore depends entirely upon the factory for any money they might receive, and thus for his very livelihood.

Third, then, consider the factory. The factory would seem to depend upon its workers. After all, the factory's source of income is selling the goods which it produces. The workers are necessary to make those goods, and they also serve as possible consumers for those goods. However, the above argument, again, considers the workers as a group, and not individually. When examining the effect on the single workmen out of the many, the facts do not apply in the same way. The companies have great power over the individual. G. K. Chesterton, a political theorist who offers an opinion from the end of the Industrial Revolution, states that the big companies have “...the money, the machinery, the rather mechanical majority...”9 In the game of life and death between the individual worker and the factory, the factory holds all the cards.

Although the factory may depend on the workers as a group, it does not depend upon the individual worker. If one worker quits, is fired, falls sick, or requests better wages, there are plenty of other potential workers to replace him. The factory owner knows that there are plenty of people who are willing to work for whatever wage, under whatever conditions, if one man is unable or is not willing.

Further, the factory does not depend on any individual worker to consume the goods it produces. Again, there are plenty of other people who will purchase the goods to support the company, and perhaps even to make the company owner fairly wealthy. The individual worker's participation in the capitalist, manufactory system does not determine its success. There are enough members of the working class that one individual worker does not matter to the factory.

If the factory does not need any individual worker, then what guarantees his safety and well being? The factory wage he receives could easily be given to someone else. And yet the workman has dire need of that wage – without it he cannot feed himself. What assurance can the laborer have of receiving this money? Only the agreement he makes with the factory owner. This is no great comfort. If the only thing between the workman and starvation is his employment, and the factory has no real obligation to employ him, then the industrial manufactory system is certainly not sufficient to provide for the well being of its laborer. The factory owners may call the farmers and country folk to the factory slums with the lure of a wage, but the big businesses cannot support each and every man who answers the call. The factory system envisioned by Adam Smith, while it might enrich the nation, does not adequately protect the well being of the individual worker.

Spring cleaning and a short thought

At some point it occurred to me that the link I had on the side, to a blog by an old friend of mine, was no longer accurate. Somewhere along the flowing stream of time, Garden Variety Rainbows became Clearing the Sill. This change is now reflected in the hyperlink, and is also reflected in the blog's sidebar text. The quality of content, however, has not changed for the worse, and I still recommend you read.

-------------------------------------

Recently, I read an article in the New York Post by a certain Michio Kaku describing what life would be like after 89 years of technological advancement. These articles are, often enough, not very scientifically accurate. Journalists seeking a story have an odd tendency to stretch the limits of science, and they expect to suspend the disbelief of their audience enough to sell a magazine. Nature and her laws are somewhat less forgiving. As a result, I am not entirely sure whether we will be able to "cruise at the age of 30 almost indefinitely...," even a century or two down the line.

Why not, though? The only apparent physical obstacle is the body's natural rate of decay. We can replace limbs, hearts, stomachs, livers, and possibly even brains without changing intrinsically who the person is - a person is still the same person after a kidney donor. Therefore, we should be able to indefinitely extend the physical life of a person, even if after 200 years they are on their third entirely new body. What is left unaccounted for?

Unfortunately, the answer is contained in the question above. If the same "person" is still in existence, even without any of the same physical substance, then that person must have a non-physical component. This concept will perhaps be more easily seen if we make a comparison to the computer. If you took a computer, retrieved the data, and then copied the data into an identical computer, the second computer would not be the same as the first one. It might act, look, and contain the same things, but it would not be the same essential being. Human beings are different. Our cells die and get recycled during the course of our lifetimes, even without artificial replacements. Dead skin, dead hair, and waste all fall aside as we age, replaced automatically by new cell growth. Thus, after x amount of time, our bodies are composed of entirely new material, even without replacements. And yet, that body is part of the same person it was beforehand. Similarly, even if our grandfather loses an arm and it is replaced by a prosthetic limb, even if he develops Alzheimer's and loses his memory, and even if every individual, physical part of his body is replaced, we still know Grandpa as Grandpa. As a result of this observation, we must conclude that something outside of the physical, or, to use an Aristotelian term, something metaphysical exists, which contributes something essential to our concept of, and nature as, a person.

This metaphysical part is the part of the person which grows world-weary, and desires to commit suicide after a tragedy. This is the part of the person which refuses human contact for a week after his fiancée dies. Neither of these two events can be explained through physical means, and thus a physical solution (or even genetic engineering) cannot solve a metaphysical problem. Suppose for a moment that, shaky science aside, we could live for hundreds of years on earth. The real question is this: who would want to? The inarguable numbers of divorces, alcoholics, suicides, homicides, and other indicators of human discontent with our current condition show that, perhaps, not very many people would.

This metaphysical understanding of man also extends to our use of the physical world around us. Because our being is metaphysical, we interpret other things metaphysically. Dolls and blankets treasured since childhood acquire a metaphysical significance: who can throw those old soccer trophies away, even though they clutter the shelves?

Further, we experience things metaphysically. Although Kaku states that "cars will be driver-less, using GPS to navigate...," I doubt that this will actually be the case. This scenario can be compared to simply using a bus system now. What's the difference between driving a car and being driven? Or, suppose a robot drove your car while you sat in the passenger seat. What's the difference between a human and a robot driver? The human can enjoy the driving experience. The exhilaration, the freedom, the speed, the power cannot be attributed merely to adrenaline. If it could be, the passenger would feel the same thrill. As any backseat driver can tell you, that is not always the case. Therefore, we must conclude that the reason we drive cars, like the reason we ride bikes, cook meals, play music, or take a walk through the woods, is not from some sort of mere physical necessity - not just because we have to, but would rather not. These actions have a metaphysical significance which is irreplaceable - we want to, whether we have to or not.

In short, where Michio Kaku fails in his study of future technology is here: it examines technological capacity, but not human volition and nature. Human beings want more than long life - they want a happy life, short or long. Human beings do not want to be driven around, human beings want to act and make their own decisions. We do not want life lived for us by scientists, we want to live, love, and laugh on our own. The scientific pseudo-life without a metaphysic, which Kaku offers us as a technological possibility, is worse than death. It would be like living in a prison all of our life, with no freedom to engage in the higher metaphysical realm of joy and pain. As a human being, I reject this future. Give me a car to drive myself - I will risk the crash to gain the freedom. Give me a 70-year life span - I will welcome death as a relief from the misery inherent in this world. Give me the liberty to freely choose those things which I enjoy - even if that means true death as a release from an ultimately unsatisfying world. But, for God's sake, do not chain me to a world I can no longer enjoy for an unbearable eternity.

