On the Brattish Nature of My Car

Yes, it's true, Maybellene and I are no more. The cost of maintaining such an impractical automobile for someone my age and professional status was just to difficult. Though I will probably won't have such a chimerical car for quite some time again, it was fun for the year or so, but I needed practical. Options were slim, and they were made even more limited by the fact that the car had to be something I could afford a monthly payment for, as well as monthly gas. So really, I wasn't choosing the car; rather, this was a case in which the car really chose me: a 2010 Ford Focus S.

Maybellene's sleek black body styling is traded for a spoiled-rotten, candy red. The melodious stereo system has been traded for an unbalanced racket. The painless, "hands-off", automatic-manual gear box has been replaced with the excruciating, "hands-pulling-out-hair", manual gear box. The saucy red leather interior has been swapped for a grumpy grey, poly-fiber blend. At first glance, you'd think this car was a monumental letdown, but practical is as practical does and a man's gotta grow up sometime...

But as soon as I got into the car, I seriously doubted that I was heading in that direction. Reaching into the box of Maybellene's former belongings, I pulled out a few choice CDs that might console me on my grave loss. To my surprise, none of them were fitting into the slot. A CD had been left in the car by the previous owner. I tried to eject it to see what it was, but the CD would not come forth at my command. After taking out an initial moment of intense frustration on the steering wheel, I was struck by an immense stroke of genius: no greater opportunity than this could be afforded to learn about the car's previous owner. Immediately, my momentary rage melted into the most engaged curiosity and I played the CD.

What met my ears was the most heinous collection of party rock I'd ever heard, with songs by "artists" such as Ludacris and Ke$ha (and judging by the sound quality, it was likely pirated). Furthermore, they weren't even the songs you heard on the radio; all of them were mediocre, B-side quality. Indeed, this was a juicy find, and my mind began to notice other telling personality traits.

The previous owner (rather, the owner's parents) had installed an "M-Key" device offered by Ford which prevents the driver from doing certain things with the car that some might consider dangerous. The device limits how high the radio's volume can be set. Also, this functionality will turn off any audio in the car if the driver fails to buckle his seat belt. But to top it off, the device will warn you with a noise if the car approaches 75 mph and will automatically apply the brakes to keep the driver from going anything over 80 mph.

Upon an initial overview of the car, I noticed that there was a floor pad missing from the driver's side of the car. Now, I'm not one to speculate too far into things, but I would certainly like an explanation as to why a floor pad, specifically made for this car model is missing. All the others are present, but I find it very intriguing that the the one missing is the driver's.

After mentioning these findings to the respectable salesman who sold me the car and offering my speculative conclusions, he told me that the car's previous bumper stickers would most certainly support my suspicions. Before the car came into my possession, there had been bumper stickers for the University of Missouri - St. Louis, a commuter college, and a "rainbow" awareness ribbon.

With these facts in hand, I was now able to make some claims regarding the previous owner of the car. The first, and most obvious fact, was that the previous owner had been a girl, most likely a student of the commuter college to which the bumper sticker denoted. The car was purchased new by her parents, as  indicated by the activated M-Key functionality. Certainly, she was an irresponsible child and not trusted at all by her parents, and it is very likely that in her fecklessness, she had totalled her previous car, hence the new car with the overkill M-Key security features. Also, it's possible that the manual transmission was selected by the parent's to discourage texting-and-driving, a well-known practice among girls.

The awareness bumper sticker leaves no mystery as to the secular leanings of the girl's worldview and the forever-stuck CD reinforces this worldly hypothesis. The CDs song selection also makes some interesting suggestions. The first song on the CD was by St. Louis-native, Nelly, and is titled "Hey Porsche". A link to the lyrics can be found here, as they are too vile to post on this respectable blog. Also, the fact that the songs are less popular than the big hits of these mainstream artists suggests that she might have a hipster streak about her. However, after careful consideration, I concluded that a hipster girl would never listen to mainstream artists at all, so it is most probable that the previous owner just had terrible taste in music.

