One of my youth group kids (and his mother) mentioned the unimportance of poetry. Below is what I emailed him.
....Also, the Fr. Francavilla mentioned in his homily how secularists do not understand the importance of things which are not "useful," such as poetry. I thought of you immediately. :) Just because something is not useful, does not mean it is not useless.
The problem I think, since I too once thought that poetry was pointless, is that there is a lot of bad poetry out there. Plus, people use the art form, not to create something beautiful, which is the point of art, but as a way to "express oneself." Self-expression is not necessarily bad, but it is not the totality of what it means to create art...such as poetry.
Good poetry, like all good art, is beautiful. (See, for example, the book of Psalms in the Bible. That's poetry my friend!)
Do you like music? That's poetry set to music! Do you enjoy Shakespeare? That's poetry.
The most incredible (and Catholic!) men of the modern age understood the importance of poetry: C.S. Lewis (closet Catholic), G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien, Luigi Giussani, John Paul II...were all poets!
Why am I so passionate about this? Because Catholics, first of all, should understand the importance of truth, beauty, freedom, and justice. Dogs cannot write poetry. Birds cannot write poetry. Rats cannot write poetry.
It is precisely our humanity (made in the image and likeness of God) which allows us to write poetry. Art, poetry, painting, music, anything which expresses beauty and is creative is precisely what makes us like God who is the Ultimate Beauty and the Ultimate Creator (creative...).
This is something some Protestants do not understand. This is why their churches are sparse. This is why their architecture is ugly. Go to Europe. Why is it so beautiful? Because of the (now ancient) Catholic culture that once existed. Gothic architecture lifts our up our eyes, but not only our eyes, but our hearts to God.
Secularists do not understand this because they do not enjoy (JOY!) God. Unless something is useful (productive, makes money, etc.) it is not valuable. (This is why unborn children, the disabled, the elderly, are scoffed at while the Church has protected their intrinsic worth.)
Dostoevsky said, "Beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and devil are fighting there, and the battlefield is the heart of man. "
Poetry (and other art forms) is important because it is through the culture that souls can be saved. Dostoevsky understood this and so does the Church. This is why non-profits like The Foundation for Sacred Arts are so important.
Now I've given you a philosphical understanding of why poetry is important. I'm sure it would have been much better had I written a poem about it. :)
As you get older, you will, I am sure, continue to be a light and salt to the world. Just remember that the Faith is not about moralism, rules, etc etc. It is about encountering a PERSON. And this person, Jesus Christ, was above all, BEAUTIFUL, to the people who met him and continue to meet Him. They didn't understand Him, but He was beautiful, and where there is beauty, there is truth...and so they followed Him.
More people today convert to the Church, not because they understand the metaphysics of the Triune God or have worked out how Christianity is the only logical (and reasonable) system (athiesm is logical but not reasonable) but because they encountered something beautiful: the Gregorian chant, the liturgy (like the kids saw on Sunday...they were so moved!), an icon of Mary, or a person whose life is beautiful, like yours!
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Best Quotation on Marriage
"Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might be found more suitable mates. But the real soul-mate is the one you are actually married to."
J.R.R. Tolkien
J.R.R. Tolkien
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wonder and Knowledge
Below is a description of a lecture I attended last night at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C. It was excellent.
Wonder and Knowledge
A conference on the origin of the universe in science and philosophy and the role of wonder in scientific discovery.
Speakers: Marco BERSANELLI, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Milan, and author of From Galileo to Gell-Mann: The Wonder that Inspired the Greatest Scientists of All Time: In Their Own Words by Templeton Press, and Michael HELLER, Professor of Philosophy, Pontifical Academy of Theology, Krakow - 2008 Templeton Prize winner
Presented by Crossroads Cultural Center
Prof. Marco Bersanelli and Prof. Michael Heller are both accomplished scientists and deep thinkers about the meaning and value of the scientific enterprise.
If we must try and point out a common feature of their work, we will notice that both of them view science as a deeply human activity. To them, science does not stand in isolation, separate from the rest of human experience, but rather is deeply rooted in it. For one thing, science rests on deep philosophical and even theological assumptions which are often taken for granted. But more fundamentally, as is well illustrated by both Prof. Bersanelli's new book and the numerous publications by Prof Heller, science requires men and women who face reality full of wonder and curiosity. There is a common misconception that science is all about objectivity and detachment, like some kind of mechanical process. But history shows again and again that the greatest scientists were those who were most passionate about knowledge, those most fascinated by nature. Only interest in the mystery of the universe, and the desire to know it, have made them able to look with open eyes and to go beyond the preconceptions of their time.
However, science does not give itself this interest and this desire. It must receive it from outside, from a human and cultural context. So much so that when this context is denied, when it is claimed that science is the only self-sufficient, all-encompassing form of human knowledge, science itself suffers. Scientistic ideology is an enemy of real science, precisely because by denying the fundamental human experience of what Einstein called "the Mystery," it cuts off scientific research from its deepest sources.
Professor Bersanelli will help us to explore what lies at the root of true science, while Professor Heller will develop the theme of the role of wonder in the process of knowledge, by facing one of the most fascinating topics that has always captivated humankind’s attention—the origin of the universe.
Wonder and Knowledge
A conference on the origin of the universe in science and philosophy and the role of wonder in scientific discovery.
Speakers: Marco BERSANELLI, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Milan, and author of From Galileo to Gell-Mann: The Wonder that Inspired the Greatest Scientists of All Time: In Their Own Words by Templeton Press, and Michael HELLER, Professor of Philosophy, Pontifical Academy of Theology, Krakow - 2008 Templeton Prize winner
Presented by Crossroads Cultural Center
Prof. Marco Bersanelli and Prof. Michael Heller are both accomplished scientists and deep thinkers about the meaning and value of the scientific enterprise.
If we must try and point out a common feature of their work, we will notice that both of them view science as a deeply human activity. To them, science does not stand in isolation, separate from the rest of human experience, but rather is deeply rooted in it. For one thing, science rests on deep philosophical and even theological assumptions which are often taken for granted. But more fundamentally, as is well illustrated by both Prof. Bersanelli's new book and the numerous publications by Prof Heller, science requires men and women who face reality full of wonder and curiosity. There is a common misconception that science is all about objectivity and detachment, like some kind of mechanical process. But history shows again and again that the greatest scientists were those who were most passionate about knowledge, those most fascinated by nature. Only interest in the mystery of the universe, and the desire to know it, have made them able to look with open eyes and to go beyond the preconceptions of their time.
However, science does not give itself this interest and this desire. It must receive it from outside, from a human and cultural context. So much so that when this context is denied, when it is claimed that science is the only self-sufficient, all-encompassing form of human knowledge, science itself suffers. Scientistic ideology is an enemy of real science, precisely because by denying the fundamental human experience of what Einstein called "the Mystery," it cuts off scientific research from its deepest sources.
Professor Bersanelli will help us to explore what lies at the root of true science, while Professor Heller will develop the theme of the role of wonder in the process of knowledge, by facing one of the most fascinating topics that has always captivated humankind’s attention—the origin of the universe.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Nietzsche in a Nutshell
Friedrich Nietzsche is one of those sexy philosophers that young people love to quote--and is one of the trendiest philosophers of late.
Nietzsche was a writer and a poet and used his artistic skill and literary style to persuasively craft his philosophical message. Ideas marketed well spread faster and more broadly. Hence, even if you've never read a lick of Nietzsche, you have most probably heard of him and his famous phrase: God is dead. Or a friend in college might have bought you a copy of Beyond Good and Evil with the intention of enlightening you. I actually like it when people do that--it means they care.
I've learned that when the Germans do it right, they really do it right (Pieper, Ratzinger, etc.). When Germans do it wrong, they really do it wrong. (Luther, Kant, Marx, etc.)
Dear Freddie is another rebellious ex-Lutheran "PK" (Pastor's Kid). I went to a "Lutheran" university and encountered lots of "ex-PKs" who lost their faith...at a Lutheran school. Many of them might not have lost their faith had they gone to a public university I believe.
Nietzsche did not merely lose his faith--he adopted materialism, atheism, nihilism, and had a deep hatred for Christianity. What a meanie!
Actually, if one disbelieves the Christian proposal, it makes sense to hate it. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God or he is a liar and a lunatic. It's one or the other.
Nietzsche chose the latter, that belief in God's existence is a lie. God lives only in the human mind as the most pervasive of lies. He explains the "God delusion" away through psychological and historical explanations. (I guess he didn't have time to take on St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophical proofs for God's existence!)
