tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16616813064679884872024-02-20T17:51:53.253-08:00Thrice Night Over YouUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-29929242731890887882012-04-22T18:27:00.002-07:002012-04-22T18:27:10.585-07:00Richard Weaver / Engaging the Culture"There is another type of outsider, however, who may entertain hope of doing something about a culture that is weakening.
He is a member of the culture who has to some degree estranged himself from it through study and reflection. He is like the savant in society: though in it, he is not wholly of it; he has acquired knowledge and developed habits of thought which enable him to see it in perspective and to guage it. He has not lost the intuitive understanding which belongs to him as a member, but he has added something to that. A temporary alienation from his culture may be followed by an intense preoccupation with it, but on a more reflective level than that of the typical member. He has become sufficiently aware of what is outside it to see it as a system or an entity.
This person may be a kind of doctor of culture; in one way he is crippled by his objectivity, but in another way he is helped to what he must have, a point of view, and a consciousness of freedom of movement."
--Richard Weaver, Visions of Order
To be unfamiliar with a thing can, it seems, help one know it better. Converts, notoriously, know Catholicism better than cradle Catholics.
If we want to understand a culture, then, in some sense we perhaps should be separated from it. And if understanding a culture is a prerequisite for "engaging a culture," then to engage the culture we first must draw back from it.
To lead a thing, you have to be something other than that thing, no?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-19892826442938021142012-04-03T20:08:00.000-07:002012-04-03T20:08:15.588-07:00Dicta, no. 12Only those who wake early realize that sunrise and sunset look very alike.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-47523798503431438042012-04-01T05:31:00.002-07:002012-04-01T05:31:49.512-07:00Dicta, no. 11A Christian contends that human suffering does not disprove the existence of a good God. An atheist finds this arrogant: how can the Christian know how horrible suffering is for some people?<br />
<br />
An atheist contends that human suffering disproves the existence of a good God. A Christian should find this arrogant: how can the atheist know that any one life is so worthless, it would be better if God had not given it?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-63133147267252222232012-03-25T05:52:00.002-07:002012-03-25T05:52:48.359-07:00Catholic ProtestantsImagine a kid who thinks his parents let his younger brother get away with too much bad behavior. His parents think that some of his younger brother's bad habits are just "phases" that he will grow out of. They are wrong; the younger brother's habits are at least semi-permanent and will negatively influence his life for a very long time.<br />
<br />
But the older kid still tries to fill up what he sees as a lack of discipline through his own action, although he is just an older sibling. Of course, this doesn't work very well. He knows something needs to be done, but has no idea of what it should be. So he manages things in horribly incompetent ways; he lacks the knowledge of what offenses must be stopped and what offenses should be ignored; and even if he possessed the knowledge, he still would not be able to enforce it. So he mucks it up.<br />
<br />
Take this as an analogy for the current situation in the Church.<br />
<br />
Catholic bishops and, perhaps, the Pope, are the parents. Crazed Catholic traditionalists are the older brother. The parents' refusal to act as an authority is the hierarchy's refusal to actually teach the Church, in a substantive manner, over the last forty-odd years. The unfortunate attempts to teach the younger brother are like upstart traditionalist groups attempting to bring right doctrine to the world.<br />
<br />
The attempts are awkward, first, because often the traditionalists are somewhat theologically inept, at least sometimes. They don't always know what is absolute and what is not, just like the brother does not; the groups often come from laymen reacting against egregious abuses, and who are well-intentioned but know little theology. So they make mistakes, and the mistakes sap their already non-existent authority.<br />
<br />
The attempts are awkward, second, because if authority abdicates then the people who try to fulfill its functions (by teaching correctly) will be matched by those who who also try to fulfill its functions (by teaching incorrectly). So if you have someone out there saying that Catholics can't say sodomy is great, you'll also have someone out there saying that Catholics <i>must</i> say that sodomy is great, because if we do not then we will not be tolerant like Jesus.<br />
<br />
So we need authority, and if we don't have it we're in trouble.<br />
<br />
Authority cannot be willed into existence from nothing. It cannot be remedied by having someone who isn't the authority try to do all the things authority doesn't. There actually has to be the power to bind and to loose, in some sense. And if you speak without having that power, you soon tend to be a bit shrill: no one is listening, and so you perhaps feel the need to assert yourself even more.<br />
<br />