Great Lie

"Religion is the opiate of the masses," quoth Karl Marx. Most Christians find this statement for all the wrong reasons. "Religion isn't an opiate," they retort, "It's true, and I believe it." Although this might be the case, it does not address Marx's statement in all of its insidiousness. Marx makes a statement about reality as lived by a human being, which mere belief cannot counter.

By calling religion an "opiate," Marx implies two basic premises - first, that the world we live in is so gray, mundane, tiresome, sorrowful, and awful that we need something to take our mind off of it, and, second, that religion fills that need. Of these two premises, the first is the one I wish to examine - within it lies one of the largest problems that plagues the modern age.

"Life sucks, and then you die." Who hasn't heard this truism before? And, honestly, who can argue with it? Our life is occupied, almost primarily, by suffering and the deaths of others, especially those close to us, until we ourselves succumb to the oppressive material universe and kick the bucket. Life is filled with rejection: although human beings are supposed to be the most rational and compassionate of animals, we find ourselves constantly attacked by our fellow man. Life is filled with suffering: aches, pains, illnesses, and calamities of the soul are our constant companions. Earthquakes and tsunamis destroy entire inhabited islands, tornadoes rip apart preschools, and volcanoes engulf entire cities in flames. No man can arrogate himself above this material plight. Sin is undeniable. The true, the good, and the beautiful are fleeting moments of reprieve that are not lasting. All good things come to an end, because suffering and death win in the end.

This is the basic assumption that Marx makes about human existence. Religion exists to pull the wool over the eyes of troubled sheep, tricking them into ignoring the calamities around them to shield them from the pain. Doctors, nurses, priests, and poor-boxes fight a losing battle against the tide of overwhelming suffering.

If we accept this view of the universe, Christianity does not exist. First, let's look at this scripturally: God created the earth, or all of our earthly existence, and "saw that it was good." God, as all good, can create nothing evil or painful. Pain only exists because we are fallen away from the good God intended for us. But this is not the end of Christianity. Our Christian beliefs do not end with Christ in the tomb, but with Christ risen. Through Christ's suffering and death, we are brought to new life, and the entirety of creation rejoices as a new earth. When Christ rolled away the stone, he changed the nature of everything. Suffering is no longer the end - suffering itself leads to eternal life and happiness. Love is so powerful that it does not just conquer death and leave it as a ghost, but changes even death into life. Death and suffering are no more what they were - they are the very means of our salvation. God can turn even evil into good.

Thus the Church stands diametrically opposed to the modern, gray view of existence. She stands before the towering waves and battering winds, firm on her foundation of rock, to proclaim that even to drink the cup of death is to imbibe joy. The Christian sees in the suffering gold purified by flame - a gold even more precious and more beautiful than before. Existence can squall and rage, but the Christian laughs in wonder at a God who can not only calm a storm, but bring calm about by means of a storm.

Because this world is, in fact, so good, the entirety of Christianity exists in order to give thanks. The extreme opposite of the "opiate of the masses," the Christian religion states that no opiate is necessary - our life is so good that no amount of praising can thank God enough. This spirit of thanksgiving is the crucial foundation of a Christian world view. To thank God is to be a Christian, and all Christianity flows from this thanksgiving. That is why the Eucharist (Greek, thanksgiving) is the "source and summit" of our faith. This spirit of thanksgiving is the air that we Christians breathe, this ethos of Eucharist is the only response worthy of so great a God, who does not bring about life in spite of death, but because of and through it.

Why is it that...

Why do we Americans demand money, cars, food, bonuses, health care, jobs, or whatever from our government? Why is it that a vast portion (41.71% source) of our national expenditure is devoted to taking money from some people and giving it to others, for whatever purpose (social security, medicare, medicaid...). The government has taken upon itself to take our money from us and distribute it wherever it sees fit - to national parks, to health care, to job security and promotion, to all of the things it spends on. Why exactly is that the government's job? Who decided that, if someone was going to give, it had to be the government? Why should the government be the solution? Besides violating the principle of subsidiarity (under which the smallest, most local authority possible handles the problem), it takes away from our free will. How? Let me show you.

First, I would like to make it clear that whatever money the government spends comes from one of two places. Either it is tax money, or it is interest on foreign loans (trade tariffs, for the sake of this argument, can be regarded as taxes, since the price of the tariff is tacked on top of the price we pay for the goods...). Now, since our nation is so far in debt, I don't think interest on foreign loans is going to get us much revenue. Therefore, any money that the government spends (really) comes out of our own pockets. Thus, any money that the government spends to benefit our lives is our own money! In other words, all of the social security, medicare, and projects that Uncle Sam funds is, by its nature, someone else deciding what is best to do with the profit you worked hard to earn. This clearly showcases one of the core principles of small-government philosophy: whenever a government acts, it necessarily performs this action instead of and at the expense of the people.

Let's elaborate on this idea. First, consider that first part - the government acts instead of the individual. Suppose, for the hypothetical sake of argument, that the government pays for medical care for the elderly (What's that? They already do?). If the government pays for their health care, then no one else can supply that portion of helping their elderly parents. If Grandma is in the hospital at the government's expense, you don't personally have the capacity to give her the gift of paying for it yourself. Health care, living expenses, and public property restoration are all a finite pie. If the government takes all the slices, the individual's opportunity for charity and generosity gets eaten up. And, if we can believe Plato and his Republic, and the purpose of a government is to help foster a virtuous public, then the less opportunity a citizen has to act charity the less the government fulfills its purpose. In terms of true, habituated virtue, "Let me do it for you" is completely opposed to personal growth.

Second, consider the fact that the government acts at the expense of the individual. The government is not some magical sorcerer who gives from an inexhaustible store of enchanted goodies. The government consists of the ruling body, in its laws, elected officials, and available capital. The government is only so rich as its people, and can give nothing of its own. Like I posited above, the government's only income is our tax. Whatever the government gives to the community, it first takes from the community. The government doesn't give, it necessarily, by its nature redistributes. Any government plan that puts money into development or care takes whatever funds it needs from the people. Why would you elect someone who would promise to pay for your education with government money? Government money is a contradiction in terms - that money is and always has been owned by the people. Why would you elect a candidate who promises to give more money to the schools? That money is coming from your pocket, anyway. And, since you know your own, personal needs better than the government does, why do you let them do it for you?