Psychologically speaking, Nietzsche believed that man "invented" God out of fear and laziness. He believed that man is afraid of his greatness and/or he is too lazy to live up to his greatness. Thus, man "invents" God (who is really his alter ego) in order to be lazy and "ask for things" he wants or for the things he wants to happen in his life. God as Santa Clause if you will. Praying then, is the lazy man's way of asking God for things instead of "being a man" and making it happen for himself.
God Is Dead.
Nietzsche's phrase "God is dead," is his gripping way of saying "Welcome to adulthood." Basically, man needs to end this false attachment to God (this idea that just coincidentally won't go away...), and be unafraid to conquer himself and the world without God.
Interestingly, the Christian Faith also repeatedly preaches to man to fear not. Scripture is filled with exhortations to not be afraid. John Paul II began his pontificate with the memorable words, "Be not afraid."
Nietzsche's phrase "God is dead," is an affirmation of his adoption of nihilism. (Nihil comes from the Latin word meaning nothing.)For Nietzsche there is no meaning to life, no after life, and there is nothing beyond the material world. There is nothing but the world of sense, of "stuff." There is no truth, no law, and no ideals and ideas.
Man is now God.
The phrase "God is dead," therefore has more to do with man than God. According to Nietzsche, man can now be free of this fictional, "tyrannical" God. It has been said that "God is dead," is the single most important event in the course of Western culture. Perhaps. Regardless, modernity is suffering the consequences of Nietzsche's thought.
Nietzsche emphasized the will over the intellect. He believed that man must choose to confess that God is dead. Man must choose "this truth." This is a very different approach than say, a man coming to not choose truth (how can truth be chosen?), but to discover truth. For him, man's liberation comes from choosing "God is dead." However, once the choice is made, man must live up to this new found freedom. (I want to ask Nietzsche how he can believe in freedom, since freedom is not something material.)
Nietzsche's thought becomes interesting in his insight that many atheists still believe. Isn't that the truth? There are so many people today who claim to be atheists but who live like believers. Nietzsche is critical of these people and claims they are not really free. He notices that man actually wants to believe in something. (I wonder why...)
I guess God isn't really dead--he keeps coming up--especially from atheists. For example, the American Humanist Association has all sorts of anti-God propaganda. During Christmas time, they have a button you can sport that says "O Come Let Us Ignore Him." How can you let me ignore him? You keep bringing him up! It is telling to me that the method by which they propose to ignore God is by wearing a button about ignoring him. Someone who actually does not believe in God does not wear buttons about his non-existence. As I say over and over again, "If you don't believe in God, why do you keep bringing him up?"
Nietzsche also said that man should not believe in anything. (Except you should believe his philosophy, of course. His philosophy that ultimately has no meaning, because there is no such thing as meaning.)
Will to Power.
Nietzsche believed that man must ascend to Super-man. He believed that man must overcome himself and become a new man. Nietzsche also believed in the "transvaluation of values." Basically that man must create his own, new values. The old values of the Christian reduce man to the state of a beggar. The traditional Christian values such as humility and patience, for example, are "slave values."
Nietzsche also did not value peace. The perfect state of the world is rather war. Nietzsche explained that for a Christian to have pity on another human being is harmful since that kind of behavior encourages people to be weak. The good is not to help people, but that which heightens the feeling of power in man. (Sounds like tyranny to me.) So if there was a man drowning in the ocean, the truest way to love him would not be to save his life, but to let him die.
It's a good thing for Nietzsche that his mother and sister were not adherents to his philosophy--otherwise, they would have let him die alone in his insanity instead of caring for him until his death in 1900.
My question to Nietzsche would be: Why should I do this? If there is no meaning in life, if suffering is not redemptive, if there is no purpose or goal to which we are moving toward or for which we were created, then what's the point? If nihilism is true, then everything--including Nietzsche's philosophy--is nothing. If he really believes this then why does he even bother discussing it? If nothing but the material is real, then his ideas don't even exist.
If man can choose what is true and man "chooses" to believe in God, why does Nietzsche have a problem with it? If life is but a power-race, why would Nietzsche care? Let him be the Super-man. Wouldn't that make him the most powerful? Isn't that precisely his goal?
Critique.
In Jean-Paul Sartre's play No Exit, he writes, "Hell is other people."
For the nihilist, this must be true. Especially if life is but a power-struggle and a rat-race.
Benedict XVI explains the consequences of Nietzsche's influence in modernity well:
"And the deep darkness and alienation of our times is shown in the fact that we have powers and abilities but do not know what they are for; we have so much knowledge that we are no longer able to believe and see truth; we are no longer able to embrace the totality. Our philosophy is that of Pilate: "What is truth?" If man has no truth, only abilities, he is fundamentally alienated, and "participation" is only empty play-acting in the dark, deluding man with the notion of freedom and hurting him deeply. There is nothing fortuitous about the strident protests against such empty freedom: man, deprived of truth, has been dishonored."
Nietzsche failed to realize that man is not self-created. He was also unreasonable in expounding that man is or even can be entirely self-sufficient. The historical fact that we live in community (whether it be a village, tribe, town, city, state, country, etc.) should be a clue that we were not meant to be alone and that we are not alone in the universe. Further, Nietzsche was unreasonable because he attempted, in his philosophy, to start from scratch, to throw out the past. Truth (somehow!) began with him. But this is untrue. He was born into a history, a culture and a context. He even used faith as an indirect method of knowledge for which the functioning of life would be impossible. Everyone lives like this but many do not realize it. For example, most people have probably never been to Siberia, but they still believe in its existence. People buy bread at the market everyday having faith it will not be poisoned and this is a reasonable thing to do. As Thomas Merton said, "No man is an island."
Nietzsche also greatly misunderstood the Christian Faith. He was raised a Lutheran, which is a corrupted version of the Faith, but even so he did not have a sense of paradox and mystery. Regarding the paradox of the slave versus free man, Benedict XVI responds well, "Christ overturns the worldview of modern times, it is not evolution or the laws of matter or the "universe" who has the last word but a person! If we know this person and he knows us then we are no longer slaves of the universe and its laws, but free!"
Nietzsche is ultimately unreasonable because he failed to recognize that in his and in each man's heart is the desire for truth, beauty, goodness, and freedom. This is what man was made for. With Nietzsche and with all these "modern philosophers" it truly does come down to a negativity versus a positivity:
Luigi Giussani tells the story about how a young man without faith was forced by his mother to go to confession to him. During the confession, the young man laughed at him and said, "Listen, all that you are trying so forcefully to tell me is not worth as much as what I am about to tell you. You cannot deny that the true grandeur of man is represented by Dante's Capaneus, that giant chained by God to Hell, yet who cries to God, 'I cannot free myself from these chains because you bind me here. You cannot, however, prevent me from blaspheming you, and so I blaspheme you.' This is the true grandeur of man." Father Giussani answered him, "But isn't it even greater to love the infinite?"
The End.
Christians: We are at least half the reason why there are atheists in the world. We are the ones being apathetic. Instead of disregarding the neighborhood nihilist, engage him by making a different proposal for his life. Nietzsche said some pretty right on things. But as Hilaire Belloc said, "Heresies are maintained by the truths they retain." So think critically, make the distinctions, don't fight to win but fight for clarity. And then (maybe) the Christian proposal will be accepted--then maybe, as Benedict XVI said, "all men will realize the truth that man is not redeemed by science, but by love and that redemption will cause liberation of all, for God wills that all be saved," in other words, that all men be happy.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Happiness: Freud v. St. Thomas (a brief discussion)
Bill Clinton: "What is the meaning of is?"
That's modernity for you.
Despite the diversity of definitions, views, beliefs and opinions on happiness, it is difficult not to argue that the "thing" people wish for the most is to be happy.
In pondering why we have such an unhappy world, the question might be posed, what is happiness?
Sigmund Freud’s (1856-1939) view of happiness follows in the tradition of 18th century Enlightenment empiricism. He accepts John Locke’s view that “the universal human desire for happiness is a desire for maximum pleasure and minimal pain.” Thus, happiness is reduced to something one can metaphorically measure on a scale weighing in the amount of pleasure contrasted with the amount of pain. Freud views human happiness as simply the “satisfaction of instinctual desires." If this view of happiness is true, then humans are reduced to a happiness that can be achieved in animals. Happiness is not, in Freud’s view, and contrasted by the ancients, related in any way to the intellect, but to instinct and to the gratification of one’s passions and appetites.
The highest human appetite in terms of instinct is sexual gratification. Happiness is but the (constant) gratification of sexual impulses. The purpose of reason or human rationality is to limit this impulsive desire by distraction with other pursuits such as art and music. Distraction from fulfilling desired and instinctual sexual gratifications serves to prevent society from becoming violent and destructive.