The only missing piece to explain now is the missing driver's side floor mat. Relying on the conclusions we've already made, it seems logical that while driving home after a long night of partying at her girlfriends' house, the owner vomited on the floor at a stop light to relieve her stomach of the gratuitous quantities of McCormick's vodka and Jack Daniel's whiskey. Unable to clean it without her parent's noticing, she threw the mat into a nearby dumpster and Fe-breezed the car, effectively eliminating the odor and the mess.

Therefore, the previous owner of the car was surely an upper middle-class, blonde, spoiled, sorority brat with the most terrible taste in music and a high number of supremely bad life-choices. It is for this reason, that I have named the car, Brittany. These deductions make me realize the subtly colorful character of an otherwise typically practical car, and though she's not the fiery temptress that Maybellene was, she's definitely got spunk: and I like her spunk.

The Highest Human Science: III. The Pre-Socratics

This is a post from the series, "The Highest Human Science". Click here for a complete list of all posts in the series.

 Finally! The Greeks figure it out that rational thought is the proper exercise for Man's reason. It's no surprise, actually, that the nation that would sire one of the worlds most delicious entrees would also produce such intellectual superiority (I am, of course, speaking of the gyro which is pictured below on a soft pita with tzatziki sauce and garnishment). The Greeks shed the burden of the ritualistic imposition created by religion, just as the shed all their clothes before competing in the Olympic games (which they also created). Truly, this was a nation of intellectual giants.

NOT Ancient Grease

Ok, well, maybe the guys we're going to talk about today weren't the most accurate in their theories, but credit must be given where it's due: these guys used their heads as best as they could and they paved the way for their countrymen to become some of the biggest intellectual giants of all time. It all began around the 6th or 7th century B.C. The Greeks were mostly concerned with public affairs and political matters, but around this period, Man's reason would soon be used for scientific purposes and asking the big questions about life, purpose, and meaning.

Beginnings were small, however, and the first question that came to mind was the one every child asks: what is this made of? And just as a child's answers are rather amusing, so were the answers proposed by the 'Pre-Socratic' philosophers. Thales, for example, believed that since moisture was the nourishment of all living bodies, water must be the substance of which everything consists. On the other hand, Anaximenes believed this substance was air. Further, Heraclitus believed it was fire, and still, Anaximander believed it was the "boundless" or indeterminate. Essentially, these brave intellectuals were trying to answer the question of material cause according to theories of materialistic monism, or the theory that everything is materially made up of one substance.

The Gyro

 Despite the apparent silliness of the pre-Socratics, three philosophers of the era distinguished themselves as great and innovative thinkers in the open ocean of rational thought. Heraclitus, also mentioned above, put forth the distinctly unique thought that reality is change or becoming. This is best explained by the notion that nothing is what it was a split-second before. The very fact that you have an interaction with an object, changes something about that object. However, the contradiction to this thought is in admitting that to some degree, things must stay the same in certain respects. A large rock doesn't change much under one gust of wind, though under by many years, it may change the entire appearance of the rock. So to some degree, a rational man must maintain that an object stays the same (I don't become a completely different person when I eat a gyro, which coincidentally, I would love to be doing right about now). Therefore, in the same instant, something is both changing constantly (the thing itself) and not changing at all (because through change, it isn't a "something"). Of course, this is blatantly contradictory and though an interesting thought, is now not worth any more discussion here.