In some ways, I fear some--not all--traditionalist Catholics can become somewhat Protestant in their attitude because of the aforementioned. Some Protestants--not all, necessarily--set up little enclaves, which then often split because no one has real authority in them. (I grew up in West Virginia, where these enclaves could be small indeed.) And traditionalists also seem to set up little enclaves, which also perhaps have a tendency to split over little things that might not even matter.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-2293413849598886352012-03-18T11:37:00.000-07:002012-03-18T11:37:03.530-07:00Balthasar on Saints<blockquote>“Instead of possessing a ‘proof’ [of Christianity], they ‘are’ a reflection of it in their lives. As they respond to the glory of God and reflect it, it shines forth not only for them but for others. For, according to the Spirit of revelation, the really holy person—in the sense of Leviticus 11:44f.: ‘For I am the Lord you God; consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am holy’—is the best ‘proof’ of the truth of revelation.”</blockquote>--quoted <a href="http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/vansteenwyk-holiness.shtml#_edn5">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-58769513887683642532012-03-15T04:56:00.000-07:002012-03-15T04:56:22.809-07:00On Tradition and Philosophy<blockquote>"Today, authors lay themselves bare, expressing and liberating themselves. They strive for originality, for what has never been said before. Philosophers set forth their system, expounding it in their own personal way, freely choosing their starting point, the rhythm of their expositions, and the structure of their work. They try to stamp their own personal mark on everything they do. But like all productions of the last stages of antiquity, the Enneads are subject to servitudes of a wholly different nature. Here, originality is a defect, innovation is suspect, and fidelity to tradition, a duty. . . . Philosophy has become exegesis or preaching."--Pierre Hadot, on Plotinus, in Plotinus: or, The Simplicity of Vision, trans. Michael Chase (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 17.</blockquote><br />
It would be easy to say that the old way of philosophizing is right, and the new way of philosophizing is wrong. But I don't think that this is the case. Originality for its own sake is surely wrong. But surely philosophy should not be exegesis; certain things, I hope, are in some ways more manifest to me now then they were manifest to Aristotle in his time.<br />
<br />
I think well-written philosophy would be towards prior philosophy as the ending of a drama would be towards the first acts of the drama. One should not be able to predict the later from the former, because then there would be nothing new in the later and one might as well not have it at all. Yet when the former is viewed from the later perspective, the former leads to the later, anticipates it, and is perfected by it. <br />
<br />
So somehow what is new is not contained in the old, but when one looks back at the old from the perspective of the new, the old seemed to desire the new all along. Like the Old and New Testament are, surely.<br />
<br />
This is not an original thought, of course. And I admit it leaves something to be desired in terms of concrete suggestions.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-21621372805161276272012-03-11T12:31:00.000-07:002012-03-11T12:31:24.251-07:00Dicta, no. 10Attempts to form statements that cannot be misunderstood result in statements that contain nothing to understand.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-15534330822368048352012-03-06T04:42:00.000-08:002012-03-06T04:42:18.535-08:00Reposted Comment from Orthosphere--Thoughts on ConcretenessWarning: Absurdly long comment to follow.<br />
<br />
I have only a little experience with the meme that liberals are abstract while conservatives are concrete, because my time following other blogs is limited (I did glance at your post, Proph).<br />
<br />
I do think it is important to point out a sense in which that is true.<br />
<br />
I do not think conservatives are defined by loyalty to abstractions. We are defined by loyalty to God; by loyalty to family; by loyalty to specific things or places.<br />
<br />
One can, immediately, point out that we are loyal to them beneath a particular abstract code of behavior--lets call it natural law, for simplicity's sake, but you can call it divine positive law if you prefer. We are committed to following this, and thus seem committed to a particular set of abstractions.<br />
<br />
Well, yes. Liberals, also, are committed to a particular set of abstractions--personal self-determination, whatever. Whenever you do anything, you're more or less committed to a particular set of abstractions, because abstractions are the result of looking at a particular and drawing from it a universal code of behavior.<br />
<br />
The thing is that the conservative abstractions return one inevitably to the individual, historical, situated things we encounter. This God. This country. Your wife. Your children. Your parents. One has a history as a conservative, and this history matters; you cannot shuck it off from moment to moment to moment. History matters, and can make you obliged to do things. And history is the representation of the concrete; that is why, for the universal-interested Aristotle, it was not a science.<br />
<br />
For a liberal, though, abstractions do not return one to anything concrete. My self-determination remains, despite whatever came before me; indeed, my self-determination is exercised against wife, children, parents, country, and ultimately God. To be liberal is to think that I should not be defined by the history in which I find myself. The liberal can say, as someone or other said, that history is bunk.<br />
<br />
I am defined by the story and narrative in which I find myself, if I am a conservative. You cannot give an abstract reason for why I am in this story; but it still matters. I'm stuck in it. So I am a character in a story.<br />