Freud’s view of happiness then lends itself to the fact that since all our sexual impulses can not and should not be satisfied--for the good of society--then man is doomed to a (sexually) frustrated life and therefore unhappiness. Freud expresses, “Civilization demands the restriction of genital gratification for the sake of a cohesive social existence.” I suppose this is why Freud entitled his work, Civilization and its Discontents. A pretty grim view of life indeed.
Freud is responsible for a lot of modernity's current erred notions of happiness. As with all these modern "philosophers," had he known the "fruit" of his thought, he might have re-evaluated its legitimacy. What would this (ironically!) cultural conservative and moralist have thought about the MTV generation?
Freud's definition of happiness stands in vast contrast with that of St. Thomas Aquinas'(1225-1274). (Surprise, surprise!)
For St. Thomas happiness is not a materialist issue. Happiness is the last end of the human life: the telos, the goal, the whole point. For a Christian who believes that man was created to enjoy eternal happiness with God, salvation equals happiness.
In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas first poses the question, "Whether man's happiness consists in wealth?" He answers that it is "impossible for man's happiness to consist in wealth." This is because wealth is not sought for the sake of itself, but for a means to some other good. And since happiness is the last end, it can not consist in wealth.
He also poses the questions, "Whether man's happiness consists in honors? Or glory? Or fame? Or power? Or health?" For the sake of contrasting him with Freud's definition of happiness, St. Thomas' question, "Whether man's happiness consists in pleasure?" is a relevant one.
St. Thomas answers in the negative and quotes Boethius, "Any one that chooses to look back on his past excesses, will perceive that pleasures have a sad ending: and if they can render a man happy, there is no reason why we should not say that the very beasts are happy too."
It is interesting that Freud admits that if man were happy (having his sexual appetite constantly gratified), it would cause destruction to civilization. He would agree with St. Thomas on this point. However, instead of looking at this concrete fact and changing his definition of happiness toward a more truthful positivity, he relegates man to a life of necessary unhappiness for the sake of the common good. Since Freud is a materialist and denies the spiritual in man, he would disagree with St. Thomas and Boethius and affirm that humans are no different than "the very beasts."
St. Thomas would reject Freud's view of happiness because it concerns only one part of man: the bodily. However, man is one composite consisting of body and soul. He expresses, "Now good pertaining to the body, and apprehended by sense, cannot be man's perfect good. For since the rational soul excels the capacity of corporeal matter...(it) has a certain infinity in regard to the body...consequently it is evident that good which is fitting to the body, and which causes bodily delight through being apprehended by sense, is not man's perfect good, but is quite a trifle as compared with the good of the soul. Therefore bodily pleasure is neither happiness itself, nor a proper accident of happiness."
What is happiness?
Both Freud and St. Thomas would agree that in this life, men strive after happiness but that perfect happiness can not be attained by man. That is where the similarity in their notions of happiness ends.
St. Thomas writes, "Man is not perfectly happy so long as something remains for him to desire and seek." Freud rejected faith and religion and would not have accepted St. Thomas' understanding that "the happiness of man is realized in union with the Uncreated Good, which is God."
Mortimer Adler makes an important distinction regarding the current confusion regarding happiness. Happiness is being confused with contentment, as the fulfillment of needs. He explains that both the bad and good man can have their needs fulfilled. But no one would say that the miser who has his needs satisfied is happy. Happiness must be understood as St. Thomas explains as the final end--the quality of a morally good (virtuous) life. Properly speaking then, one can not say he has had a happy life, until the end of his life.
In reflecting about the contrasted understandings of happiness in Freud and St. Thomas, it comes down to a positivity versus a negativity in life. Pleasure, as being happiness, is utterly reductionistic and is inconsiderate of the totality of man's being and existence.
Happiness for St. Thomas is a positive thing to be achieved, for Freud it is a negative thing which can not be attained. For St. Thomas, happiness enriches man and thus civilization, for Freud happiness ruins man and does violence to civilization. For St. Thomas, it is to be lived and embraced, for Freud it is to be suppressed for the common good. For St. Thomas the happier the man, the happier the world, for Freud the happier the man, the unhappier the world.
How will it be known if St. Thomas's understanding of happiness is true? Well, for one thing, experience should verify it. This leads to flourishing of the human person--as Father Giussani might say.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Father of Modern Philosophy
Do you ever wonder why the study of philosophy got a bad reputation? Or why it came to be viewed as something that has nothing to do with life?
Well, I blame the Father of Modern Philosophy and devout Catholic (darn it!) Rene Descartes. Descartes can be likened to the nice guy who had good intentions who really screwed things up. We can thank him for the bad philosophy that was to follow from David Hume, Immanuel Kant, etc.
Descartes was a brilliant mind and mathematician but he should have stayed in the mathematics department and left philosophy alone to Aristotle and St. Thomas who had it right in the first place. Unfortunately, Descartes was taught corrupted teachings of the Angelic Doctor through manuals instead of reading his works directly. (How does that make you feel about all the most likely corrupted textbooks we were taught from? We learn about people's thoughts by other people's thoughts about them...we need to return to a classical educational model...but that's another story for another blog..)
So here was where Descartes went right in philosophy: he sought to prove God's existence and the immortality of the soul. He is correct that God exists and that the soul is, indeed, immortal.
He wanted to do the Church a favor by proving these truths in an age of skepticism post-the division of Christendom in the 16th Century. However, he did not do the Church a favor in the end and actually did quite a bit of damage by embracing the skepticism in order to prove the skeptic wrong. He, in fact, made the skeptics more skeptical. He also contributed to the dualistic notion of the soul and body that many embrace today in attempting to define the human person. Some believe as Plato and Descartes did that we are essentially a soul. Plato believed that the body was even a kind of prison for the soul. However, the human person is uniquely body and soul and both as a composite are what comprise a human being.
So how did he open this can of worms? By attempting to rebuild the foundations of philosophy--a pretty big job for one person. Especially when you had the minds of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas previously. But where Aristotle erred in scientific matters, Descartes erred in philosophical ones.
There is a point in reading this because you will learn how to approach knowledge and truth in your own life! I promise you philosophy done RIGHT is helpful!
Here's what happened: Descartes like math so much because the conclusions one gets in math are certain and self-evident: 2+2=4 You can't argue with that, right?
However, math is REALLY abstract, especially geometry. Descartes actually discovered algebraic geometry. (Thanks a lot, I hate high school because of you...just kidding...I did have fun poking my friend Jasmin's back in class.) Math does not deal with actual things, matter, etc. You can "do" math in a classroom, never using anything tangible, in your head, etc.
Descartes liked the certainty and decided to apply the mathematical model of abstraction to rebuild philosophy and to come to the knowledge of truth with that method. So instead of looking at the things of the world (how do I learn about an orange? Well, I find one and examine it!), he relies on his ideas. That is where he begins: in his mind.
He first begins by doubting everything, even his own existence. He comes to the conclusion that he does, in fact, exist because he is thinking and if you can think, you exist. This is where we get his famous, "Cogito ergo sum;" I think therefore I am.
Um, DUH. Aristotle said that it is foolish to seek a reason for what evidence shows to be fact.
He goes on to demonstrate the existence of God and says that he has this idea of a perfect, infinite being so therefore there must be a God. The error here is that just because I have an idea of God, does not make Him real. This was essentially the weak argument St. Anselm put forth positing that God is the "the being greater than which cannot be thought," allowing him to conclude that an existing "greatest" is greater than a non-existing "greatest," therefore God must exist. Well, I have an idea of a purple unicorn right now but that doesn't prove diddly-squat. (Sorry, Anselm.)
Descartes didn't really prove the existence of God. He goes on to "prove" the existence of the external world (which really should have been his starting, not ending point) by saying that if such a perfect being as God existed than he would not allow for this mass deception of my sense perception and therefore I and the world must exist.
This abstract method of Descartes is one of the idealist. The idealist claims to prove God's existence from his idea of God. This is contrasted with realism which seeks to look at what's in front of our faces and traces the effect back to the cause which is God. The idealist believes reality is in his ideas, the realist asks the question, "What is this in front of me? How did it get there?"
St. Augustine said, "I inquire in order to know something, not to think it."
Descartes method of knowledge, a method of doubt, is unreasonable and contrary to what is obviously in front of him: the world. He ends with the world, but in order to gain knowledge and discover truth, it is more convincing for the world to be the starting point.
The mistake Descartes made was that he chose the method and then tried to make the object conform to the method. Instead, one should look to the object to determine the method. What works for math ("mathematicism") will not work for all sciences. The human person is body and soul as a composite and so a completely abstract method will simply not work. Descartes denied sense skepticism which is self-refuting and contradictory because, as my professor puts it, "you only know sense error through sense truth, it can't be all error."