The Material Monist Lineup, from left: Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Anaximander

The next thinker of note is Democritus. His philosophy can be characterized as looking for the one constant thing in the world of flux and change theorized by Heraclitus. The void was the solution to this riddle, and since it was indeed "nothing", it both existed and did not exist. The substance that did exist in the void, the plenum, was made of indivisible particles called "atoms" (though this is the origin of the name, these are very different from the the modern notion of atoms). Using this framework, he proceeded to explain that the organization of the universe was arrived at though a series of coincidental and lucky circumstances. This was built upon the notion that events are purely mechanical and determinant; therefore, the fact that a particle collides a certain way with another is due to laws of physics, whereas the reason why both particles were moving in those particular directions to begin with is purely random and dictated only by chance. This makes the fallacious assumption that just because we cannot see the first cause of a particle moving in a particular direction (just like we can see and predict the result of a collision, due to the laws of physics),

Anaxagoras however had probably one of the most uniquely insightful, though incorrect attempts at explaining the ever-changing world. His belief that something could not become something it did not possess within it already. For example, the physical qualities of a tree, such as hardness of back, greenness of leave, etc., must all be properties contained within the seed. Furthermore, the material causes of that tree (e.g. bark, leaves, wood, etc.) must all be contained within that see as well. How else was it possible that the seed should become a tree? Or, better yet, bread contains every element of bone, blood, and flesh that it will eventually dissolve into when it nourishes the human body (that'll make you think twice about eating out again). Granted, this idea is pretty silly; however, it was a step in the right direction of understanding and taking into account the natures of actuality and potentiality which are integral to understanding Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy.

The Highest Human Science: II. Pre-Philosophical Thought

This is a post from the series, "The Highest Human Science". Click here for a complete list of all posts in the series.

This flippin' bonkers scene from "The Matrix" is brought to you by: IDEALISM!

 One of the most popular action films of all time, "The Matrix" (1999) has been critically acclaimed for its original and captivating story. For those who haven't seen the film, it is about a world in which the "real world" you experience is not actually real. Instead, the entire human populations is plugged into one massive super computer via a prehistoric USB connection in the base of the neck, whilst being suspended in a vat of jelly. This is the general premise of the film and, yes, it makes for some exciting science fiction. If you haven't seen it, I can't recommend it enough because it truly revolutionized the way films are made (the sequels, I could do without).

Though I said this was an original story, it's true that many  philosophers, most notable Renee Descartes, suggested that our senses may not be entirely trustworthy. His philosophy's foundation was to doubt everything and rebuild our rational structure from the certain truths while leaving out the falsehoods, almost like overturning an apple cart of ripe and rotten apples, so as to pick up the good apples and leave the rotten ones on the ground and out of the cart. It was in this process that he wrote the now-famous (or infamous) phrase, Cogito ego sum ("I think, therefore I am") in which he claims to have proven his own existence after doubting it momentarily. (Descartes was pretty hardcore about this doubting thing) But what was truly revolutionary about the Matrix was that with the dawn of the digital age, it put forth a world in which there might be a very good reason to doubt what we see, taste, smell, touch, and hear.

Descartes upset the apple cart and this donkey

Too bad it's all a bunch of nonsense. Though entertaining for a science fiction film to speculate upon, it is purely fictional in its expression of ideas. This may sound harsh, but although philosophy specializes in the exercise of human reason, man is not always fully rational, so he is not always correct in the conclusions he draws. Unfortunately, rational thought has a spotty history, and along the way, many mistakes have been made, leading to the ruin of entire civilizations. Even today, despite our civilization's hyper-intensive focus on the supreme authority of the natural sciences, rational errors are rampant everywhere you look: in religions, in politics, and most certainly in ethics.

Early "pre-philosophical" thought was frequently confused as being rooted in religious beliefs and practices. The human wisdom studied in philosophy was mingled with sacred traditions and practices such that it was no longer rooted in human reason. Rather, it took its foundations in religious traditions of ancient cultures, and not in the exercise of human reason, independent of religion. Essentially, human reason had little or no part in informing the civilization's philosophy.

One such mistake is the concept of dualism, the idea that two eternal and uncreated principles of Good and Evil fight in a never-ending cosmic struggle. It is typically commonly used as an answer to the problem of evil, and was the core belief of the Persian culture, specifically in the beliefs of Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism. The hope was to explain why good and evil are able to coexist in the world; however, the erroneous implication of dualism is that evil is natural to the world, (as opposed to the Christian understanding in which evil is a privation of good). This leads to the conclusion that there are created beings that are evil by their very nature.