Having established this principle, lets return to our discussion. How does government spending take away from our free will? Let us, for the sake of this argument, assume that "free will" means the ability to say yes or no internally (as differentiated from "freedom," which, according to this discussion might have some qualifications). Now, as stated above, more government spending means less American citizen spending on two counts - one, the government already pays for stuff so we can't, and two, it uses our money to do it so we have less. One of those options clearly takes away from our freedom - if the government spends, then we can't do that spending. That option is no longer there. The way is shut. However, the second, taking our money, removes freedom in a subtler way. Whether for good or ill, we live in a capitalist society, where your abilities as an individual depend upon your affluence and wealth. I am not free to take my children to Disney World if I can't pay for it. This is just a fact. So, if the government takes a good chunk of my paycheck, it is not at my disposal, and my kids will have to hope I can come up with a low-budget vacation plan.

Most importantly, as the government takes our money, they also take the decisions we make with that money. If I decided to spend my money on the health care of my children, then I am virtuous. But if Big Brother decides that I, in my ignorance and lack of virtue, am not capable of making those decisions, and makes them himself, then we have a problem. The fact that the American who earns a modest $40,000 a year pays 15% of that to the government means that the government deigns to revoke that American's right to decide where his hard-earned $6,000 goes. What if he wants to support a local business and stimulate the economy by eating out? He can't with that $6,000. What if he wants to make a charitable donation to a soup kitchen or Boy Scout troop? He can't with that $6,000. What if he wants to pay for his mother's quadruple bypass in gratitude for his upbringing? He can't with that $6,000. And if a man can't do with his own work what he pleases, what can he do? Well, I guess he can scrape by on a tight budget and scrap the charity he would have done otherwise.

This is the crux of the matter: if the government steals from me my ability to do good, and to fail to do good is to lose part of my humanity, then the government is taking from me my humanity. Plain and simple. In days of old, man was constantly in danger of becoming bestial and giving in to his base desires. That is no longer the case. Under the government nanny-state, where no good OR ill action is possible, we become machines working for the cause of whichever president stands behind the control panel. If we are lucky, he will be benevolent in his rule, and seek to at least help us lead contented lives of drudgery. But why should he? He doesn't owe any responsibility to robots deprived of their free will and human dignity.

A Proposal

Purple Pride Whatever day. When it was explained to me last night by one of my fellow, extreme-right-wing, Catholic-card-carrying friends, I thought it was, well, a little gay. On second thought this morning, I decided to think about it a little more logically.

Theoretically, this day is about homosexual teenagers losing their lives as a result of the bullying they receive. This gives two possibilities for their deaths - either they were bullied (or beat) to death, or they couldn't handle the social pressure of the bullying and committed suicide. Either of these two possibilities are tragic - no human life should be lost.

However, both the radical right and the radical left will misrepresent this holiday. The left will use it as an example to champion the poor, helpless homosexuals who are taunted for no reason. The right wing will say that the gay f***s shouldn't be such limp, emasculated weaklings to commit suicide because a couple people poked fun of them. Both of these views are misguided, and I will answer them both individually.

First, the left's idea that the homosexuals are brutally tortured for their dignified beliefs, and they are completely wronged and all homophobic assholes who try to say anything about gay people at all are bigoted, religious crusaders. First, I would like to point at the nature of "poking fun," or "teasing." A certain amount of teasing is good - to be made fun of, to a point, allows us to realize potentially legitimate faults in our behavior, and, if we are mature enough, the ability to laugh at ourselves. If I'm a big enough boy about it, I can realize that, yes, I'm a bit egotistical, and these people making fun of me are right, and I should try to correct my behavior. Now, immediately, the left responds that there is nothing wrong with the homosexual lifestyle, and that to even suggest that it is in the slightest way humorous is to offend every single homosexual on the face of the planet. I would argue in response that the heterosexual lifestyle is at least equally legitimate, and that no straight guy would have reasonable claim to offense if he was made fun of for being straight. Think about it - the sexual act is just a bit odd and humorous. "You stick what where?" Honestly, to think of ourselves as ridiculous is healthy; pride is the greatest of the seven deadly sins - even worse than the wrath involved with bullying. Therefore, I think that the homosexual committing suicide because he was made fun of could be said to be a tad too sensitive.

Now, to argue against the right's point of view. The homosexual individual is still intrinsically a person, and has all of the same personal dignity and rights that any other person does. I am not condoning any homosexual actions - I still firmly believe, as a Catholic, that any sexual interaction outside of the natural love of husband and wife is offensive to God and the people involved (I have posted about this before, and probably will again later - I don't particularly want to argue this point now). However, even if their actions are wrong, their personal dignity and worth are not merit based - humanity is not something you earn, but something that is intrinsic to your essence. Therefore, as the Church says in Catechism paragraph 2358 "[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The homosexuals should not simply "man up" and "take" abuse which is unjust, uncalled for, or excessive. Christ commands us to love all of mankind as He loved us - not just to love those who we like, who agree with us, or who are similar to us.

Now, in terms of this holiday. There are people who have legitimately been abused because of their homosexuality. This abuse is completely wrong and inexcusable. I suppose that commemoration of these people might lead to an end of the abuse, and therefore "Purple Day" is not an altogether bad idea. I would, however, like to see at least parity in commemoration days - the heterosexuals who have been abused by homosexuals also ought to receive a commemorative day. I therefore propose that we all wear red tomorrow to remember straights beat up by gay people.

The Philosophy of Love: An Introduction

Observe every human being you have ever come into contact with. Think of how many you have heard say, "I love you," or. "I love him/her," etc. How many times have you said these things? It has been a plague of the knowable universe (just Earth, actually) to know whether or not any given person has truly "meant" the words, "I love you." I am, therefore I think. That which can think can know, I can think, therefore I can know. Man can know, and therefore man can know when they mean the words, "I love you." So, I will take some time out of my day and apply myself to defining what these words really mean, collectively.

"And God so loved the earth that He gave His only Son..."

The Hypostatic Union is comprised of three separate entities that are defined as one and only one God. These three "persons" are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. How do they simultaneously exist? The Father's love is manifest in the Son, and the love between the Father and Son is manifest in the Holy Spirit.

"Wait a second!" you say, "You just said 'love' two times and you still haven't defined it!"

Well, senior impatient, I'm doing that right now.

God is all powerful. God is, therefore, all good because anything besides would not be creative. Because God is all good, he is the model of "goodness." "Goodness" is substituted with "virtue," because virtue is a "good" quality (ohey, does that mean virtues are by nature creative? I mean, in a perfect form, I guess they are...).

Because God can love, this means that Creative Love (in the case of God's perfect love, I will call it "Creative Love," because it must be differentiated from what we know as "love" in our everyday use of the word) is a virtue, and that Creative Love is the perfect form of that virtue (which I will name later).

Organize material:
Love is a virtue.
Creative Love is the perfect form of Love.

Let's take a look at the opposite end of the spectrum:
Aristotle established a system of virtue, giving the two extremes of those virtues. If Creative Love is the positive extreme, then there must be a negative extreme. Creative Love is creative, therefore the opposite must be destructive (henceforth called, "Destructive Love").