I agree with Aristotle it is foolish to prove what is evident and the existence of the world is clearly evident unless you are a madman where you have lost everything but your reason. (G.K. Chesterton)
Luigi Giussani says, "Realism requires a certain method for observing and coming to know an object, and this method must not be imagined, thought of or organized and created by the subject (ahem, Descartes!): it must be imposed by the object.
Why do I care? I care because by imposing the method he made our ideas superior to the object itself. Descartes made our ideas the object of knowledge instead of the means of knowing the actual object itself. Thought and reality are not identical. Reality should be the starting point. Thought is about reality, not reality itself.
I end thanking Father Giussani who really helped me understand all of this. Descartes just confused me. (He confused a lot of people and he is blamed for the increasing skepticism that modernity is, dualism, denial of the mind and athiesm.)
Giussani says in his book The Religious Sense, regarding our age of ideologies,
"Instead of learning from reality in all its aspects and building on it, man seeks to manipulate reality according to the coherent schemes fabricated by the intellect; 'thus the triumph of ideologies ratifies the defeat of civilization.'" (Alexis Carrel in his Reflections on Life)
Well, I blame the Father of Modern Philosophy and devout Catholic (darn it!) Rene Descartes. Descartes can be likened to the nice guy who had good intentions who really screwed things up. We can thank him for the bad philosophy that was to follow from David Hume, Immanuel Kant, etc.
Descartes was a brilliant mind and mathematician but he should have stayed in the mathematics department and left philosophy alone to Aristotle and St. Thomas who had it right in the first place. Unfortunately, Descartes was taught corrupted teachings of the Angelic Doctor through manuals instead of reading his works directly. (How does that make you feel about all the most likely corrupted textbooks we were taught from? We learn about people's thoughts by other people's thoughts about them...we need to return to a classical educational model...but that's another story for another blog..)
So here was where Descartes went right in philosophy: he sought to prove God's existence and the immortality of the soul. He is correct that God exists and that the soul is, indeed, immortal.
He wanted to do the Church a favor by proving these truths in an age of skepticism post-the division of Christendom in the 16th Century. However, he did not do the Church a favor in the end and actually did quite a bit of damage by embracing the skepticism in order to prove the skeptic wrong. He, in fact, made the skeptics more skeptical. He also contributed to the dualistic notion of the soul and body that many embrace today in attempting to define the human person. Some believe as Plato and Descartes did that we are essentially a soul. Plato believed that the body was even a kind of prison for the soul. However, the human person is uniquely body and soul and both as a composite are what comprise a human being.
So how did he open this can of worms? By attempting to rebuild the foundations of philosophy--a pretty big job for one person. Especially when you had the minds of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas previously. But where Aristotle erred in scientific matters, Descartes erred in philosophical ones.
There is a point in reading this because you will learn how to approach knowledge and truth in your own life! I promise you philosophy done RIGHT is helpful!
Here's what happened: Descartes like math so much because the conclusions one gets in math are certain and self-evident: 2+2=4 You can't argue with that, right?
However, math is REALLY abstract, especially geometry. Descartes actually discovered algebraic geometry. (Thanks a lot, I hate high school because of you...just kidding...I did have fun poking my friend Jasmin's back in class.) Math does not deal with actual things, matter, etc. You can "do" math in a classroom, never using anything tangible, in your head, etc.
Descartes liked the certainty and decided to apply the mathematical model of abstraction to rebuild philosophy and to come to the knowledge of truth with that method. So instead of looking at the things of the world (how do I learn about an orange? Well, I find one and examine it!), he relies on his ideas. That is where he begins: in his mind.
He first begins by doubting everything, even his own existence. He comes to the conclusion that he does, in fact, exist because he is thinking and if you can think, you exist. This is where we get his famous, "Cogito ergo sum;" I think therefore I am.
Um, DUH. Aristotle said that it is foolish to seek a reason for what evidence shows to be fact.
He goes on to demonstrate the existence of God and says that he has this idea of a perfect, infinite being so therefore there must be a God. The error here is that just because I have an idea of God, does not make Him real. This was essentially the weak argument St. Anselm put forth positing that God is the "the being greater than which cannot be thought," allowing him to conclude that an existing "greatest" is greater than a non-existing "greatest," therefore God must exist. Well, I have an idea of a purple unicorn right now but that doesn't prove diddly-squat. (Sorry, Anselm.)
Descartes didn't really prove the existence of God. He goes on to "prove" the existence of the external world (which really should have been his starting, not ending point) by saying that if such a perfect being as God existed than he would not allow for this mass deception of my sense perception and therefore I and the world must exist.
This abstract method of Descartes is one of the idealist. The idealist claims to prove God's existence from his idea of God. This is contrasted with realism which seeks to look at what's in front of our faces and traces the effect back to the cause which is God. The idealist believes reality is in his ideas, the realist asks the question, "What is this in front of me? How did it get there?"
St. Augustine said, "I inquire in order to know something, not to think it."
Descartes method of knowledge, a method of doubt, is unreasonable and contrary to what is obviously in front of him: the world. He ends with the world, but in order to gain knowledge and discover truth, it is more convincing for the world to be the starting point.
The mistake Descartes made was that he chose the method and then tried to make the object conform to the method. Instead, one should look to the object to determine the method. What works for math ("mathematicism") will not work for all sciences. The human person is body and soul as a composite and so a completely abstract method will simply not work. Descartes denied sense skepticism which is self-refuting and contradictory because, as my professor puts it, "you only know sense error through sense truth, it can't be all error."
I agree with Aristotle it is foolish to prove what is evident and the existence of the world is clearly evident unless you are a madman where you have lost everything but your reason. (G.K. Chesterton)
Luigi Giussani says, "Realism requires a certain method for observing and coming to know an object, and this method must not be imagined, thought of or organized and created by the subject (ahem, Descartes!): it must be imposed by the object.
Why do I care? I care because by imposing the method he made our ideas superior to the object itself. Descartes made our ideas the object of knowledge instead of the means of knowing the actual object itself. Thought and reality are not identical. Reality should be the starting point. Thought is about reality, not reality itself.
I end thanking Father Giussani who really helped me understand all of this. Descartes just confused me. (He confused a lot of people and he is blamed for the increasing skepticism that modernity is, dualism, denial of the mind and athiesm.)
Giussani says in his book The Religious Sense, regarding our age of ideologies,
"Instead of learning from reality in all its aspects and building on it, man seeks to manipulate reality according to the coherent schemes fabricated by the intellect; 'thus the triumph of ideologies ratifies the defeat of civilization.'" (Alexis Carrel in his Reflections on Life)
Friday, December 12, 2008
Being Good for Goodness' Sake...
The American Humanist Association has ads out in D.C. that say "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."
Here's more information from the Pew Forum on this:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=373
I find it fascinating that these people supposedly don't believe in God and yet they form a group to "not believe in God" together.
Hmmm...I also find it humorous that atheists keeping saying they don't believe in God and yet...keep bringing Him up!
A person who really, truly does not at all believe in God does not care to identify himself by his "non-belief."
I don't exactly know how to judge this absurdity on behalf of the AHA. Should I be outraged because they are offensive and intellectually dishonest? Or should I be delighted that such an extreme measure shows how much they really want to believe in Him?
Here's more information from the Pew Forum on this:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=373
I find it fascinating that these people supposedly don't believe in God and yet they form a group to "not believe in God" together.
Hmmm...I also find it humorous that atheists keeping saying they don't believe in God and yet...keep bringing Him up!
A person who really, truly does not at all believe in God does not care to identify himself by his "non-belief."
I don't exactly know how to judge this absurdity on behalf of the AHA. Should I be outraged because they are offensive and intellectually dishonest? Or should I be delighted that such an extreme measure shows how much they really want to believe in Him?
Friday, November 21, 2008
David Foster Wallace on Life and Work
An acquaintance of mine sent me this article by Mr. Wallace. It's a very timely piece considering I dedicated a good majority of my posts relating to this topic on life and work.
Read on, interestingly enough, and tragically, Mr. Wallace committed suicide this past September.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178211966454607.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
"Everybody worships."
.
Read on, interestingly enough, and tragically, Mr. Wallace committed suicide this past September.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178211966454607.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
"Everybody worships."
.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Philosophical Act: Part IV (The Final Post)
"In the philosophical act, the human being's related-ness to the totality of being is realized; philosophy is oriented toward the world as a whole." A pre-condition to the philosophical act (which the Greek philosophers took for granted) is an "already given" view of the world. Plato wrote, "The ancients knew the truth; if we could only find it, why would we have to investigate the opinions of men?" Pieper explains it like this, "that a previously handed-down interpretation of the world stands before all philsophizing from which philosophy gets a spark."