 

A musical summary of pantheism as taught/sung in Disney's Pocahontas

The concept of pantheism is another such confusion. Pantheism is the idea that God is comprised of everything in the universe: every being, every substance shares equally in the fullness of the divine being. Problem with this is that there leaves no distinction between creator and creation, and this completely contradicts the obvious multiplicity of distinct and seemingly independent beings. Brahmanism (or Hinduism) is one of the primary culprits of this error, though they go further and explain away the apparent multiplicity by saying that the world is actually an evil illusion (an idea known as idealism) and one must detach from it, striving always to lose one's role in the deceitful multiplicity. Buddhism, an off-shoot of Brahman philosophy in some respects, goes so far as to claim that not only the possession of individuality is an evil, but the very existence of the soul is an evil.

This short account of pre-philosophical errors is by no means exhaustive. We will examine many other errors in thought in future posts, but this will serve for now as a high-level overview of a few of the oldest intellectual errors. The main purpose of our dive into the weirdness of what the human mind can conceive was to prove that though these ideas may be worthy of science fiction, they're not worthy of much else...

Except for this...

 *Adapted from Jacques Maritain's book, "An Introduction to Philosophy" (trans. by E.I. Watkin)

The Highest Human Science: I. Introduction

Jacques Maritain

This is a post from the series, "The Highest Human Science". Click here for a complete list of all posts in the series.

In 1917, the French Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, wrote in his Elements de Philosophie (Introduction to Philosophy) that "philosophy... is the sovereign science. Therefore, it is competent to judge every other human science, rejecting as false every scientific hypothesis which contradicts its own results." By this, Maritain is claiming that every other human study which is governed by reason is ultimately subject to the study of reason itself, which is none other than philosophy.

In today's culture, philosophy is seen as boring, a joke, or as excellent screenplay material for the latest science fiction films, such as "The Matrix" and "Minority Report". In liberal arts universities, it's a core requirement, though the reason why it's a requirement is often forgotten. It appears, more often than not, that philosophy is included in these curriculums to simply make students aware of many different way to view the world, but without any guidance as to which ones should be taken seriously and which ones should be discarded into the dump heap of nonsense.

But this is to completely miss the point of philosophy, and Maritain demonstrates the correct understanding with the statement I just quoted above. In the modern desire for self-autonomy, each human study (he uses the term "science", but to distinguish from the strictly natural sciences, I will use "human study") has claimed sole authority over every aspect of its domain. In the case of fine arts, artists have defined their work as self-expressive and reflective of subjective passions or ideas. They no longer seek to inform themselves of what "good" art consists and instead determine that it must be anything and everything that comes from the artist, a classically self-absorbed notion that is typical of the vain. 

The Matrix: because the "bullet stop" trick just isn't possible without philosophy

In other cases, some studies not only claim complete dominion over their subject matter, but plot to overthrow the authority of other fields of study. The natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) assert that their studies directly nullify the authority that theology possesses over its subject matter, such as using scientific evidence to disprove the existence of God. Psychology and many other social sciences, have also been hijacked by this mentality, using wildly inappropriate extrapolative methods to reduce the immaterial, yet real human soul to nothing but determinate chemical interactions in the material organ of the brain.

Human studies need authority to guide them in the right direction. If they can be held accountable to no authority, then the study will contradict itself and break down into nonsense. Philosophy is primarily concerned with the study of human reason, therefore it establishes the infrastructure that makes every other study possible. For example, the scientific method is based on a form of logic (philosophy's domain) called "inductive reasoning". It's a very powerful short hand method of reasoning, but it remains fatally flawed in the sense that no matter how many times you verify your hypothesis, you cannot guarantee with 100% certainty that it is correct.