<br />
For a liberal, I am defined not by the story in which I find myself, because I am the author of my story. My abstract reasons only reinforce my freedom from and height above the narrative. I am the author of a story.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Perhaps no one disagrees with me when I make this point. Everyone might know what I am saying. That's great, if that is so.<br />
<br />
But I think that there is something incredibly important about concreteness, that we should keep in mind.<br />
<br />
There is a theological narrative wherein, before Christianity, we find adherence to a particular universal code of behavior to be the way man finds "salvation," if you will. This narrative is only partly true, but it is partly true; the important thing for Aristotle is to act in accord with a somewhat abstract, universal code, even if this code is modified by particular circumstances.<br />
<br />
But although a Christian _will_ act in accord with a universal code (the Decalogue, natural law), you are no longer saved by so adhering to it. You are saved by adhering to Christ. What matters ultimately is the particular. This is undoubtedly true theologically. According to the theological narrative, however, Christianity revealed through Christ the value of the particular. And this--literal--revelation is still coming to be understood. (Cf. Josef Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity . . . . somewhere in the book).<br />
<br />
--- <br />
<br />
Finally, and in a separate point: at least according to some Thomists, metaphysics is in fact the most concrete of all the sciences--Aquinas says it proceeds by "separatio" than "abstractio," or something like that. I'm not ready to say exactly what this means, because a lot of scholars have written on it. But I would point out that metaphysics finds, as the chief intrinsic principle of being, something absolutely unique and uncommunicable (esse) and it finds, as the extrinsic principle of being, something absolutely unique, concrete, and uncommunicable (God).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-3882509343121673872012-03-01T04:33:00.002-08:002012-03-01T04:35:58.121-08:00Canada's Secular Confessional State ContinuesFrom LifeSiteNews: <a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-homeschooling-families-cant-teach-homosexuality-a-sin-in-class-sa">Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexual acts sinful in class says Alberta Government</a>.<br />
<br />
From the article:<br />
<br />
<i>"Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.<br />
<br />
“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,” Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications, told LifeSiteNews on Wednesday evening.<br />
<br />
"You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” she added."</i><br />
<br />
Not much more to say, really. Essentially, they say "Yes, you can teach that irrational religious stuff when you are not actually educating children, like you tell them about Santa Claus. But it cannot be taught, as if it were, you know, actually true."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-36905030013572370042012-02-28T06:52:00.001-08:002012-02-28T07:05:25.756-08:00What communities should we join or form?At various times, I've written about how creating or joining communities that pursue the good life in common is the best way to bring others to our ideas--or, ultimately, to Christ, because that should be our goal. People tend to convert people, not arguments. I've argued for this from a <a href="http://thricenight.blogspot.com/2011/03/metaphysics-and-world-transformation.html#more">metaphysical perspective</a> and in a more <a href="http://thricenight.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-renewing-all-things.html">miscellaneous</a> fashion. I like the metaphysical argument, think it is one of the better things I have written, and I advise you to read it.<br />
<br />
The thing is, I don't know of anyone in the Orthosphere who has written about the various kinds of communities / institutions that we can form or join. So I thought I'd provide a little list of the types of such communities, with examples. The list is not scientific; it is not exhaustive; inclusion of a community / institution in the list does not indicate approval of all or even most of the activities of the community, for I am somewhat ignorant of some of them. If I've left any important category out, please let me know.<br />
<br />
The following are meant to be for laymen. Obviously there are many religious communities that one can join.<br />
<br />
1. <b>Geographically-based, non-parish based communities.</b> Many Christians get together and decide to live together; they might all go to one parish, but the parish does not seem to form the pre-existing nucleus around which they have formed. I've heard of more than one of these, but few seem to last. The <a href="http://www.yeslord.com/index.php">Alleluia</a> community in Georgia has lasted, and I've known at least one person who came from it who did not seem nuts; I would like to find out more about them and how they work.<br />
<br />
Of course, such things generally tend to be called cults by the outside world. I think that if you want a community you'll have to live with that.<br />
<br />
2. <b>Parish-based communities</b>. It is obvious what this is. Protestants might, perhaps, be better at these than Catholics, but Catholics are working on it.<br />
<br />