Plato went further and said that this wisdom from the ancients is of divine origin, it is a "gift of the gods!"
We have come to the point now where philosophy comes into contact with theology. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from John Paul II, "Faith and Reason (Theology and Philosophy) are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth--in a word, to know himself--so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."
According to the Ancient Philsophers, theology precedes philosophy. "No philsophy is in existence which does not receive its first impulse and impetus from some previously existing, uncritically accepted interpretation of the world," writes Pieper.
In simplistic terms, before one can search, there must be first something for which to search. Before we can inquire into the meaning of human life, we must first believe...there is meaning to life.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. Here's a brief backwards nutshell (depending on the way you look at it):
1. Doing philosophy presupposes theology. ("study of God")
2. Philosophizing is a uniquely human act, only humans can do it.
3. The "disturbances" of the philsophical act is what removes us from "environment" into "world."
4. To exist solely in the "environment" or world of work is to live in a partial-world similar to that of animals and plants.
5. Humans who worship "work" are slaves, confined to the "here-and-now" world.
6. The Cultus (or "worship" in the religious sense) is the highest form of leisure.
7. Leisure is the basis of culture.
Plato went further and said that this wisdom from the ancients is of divine origin, it is a "gift of the gods!"
We have come to the point now where philosophy comes into contact with theology. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from John Paul II, "Faith and Reason (Theology and Philosophy) are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth--in a word, to know himself--so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."
According to the Ancient Philsophers, theology precedes philosophy. "No philsophy is in existence which does not receive its first impulse and impetus from some previously existing, uncritically accepted interpretation of the world," writes Pieper.
In simplistic terms, before one can search, there must be first something for which to search. Before we can inquire into the meaning of human life, we must first believe...there is meaning to life.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. Here's a brief backwards nutshell (depending on the way you look at it):
1. Doing philosophy presupposes theology. ("study of God")
2. Philosophizing is a uniquely human act, only humans can do it.
3. The "disturbances" of the philsophical act is what removes us from "environment" into "world."
4. To exist solely in the "environment" or world of work is to live in a partial-world similar to that of animals and plants.
5. Humans who worship "work" are slaves, confined to the "here-and-now" world.
6. The Cultus (or "worship" in the religious sense) is the highest form of leisure.
7. Leisure is the basis of culture.
The Philosophical Act: Part III
It should be noted that it is not by ignoring man's "environment" that he enters into the totality of being or "world." It is the visible world "the one before our very eyes which we touch with our hands" that the philosopher gazes upon. The philosopher is concerned with the ultimate, what things are in the last analysis.
The philosopher does not ask, "Am I happy?," but "What is happiness?"
Philosophy can not be "done" without the things of the everyday world. (This is what distinguishes a philosopher from say, a madman...who Chesterton once quipped, "has lost everything BUT his reason.") This, for the Christian, makes sense in the analogy that Christ does not save us despite our humanity, but through it.
To philosophize then is not to remove oneself from the things of the world but to to transcend it, to see things in a new light. Not with the agenda to "change" things (this would transform philosophy into a servile art...to "serve" a purpose) but to see the deeper reality.
Philosophy begins then, in an experience of wonder. "The ability to experience wonder is one of the highest possibilities of human nature." Thomas Aquinas believed that wonder is the first step on the path that leads to the beatific vision. Wonder is not just the first phase of philosophy but its ever abiding principle. In the way that a person you are getting to know becomes more and more wonderful...you don't lose that sense of wonder about the person, but even as you get to know more about them, the more there is to learn. As the old saying goes, "The more you know, the more you don't know." It's a paradox and it is connected to the sense of mystery. Aristotle went further and said that along with wonder is joy and as we often say in my Communion and Liberation circles, "the only joy is to begin again." Pieper says, "the joy of one who is astounded is the joy of a soul that is beginning something, of a soul that is always ready and alert for something new, for something unheard of."
Also, there is a hopefulness in wonder. Philosophers are never done with their work (unless they are dead in Heaven enjoying the beatific vision) as Pascal wrote, "we are not, but we hope to be." The structure of hope built into wonder shows how much it is a part of our human nature. Only humans can hope, wonder, philosophize. Neither God nor the animals, but only humans experience wonder.
The word philosopher means "lover of wisdom." According to Plato, only God is wise. The best a man can do is be a lover of wisdom. This is what makes philosophy so noble and so free. The knowledge to which philosophy aspires is never attainable.
Pieper says that "philsophy is shown to be something completely human and indeed, in a certain sense, as the fulfillment of human existence itself."
The philosopher does not ask, "Am I happy?," but "What is happiness?"
Philosophy can not be "done" without the things of the everyday world. (This is what distinguishes a philosopher from say, a madman...who Chesterton once quipped, "has lost everything BUT his reason.") This, for the Christian, makes sense in the analogy that Christ does not save us despite our humanity, but through it.
To philosophize then is not to remove oneself from the things of the world but to to transcend it, to see things in a new light. Not with the agenda to "change" things (this would transform philosophy into a servile art...to "serve" a purpose) but to see the deeper reality.
Philosophy begins then, in an experience of wonder. "The ability to experience wonder is one of the highest possibilities of human nature." Thomas Aquinas believed that wonder is the first step on the path that leads to the beatific vision. Wonder is not just the first phase of philosophy but its ever abiding principle. In the way that a person you are getting to know becomes more and more wonderful...you don't lose that sense of wonder about the person, but even as you get to know more about them, the more there is to learn. As the old saying goes, "The more you know, the more you don't know." It's a paradox and it is connected to the sense of mystery. Aristotle went further and said that along with wonder is joy and as we often say in my Communion and Liberation circles, "the only joy is to begin again." Pieper says, "the joy of one who is astounded is the joy of a soul that is beginning something, of a soul that is always ready and alert for something new, for something unheard of."
Also, there is a hopefulness in wonder. Philosophers are never done with their work (unless they are dead in Heaven enjoying the beatific vision) as Pascal wrote, "we are not, but we hope to be." The structure of hope built into wonder shows how much it is a part of our human nature. Only humans can hope, wonder, philosophize. Neither God nor the animals, but only humans experience wonder.
The word philosopher means "lover of wisdom." According to Plato, only God is wise. The best a man can do is be a lover of wisdom. This is what makes philosophy so noble and so free. The knowledge to which philosophy aspires is never attainable.
Pieper says that "philsophy is shown to be something completely human and indeed, in a certain sense, as the fulfillment of human existence itself."
The Philosophical Act: Part II
Now we understand that whoever philosophizes transcends the "work-a-day" world.
But where does he go? Pieper says that both the world of work and the "other realm" belong to man. This leads us to the question, "What is the nature of the world of man?"
A world can be defined as a "whole field of relationships." This implies that only a being that has an ability to be in a relationship has a world. Further, a relationship can only exist when there is an "inside." This is what gives the being the ability to have a relationship, to be "in" a relationship. True relationships join the inside with the outside. Thus, a pebble can not be in a relationship and does not have a world. The higher the level inwardness ("the more comprehensive and penetrative the ability to enter into relations") the more profound the world.
This makes a lot of sense to me. It's like when I meet someone and call my sister, "Ugh, they live in a dark world." Obviously they live in the same world I do, but in the "other realm" of transcendence, their world is quite different than mine.
OK, so the pebble has no world. Pieper says that the plant has a world but its the lowest world because it can not reach beyond "what it touches in its own vicinity." The world of the animal is greater than the plant because different from the plant the animal has sense-perception. (Animals can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste.) But "the environment of animals are not the whole expanse of nature but resemble a narrow, furnished apartment," said biologist Jakob von Uexkull. A fascinating example of this is the crow. It is imaginable that a crow could see a grasshopper which is very desirable for a crow whenever the grasshopper comes into the crow's view. But this isn't true, according to Uexkull, a crow is unable to see a grasshopper at rest. Further, a crow does not even recognize the form of grasshopper. (Wow!) Crows are only able to see moving things! This is why insects can play dead. "Since their resting-form does not at all appear in the sense-world of their predators, they escape that world completely and securely simply by lying still (grasshopper: play dead! :), and can not be found, even if they are actively sought." The field of relations, the "world" of the animal is really only its selective world or environment. And it is confined to it.
OK, so this is really interesting, right? But I thought we were talking about the philosophical act? Here's how it relates, which of course leads to another question:
What is the relating-power of the human being? Is it no better than the crow? (Of course, the answer is self-evident by the fact that I am given the ability to inquire about this in first place, right?)
Just as the world of the animal trascends the world of the plant, so we human beings, by virtue of our higher relating-power (known as the intellect...another word for "spiritual" by the way, something else I just learned) transcend the world of plants and animals. "Western philosophical tradition defines spiritual knowing as the power to place oneself into relation with the sum-total of existing things." The essence of this power is the ability it has to "be in relation with the totality of being." (As opposed to the "partial" worlds of the plants and animals.)