So why do we study philosophy? We study philosophy because it is solely devoted to the study of human reason, and since every human study is based on human reason, philosophy has it's "fingers in every pie", so to speak. Though it allows physics to judge its own study by principles of physics, it is responsible for wielding authority over the principles of philosophy on which physics and every other human study depends. It keeps the other studies "honest" in their intellectual endeavors and acts like referee in in interdisciplinary disputes.

Though knowing philosophy won't make a student an expert in any one field of human study (except maybe philosophy), it empowers the student to judge the validity of a study's conclusions. In conversation, the student of philosophy can participate in any study, and armed with the understanding of the very infrastructure of human reasoning, he can independently judge and remain intellectually critical of every other study. By "intellectual criticism" I'm not talking about snobbish remarks or obnoxious policing, but there are many fields of human study that are largely without a formal education in philosophical principles, so they make all kinds of logical errors in their study. The student needs to be able to actively discern the truth of a conclusion reached in a study and judge whether or not this agrees with reason.

That is why I have begun this series, entitled "The Highest Human Science". I will be drawing most of the source material from Maritain's "Introduction to Philosophy", which is an excellent guide to understanding the basics of philosophical study, but there will occasionally be other sources sprinkled here and there as we go. Stay tuned into the blog for upcoming posts in this series! I end this introduction post with one of the most crucially informative philosophy videos ever.

*Adapted from Jacques Maritain's book, "An Introduction to Philosophy" (trans. by E.I. Watkin)

The Science of Santa Claus

As a high school junior in physics class, we were released from classes for Christmas break with a short scientific analysis of the plausibility of Santa Claus. I admit, slightly shamefully, I wish I had the personality to be able to come up with these because I really quite enjoy these sorts of reality checks. Alas, I did not come up with this one, but I repost it for your reading pleasure from another website, credited below:

No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn’t (appear) to handle Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total — 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that is 91.9 million homes. One presumes there’s at least one good child in each.

Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75½ million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa’s sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest manmade vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second — a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized Lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN times their normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload — not even counting the weight of the sleigh — to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison — this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance — this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth’s atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer with absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

 From http://www.chainreactionbicycles.com/santaclaus.htm 

My conclusion to all this: it's more plausible that God became man, remaining both fully God and fully man, and that a virgin conceived this child and gave birth to him, all throughout this process remaining a virgin, than Santa Claus existing.

Why Sex is Meant For Marriage, Pt. 2 "Women"

The point was raised in a comment on my first post concerning sex and its proper context, marriage, that has prompted this follow-up post. The claim was that my argument was from the perspective of a man and, therefore, I had only shown that it was right for man to save sex and sexual acts for marriage.

But what about women? Do the same principles apply for women as they do for men? This was a bit trickier for me, a man, to tackle with an argument from experience. I have met women and I have dated women, but I have never been a woman. However, I will draw on from what experience I have to prove in an argument complementary to my first that sex and sexual acts are meant for marriage according to the healthy feminine nature.

First, there some differences between the masculine and feminine natures. These are necessary to point out to show that my first argument in my previous post does not really apply well to women, but more importantly, to outline the challenges unique to a woman. I have often heard it said that men are more logically based than women, and that women can often allow emotion to "overrule their reason". I believe this to be an unfair characterization because it frames women as irrational beings (albeit, at times). In my opinion, it would be more accurate to say that the feminine nature generally favors seeking empathetic understanding with others as opposed to logical agreement. This method of communication can create a deeper connection between two people than a simple "agreement of facts" can. For conciseness though, I claim that men tend to express themselves in logical terms, and women tend to express themselves in terms of their emotional connection to a situation, person, etc.

All the other terms and premises from my previous post apply, such as exclusive uncommitted relationship. If you need a refresher on that one and others, click here.

Ok, now suppose we take the same couple that we considered in my first post in an exclusive uncommitted relationship. As sex and activities leading to sex are frequent, the woman will become charged with emotional stimulation (similar to how the man is physically stimulated). The act is physically pleasant, but the woman primarily draws on the emotional closeness that she feels towards the man. As the emotional attachment grows stronger, the woman needs to be constantly assured of the man's affections for her (which can cause heightened expectations on the man, thus straining the relationship). Ultimately, the exclusive uncommitted relationship is bound to end or see serious hardship. If it ends, regardless of who initiates the break up, the woman will be forced to annihilate the vast emotional bond that she so dearly invested herself in.