Note that here is a slight disjunction. Did God's Creative Love have an object? There was no object such as a universe for him to center his Creative Love and create. Does this mean that Love in a perfect form does not have a material object? Or, would the created thing be the object of God's Creative Love? The latter statement seems the most reasonable (if worded not as an inquiry, of course).

I digressed, didn't I? If the object is the created, and that is Creative Love, then Destructive Love must be without the created object. Furthermore, Destructive Love must oppose the object of creation.

Now I shall introduce our concept of human love. Given my theoretical discussion, upon application perfect human love is centered upon creation and the opposite the destruction or opposition of creation. Humans can only take part in creation in the making of a new human (because God is the only entity that can create out of nothing). God exhibited Perfect Creative Love and that is our ultimate goal, and the vice associated is Destructive Love and anything that opposes that creation. Anything that opposes a new life, therefore, opposes God's Perfect Creative Love and because God is all good and only good comes out of him, Destructive Love (I think it is my duty to mention that the opposite of a perfect virtue is a "perfectly evil" vice, which comes from the devil, if you'd believe it) must come from a lack of Creative Love. That somehow seems irrelevant, though...

Our purpose, our goal, our destiny, etc. is to mirror God, to know, love and serve God, etc. We must mirror, strive toward, etc. God's model of Creative Love. Our nature is to strive toward Creative Love, if you'll pardon my jump in language. To not strive toward Creative Love is, therefore, against our nature (if you'll recall my other posts, anything that goes against our nature is a sin against God, because he created us with a nature/purpose/design).

Destructive Love, practically speaking, is the purest form of lust, which shall be sufficiently defined as a desire for sexual pleasure. This is because the object changes from the opposition of creation to sexual pleasure.

Lust objectifies the person of the opposite sex, which is a sin against God because it changes that person's object from knowing, loving and serving God to an object of pleasure. This is, on a moral scale, a very grave sin, because it is a direct denial against the will of God and twists the purpose of Creative Love embodied in the sexual organs.

Understand that, through all this, I have given what love does, where it comes from, its extremes and an example of one of its median vices, but I have not defined it. Why?

We cannot replicate God's Creative Love because it is perfect and we are fallen. The same goes for Satan's Destructive Love.

Lust is definable because it is a human emotion.

But is Love an emotion? Its perfection in either direction is not an emotion because it does not express feeling, but an object. It is not cognitive because it does not enact reason.

I know that Love provokes emotions; lust, desire, beautiful perception, joy, serenity, contentment...the list goes on. However, love is differentiated from these, as God's perfect example shows.

Personally, I do not believe I can effectively put "love" into words. Language is the conveyance of human thoughts, and because language derives from human thoughts, it is imperfect. To attempt to put Creative Love or any form thereof into my imperfect language would be a sin against their natures as objects of God's design. Ultimately, I know what Love is not. Love is not an emotion itself because there is always a definable, objective emotion such as "desire" or "lust" in place that we substitute with "love," which is a sin against its nature. I know that love, in order to strive for God's plan, must be creative.

This means that deduction is impossible, because I cannot form a positive statement out of anything other than two positive statements. I could produce any number of the two aforementioned, and never produce a solid definition.

Induction applicable.

Love is an explicable nonentity that occurs between two human beings that benefits the continuation of the human race.

This leads me to my ultimate point. We cannot express God, His perfect intentions and motives, with our language. To do so is a horrible sin because it lowers God to a flawed, human level. With the exception of Jesus Christ, it is illicit to do so. To express His works and measures is flawed because our language does not express Him, but our thoughts. God is outside thoughts and therefore outside language. All words, phrases, functions and mechanics we could ever conjure through any means could never depict with accuracy the glory, majesty, honor, or any of infinite virtues in perfect form that embody themselves in God. He is a mystery in every sense of the word. But that's still imperfect, isn't it?

~Samuel

The Modern Pharisee

Satan is a tactical genius. He found that a media system which stretches from sea to shining sea, across borders, and to all four corners of the globe could be used to broadcast immorality. And because of our inheritance, concupiscence, this exposure to blatant immorality would lead us naturally to imitate. Although it is true that what comes from within does not taint, but that which comes from without, our moral consciences, the level that sets our decision-making straight, must be formed by external material. And if all the movies, songs, and magazines we imbibe contain only filth, we will vomit the same filth back out into the world.

This move the devil has made is not at all his genius strike. With this spear he thrusts not at those dredged in sin - if we can believe Lewis, neither God nor Satan wants the tepid man who sins because he does not know better. No, Satan wields the modern, corrupted media as a weapon against those who would otherwise be holy and well educated. Even those who avoid the sting of the vicious television set are wounded by its filth.

How? If those poor souls secreting themselves away from the vile onslaught do not intake the filth, how can they be hurt? Would not someone who avoids the blow avoid also the damage? However, we cannot assume that because our minds are safe from the numbing sexual images, because our consciences are safe from the ceaseless blows, or because we see no evil and hear no evil, that we will think no evil. One cannot hide from temptation completely.

The fatal second strike of Satan comes at those who hide from him most in their pride. The moment the sheltered Catholic child begins to think in terms of "us" and "them," in terms of good people who watch good movies and bad people who watch bad movies, he falls victim to the sin that Christ condemned most vehemently. "Thank God that I can keep my children from watching these movies," is what any parent would say, but the afterthought lurks in the shadows, unannounced, but deadly, "unlike those other children."

All human beings share the same nature. As a result, any kind of "us vs. them," "Catholic vs. Protestant," "saved vs. sinner," is of necessity a flawed argument. I am not saying, of course, that the all media is good - verily, some of it stinketh. But we can never say that those who produce or consume bad media are bad. We must completely and permanently dissociate the sin and the sinner. This leads us to a strong statement - I and that sinner over there are brothers. Our positions are interchangeable - a human "I" for a human "I."

We cannot assume that simply because we were brought up Catholic, because we went to Catholic schools, because we were altar boys, or even because we go to Mass and pray the rosary daily, that we are better than anyone else. Each and every one of these very good things are gifts from God, and yet none of them make us good people. To use the word "good" in the moral sense to describe a person cannot follow - how can we use an adjective which qualifies a moral act as right or wrong be applied to a human being - a moral actor? We cannot argue that a person who tends to do good things is good or that a person who does bad things is bad. Either of these people is capable of turning towards or away from God in each individual moment. Granted, a person may be virtuous, which would mean only that he tends to do the good, not that he himself is good. We are what God has given us, no more no less. And He called us all "good" after our creation - good in the sense that each of us has the capacity to become what He intended us to be, good in the sense that we each have the blessing of existence, and good in the sense that we can strive to worship Him in every moment, with every choice, and with every breath.