What does it mean to say someone has a great personality? It really means that this "inwardness" ( the power of "living-with-oneself, of "being-in-onself" of "independence" of "autonomy") of the person, the deeper it is, the stronger the correspondance with the field-of-relations (the world), the fuller the reality of the world is made known to the "I."
So what kind of world is the world of man? (This was the original question...)
Pieper says, "Man's world is the whole reality, in the midst of which the human being lives, face-to-face with the entirely of existing things--but only in-so-far as man is spirit! (Side note: Keep in mind that man is uniquely body and soul, flesh and spirit. We are not saying here that the body, the material, are bad (this is heretical to Christians) but only that it is not the totality of who we are.)
So then the other question we were asking was, "What does it mean to philosophize?"
Pieper answers that Philosophy is "to experience that the nearby world, determined by the immediate demands of life, can be shaken, or indeed, must be shaken, over and over again, by the unsettling call of the "world," or by the total reality that mirrors back the eternal natures of things."
To philosophize then is to take a step into coming face-t0-face with this world. "To direct one's view toward the totality of the world."
And, "you cannot ask and think philosophically without allowing the totality of existing things to come into play: God and the World."
This is what is distinctive about philosophy!
But where does he go? Pieper says that both the world of work and the "other realm" belong to man. This leads us to the question, "What is the nature of the world of man?"
A world can be defined as a "whole field of relationships." This implies that only a being that has an ability to be in a relationship has a world. Further, a relationship can only exist when there is an "inside." This is what gives the being the ability to have a relationship, to be "in" a relationship. True relationships join the inside with the outside. Thus, a pebble can not be in a relationship and does not have a world. The higher the level inwardness ("the more comprehensive and penetrative the ability to enter into relations") the more profound the world.
This makes a lot of sense to me. It's like when I meet someone and call my sister, "Ugh, they live in a dark world." Obviously they live in the same world I do, but in the "other realm" of transcendence, their world is quite different than mine.
OK, so the pebble has no world. Pieper says that the plant has a world but its the lowest world because it can not reach beyond "what it touches in its own vicinity." The world of the animal is greater than the plant because different from the plant the animal has sense-perception. (Animals can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste.) But "the environment of animals are not the whole expanse of nature but resemble a narrow, furnished apartment," said biologist Jakob von Uexkull. A fascinating example of this is the crow. It is imaginable that a crow could see a grasshopper which is very desirable for a crow whenever the grasshopper comes into the crow's view. But this isn't true, according to Uexkull, a crow is unable to see a grasshopper at rest. Further, a crow does not even recognize the form of grasshopper. (Wow!) Crows are only able to see moving things! This is why insects can play dead. "Since their resting-form does not at all appear in the sense-world of their predators, they escape that world completely and securely simply by lying still (grasshopper: play dead! :), and can not be found, even if they are actively sought." The field of relations, the "world" of the animal is really only its selective world or environment. And it is confined to it.
OK, so this is really interesting, right? But I thought we were talking about the philosophical act? Here's how it relates, which of course leads to another question:
What is the relating-power of the human being? Is it no better than the crow? (Of course, the answer is self-evident by the fact that I am given the ability to inquire about this in first place, right?)
Just as the world of the animal trascends the world of the plant, so we human beings, by virtue of our higher relating-power (known as the intellect...another word for "spiritual" by the way, something else I just learned) transcend the world of plants and animals. "Western philosophical tradition defines spiritual knowing as the power to place oneself into relation with the sum-total of existing things." The essence of this power is the ability it has to "be in relation with the totality of being." (As opposed to the "partial" worlds of the plants and animals.)
What does it mean to say someone has a great personality? It really means that this "inwardness" ( the power of "living-with-oneself, of "being-in-onself" of "independence" of "autonomy") of the person, the deeper it is, the stronger the correspondance with the field-of-relations (the world), the fuller the reality of the world is made known to the "I."
So what kind of world is the world of man? (This was the original question...)
Pieper says, "Man's world is the whole reality, in the midst of which the human being lives, face-to-face with the entirely of existing things--but only in-so-far as man is spirit! (Side note: Keep in mind that man is uniquely body and soul, flesh and spirit. We are not saying here that the body, the material, are bad (this is heretical to Christians) but only that it is not the totality of who we are.)
So then the other question we were asking was, "What does it mean to philosophize?"
Pieper answers that Philosophy is "to experience that the nearby world, determined by the immediate demands of life, can be shaken, or indeed, must be shaken, over and over again, by the unsettling call of the "world," or by the total reality that mirrors back the eternal natures of things."
To philosophize then is to take a step into coming face-t0-face with this world. "To direct one's view toward the totality of the world."
And, "you cannot ask and think philosophically without allowing the totality of existing things to come into play: God and the World."
This is what is distinctive about philosophy!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Philosophical Act: Part I
So now you may ask (as I did...) what does the philosophical act have to do with leisure?
Basically, doing philosophy is leisure's great good or expression. We are most human, when we are philosophizing. If you think about it, this makes sense. What distinguishes humans from all God's other creatures? Animals eat, reproduce, etc. But only humans can ponder and ask, "What is the meaning of life?" We recognize that there is a reality beyond the visible. Further, happiness does not consist in having all my material needs met. (Hence all the rich, unhappy people.) It is when I understand something about myself or the world, that is when I am most satisfied. When what I see everyday is transcended. This transcendence is not an escape from the world but rather, a deeper look (remember that "intellectual vision") into reality. What I can perceive invisibly is more real sometimes, than that tangible item I can hold in my hand.
Father Luigi Giussani's father recognized this need for (true) humanity and would sometimes spend the family's money on hiring a musician to play for his family instead of purchasing food for dinner.
The philosophical act is a disturbance that "knocks" us out of the world of work much like a genuine poem, or a musical experience, or prayer does--it transcends. Thomas Aquinas said that "the Philosopher is akin to the Poet in this, that both are concerned with the "wondrous." Remove this connection with "wonder" and the world becomes a place where "religion is not allowed to grow, where the arts can find no place, where philosophy can not survive."
Philosophy is most pure, and most free, when it is untouched by anything practical. To tie philosophy in with the practical is to give it an agenda, to bind it to an intention to change things, to serve (and thus be slave) to some purpose. But philosophy done right, for its own sake, is where the soul is free to maintain a completely receptive gaze on reality. The realization of this is connected with the presupposition that the world is something "other than a mere field, the mere raw material, of human activity." The world then is something "worthy of reverence, and ultimately, is creation in the strictest sense. (The world is created, by a Creator, and expresses creativity.) This is the essence of philosophy!
True philosophy is founded upon the belief that the real riches of man lie not the "satisfaction of his necessities" but rather having the capacity to understand the totality of existence, of the world. Ancient philosophy says it this way, that "this is the utmost fulfillment to which we can attain: that the whole order of real things be registered in our soul." The conception was consumed in the Christian tradition of the beatific vision as St. Gregory the Great said, "What do they not see, who look upon Him, Who sees all?"
To be continued...
Basically, doing philosophy is leisure's great good or expression. We are most human, when we are philosophizing. If you think about it, this makes sense. What distinguishes humans from all God's other creatures? Animals eat, reproduce, etc. But only humans can ponder and ask, "What is the meaning of life?" We recognize that there is a reality beyond the visible. Further, happiness does not consist in having all my material needs met. (Hence all the rich, unhappy people.) It is when I understand something about myself or the world, that is when I am most satisfied. When what I see everyday is transcended. This transcendence is not an escape from the world but rather, a deeper look (remember that "intellectual vision") into reality. What I can perceive invisibly is more real sometimes, than that tangible item I can hold in my hand.
Father Luigi Giussani's father recognized this need for (true) humanity and would sometimes spend the family's money on hiring a musician to play for his family instead of purchasing food for dinner.
The philosophical act is a disturbance that "knocks" us out of the world of work much like a genuine poem, or a musical experience, or prayer does--it transcends. Thomas Aquinas said that "the Philosopher is akin to the Poet in this, that both are concerned with the "wondrous." Remove this connection with "wonder" and the world becomes a place where "religion is not allowed to grow, where the arts can find no place, where philosophy can not survive."
Philosophy is most pure, and most free, when it is untouched by anything practical. To tie philosophy in with the practical is to give it an agenda, to bind it to an intention to change things, to serve (and thus be slave) to some purpose. But philosophy done right, for its own sake, is where the soul is free to maintain a completely receptive gaze on reality. The realization of this is connected with the presupposition that the world is something "other than a mere field, the mere raw material, of human activity." The world then is something "worthy of reverence, and ultimately, is creation in the strictest sense. (The world is created, by a Creator, and expresses creativity.) This is the essence of philosophy!