3. <b>Spirituality-based, non-geographic communities.</b> By this I mean a particular organization or group of people who have local groups; these groups meet regularly to pray, discuss life and its trials, and praise God. Some members of the community might live together, rather than merely meeting regularly. <i>Communion and Liberation</i> is such a group, as is <i>Opus Dei</i>, assuming I understand the second correctly. The network that charismatic Catholics seem to form around the country might also form such a community in an informal fashion. There are more, I'm almost certain, but I do not know them well.<br />
<br />
These groups can have a surprising amount of trust between their members. Note that these also can be, and are, called cults by those outside of them.<br />
<br />
4. <b>Spirituality-based communities that have spun-off from a religious order.</b> Dominican tertiaries, Franciscan tertiaries, etc. One could say that this is the same as 2, but what I have in mind for 2 usually started off as meant for laymen, whereas these usually started off for religious but then expanded to include laymen.<br />
<br />
5. <b>Work-based communities.</b> That is, communities meant to help those in a particular line of work reach holiness. The ancient guilds were, if I understand them correctly, such communities. I know of none that exist now.<br />
<br />
6. <b>Confessional states</b> don't really exist outside of Malta and Vatican City and maybe a few other countries, at least in the form in which the readers of this blog are apt to be interested. They do not seem likely to be formed any time soon.<br />
<br />
I think that unless we are in, trying to join, or trying to form such communities, we are not really serious about what we say.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-69299930906455049842012-02-26T06:44:00.000-08:002012-02-26T06:44:17.625-08:00I existJust so you know. Posts will randomly resume soon; don't expect them save on Sundays, as I do work that I enjoy doing on my day of leisure.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-44133530319417065092011-03-28T04:52:00.000-07:002011-03-28T04:52:15.080-07:00Dicta, no. 9Before choosing sides at an argument, look at what the sides have in common. This is often what divides them.<br />
<br />
PS. Grad-student life is catching up with me, and posts are going to be very scarce (i.e., non-existent) for two or three weeks. I will return to your regularly scheduled programing shortly thereafter, rather than continue to try to post updates consisting simply of quotations.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-12018490536960453422011-03-25T03:40:00.000-07:002011-03-25T03:41:20.943-07:00Though it's been said, many times, many ways . . .<blockquote>"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>"Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data."--<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/41969508">CNBC</a></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-8538802066296551012011-03-23T05:42:00.000-07:002011-03-23T05:42:12.884-07:00Acedia in America: Tocqueville's View<blockquote>"A native of the United States clings to this world's goods as if he were certain never to die; and he is so hasty in grasping at all within his reach that one would suppose he was constantly afraid of not living long enough to enjoy them. <b>He clutches everything, he holds nothing fast, but soon loosens his grasp to pursue fresh gratifications.</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>Their taste for physical gratifications must be regarded as the original source of that secret disquietude which the actions of the Americans betray and of that inconstancy of which they daily afford fresh examples.</b> He who has set his heart exclusively upon the pursuit of worldly welfare is always in a hurry, for he has but a limited time at his disposal to reach, to grasp, and to enjoy it. The recollection of the shortness of life is a constance spur to him. Besides the good things that he possesses, he every instant fancies a thousand others that death will prevent him from trying if he does not try them soon. This thought fills him with anxiety, fear, and regret and keeps his mind in ceaseless trepidation, which leads him perpetually chance his plans and his abode.<br />
<br />
If in addition to the taste for physical well-being, a social condition be added in which neither laws nor customs retain any person in his place, there is a great additional stimulant to this restlessness of temper. Men will then be seen continually to change their track for fear of missing the shortest cut to happiness. <br />
<br />
It may readily be conceived that if men passionately bent upon physical gratifications desire eagerly, they are also easily discouraged; as their ultimate object is to enjoy, the means to reach that object must be prompt and easy or the trouble of acquiring the gratification would be greater than the gratification itself. <b>Their prevailing frame of mind, then, is at once ardent and relaxed, violent and enervated. Death is often less dreaded by them than perseverance in continuous efforts to one end.</b>"--de Tocqueville, Democracy in America</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-24866141337819998352011-03-21T05:09:00.000-07:002011-03-21T05:09:34.115-07:00Any Successful Historical Decentralization of Government?Many traditionalist Americans desire a decentralized American government, perhaps similar to that advocated by the anti-Federalists, wherein the central government would be stripped of most of its current powers and act principally for purposes of defense, and wherein local governments would be the most important governmental unit. Such local governments could work for moral goals without becoming horribly oppressive in so doing, as the federal government seems to be; the federal government's task would principally be to protect the autonomy of such local units.<br />