Therefore, any person who calls himself "good," calls another "bad," or makes a distinction between the "Catholic, conservative, homeschooling group" and the "filth-watching, immoral, publicschooling group" is a pharisee. Christ condemned all such people, so how can we avoid the fate of pride? The only means to salvation is through personal contact - with those around us, even those with tattoos, nose rings, and foul language; and with Christ.

Freedom from religion

In America, we claim to have "freedom of religion." This term was inserted into the bill of rights so that the government could not force us to go to a specific religious ceremony, granting man the "freedom" to choose his own "religion." The term, however, is detrimental. Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion, or, in other words, the ability ot choose not to go to church at all, if we do not want to. If we are truly free to choose whatever religion we think right, then why do we so seldom wish to go to church whatsoever? We should be free to want to attend any parish we should choose. And yet, we find ourselves more and more desiring to attend any sort of religious ceremony less and less. This is the result of an abusive definition of the word freedom.

Freedom cannot mean "doing whatever I want whenever I want." This concept of free will denies any sort of purpose to our existence, and, furthermore, fails to reflect reality. If the ability to choose as we see fit based on our passions is free will, then why do we form habits, especially harmful habits? For example - I can begin an activity such as pornography, tobacco, alcohol, or any other addictive substance freely. And yet, as this activity continues, my desire for it increases, and the strength of my will to oppose it decreases. Therefore, this "free choice of will" necessarily leads to the inability to make such a "free choice of will." Our free choices become less and less free, and any attempts to justify our actions become merely psuedo-rational statements slavishly serving the passions in their lust.

This haunting realization about freedom applies similarly to religion. If "freedom of religion" means that I can choose whatever religion I want, without any recourse to something objective outside of myself, then my religion will be based upon my internal passions. If religion means that I pick a religion to suit myself, then, ever increasingly, religion will be the outward expression of my incontrolable desires, and my religious nature will be degraded into an apathetic sludge of emotion. I will want God when I feel like I need God, causing true contact with the divine, for which human beings exist in the first place, to be impossible. I become incapable of any transcendence, locking myself securely into a world doomed for destruction, gradually losing all hope or sense of purpose. I lose my soul.

Does this sound alarmist? Extremist? A biased attack upon your freedoms from a religious bigot? If you have an intrinsic right to religious freedom, then I am not capable of harming your inalienable ability to disbelieve. But can you believe at all? If you truly are free to believe whatever you want - prove it. Believe in God. You will find that no amount of intellectual effort, no manufactured temperament of soul, and no extremes of grovelling before an altar only to prove your point will produce true faith. Unless something moves you from outside, you are completely unable to help yourself. May God bring us all to faith and salvation.

Ambrose

The Angelus - An Exegesis

I love that word. Exegesis. Makes me think of a superhero with a beard and a big "J" on his muscley chest. "ExeJESUS! AWAY!"

ANYWAY.

I figured today would be a good day to post this, considering it is the feast of the Anunciation.

The Angelus is a traditional prayer which focuses on a set of three responses, each followed by a Hail Mary. It reenacts the Annunciation, in which the archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary, revealing to her God's plan (or economy) of salvation for the whole world - that she, Mary, daughter of Joachim and Anne, a virgin, would conceive in her womb, and give birth to, the divine Son of God. The responses are as follows: Latin (English Translation commonly recited at six, noon, and six)

V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariæ. (The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary)
R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto. (And she conceived by the Holy Spirit)

V. Ecce Ancilla Domini. (Behold the handmaid of the Lord)
R. Fiat mihi secundum Verbum tuum. (Let it be done to me according to thy word)

V. Et Verbum caro factum est. (And the Word was made flesh)
R. Et habitavit in nobis (And dwelt among us)

Now. To exegete.

This prayer is a Scripture passage, and all of Scripture can be understood four ways: literally(what is actually written), analogically (how it relates to the rest of Scripture), morally (how it relates to our lives), and anagogically (how it relates to the end times). Now, I like to focus on the moral, because it is most pertinent to my existence. So what can I, a male college student, who was never immaculately conceived, have not received any glorious messages from archangels, will never conceive a child within me, and will never be related by blood to the Son of God, learn from this?

Another translation of the first line is "The angel spoke God's message to Mary." All of us, through catechesis, through reading on our own, through prayer, and even through contact with nature around us, receive God's revelation. All of revelation is one Word - Christ, the divine Word (CCC p. 65). Therefore, all of us have received Christ. Furthermore, as baptized Christians, we "have put on Christ." In our relationship with God, we are receptive (or, in a sense, female). We have two options: we can receive this Word willingly and "bear fruit" (Jn 15:4), or we can reject this Word, rejecting also the divine life that Christ gives to all.

We then, with Mary, say "Behold the handmaid (= servant) of the Lord, let it be done unto me according to thy Word." To live in Christ is to serve Him - having created us, he knows what is good for us, and to follow his laws is our delight (Psalm 118:35). In serving God, Mary conceives. This is important - in the act of service God is made manifest in her. "The Word became flesh" in Mary's act of service. Similarly, "the Word becomes flesh" in us as He is manifested to others through our service. "They will know we are Christians by our love," right? To show Christianity to others (to catechize) is to reveal the person of Jesus Christ to others. We are His body - because He lives in us, and we make Him manifest to others through our service, can we say that we are the Word made flesh in our present day? It sounds almost heretical to equate ourselves with the Son of God, but let us not forget his mission - to make us partakers in His divine nature (CCC p. 460). When Christ came down from heaven to take on our humanity, He raised humanity up into His divinity. This is not something that happens only in heaven after we die - Christ redeems us now. We are Christ's body now, on earth, with the divine mission to bring Him to all people. The Word is made flesh, every day, in our efforts to bring the world to Him.

So, on the solemnity of the Annunciation, let us pray that the Word of God may be spoken to all by our actions and tongues, that we may truly be the body of Christ.

~Ambrose

Best part of running a blog:

Recanting. Guess what: I take it all back. Well, not all of it. Just THIS post. Aristotle has a way of convincing people, I guess... I suggest all of you read the Politics. Very worth while.