The sexual act and acts leading to it inevitably create an emotional bond between the man and the woman. This is a sacred trust that is necessary to being together forever; to invest in and empathize with the joys and sorrows of the other. It is so tight-knit that were it to be broken, both would suffer excruciating emotional turmoil. The sexual act and other associated activities lead to one of two outcomes: (A) a loving, lasting emotional attachment between a man and a woman that allows them to enjoy together emotional sunshine and weather together emotional darkness, or (B) the woman succumbs to insecurity and despair as she searches for a full, lasting emotional commitment in vain.

Considering the path (A), just as with the argument from the masculine perspective, I do not think this option is available to those in an exclusive uncommitted relationship. As soon as the woman consents to any activity leading to sex, she has forsaken, to some degree, her essential dignity as a woman. It is a woman's responsibility, especially in this day and age, to command respect from men by holding them to honorable standards. Women can have, if they choose, a seductive power over men's reason. The feminine nature confounds his reason and ignites his passions. In my experience, this is not a reciprocal attractions, meaning, men do not have this same seductive power over women. (James Bond does not count because he was engineered specifically to give men the notion that they too could make women swoon over them; it doesn't happen) Women, in my experience, may fall for a guy, but they are never as without their wits as a man is before a woman. Thus, in the exclusive uncommitted relationship, the woman has the reigns of Reason and must show the man that she demands his respect and his full commitment to her. Without this respect, that emotional bond will not properly form.

In the case of (B), a woman who has engaged in many sexually active relationships will begin to wonder either what was wrong with the men she has dated or, my more frequent experience, what is wrong with herself. In the pornographic culture that we live in, there is an enormous pressure on women to be flawless. Each successive break up and emotional PTSD will be negotiated with thoughts that she just needs to lose more weight, get plastic surgery, etc. This goes hand-in-hand with the (B) scenario outlined in my first argument. Men will become more critical of their woman's appearance and ultimately, their partner's physical appearance will not be enough for him. A woman will be able to sense this acutely, especially if she is aware of any unfaithful relationships or pornography that the man is engaged in. This will only increase her sense of insecurity. With increasing insecurity, she will steadily set her sights lower and lower and entrust herself to more abusive and baser men, unable to believe that she is worth anything higher. If all her future relationships engage in sexual acts, she will be aware constantly of her physical appearance and remain in deep insecurity regarding her man's expectations and, more importantly, her worthiness of respect.

The repeated "high-stakes" emotional investment for a woman in a sexually active relationship will leave deep scares on her self-esteem, making it difficult for her to take her dignified place as an equal partner in a lasting relationship. A woman must not underestimate the power she has over a man; and it is this power that she must wield responsibly or forfeit it to the man's physical appetites. If a woman does not pick up this charge, then it becomes very difficult for a man to control his passions in the relationship. Though he is no less responsible for reigning in his passions, no man should associate with a woman who fails to hold him accountable for them, and no woman should associate with a man who fails to respect her according to her dignity, body and soul.

Authors Note: Ok, there it is. This is all based on my experiences and careful thought, but it is by no means infallible, whatsoever (a deep contrast to my other writings ;) just kidding) Whatever your thoughts, man or woman, please comment. This is a forum for serious discussion and I'll be the first to submit myself to guidance in this area.

Why Sex is Meant For Marriage, Pt. 1 "Men"

As a philosopher, I am always looking for rational explanations to things. I have devised my own rational system (some would call it a "philosophy") and I feel compelled to place everything I experience into that system as best as I can. I am also a man of faith, but there is something sweetly gratifying about coming to a reasonable conclusion based on one's experiences. In this process, I feel like I'm progressing somewhere and my sincere and thoughtful observation of the world is moving me towards that goal. It's really awesome, also, to receive divine revelation in one's prayer because you receive the answer without knowing how that answer was arrived at rationally. It is a rational answer (discrediting those who claim faith is irrational), but the proof to how one comes up with that solution can remain a mystery to us for some time. Still, I like to come to the answer on my own, if I can.