True philosophy is founded upon the belief that the real riches of man lie not the "satisfaction of his necessities" but rather having the capacity to understand the totality of existence, of the world. Ancient philosophy says it this way, that "this is the utmost fulfillment to which we can attain: that the whole order of real things be registered in our soul." The conception was consumed in the Christian tradition of the beatific vision as St. Gregory the Great said, "What do they not see, who look upon Him, Who sees all?"
To be continued...
Leisure: The Basis of Culture Part IV
What is Leisure's ultimate justification?
In order to answer this question we must return to the explanation that the heart of Leisure consists in "festival," over "function." If this is true, then Leisure would derive its justification "from the very source whence festival and celebration derive theirs:" worship.
To experience an inner harmony within oneself and to live out this harmony with the world (quite different from the everyday life of work) is to be festive; but "no more intensive harmony with the world can be thought of than 'Praise of God.'" A genuine festival is only experienced when there is a living relationship with religious "cult" or worship. History of religion gives us this evidence.
"Rest from work" signifies a sacrificial time for worship of the divine. Rest is therefore cultic. For the Jew and Christian, this rest (this leisure) is signified on the Sabbath. Every seventh day is "festival-time." One of the external signs that we have lost this concept of leisure in our day is that every year, fewer and fewer stores are closed on Sundays as once was commonplace. Even the family "meal" is a spiritual event. The time, set aside, for families to celebrate and be together distinct from work.
In the world of work, there is no such concept of festival. "Time is money," as the saying goes. Even "breaks from work" are there for the sake of work--in order to get back to work.
When divorced from the realm of worship and festival, leisure becomes a burden. "Only someone who has lost their spiritual power to be at leisure can be bored." Work without true leisure becomes inhumane and no matter how hard you work, or how much you achieve, you can never be satisfied. This explains why so many "successful" people out there are depressed, suicidal, and unhappy. They forgot the entire reason why they were working in the first place. As one of my Sisters of Notre Dame constantly reminds me: we are human beings, not doings!
In order to resurrect leisure, there needs to occur a reawakening of the sense of worship.
Next: The Philosophical Act!
In order to answer this question we must return to the explanation that the heart of Leisure consists in "festival," over "function." If this is true, then Leisure would derive its justification "from the very source whence festival and celebration derive theirs:" worship.
To experience an inner harmony within oneself and to live out this harmony with the world (quite different from the everyday life of work) is to be festive; but "no more intensive harmony with the world can be thought of than 'Praise of God.'" A genuine festival is only experienced when there is a living relationship with religious "cult" or worship. History of religion gives us this evidence.
"Rest from work" signifies a sacrificial time for worship of the divine. Rest is therefore cultic. For the Jew and Christian, this rest (this leisure) is signified on the Sabbath. Every seventh day is "festival-time." One of the external signs that we have lost this concept of leisure in our day is that every year, fewer and fewer stores are closed on Sundays as once was commonplace. Even the family "meal" is a spiritual event. The time, set aside, for families to celebrate and be together distinct from work.
In the world of work, there is no such concept of festival. "Time is money," as the saying goes. Even "breaks from work" are there for the sake of work--in order to get back to work.
When divorced from the realm of worship and festival, leisure becomes a burden. "Only someone who has lost their spiritual power to be at leisure can be bored." Work without true leisure becomes inhumane and no matter how hard you work, or how much you achieve, you can never be satisfied. This explains why so many "successful" people out there are depressed, suicidal, and unhappy. They forgot the entire reason why they were working in the first place. As one of my Sisters of Notre Dame constantly reminds me: we are human beings, not doings!
In order to resurrect leisure, there needs to occur a reawakening of the sense of worship.
Next: The Philosophical Act!
Leisure: The Basis of Culture Part III
Reading this book finally closed the gap of why my Alma mater, California Lutheran University (and most other universities in America with a few notable exceptions), can call itself a "liberal arts" college when the majority of its majors are for the purpose of career-specializing. (How is marketing communication (my unfortunate major) a "liberal art?" Ridiculous. Marketing is an art for the purpose of selling its object. Nobody would "market" for the sake of "marketing." It's not free, but has a business-oriented purpose.) Universities have simply adopted Kant's view that even the liberal arts should be under the realm of work and usefulness.
But returning to our previous topic, Pieper makes the case that the liberal arts (in their proper sense and nature as being done for its own sake) are justified. The true cause of idleness in society is not leisure, but a lack of true leisure, which is manifested in a work-for-work's sake attitude.
Pieper explains that the root idleness is "acedia" in Greek which is the deadly sin of sloth. The "metaphysical-theological concept of idleness means, then, that man finally does not agree with his existence; that behind all his energetic activity he is not one with himself." Hence why restlessness and despair are sisters. According to the Ancients, the opposite of acedia is not work but rather the "cheerful affirmation by man of his own existence, of the world as a whole, and of God - of Love." Thus, idleness has nothing to do and is in fact, the exact opposite of leisure. "Leisure then is a condition of the soul--"an inner absence of preoccupation, a calm, an ability to let things go, to be quiet." (This is why work breaks, vacations, Sundays off doesn't necessarily mean one is "at leisure.")
Pieper goes on to to explain that leisure is only possible "in the assumption that man is not only in harmony with himself but also that he is in agreement with the world and its meaning." Leisure is affirmative then. Thus, leisure is the condition of "considering things in a celebrating spirit." It is "festive" in nature. And this is why the festival is the origin of leisure. The holding of a festival means an "affirmation of the basic meaning of the world and an agreement with it."
Lastly, leisure stands opposed to the "exclusiveness of the paradigm of work as social function. " Leisure's purpose is not for the sake of work. We work to be at leisure. We are not at leisure so we can be "refreshed" or "renewed" to go back to work! Pieper uses the good example of prayer. The one who prays before going to bed sleeps better, but "surely nobody would want to think of praying as a means of going to sleep!" It doesn't work that way!
Further, leisure is of an even higher rank than the world of work. Just like the human's soul power of "intellectual vision," the power to be-at-leisure is the power to transcend beyond the "working world" or the material objects that exist before us and see the deeper reality or meaning behind things.
It is in leisure that the "truly human is rescued" from being a mere "worker" or "functionary" no better than a robot or an animal.
Still more coming...(by the way, I realize this is a difficult subject, please feel free to comment, question, ask for clarification, etc. I'm learning with you!)
But returning to our previous topic, Pieper makes the case that the liberal arts (in their proper sense and nature as being done for its own sake) are justified. The true cause of idleness in society is not leisure, but a lack of true leisure, which is manifested in a work-for-work's sake attitude.
Pieper explains that the root idleness is "acedia" in Greek which is the deadly sin of sloth. The "metaphysical-theological concept of idleness means, then, that man finally does not agree with his existence; that behind all his energetic activity he is not one with himself." Hence why restlessness and despair are sisters. According to the Ancients, the opposite of acedia is not work but rather the "cheerful affirmation by man of his own existence, of the world as a whole, and of God - of Love." Thus, idleness has nothing to do and is in fact, the exact opposite of leisure. "Leisure then is a condition of the soul--"an inner absence of preoccupation, a calm, an ability to let things go, to be quiet." (This is why work breaks, vacations, Sundays off doesn't necessarily mean one is "at leisure.")
Pieper goes on to to explain that leisure is only possible "in the assumption that man is not only in harmony with himself but also that he is in agreement with the world and its meaning." Leisure is affirmative then. Thus, leisure is the condition of "considering things in a celebrating spirit." It is "festive" in nature. And this is why the festival is the origin of leisure. The holding of a festival means an "affirmation of the basic meaning of the world and an agreement with it."
Lastly, leisure stands opposed to the "exclusiveness of the paradigm of work as social function. " Leisure's purpose is not for the sake of work. We work to be at leisure. We are not at leisure so we can be "refreshed" or "renewed" to go back to work! Pieper uses the good example of prayer. The one who prays before going to bed sleeps better, but "surely nobody would want to think of praying as a means of going to sleep!" It doesn't work that way!
Further, leisure is of an even higher rank than the world of work. Just like the human's soul power of "intellectual vision," the power to be-at-leisure is the power to transcend beyond the "working world" or the material objects that exist before us and see the deeper reality or meaning behind things.
It is in leisure that the "truly human is rescued" from being a mere "worker" or "functionary" no better than a robot or an animal.
Still more coming...(by the way, I realize this is a difficult subject, please feel free to comment, question, ask for clarification, etc. I'm learning with you!)
