The Highest Human Science: VI. Aristotle

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

It has been quite some time since I last posted to this series, but I have returned to it, drawn by the most important (and my favorite) chapter of it all. Thus far, we have seen Man's attempts at making sense of the confounding world in which he lives. These studies led him to ask the questions around the material and immaterial compositions of things, the purpose of reason, and the search for truth.

Poised and prepared to give the course of human wisdom one last mighty turn, Aristotle, a resident alien of Athens and a student of Plato, accepted the challenge of traversing the intellectual mountain that even his masters before him were unable to navigate, error-free. He took all of the good conclusions and thoughts from the teaching of Socrates, Plato, and the other noteworthy philosophers and purified them of their errors, solidifying a reality for the human intellect to comprehend. With each piece in it's proper place, he would create the true philosophy, one which if all basic principles were properly understood, would be the most excellent starting point for mankind's intellect.

A biologist by study, Aristotle's teachings and writings appeal to the practical mind and those for whom primary understand comes from their senses and experience. He did not abstract often, and applied his reason to his experiences and using fundamental philosophical principles, explained the natural world around him. In that sense, his philosophy remains perfectly balanced between the appeal to the sense and the consideration of immaterial, unchanging philosophical principles.

It is very difficult to know where to start with Aristotle, since his worldview is so tightly knit and coherent that various branches of the main shoot will often return and be interwoven with other topics of his study. 

Probably the best place to begin would be the fundamental basis on which his principles differed from Plato, his instructor. Plato's theory of substance and form had them separate: matter existed here on earth, imperfect and perceivable to the senses, while the form of a thing resided in the heavens and is the goal of our contemplation. Aristotle's view, on the contrary, places the form and matter of a thing in same entity. This dispelled the thought that the world around us was only a deception of reality and instead, established that the world around us was indeed reality.

To aid in our understanding of this, we will consider the example from the previous post of a glass of wine. It's true that in attempting to determine the essence of wine, we will arrive at an understanding of the form. But instead of each glass of wine suggesting to our intellects that there is some perfectly Wine form in heaven (according to Plato), our reason perceives a "trend" in individual physical manifestations of one idea. Therefore, a glass of wine doesn't help us to know what the perfect heavenly form is (suggested by Plato), it helps us to determine what the glass of wine itself actually is. The "matter" of wine (sugars, proteins, alcohol, etc.) all could take any other form, but the fact that the matter takes the "form" of wine is something present abstractly, though tangibly in the organization of these material ingredients to present to our senses "wine", in both form and matter (as opposed to "bread" or "wood").

In categorizing the substance and accident of a thing, Aristotle identified the two of his four "causes": the formal cause and the material cause. All together, the four causes answer the questions of "why" a thing is the way it is. The third cause is the efficient cause, which is the motivator of change within the thing. For example, the combination of nutrition in a child and the natural tendencies of his body is the efficient cause of his growth. The fourth and final cause is just that: the final cause. It is that which is the end or natural destination of the thing; it is that for the sake of which the being exists.

With this notion, Aristotle's metaphysics laid the groundwork and justification for his ethics; since the ideas we have in our heads come from our senses, it is our job to form the correct ideas from what our senses present to us. Although our understanding may err, our senses, if they be not defective, never lie. Having established that the physical world around us is a reliable source of information, Aristotle proceeds to answer the question of what man "must do" by demonstrating the "good" of man. It is towards the pursuit of this good that all of man's actions should be directed, and this good is virtue. I won't go into too much detail on this here, but you can find a more detailed study of this on one of my previous posts, "The Human Good".

In determining the good of one man, Aristotle deals with the good of all men in his Politics. His method stems from beginning with those foundations of politics that do not stem from "deliberate choice", namely that between husband and wife or master and slave. Neither can subsist without the other and so this is a necessary community. From this, Aristotle expands to a household, which includes children and servants, then to a series of households to form a village or colony.

The point of self-sufficiency is where Aristotle draws the line of what was known in ancient Greece as the polis or "city-state". The city-state comes into existence for the sake of existence and is the necessary end of the primal relationships between man and woman, master and slave. In this way, Aristotle claims that the polis is a natural organization, which makes man, by nature, a political animal.

Though I have only barely scratched the surface of the breadth of Aristotle's intellectual genius, I hope the reader has retained at least a preliminary impression of Aristotle's contribution to the study of human reason and wisdom. It seemed difficult to even hope that the human race would be so graced with the blessing of just one such intellectually masterful man; however, with the teachings of Jesus Christ (approximately 300 years after Aristotle) and the addition of this divine perspective, the study of human reason would need some finishing touches before all was said and done...