A man naturally finds a woman, and "the two become one flesh" (coughhackspluttercough) and kids come out. A family. Naturally. Therefore, it is at least natural to man that he exist in a family. Further, Little House on the Prairie families need to work almost twenty-four hours a day in order to subsist on the fruits (or vegetables) of their labor, leaving no time for leisure, which, as Joseph Pieper points out in Leisure, the Basis of Culture, is the thing which defines a man. Our job - our financial output - our productivity - is not the thing which defines us and gives us purpose as human beings. Big surprise. In fact, our true meaning for existence is union with God - also known as contemplation or prayer. Now, of course, productivity is necessary for life, but caring for half of us - just our bodies, not our souls - cannot fulfill us as human beings, body and soul. Therefore, families join together - again naturally - into communities in order to secure the good of the entire human being - body and soul. These communities require laws for their own good and the good of every individual, and therefore these laws are natural ("All things have a nature, and flourish only in accordance with that nature." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics). As a result, man is social (or, in other words, exists and participates in a political environment) naturally.

Aristotle FTW.

~Ambrose

Because Barney Told Me So!

I swear, that song will never be entirely out of my head. "You are special! special! Everyone is special!" but how, it's nice to know now and again that brilliant, poetic individuals are looking out for us.

In reading Dante's Divine Comedy, I come across a line very early on in Canto III of the Inferno a line that struck me as quite contrary to what this brainwashing public school I'm in right now informs me. I quote:

"They're mingled with that caitiff crew
Who against God rebelled not, nor to Him
Were faithful, but to self alone were true;"

Currently, Virgil is leading Dante' through a sort of limbo. A place neither heaven nor hell (nor purgatory, for that matter). Quite obviously from description and incredibly undesirable position to be in (naked and chased by swarms of hornets? Not my idea of a dream vacation!). The Gate of Hell, I believe it's called. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

The part I'd really like to focus on is at the very end of that quote: "but to self alone were true;" This strikes me as ridiculously relevant in this day and age. Ridiculously relevant because...well, because it's ridiculous! I personally love debating man's position as a social animal and forming societies, blah, blah blah. Interesting post Ambrose made down there, however for the sake of this argument the basic unit lies more relevantly with the individual. I won't argue with Barney. Everyone is special. But it's the way the idea is applied that irks me.

For some odd reason, the system would have me believe that I am free to express myself in whatever special way possible I could ever conjure from the most deeply misconstrued portions of my evilly-inclined, twisted heart. They call it self-expression, or whatever. The ambiguity could cause intenstinal convulsions. Regardless, if everyone is special and everyone expresses themselves "specially," then there is no such thing as "group expression," or in short, "cooperation." No, I am totally not committing the fallacy of bifurcation here.

Ultimately, though, this goes back to my fun little pet peeve of conforming. Above case in point: if we are all special, we are not collectively special. Society relies on a certain amount of conformity. With authorities, with each other, and with God. Obviously it would take quite a few tomes and college dissertations to explain all those, so I'll allow them to be taken for granted. If society is non-conformative and insubordinate, it will both overthrow authority and errode equal relations. This, friends, relatives and distant relations, is why I'm always crazy about being a societal conformist. Not with trends, but in the best interest of society.

So let's all be some wacko conformists, okay? :D

~Samuel

Tower...!

I swear, if I ever see that Redemption card again, I'll tear it to shreds.

But...hey! Look! An update! (crowd: omg!)

Was thinking on the seemingly eternal bus ride this morning on how to analogize the relationship between faith and reason. What did I get? A tower.

As faith flourishes it grows taller and grander in heavenly glory, taller as it grows closer to God and grander, like I said, in heavenly glory. However, no matter how tall or grand a tower may be, if it does not reach directly to heaven it is doomed to come crashing down at the onslaught of the storm. Why?

Heresy first: we can know God. This is, of course, not true. God is a mystical, all-powerful deity who created us without the ability to know God for we would [insert inspirational quote about seeing God here]. This makes perfect sense. And be aware, God's works are more often embodied in the spiritual than through the corporal, and the devil works on us in corporal ways. Makes sense, right? That's good.

Truth second: we can know of God. That's a vital difference. Granted, our God is a personal God as well as a universal God. I hope that wasn't a heresy just because that's my take. Why? Glad you asked.

We know of God because His existence is proven in His creation. Grounded in the depths of the earth where they'd like to say is proof of evolution is the undeniable proof of the fact that our creator is God Himself. No, not literally, I just thought that sounded epic and hopefully you get the idea.

Blind faith is foundationless. And no matter how glorified blind faith is, it is still blind, and cannot see the twists and turns in the narrow road to heaven. Furthermore, it is blind to other people, and though it may possess great virtue it will never cease to frustrate, for no person on this planet will understand the nature of groundless belief (unless, of course, it involves sexual intercourse...heh).

And so the foundation of reason gives rise to the most glorious and sturdy towers. The more grounded the reason, the deeper the foundation, and the greater the storms it will outlast. Termites and infestations will occur, but can do no harm to the reality that proof of God lays about us in as many quantities as there are atoms in the observable universe (10^72, I think). No, I don't have to prove myself, because now I'm speaking to those who believe, so atheists and go and brood for a while if they happen to read this. I'm happy to know I inflamed them.

Anyways, hurray, probably an incomplete analogy, too. But at least it sounds cool...right?

~Samuel

Hey, this thing maybe ought to be updated

It's a pity that I don't have much time, and the time I do have I spend doing something else. This isn't exactly top of my mind. Maybe it should be. I have two philosophy courses, and spend two or three hours a day in socratic dialogue. Whatever.

Just a quick note then, today, about man and society. Again.

The human person (individual) necessarily comes before society and its laws, because the society itself would not exist without the individual person. Therefore, it is not just unjust for the societal order to wrong an individual, it is beyond the authority of the state and an intrinsic disorder. This is, perhaps, the basic principal of my political theory. The human person's rights always trump those of the state.

Another way to state this is to look at the end, or final cause of the state. It is ordered for the good of the individuals that live under its care. Not groups of people, but individuals. Not minorities, not lobbyists, not even majorities. The individual person. In fact, every individual, but not as a group - as individuals. You might call this individualism. I just call it common sense.

The logical implication of this is that any law which does wrong to the individual is unjust, and, as Thomas Aquinas would say, "no law at all." Therefore, there can be no enforcement behind it. The individual still should have the option as if the law did not exist. An example would be a person who has absolutely no money, no access to charity (say a traveling beggar in the middle of the country). It would be wrong for the state to punish him for taking food to prevent him from starving, because he has the natural right to do so. The government does have the right to punish larcenists, but each human being has the natural right to self preservation, which supercedes civil law. If the government seeks to punish him, it oversteps its bounds.

A small post. I'll see if I can dump my ideas here more often. This is a good philosophical outlet.

~Ambrose

A theological reason for contraception's immorality

THREE CHEERS FOR ACTIVITY!!!

Anyway.