The thought occurred to me that the reason why sex is meant for marriage is because sexual intercourse and the intimate, affectionate acts that lead to up to it are ordered to married commitment.

Consider a man in an "uncommitted" relationship, meaning he has a girlfriend. Personal opinion: if a man and a woman are dating, that relationship cannot be healthy unless they are exclusively uncommitted to one another (and I know people define "dating differently, but I consider this goes for any form of romantic relationship other than marriage). "Exclusive" in the fact that that both parties are not "looking around" romantically (i.e. they have chosen to focus their romantic interests on this one person), and "Uncommitted" in the sense that this dating relationship is not meant as a long-term commitment (just a lead-in to marriage) and the courtship or dating arrangement can be broken at any time by either party for any reason, good or bad. I believe this also includes the period of engagement, and that the only difference between dating/courtship and engagement is that a man and a woman are preparing explicitly for marriage. The intention of a commitment has been spoken, but they still have not bound themselves morally to one another. (which is my assumption of those in marriage, albeit not a very good assumption for this culture)

Also, if you commit yourself to someone, I assume that you commit yourself to the whole of them. I do not think it's even worth discussing the execrable individual who would only commit themselves only to a human being's physical presence. So you make a commitment to another person, body and soul, because you make the free and actively conscious choice to love them.

Ok, now that I've defined most of my terms, suppose sexual intercourse is a frequent practice in this particular exclusively uncommitted relationship. Frequent physical stimulation can condition a man to expect psychologically that level and frequency of physical stimulation on a regular basis. Any increase in this status quo may create an increase in expectation, but any decrease will either be met with a painful expectation readjustment process for the man or a search for sexual gratification elsewhere (explained below).

In the case of sexual acts, a man and a woman are at their most vulnerable. They are "getting to know" (in the Biblical sense) one another in the most vulnerable and intimate way possible. It is like a shared secret that only the two of you know. And you both must promise never to tell another soul. It's not only a physical secret, but an emotional and spiritual secret that is beyond words. And it is in keeping that secret that there lies the sacred commitment. It is a very fine line (especially in the present culture) between (A) considering this vulnerable intimacy a sacred thing that a man is charged with the duty to protect and care for, or (B) the alternative, claiming ownership of it for his own ends and taking pleasure in it for its own sake.

It is impossible for the former option (A) to be selected in an exclusively uncommitted relationship because the man is purporting to commit and learning to commit at the same time. The man cannot commit to protect and venerate that which he has not proven himself capable of protecting and venerating. In other words, he cannot give what he does not have: recognition and respect for the woman's sacred honor. Dissenters' counterargument: this "proving" and "committing" times do not have to correspond to or have anything to do with when/if the couple gets married. My Response: for anything involving temptation and basic human urges, the justification of self-autonomy has been proven time after time to be the exact thing that leads man to lose his autonomy; I submit myself to authority on this.

If the latter (B) is chosen, a great attention to the woman's physical details will arise in the soul of the man. He will begin to focus on those physical qualities that excite him, at the expense of considering and cherishing the woman as a whole human being. If the relationship continues like this, he will cease to have a fixation with this specific woman's physical qualities and will begin to center his attention on those same physical qualities, but this time, of women in general (i.e. forsaking the beauty of her face and focusing on the various beautiful qualities of women's faces in general), turning to unfaithful relationships and pornography (in all-to-frequent worse-case scenarios) to slake his demand of physical stimulation, mentioned above. All of this might be an entirely subconscious reaction, but nevertheless, its reality becomes painfully apparent if one studies how the man treats the woman when such pleasant affections are not exchanged when he desires them.