Bernie Mac and the Inordinate National Concern

The real Bernie Mac

Stepping off my connecting flight from Kansas City to Charlotte, NC en route to Cleveland, I entered the men's bathroom to perform my necessaries. As I made my way through the door, I almost froze with shock as I thought I was looking at Bernie Mac (God rest his soul) or a very close relative of his. From crazy hair to comical smile, I was certain that he could've made a career being a Mac-alike. It hadn't occurred to me why he was there in his airport uniform, but I made my way to the urinal to fulfill my purpose.

Then, the man who looked like Bernie Mac began to talk to the patrons of the men's restroom. "How are you all doing today? Early? Man, you've gotta wake up with a smile! Since 4 am? Well, I was up by then too! I just want to see everyone smile. How're you doing, sir? I'm good, I'm good, I don't complain. Because nobody listens. How're you doing, sir? Oh, can I help you with that? Don't want you to have any trouble carrying anything and hurting yourself! Alright, alright..." Without trying to be too gratuitous with my details, this sort of upfront chatter was making my bladder very shy, standing before the urinal.

Was the airport paying this guy? It all seemed very invasive and awkward, since the unspoken rule in men's bathroom is that everything should be left unspoken. I was reminded of my similar apprehension when I was pulled aside twice to have my bags checked before getting on to my previous flight. I had been immediately uncomfortable at the thought of being poked and prodded like you hear on all the news stories. Gee, couldn't Bernie Mac just stop talking and let a guy tinkle in peace? I half-expected him with his overly-enthusiastic attitude to give ever man trying to take a whiz in the row of urinals a hearty "good game" butt slap to encourage excellent urination.

This man's identity has been cleverly concealed
by the photographer's crappy iPhone camera

Speaking of the news, I never watch it, but the airport TVs were full of them, all playing one news program or another. The interesting thing was that they were all national network news programs: not local new. National news has absorbed the consciousness of many people. From the presidential elections to the latest disaster, everyone wants to know what's going on around the country. What is Congress fouling up now? How's the stock market doing? What's the latest news with big business? While waiting for my second plane, a man standing in the middle of the gate's sitting area spoke loudly about his company's business strategy and expansion plans, as if to make a big scene of his importance. It was quite comical, and I even snuck a picture, but he seriously was wholly absorbed with global business.

This, I think can be applied to the Hollywood scene as well. Programs like TMZ have made all kinds of money off of gossip and scoop stories on the lives of the "rich and famous". Some people follow their lives more closely than they follow those of their children. America is obsessed with the celebrity scene and any latest juicy, chewy piece of fat to fall from the tables of the mass media is enough into a frantic feeding frenzy and bring us back, begging for more.

I think this even ties into something I was recently having a discussion about regarding "philanthropic" endeavors, especially those worldwide. Wiki-pedia defines "philanthropy" using the notion of enhancing "what it is to be human". Does anyone doing "philanthropy" know what it means "to be human"? And why do these efforts always seem to happen in Africa or some disaster stricken area? What's wrong with right here, in my neighborhood?

These three things all have a common source: an inordinate global concern and a dangerous unwillingness to take personal responsibility for ourselves and our own community. Those who contribute to the alleviate "world hunger" often fail to alleviate the very real pains and struggle of their friends, family, and the needy of their own community. Philanthropy is opposed to true charity, as it seeks to draw attention towards "real world" needs... and the efforts of those who make them. More often then not, my experience has been that philanthropy is a feather in people's caps, and not a nail in their hands and feet like charity is. Anyone can give money to feed the kids in Africa and feel like they did their good deed, but can you give a hug to your mother or father, or a helping hand on your brother's homework, or an hour or two helping your grandparents rake the leaves in their backyard?

We consume the celebrity gossip because the moral missteps of the accomplished and powerful make us feel better about our ethically bankrupt lives. In this same vein, it allows us to neglect our own areas of deficiency, so as not to expose what the level of self-knowledge we lack. We absorb this information because it counts as entertainment to hear about the scandals, the divorces, the political opinions, and the drama; but really, seeing this a source of entertainment helps to placate our own nagging consciences about the miserable and messed-up lives we're leading. In many cases, our lives are not any better than those of Hollywood. We just count ourselves lucky that they're under that kind of scrutiny for our entertainment and comforting, and we're not.