This post is almost entirely inspired by a tape recording of a talk given by Christopher West. The title is "A weed in the garden of Eden: A hypothesis on Original Sin." I was unable to find a transcript of this talk, but you can find it as a bonus in his tape series "A Crash Course in Theology of the Body," which can be obtained HERE for $10. I highly recommend everything that Christopher West has produced.

This is a theological "proof" of why contraception is wrong. I'll start with some very basic principles and quotes, and move on toward my conclusion.

First, basic Baltimor Catechism principles.

God is Love, and Life. He's a bunch of other things too, but He is definitely these two.

The Trinity is the ultimate, highest, and most central mystery in Christianity.

Satan's creed can be summarized as "I will not serve."

God created us to know, love, and serve Him.

And maybe others, I'll bring them up as I go along. Those are the most important ones.

So first, it is important in this proof to understand Satan's motives, as much as we can. We know that Satan "would not serve", or that his sin was of pride. More specifically, Satan fell because he knew that God would divinize human beings, leading even angels to serve us, through the Incarnation. Because spiritual beings are higher than physical beings, and angels are certainly greater in power than we are, this pride can sort of be understood. Therefore, Satan wishes to cease us from being divinized - he wants to stop, hinder, and undo the Incarnation.

He does this by keeping us from fulfilling our purpose as human beings - to know, love, and serve God. Our purpose, however, can be stated many different ways. Genesis puts it clearly. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply..." (Genesis 1:27-28). God made us in His image - we are His image, or we are (or are meant to be) symbols of Him. We are meant to actively symbolize our Creator. As Male and Female, we are built with the purpose of symbolizing the deepest mysteries of our Creator in our whole being - body and spirit. Pope John Paul II says that "The body, in fact, and it alone is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world the mystery [of God]...and thus to be a sign of it." (A talk given February 20, 1980). Since God intended us to be a symbol of Himself, the devil wishes to keep us from being this symbol - or, to keep us from being "in the image and likeness of God."

Any sin is an anti-sign. Instead of using our bodies to signify God, we signify something else. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says "...every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil..." (CCC 2370). What this paragraph does not explain, however, is why this act is evil. I shall attempt to do so.

The central mystery of the Christian faith is the Trinity. From the Trinity we all proceed and toward the Trinity we are headed. Because our bodies "make visible what is invisible: the spiritual and divine," our bodies symbolize the Trinity especially. However, we can look closer at Genesis to reveal that a certain part of our bodies, more than any other, symbolize the Trinity. Directly after saying in God's image, we have "Male and Female He created them." This leads me to believe that part of our image and likeness is our masculinity and femininity, and all the comes with it. In other words, our sexuality is both a symbol of the Most Holy Trinity and part of our being in the image and likeness of God. This is not a radical statement - Church fathers, theologians, and popes have been saying this for the whole 2,000 years the Church has been around. Allow me to give a very brief overview of how the nuptual union is a symbol of the Trinity.

• The Father and the Son exchange love between each other so strong and so perfect that this love is actually the third person of the Trinity - the Holy Spirit (Remember God is Love?) The Husband and Wife, in their love for each other, produce a third person - their child.


• The names Father and Son are not an accident. "I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, eternally begotten of the Father" (Nicene Creed).¹ To beget means "(esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring)." (dictionary.com). The human father certainly begets his child.

Because the mystery is infinite, and because the nuptial union is the sign of it, we can conclude that this is a sign of infinite depth. I cannot possibly convey all of the ways in which the nuptial union signifies the Trinity. Those two, however, are the most important in my argument now. Furthermore, because the Trinity is the centralmost mystery, the nuptiual union is (at least) a very important sign, or an extremely important way in which we fulfill our purpose as human beings.

Now, back to Satan. What does he want? He wants to change the symbol (Greek Symboline - bring together, unite) into an anti-symbol, the diabolical (Greek Diaboline - to seperate). He wants to turn the symbol on its head. Suppose the nuptial union is intentionally sterilized (an intended 0% chance of pregnancy). What happens? Translated into what it symbolizes, the "perfect" love of Father and Son is no longer fruitful, and there is no Trinity. The love is no longer perfect, and no longer a Person. In effect, contraception turns us into this anti-sign, this diabolical tool which goes against our very nature as human beings.

Furthermore, if the human father does not beget, then in the symbol, God the Father is sterile, and the Son is not "eternally begotten" - the Incarnation does not happen. That, if you remember, is Satan's ultimate goal. So not only does contraception go against our nature as human beings (and, consequently, against God's plan - the definition of an immoral act), it is exactly what Satan wants. Clearly contraception is a grave evil. Christopher West, in the talk referenced above, hypothesizes that an intentionally sterilized act of intercourse might even be what the original sin was.

So, there you have it. As concrete of a reason why contraception is immoral.

~Ambrose

Notes:
1. The Latin is even more clear, giving "natum" (birthed).

Hereby I Introduce Myself...

'Ello! ...I am Lindsey Lohan!

No. Heck...no. But at least I am the first one to notice that Philosophy was not meant to be entirely serious. I find that when someone tells me they're right in a blatant, beat-down, you're-always-wrong way it gets annoying. [insert comedy and zeekyboogydoog here] ...you get the idea. Otherwise, I'm rather serious. Just don't expect it all to be lead and powder.

Around the interblag I go by the name Samuel Ignes Fox, hence a furry and a philospher. Most of my time is spent on a bike saddle, doing schoolwork, playing and owning at Call of Duty: World at War on XBLive, and listening to amazing music while simultaneously pondering the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

Most of my philosophical views point toward the more pressing and important questions that philosophy itself was made upon: who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? It seemed largely to me that modern philosophical views have gone in the opposite direction.

For the moment as I type this I am at Magdalen College in New Hampshire, checkin' the place out. I may post someting of worth next Tuesday or Friday before I get into my American Government class, but it all depends. I hope to begin a regular posting soon.

~Samuel Ignes Fox

"Spread a little chaos..."

Perhaps one of the best quotes from The Dark Knight, this line also represents a fundamental flaw in modern thinking. The Joker may be able to rip people's lives apart, but he cannot help being modern, and he cannot help being wrong.

Chaos is, by definition, the antithesis of order. If something isn't ordered, it's chaotic, and to get rid of chaos, one must order. Or, conversely, if one wants to disrupt order, one must break up chaos. This would be the modern definition, no?

Well, then, it would seem that the Joker is right. Killing people and destroying the social order spreads chaos. In a social sense, he is right. But, human beings are defined by far more than society. We existed before it did, anyway. What order preceeds societal order, and even self-regulated mental order? Natural order, of course.