However, although marriage makes (A) truly possible, it does not magically make (B) an impossible circumstance to find in a marriage. Marriages in these modern times are constantly assaulted by these temptations and many fail to weather the difficulties. However, the commitment can always be re-realized and made again and again as long as the spirit is willing.

All this comes about when men and women fail to acknowledge the gravity of the affections they show one another, whether it be the act of sex itself or acts that are intrinsically ordered to and end in the sexual act. I claim that (A) is impossible in an unmarried state and if you find the consequences of (B) to be undesirable, then unless there are alternatives I am unaware of, sex and acts leading to sex are meant for marriage because marriage is a relationship of complete commitment.

The Human Good

"Aristotle with a bust of Homer" by Rembrandt 

There is no other individual who has had such a profound and lasting impact on my academic development as Aristotle. I chose to center my philosophy major electives on this great thinker of ancient times because of his insight and perception into the nature of human beings. A biologist by discipline, he based his philosophy on generally observed principles, then logically derived a specific conclusion, a process known as deductive reasoning. Though Plato's philosophy reigned supreme for most of the history of the early Catholic Church, St. Thomas Aquinas was responsible for reviving interest in Aristotle's writings.

In my opinion, the most timeless work of Aristotle is his Nicomachean Ethics. I've read this work countless times and each time, I seem to learn something new. But of all the works' contents, the proof and definition of the human good stands alone in depth of insight.

At the beginning of the work, Aristotle claims that our desires all aim to achieve some particular good (for if the didn't, we would have no motivation to obtain goods; desires motivate us to "goods", loosely defined). And as there are a hierarchy of desires, there is a hierarchy of goods, necessarily leaving one good for the sake of which we do everything in life. So there's one thing that everybody wants the most and Aristotle calls this thing eudaimonia. Though eudaimonia was a topic of much debate in the ancient world, Aristotle defines it as "a flourishing, completeness" of a human life. The word "happiness" has often been used as a shortcut to describe eudaimonia, but a modern understanding of "happiness" should be avoided.

So what exactly constitutes eudaimonia (herein referred to as "happiness", for simplicity's sake)? As mentioned above, one could say that is the chief good. Rather, it is the chief good of man (it would be ridiculous to claim the the chief good was the same for every thing). So what is the chief good of man? Aristotle suggests that it lies in determining the function of man: what man is for. For example, we say that for a painter, his function is to paint, and considered as a painter, painting is thought to be his good. Thus, if man is to have a chief good, man must have a function.

To discover what man's function is, Aristotle considers what is unique to man. Each tool in a tool chest is uniquely shaped and formed to perform a certain function (pounding, screwing, prying, etc.), and after careful inspection of the shape of each tool and by noticing unique features, we can determine what each tool is supposed do. Similarly, an investigation into the unique features of man will reveal what his function is. Living/growing/nourishment/reproduction are features of man, but they are also shared with plants, therefore, not unique to man. Locomotion/sensation/perception are features of man, but they are also shared with animals, therefore, also not unique to man.

So what is left is man's simultaneous obedience and possession of reason and the exercising of rational thought. This, Aristotle collectively refers to as rational activity, and it is the human function. And the chief good of man lies in the performance of that function, rational activity.

Furthermore, because we're talking in terms of goods and hierarchy of goods, it's important to take note of degrees of good. If rational activity is man's function, and if man's function points to what the chief good of man might be, then the chief good of man must be the best performance of his function. Returning to the example of the painter, we would say that a painter is a "good painter" if he performs the activity of painting well. And we would say that he is an "excellent painter" if he performed the activity of painting to the highest degree of proficiency ("excellent" referring to a "goodness in the highest degree"). Similarly, we would say a man is a good man if he performs his function, rational activity, well. Speaking further, we would say that a man is an excellent man if he performs rational activity excellently. And the excellent performance of rational activity, Aristotle calls virtue.

Therefore, the chief good of man is the practice of virtue, excellent rational activity.