<br />
This picture is very attractive to me. But I fear that working for it politically might be a fool's errand. Why is that?<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Well, I'm simply unaware of any large nation or empire that has ever managed to pull off such decentralization in an (1) intentional, (2) peaceful, and (3) relatively permanent manner. There seem to be places that decentralize unintentionally--but this involves collapse, bloodshed, etc. There have been places that decentralized through warfare--but this involves much of the same. And finally, it maybe sometimes you can split up authority a little--but it does't last. The triumvirate tends to become Ceasar.<br />
<br />
I may be wrong; please tell me if I am. History is useful. But if I am not wrong, then we shouldn't place our hopes on working out towards such a scenario as that above. It is likely a waste of time. Instead--Cartago Delenda Est!--we must be working for bringing about small communities that can survive when America begins to suffer the fate of all over-powerful (evident from all history), over-complex (Tainter, 1988), and over-decadent (Zimmerman, 1947), societies.<br />
<br />
I'm not really sure when America is going to suffer a large, unintentional, and perhaps violence-inducing reduction of its prosperity. But given our failures in morality, our loss of all manufacturing, the stupidity of public schools, the increasing debt, the ever-decreasing responsibility of government, and so on and so forth, I find it difficult to believe that we will not, sometime, sooner or later, see such a collapse. And small, tight, communities would be both the best way to endure such a collapse and the best way to try to preserve a moral sphere before the collapse.<br />
<br />
And perhaps the collapse will come too soon rather than too late.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-7080182695031956232011-03-18T04:43:00.001-07:002011-03-18T04:49:18.947-07:00Dicta, no. 8There are disciples who advance from the premises of their masters and multiply conclusions. And there are those who dig beneath the premises of their masters and unify them.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-5976256394218129732011-03-15T04:52:00.000-07:002011-03-16T17:51:25.218-07:00Metaphysics and Changing the WorldMetaphysics and politics are often thought to have nothing to do with each other, like quantum physics and literary theory. I, however, think that metaphysics and politics are like white wine and chicken. And in today's post, I want to look at something I think metaphysics illustrates about how social change must be achieved, if you wish to achieve it.<br />
<br />
So if you dislike metaphysics, or if you have a short attention span, don't read this post. And if you dislike unashamed moralizing, don't read this post either.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
But before we get into the moralizing, let us look at metaphysics.<br />
<br />
Metaphysics looks at all existing things, simply as existing, at all their various levels. Biology looks at things as living; psychology looks at things as influencing the mind; chemistry looks at things beneath another aspect. Metaphysics, however, looks at all existing things simply as existing things. It tries to take in a view of the whole of reality, how reality is, and why reality is.<br />
<br />
One of the things that you see if you look at all reality thus--although you will not find this in most standard metaphysics textbooks--is that <i>the more perfect a thing is, the more it produces outside of itself, but the less it works / the less it is changed in so doing</i>. It is best to explain all things through examples, and so I shall do so.<br />
<br />
Consider an animal. It acts for goals, but it doesn't really decide between the means it uses to reach a goal, for they are determined for it by instinct. Thus the number of means it uses are relatively few.<br />
<br />
Then consider a man, say a soldier. He also acts for goals; but because he is intelligent, he can choose any number of means to accomplish them. Thus he can do more than the animal. He also uses tools in a creative fashion because he is intelligent; he can do more with less. Thus, his tools provide a way for him to do more--making the world as he wishes it to be--while doing less--in changing / altering himself. An animal has to chase down a thing to kill it; the soldier can kill it in any number of ways. The man is higher than the animal, and so he can do more while working / changing less.<br />
<br />
Consider another man, say a general. Considered <i>qua</i> general, he is higher than the soldier. And so we find both that he can do more than the soldier--his decisions have far more effect and influence, generally speaking--and doing more involves him doing less. Considered as general--because, as man, the soldier and the general are equal--the general can do more while working or changing less.<br />
<br />
Or consider someone such as a famous writer, who may have even more power than the general. He changes scarcely at all in altering the outside world--compared to the animal or the soldier, in what he does he is quite innactive. And yet his words can waste empires and kill kings.<br />
<br />
At the risk--even at the probability--of belaboring a point that is already obvious, allow me to give two more examples.<br />
<br />
Consider the angel. If Aquinas is right about angels--a huge if, for I cannot conceive of how one could possibly know that one was right about them--for an angel to be in any place is simply for an angel to act on something. Angels have no bodies, and so, for them, changing something doesn't involve material motion. They remain yet more within themselves than the writer while possessing magnitudes greater power in their action in the world.<br />