Leisure: The Basis of Culture Part II
We have yet to answer the question of what it really means to be at leisure. We'll get there. Pieper is a German philosopher. This means he's brilliant and I have to work really hard to "connect the dots" of the point he's trying to make. Let's leave this question aside for now because before we can approach it we must first examine the nature of knowledge. (There is a "certain interpretation of the human knowing power" which allows work to be glorified the way that it is today.)
Regarding the "act of knowing," Pieper contrasts the modern interpretation (the Kantian view) with the view of the philosophers of Antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) and the Scholastics (mainly Thomas Aquinas) of the Middle Ages.
Kant believed that all human knowing is exclusively discursive. It consists essentially in the act of "investigating, articulating, joining, comparing, distinguishing, abstracting, deducing, proving--all of which are so many types and methods of active mental effort." Therefore, knowing is nothing but activity in the form of work.
The ancient and medieval philosophers went a step further. They distinguished the intellect into two parts. One part was the ratio (reason) part of the intellect which is discursive as Kant believed. The second part (which Kant denied) was the simplex intuitus ("simply-looking") part of the intellect. This can be understood as "intellectual vision" or "intuition." (Pieper uses the example of the distinction between simply gazing upon a rose and knowing it and taking it apart, observing, studying it, "possessing" it in a sense.)
The ancients believed all knowing involves both. "The path of discursive reasoning is accompanied and penetrated by the intellectus' untiring vision, which is not active but passive, or better, receptive-a receptively operating power of the intellect." In this sense, the Ancients did not believe that knowing was necessarily always work.
OK, so what's the point of all this talk on the act of knowing? The point is that Kant's philosophy can be credited to the current notion of "intellectual work" and "intellectual worker." Kant believed that even the act of knowing, and doing philosophy, was only true, credible, and genuine if there was effort, labor, or work in it. Anything other than that was suspicious. This is very different from what the Ancients believed and what Christians believe, too. The receptive "intellectual vision" is what allows us to receive grace, or the gift of the Holy Spirit, for example. This doesn't go against our reason, but penetrates it, accompanies it as Thomas Aquinas said. Thus, even philosophy, and the other "liberal arts" are only useful if they are under the realm of work for Kant.
Pieper argues that this notion goes against the very and true nature of philsophy and the liberal arts. What makes them "liberal" or "free" in the first place is that they are done for their own sake and not for utilitarian purposes as Kant would have them. Pieper argues that there is justification for the liberal arts and that they are "necessary for the perfection of the whole human community."
To be continued...
Regarding the "act of knowing," Pieper contrasts the modern interpretation (the Kantian view) with the view of the philosophers of Antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) and the Scholastics (mainly Thomas Aquinas) of the Middle Ages.
Kant believed that all human knowing is exclusively discursive. It consists essentially in the act of "investigating, articulating, joining, comparing, distinguishing, abstracting, deducing, proving--all of which are so many types and methods of active mental effort." Therefore, knowing is nothing but activity in the form of work.
The ancient and medieval philosophers went a step further. They distinguished the intellect into two parts. One part was the ratio (reason) part of the intellect which is discursive as Kant believed. The second part (which Kant denied) was the simplex intuitus ("simply-looking") part of the intellect. This can be understood as "intellectual vision" or "intuition." (Pieper uses the example of the distinction between simply gazing upon a rose and knowing it and taking it apart, observing, studying it, "possessing" it in a sense.)
The ancients believed all knowing involves both. "The path of discursive reasoning is accompanied and penetrated by the intellectus' untiring vision, which is not active but passive, or better, receptive-a receptively operating power of the intellect." In this sense, the Ancients did not believe that knowing was necessarily always work.
OK, so what's the point of all this talk on the act of knowing? The point is that Kant's philosophy can be credited to the current notion of "intellectual work" and "intellectual worker." Kant believed that even the act of knowing, and doing philosophy, was only true, credible, and genuine if there was effort, labor, or work in it. Anything other than that was suspicious. This is very different from what the Ancients believed and what Christians believe, too. The receptive "intellectual vision" is what allows us to receive grace, or the gift of the Holy Spirit, for example. This doesn't go against our reason, but penetrates it, accompanies it as Thomas Aquinas said. Thus, even philosophy, and the other "liberal arts" are only useful if they are under the realm of work for Kant.
Pieper argues that this notion goes against the very and true nature of philsophy and the liberal arts. What makes them "liberal" or "free" in the first place is that they are done for their own sake and not for utilitarian purposes as Kant would have them. Pieper argues that there is justification for the liberal arts and that they are "necessary for the perfection of the whole human community."
To be continued...
Leisure: The Basis of Culture Part I
I just finished reading Josef Pieper's brilliant book, Leisure: The Basis of Culture and I wanted to share pieces of its brilliance with you. If you are looking for a thought-provoking book to read, I highly recommend this one. He divides the book into two essays. The first essay has the same title as the book and the second essay is titled, "The Philosophical Act." At first I thought, "What does philosophizing have to do with leisure?" Growing up as I like to say, "somewhere between LA and Cairo"(Yes, I am a cultural gypsy...I think we make the best Americans, but that's an entirely different topic for another blog post of the future I suppose), I thought this book was going to reaffirm my "European" sensibility (I think its quite normal and delightful that my mom and my aunt can have coffee for three hours in the middle of the day) against the work-a-holism of America as one of my priests from Spain said, "The minute I got to this country I haven't had a minute to myself." And in a way, it does. But it does so in a much deeper, and religious way. It goes more deeply into the philosophical reasons why we have become workaholics, suspicious of leisure.
Pieper wrote the book in 1947 but its relevance for today is indisputable. You could have told me it was written yesterday and I might have believed you. In Pieper's time, his contemporaries might have thought that only two years after WWII that talk "Leisure" would seem a bit childish. Pieper makes the case that "Leisure" is the foundation of Western Culture. If Western Culture is going to be re-built, the true notion of being at leisure should be resurrected. In fact, the Greek word for leisure is the origin of the Latin "scola," which is the origin for the English word, you guessed it: school! "The name for the institutions of education and learning mean leisure." I guess when you look at it that way, (as education being the foundation for Western Culture and Civilization), it doesn't seem so childish after all. Obviously the original concept of Leisure is lost to us. Pieper goes on to say that "in order to win our way to a real understanding of leisure, we must confront the contradiction that rises from our overemphasis on the world of work." Aristotle's statement, "We are not-at-leisure in order to be-at-leisure" is almost heretical today. I guess that's where we get the popular question, "Do you work to live or live to work?" But what does it really mean to be-at-leisure? One could argue that we don't have a problem with Leisure! Just look around and see how much time and money is wasted on entertainment, video-games, and other idle, useless forms of "leisure." What we need is more productivity! But in fact, these idle activities are not what Pieper, the Greek Philosophers and the Medieval Scholastics meant at all by Leisure. To help us understand, Pieper reminds us that the Aristotelian concept of Leisure was the foundation for the Christian concept of the "contemplative life." However, to really understand Leisure we must look into the modern valuation of the work and further dig "more deeply to the very roots of a philosophical and theological understanding of the human person." In short, what does it mean to be human?
To be continued...
Pieper wrote the book in 1947 but its relevance for today is indisputable. You could have told me it was written yesterday and I might have believed you. In Pieper's time, his contemporaries might have thought that only two years after WWII that talk "Leisure" would seem a bit childish. Pieper makes the case that "Leisure" is the foundation of Western Culture. If Western Culture is going to be re-built, the true notion of being at leisure should be resurrected. In fact, the Greek word for leisure is the origin of the Latin "scola," which is the origin for the English word, you guessed it: school! "The name for the institutions of education and learning mean leisure." I guess when you look at it that way, (as education being the foundation for Western Culture and Civilization), it doesn't seem so childish after all. Obviously the original concept of Leisure is lost to us. Pieper goes on to say that "in order to win our way to a real understanding of leisure, we must confront the contradiction that rises from our overemphasis on the world of work." Aristotle's statement, "We are not-at-leisure in order to be-at-leisure" is almost heretical today. I guess that's where we get the popular question, "Do you work to live or live to work?" But what does it really mean to be-at-leisure? One could argue that we don't have a problem with Leisure! Just look around and see how much time and money is wasted on entertainment, video-games, and other idle, useless forms of "leisure." What we need is more productivity! But in fact, these idle activities are not what Pieper, the Greek Philosophers and the Medieval Scholastics meant at all by Leisure. To help us understand, Pieper reminds us that the Aristotelian concept of Leisure was the foundation for the Christian concept of the "contemplative life." However, to really understand Leisure we must look into the modern valuation of the work and further dig "more deeply to the very roots of a philosophical and theological understanding of the human person." In short, what does it mean to be human?
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