People focus on national or global political "issues" because they can remain anonymous about them. We can scream at our televisions at home, and not need to bring our concerns in front of an actual group of people. Mass media and social networks have allowed the citizen to be anonymous in his opinions, never needing to have the courage to risk his identity to stand up for his beliefs. I do believe that our nation is in a very dangerous time with the liberties that have been taken at the national level, but let it not be an excuse to neglect valuing our own local government and business success.

So, do I place my own life into consideration and determine what things I need to change? Do I treat those immediately around me with love and kindness, because "charity begins at home"? In what ways do I look to be a force for the common good of those within my neighborhood or community by setting a personal example for others?

I know I'm asking these questions, but to be honest, I hadn't really thought of an answer because Bernie Mac was still talking and I still couldn't pee yet.

Great Deeds and Noble Hearts: A Musical Revolution

Remember those stories that had you fill in key words or phrases to create a totally random and hilarious story? It'd typically go something like, "This morning, I woke up to the sound of a     (noun)     while I was dreaming about     (an activity you hate doing)    ..." You would ask a friend to give the your necessary words or phrases without telling him or her the context of the words. When you were finished, you'd read the short story from beginning to end and have a good laugh over it.

I bring this up because I was thinking about what kinds of answers would fill in the blanks if modern popular music provided the answers. Probably something like this:

I was awoken this morning by    tik tok, on the clock, but the party don't stop no   , after a long night of    livin' a Teenage Dream   . I put on my    ripped jeans, skin was showin'    before going downstairs to have some breakfast. Next thing I know, I'm    gonna pop some tags, only got twenty dollars in my pocket   , but before I do, my mom says to me, "   HEYYYY, SEXY LADY!!!!   ".

Ok, maybe this is a silly exercise, so are these lyrics. Although the truth is that you could do this to Shakespeare and he'd look pretty comical, the point is that these are the things were hear from popular music and have been for a very long time.

PSY performing "Gangnam Style"

However, I am sensing a shift in the preferences of a growing portion of today's music lovers, and it's exactly because the younger generations are realizing that life isn't about the instant gratification anymore. They've been there, they've done that for long enough and they're finally over its glamor. So how is this reflected in musical tastes?

Whatever is "popular" appeals to a baser part of our souls. People choose what is "popular" not because it enriches them; rather one chooses what is popular because it is in keeping with the status quo. Since "everyone is doing it", no one is going to criticize or attack your for doing it yourself.

Sometimes, though, this conception of "popular" wavers and falters under the underestimated strength of the human heart. Sometimes, a truthful light shines through and those who are open to it gather around it. I believe that some interesting trends in contemporary can be seen in this way: as encouraging and cultivating inspirations of what we all truly long for in the deepest desires of our hearts.

The first expression of such a longing is in hurt. Artists such as Grace Potter and the Nocturnals and ADELE come to mind here. The primary subject matter of their songs center around themes of sadness, hurt, and loneliness. Broken and shattered amidst the heartbreak in the world, this music expresses confusion and laments, "I often think about where I went wrong, the more I do, the less I know." ("Don't You Remember" - ADELE, click here for full lyrics) Living the disillusioned life has indeed brought about this pain because the indulgence in what is "popular" has promised the maximum pleasure, but only delivers the deepest, cutting pain. This hurt is always present in the shame at who we have become and what we have sacrificed, "'Cause every town's got a mirror and every mirror still shows me, that I am my own ragged company." ("Ragged Company" - Grace Potter and the Nocturnals, click here for full lyrics)

These artists and others have become "popular" because they speak for the hurt and shame that we all have. Their appeal is in their lamenting that we can all identify with. Though it would be a mistake to believe that one day, this is all the world will listen to, this is what a large number of people are gravitating towards because 'misery loves company', and these artists make explicit what lives implicitly in all of our broken souls.

Acknowledgement of one's misery is the first necessary step, but even more imperative is the discover of our innate desire for the good and the willful resolution to obtain it. Florence + the Machine and Mumford & Sons rank among the most popular influences on this genre which encourages people to be "more like the man you were made to be." ("Sigh No More" - Mumford & Sons, click here for full lyrics) It's true, these songs are about pain and hurt, but their defining characteristic is not in complaining to the world about endless woes. Courage is necessary to carry on after being let-down, the ability to pick up the pieces and find peace in carrying on. This kind of music has gained significant popularity because the listener it attracts is "done with [her] graceless heart, so tonight [she's] gonna cut it out and then restart." ("Shake It Out" - Florence + the Machine, click here for full lyrics)

Though we must not fool ourselves into thinking that because a few artists are gaining some traction in popular culture, the whole world will suddenly embrace this truth and desire for the full meaning of our lives, but what I think it does mean is that there is a growing number of people out there who are realizing that their lives have purpose and they are called to acts of heroism and virtue.