<br />
And at the end of the sequence, one can attempt to consider God. Nothing can be done without God; God has made all that is good; God is all-mighty and and all-powerful. Yet according to traditional theology, He--considered as One--does not even change in willing what He wills. He is all-powerful and connected to things, yet apart from them and utterly unmoved in moving them.<br />
<br />
So, across all levels of existence, it seems that the greater one's internal perfection and act, the greater the things one accomplishes, while the less alteration / effort / self-change / movement such accomplishment involves. A greater inward intensity in action results in a greater perfection of others, with less effort on one's own part. As Aquinas said, the good is diffusive of itself.<br />
<br />
What does this mean for anyone attempting to change the world?<br />
<br />
Well, take the example of the holy man. The holy man often changes those around him, simply by being himself. The way he is both witnesses to the transforming effect Our Lord has had on him and to the reasons that others should wish to be similarly transformed.<br />
<br />
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words."--St. Francis' advice is not an excuse to avoid learning how to preach the gospel, but a command to know Christ such that one's life preaches Him as did St. Francis. It does not decrease but increases the responsibility we have laid upon us. Anyone with an apologetics handbook and a memory can preach the gospel with words. Changing one's life so that it all preaches the gospel is far more difficult--yet far more effective.<br />
<br />
Thus, the holy man, because he is internally perfected, accomplished great things simply by being himself. St. Therese of the Child Jesus, a cloistered nun, is the patron saint of missionaries.<br />
<br />
Now ake the example of the small community that embodies that good life directed towards God. The thing about such a place is that, as with the holy man, the life lived in it both explains what we should pursue and why we should pursue it. I think such a place wherein one sees the good life--whether in the family, in a monastery, or a small town--is the most compelling argument that one could give for abandoning liberalism and following the good life.<br />
<br />
Now, note again that anyone with a few books about ethics in hand and a pretty good mind can talk about the importance of such a life in community--just like anyone with an apologetics handbook can argue that one should be Christian. But in both cases, this casting of oneself into the external world is to a great degree a distraction from the real work.<br />
<br />
People are not convinced by words, but by deeds; not by books, but by lives. And so theory--as important as theory may be--cannot be our goal. The thing itself is our goal: good lives lived in a good community.<br />
<br />
Good things, simply by being good things, begin to change the world; if metaphysics has any lesson for politics, this is it. I repeat that this is not an opportunity for laziness; there is no harder work, surely, than really pursuing the good life. Those who believe they are trying to be good because they are trying to study philosophy, liturgy, theology, or politics are only fooling themselves--and I would probably be among such people far more often than I like to admit.<br />
<br />
Yet flinging myself into the external world to try to change it is just as much an escape from the pursuit of the good as flinging myself into the intellectual world. Only if we are noble so that our nobility shines can the world be illumined.<br />
<br />
The good is diffusive of itself.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-73404782978261181872011-03-14T06:03:00.001-07:002011-03-14T06:03:51.995-07:00Dicta, no. 7The first and most important prerequisites for intellectual engagement are not intellectual.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-50223796901982100702011-03-11T04:48:00.000-08:002011-03-11T04:48:27.399-08:00On Renewing All ThingsI was thinking about the <a href="http://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/what-is-our-plan/">debate</a> over at Throne and Altar; the more I weigh the issue, the more it seems to me that whose who wish to change the world for the better must first aim at changing themselves, their close friends, and their immediate community for the better.<br />
<br />
I'm still trying to nail down the reasons why this is the case, though, so the following list is a definitely a work in progress. Suggestions welcome. I'll probably post more about this in the future.<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
1. We must offer an alternative.<br />
<br />
Ideas may have consequences, but no one cares about an idea that is not embodied, that may not even be possible, and whose practitioners would rather impose it on others before bothering to practice it themselves.<br />
<br />
We have to show people a better alternative--an alternative that is necessarily embodied in a community--before we try to destroy what they have. If we do not embody our ideas, they cannot see such an alternative. No one will be excited by a worldview that destroys all the things they think are good, unless they can see the better goods that it offers them.<br />
<br />
The most effective emissaries of any religion or worldview are those who follow it and love it and through which its goodness shines; and unless we follow and love ours, then there's no real reason for someone else to join us in it.<br />
<br />
2. We must not fall into modern political categories.<br />