The natural tendency of all things is toward destruction. This is a scientific property called entropy. In chemistry, this means that if the end result of a reaction is more chaotic than the beginning, it will happen. We can see the effects of this around us - cracks in the sidewalk, chips in the paint, dirt on the floor. When we drop a glass bottle - in other words, cease ordering it, it naturally shatters and breaks into fragments. In other words, disorder is the natural state of things.

Before you think I'm heretical, notice I say natural state of things, not supernatural. Obviously, God, being order, is not naturally disorder. I'm talking about the natural right now. In the beginning, darkness covered the void. Then God said "let there be light," and light was made. God ordered everything in the beginning, and the fall caused it to start breaking down from there.

Anyway, back to the main point. Disorder is the natural tendency of all things. A History Channel show, "Life After People," exhibits this perfectly. The producers of the show break down exactly how, after people die out, our creations and our work will fall apart and be ruined. The natural tendency toward disorder will win out, despite our intentions.

Thus, we can conclude that, as Chesterton would say, order is really the thing to be wondered at, not disorder. A glass shattering is not nearly so beautiful as the glass itself. The fact that man can extract minerals from the billions which abound in nature and make himself a vessel for the drinks he brings out of nature with the sweat of his brow is far more beatiful than cruel nature reclaiming her own few pieces of shattered glass. The fact that man can take such a disordered mob and form out of it cities, and societies, and human relations is more than just putting things in their place - it's a miracle.

Thus, we come back to the Joker. If the natural tendency of things is chaos and disorder, isn't it far more chaotic for us to break this natural tendency and order things? Isn't one block set atop another far more revolutionary than toppling a building, given that the building will topple of its own accord in a few years? Isn't the giving of one penny to a poor boy far more revolutionary than shooting him, given that he'll be dead of his own accord in a few years? Isn't building a society that functions and thrives more revolutionary than breaking one down, given that we'll all be dead in a few years anyway? So spread a little chaos - love a little.

Change?

Given that Obama has been preaching the virtues of change, recently, along with any other buzzwords he's been using, I began to think about it. This is a sort of chain reaction logic that occurred last night, and was finalized today on paper.

Logic Chain I

Statement: Changed is defined as a difference between end result of an action and the state of things before the action.
Corollary: If the state of things before and after the action are the same, then there is no change.
Further: Because there is a difference between before an after, that difference is either positive or negative, i.e. the change is either for the better or for the worse.
Conclusion: All change is for the better or for the worse.

Logic Chain II

Statement: All change is an action (that's part of the definition given above).
Statement: A human being will not do anything for no reason whatsoever, i.e. all of his actions are ordered.
Reason: A human being will not do anything which is against his method of ordering.
For Example: A child will not rip his own "masterpiece" off of the refrigerator, and will be upset if someone does it for him.
Statement: This ordering can be called a "law".
Conclusion: All changes enacted by humans follow a law.

Logic Chain III

Statement: All change is for the better or for the worse. (conclusion of Logic Chain I)
Statement: What is better is more desirable than what is worse.
Query: What is better?
Answer: Better means that one has more good in some respect than the other.
Statement: God is most good in every respect (revelation! If you don't agree, just assume with me for the sake of this argument).
Corollary: God's mind is therefore also most good.
Statement: God's mind ordered all of creation (revelation again). This ordering is also called eternal law (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part II, question 91).
It follows: Eternal law is "better" than any other law.
Statement: All change is governed by Law (conclusion of Logic Chain II)
Conclusion: It is desirable that all change be ordered by eternal law.

So, if a person agrees with me that God exists and that God is good, then he must agree that all change ought to be ordered by eternal law. Now, Obama says that he believes in God. The huge majority of Christians in America say that they believe in God. If so, then they ought to begin ordering their lives by His Eternal Law.

Que Ocurrió en Chile

Here's an interesting little horror story.

***

XYZ is a country in the western hemisphere with a problem. Actually, a lot of problems. Even though it has a democratic government, a number of factors, the aftereffects of recent world politics not excluded, have rendered its economy in a state of crisis, and left various social issues in a state of disrepair.

In XYZ's next election, two men run for office. One cries out charismatically for change, presents great plans to help the economy, and feeds the people's dreams. Many worship him as a messiah. His name even means savior, to some. He ends up winning over the conservative candidate in an extremely close race.

Once in office, this President does indeed bring change to XYZ. He nationalizes the healthcare system, and many large-scale industries. He encourages industrial jobs, giving displaced workers hope, and increasing the demand for generated goods. He even redistributes some land. Along this “peaceful path to socialism,” for a little while XYZ shows signs of hope.

After about two years, though, many people are disillusioned. The President can't fix all their problems, whether they expected him to or not. Many things that he promised never happen. Many things that happen, they never wanted. Laws become harder to enforce- especially because the President isn't sure if the military is loyal anymore. It comes to a crisis, which he proposes to fix with a plebiscite. Nothing is getting any better. In the midst of the socialist turmoil he has wreaked, the President placidly insists that XYZ has never been a more democratic country than during his reign.

Suddenly, the XYZ military holds a coup d'etat. The President commits suicide. The General of the army seizes control, and for the next almost twenty years, XYZ is a nightmare in which human rights are suspended. But- the economy gets fixed. Actually, the economy does really, really well. The rest of the world considers it an economic miracle. And thousands of people die, and thousands upon thousands of hearts are broken, and centuries cannot make amends for the things that happen there.

***

No, this isn't a fabrication predicting dire fortunes for America. It's a very condensed account of what happened in Chile less than 40 years ago. My history profesor brought it to my attention, not necessarily intending to parallel it to the current situation in this country (it being a Latin American history course). Told by a chileno who was a political prisoner and tortured under the Pinochet regime, the harrowing details remained with me, and the similarities stuck out glaringly.

I wish I could point out more of the details of Salvador Allende's plan, but since I am not well-versed in presenting economics, I am hesitant to attempt to explain them myself. Any number of books on Chile can provide you with more coherent details than I, and if even I can see parallels to our present situation, someone more knowledgeable on the topic should be proportionately more uneasy.

I am not trying to be a prophet, but seriously- one of these days, a generation should really learn from history...

God and the Human Question

When asked His name, God replied “I am”. A name, a perfect name, describes essence. God’s name is. Thus, since everything about God is perfect, including his name, His essence is essence, if we can speak of God in essences. Thus, He contains within Himself all other essence, since He is.

As I’ve stated before, the human person is a question: why. ¹ Why can be restated as “what is the purpose” or “ what is the essence”. Purpose is part of essence, thus asking the purpose is part of asking the essence.

As a result, the answer to the human person, or the human question, is God.

“Not because of who I am,
But because of what You’ve done.
Not because of what I’ve done,
But because of Who You are.”

~Who am I, Casting Crowns


¹This Post