<br />
If you say you wish to change the world for the better, and try to do so in a political manner, it is very easy to look at what is wrong with the world and say that one wishes to change <i>that</i>. But if you do that, you've defined the good as the absence of evil. But evil is the absence of good, not vice-versa. <br />
<br />
Put another way--when we enter the political process, we have to define ourselves with reference to modern political issues: we've become the people who don't hold for universal suffrage, or lenient divorce laws, or human "rights" as generally conceived, or what have you. But we shouldn't define ourselves by reference to someone else; we should be offering a good that is indifferent to modern liberal society, one that even appropriates any true goods that it offers. We must offer a genuine alternative, not simply a new combination of the goods in the current political battle.<br />
<br />
3. The political process is far too unsteady for transforming the world.<br />
<br />
Why does this matter? Well, political progress comes and goes; it can be annihilated instantly with an election; it can be annihilated permanently with a revolution or a collapse. Goods pursued through the political process are fragile.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, goods pursued in a strong community can endure such dislocations--granted that such communities can be crushed by such dislocations, but at least they have a chance. As the world changes, gemeinschaft lasts longer than gesellschaft; community lasts longer than society; families last longer than businesses and nations; religious communities last longer than think tanks trying to advance the ideals of the moral majority. Dominicans were teaching people long before the Heritage Foundation came into existence; the latter will probably die before the former.<br />
<br />
4. The political process tends to be useful for short-term goals.<br />
<br />
Politics works for short-term goals that do not require societal change. It doesn't work for long-term goals that require transformation. If you think this can be rushed, you're fooling yourself.<br />
<br />
Those who have long-term goals--say, the gay rights activists--know this. That's why they try to change the culture before they change the laws.<br />
<br />
I am, of course, not opposed to trying to slow the advance of liberalism, or doing what can be done--especially at the local level. But those who think that we should put our efforts into large-scale political action seem to be distracting us from where the real battle lies.<br />
<br />
5. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."<br />
<br />
And thus it has always been.<br />
<br />
"Pursue ye first the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-14634022328577471062011-03-10T04:41:00.001-08:002011-03-10T04:41:12.676-08:00Democracy and Original Sin<blockquote>"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. <b>Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.</b>"--John Adams</blockquote><br />
This is one of the reasons democracy is problematic--just like every other form of government, I admit.<br />
<br />
Men are just as bad in masses as they are as individuals, if not worse. The difference is that in masses they are less likely to see that what they are doing is wrong. It is wrong for me to steal another's property--but redistributive taxation? It is wrong for me to load my children with debt--but social security? It is wrong and foolish to ignore everything another says in debate--but I'll toe the party line and insult all those who don't. It is wrong to try to favor oneself at the expense of the common good--but hey, this politician promised earmarks, and we could use a new school. <br />
<br />
Democracy seems mostly to extend responsibility to those who have not been trained for it, are not intellectually prepared for it, and can scarcely be made aware that they have it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-26089808555718576952011-03-10T04:38:00.001-08:002011-03-10T04:38:46.137-08:00Dicta, no. 6The truth that reconciles two opposing opinions never lies in the average between them.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-10569102345189986052011-03-08T05:11:00.001-08:002011-03-08T05:11:32.898-08:00Dicta, no. 5Societies that ban religion from the public sphere for fear of religious tyranny are justly punished by being ruled by a religion that men have not recognized as such, and which is therefore all the more tyrannical.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-12930821664227280402011-03-07T07:07:00.000-08:002011-03-07T07:07:31.594-08:00On Legislating Morality<blockquote>"A philosopher-people would be a people of searchers, and a people, under pain of death, must know and not search."--Louis de Bonald, Recherches Philosophiques</blockquote><br />
The usual arguments for free speech assume that the state always needs to be testing its official beliefs. In some ways, this is rather dumb. Individual people must firmly believe that many things are true, if they are to live; societies must also firmly believe that many things are true, if they are to live.<br />
<br />
A man who believes nothing can do nothing, for all action is for the sake of what you believe to be good. Thus, modern man is characteristically vacillating and spontaneous in his action; swift to follow what appears good, and equally swift in abandoning its pursuit. He is free only to be inconstant, because his freedom consists in being unmoored from any fixed position. And so he is a man who seems to be nothing inside, because he has never dedicated himself to anything outside himself.<br />
<br />
A society that believes nothing, similarly, can also do nothing. The United States is also vacillating in its policies, switching them from year to year with the emotional whims of the voters, the power of the lobbyists, and the events of the moment. Because it believes nothing, it will only wander aimlessly until, as do all things that follow nothing, it descends to nothing.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-68416879854152341722011-03-04T05:08:00.000-08:002011-03-04T05:08:15.959-08:00Modern Conservatism = Classical Liberalism = LiberalismThe idea that modern conservatism is not conservative, and that the classical liberalism that is modern conservatism leads naturally to socialist liberalism, is absolutely essential to a correct understanding of the modern world. <br />
<br />
Their historical connection is visible in works such as J.S. Mill's On Liberty. Mill wrote this book before liberalism had split into classical liberalism and socialist liberalism, and so each can be seen inchoate in its content. Mill speaks about limiting the government's control over anyone, and sounds like a classical liberal; he also speaks of the government fighting the prejudices of the ignorant masses so that minorities are free of unwanted social pressure, and sounds like a socialist liberal. The two had not yet, inconsistently, been separated out into two opposing parties.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Why do I say that the separation is inconsistent? Well, the classical liberal and the socialist liberal both have the same goal: individual freedom.<br />
<br />
For the classical liberal, individual freedom is seen as a given--as something everyone already possesses--and so, for government to protect freedom it simply must protect things I own. On the other hand, for the socialist liberal, individual freedom is not seen as a given--one is not free if one cannot pursue happiness effectively--and so, for government to promote freedom it must provide services to the least advantaged members of society.<br />
<br />
There are many bad things about both socialistic and classical liberalism, as it is described above--for instance, it tries to promote individual freedom against tradition, community, and church. Similarly, classical liberalism tends to lead to socialist liberalism because the classical liberal idea of freedom is simply false--exposed children are free by the classical liberal ideal of freedom.<br />
<br />
But one of the most important things about them is that <i>neither actually promotes individual freedom, if by individual freedom you mean a morally neutral ideal.</i><br />
<br />
This is obvious in the case of socialist liberalism. To provide the services necessary for a meaningful sort of freedom, one needs to decide what a meaningful sort of freedom is. Free condoms for teenagers, a biased education engraining liberal platitudes, and social welfare services for people who decide to act badly are not morally neutral services. So socialist liberalism has a false facade.<br />
<br />
Classical liberalism is a bit better, but it's facade still breaks down when you look at it. Consider two huge areas where one cannot draw the line for classical liberalism in a morally-neutral fashion.<br />
<br />
<b>1. What contracts / exchanges / arrangements are recognized as legitimate.</b> It is impossible in the United States to be legally married in a recognizably permanent manner; the United States no longer has the legal arrangement of real marriage. This is like not enforcing contracts and expecting business arrangements in one's country to flourish. It means we do not take marriage seriously in the US; it is not morally neutral, but a (perhaps unconscious) way of discouraging and disparaging marriage.<br />
<br />
Similarly, whether one recognizes every purely economic contract--prostitution, drug-trades, and gladiatorial combat--is not morally neutral.<br />
<br />
<b>2. The duties that the state forces on one.</b> Every state, even your classical liberal state, still has taxation; and the way people are taxed is not neutral. Will you tax the family raising 8 kids in an upright family, and discourage more of the same? Or will you tax the business down the street, or the rich, and discourage enterprise? We've chosen the former--and this has influenced childbearing habits in the US.<br />
<br />
Similarly, decisions regarding mandatory schooling, other laws about parental duties, regulations designed for large rather than small businesses, and so on and so forth, are anything but morally neutral. And so government itself cannot be morally neutral.<br />
<br />
This means, that as traditionalists, we must abandon the allegiance of the right-capitalists who say they just want to promote freedom. They don't. <i>You cannot promote freedom as such; every freedom that you promote is a freedom for a certain moral ideal.</i> There is a right-capitalist idea of freedom; a left-socialist idea; and an Augustinian-traditionalist idea. The classical liberal and socialist liberal are dishonest in how they act, but there is no need for us to be dishonest. More to the point, we should not ally ourselves with the dishonest. <br />
<br />
I think in the future, perhaps in the near future, many of the masks will be taken off. I don't want to be with the people who were trying to deceive themselves and everyone else.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1661681306467988487.post-51639327210890167892011-03-04T04:49:00.000-08:002011-03-04T05:09:45.483-08:00Dicta, no. 4Those who rebel against one tradition in order to be themselves simply enter another tradition of which they are unaware, and to which they are therefore all the more enslaved.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0