A calling to deny those passions that come so easily to us and ascend to lives of greatness and meaning is the heart's true desire. "Party rocking" and living "gangnam style" feed the body, but they leave the soul starving for sustenance. Pop culture is popular and will remain so, as long as it feeds our vices and encourages our lukewarmness. But life's true adventure is proving to ourselves, even when no one is watching, that we were made for great deeds and noble hearts.

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)

You Are What You Hear...

Plato from "The School of Athens"

In Book III of Plato's Republic, Socrates and Glaucon discuss the role and content of musical compositions to be included in their fictional, utopian polis. The beginning of this topic involves them throwing out all bad or unhelpful forms of music in an effort to preserve those that will be good for the polis as a whole.

He correlates/compares particular modes of music with particular activities. For example, lamentations have a particular mode that imitates a sorrowful person. Other modes can be associated with drunkenness, idleness, and softness. Still others are associated with battle and courage. When confronting the question of why music selection is so important in the polis, Plato claims that "rhythm and harmony permeate the inner part of the soul more than anything else," and that the music will inform the souls of the city's people as much as an academic education can.

Plato also believes that music is instrumental in aiding people to determine "goodness". People very familiar with good forms of music (and poetry) will be able to "sense it acutely when something has been omitted from a thing and when it hasn't been finely crafted or finely made by nature." Essentially, that person will be better equipped to discern right from wrong, simply by having an education in good music. A harmony of soul will allow the person to reject those things that jeopardize that harmony.

Ok, wait, seriously? Does this mean we have to listen to Christian rock all the time or classical music? While I, personally, am a strong advocate for tuning in to classical music regularly, I do not think that's what we should be taking away from this point.

It's practically scientific fact that certain types of music affect our moods, and this makes perfect reasonable sense because we all have our happy playlists and our angry playlists, right? So this shouldn't be too crazy.

James Hetfield of Metallica; Exhibit A of Musical PTSD

However, prolonged exposure to a particular kind of music can have lasting effects. Similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), listening to a single genre can influence your nervous system and hormones in such a way that they create semi-permanent conditions, just like constant shelling and gunfire. For example, listening to only grunge and other forms of hard rock can acclimate your body's hormones to stressful levels, regardless of if you are listening to music at that moment or not. The music conditions your body to release hormones that induce stress and adrenaline into your system. If the exposure to this music is regular, then the stress hormone release is also regular until it becomes the norm, whether you are listening to the music or not.

So, now the question I always want to know the answer to: what would the virtuous man do? What music would the virtuous man listen to? Well, the answer is not as easy as pointing to one particular artist/band or even one particular genre. And it certainly is not found in listening to the 10 hour version of Trololo (I think that if you can make it through 10 hours of this, you'll be a master in the virtue of fortitude, but I'm sure your prudence would be sharply called into question). So where is it?

To be a good person, one must do good things, eat good food, have good friends, etc. No good man will desire to surround himself with evil because he only delights in good things and everything less than that is abhorrent to him in varying degrees. So if goodness is to permeate the virtuous man's life, this must also apply to listening to good music. Therefore, our next inquiry is to discover of what things good music consists.

I am not necessarily referring to the gospel group, Virtue,
(above) when I refer to "virtuous music"

Just as food contributes to the goodness of our bodily health, music contributes to the health of our mind. The saying, "you are what you eat," applies just as much to music as it does to food. If certain kinds of food create unhealthiness in your body, then you will become unhealthy. If certain kinds
of music create unhealthiness of the mind, as described above, then the mind will become unhealthy. We care about the health of mind and body because it is integral to the soundness of one's soul. Our minds and bodies enable us to live virtuous or vicious lifestyles, and those lifestyles inform our character and, ultimately, our souls. Just as a hammer without a sufficient grip on the handle is unwieldy and inept at performing its task, we too will be inept at living a properly good life if our bodies are disordered.

So if music is so important to the health of the soul, we probably should pay a lot of attention to what good music is, so as to properly nourish our souls. Good music consists of that which brings us to realize our human good, namely virtue. After agreeing in the above paragraph that music does have an effect on the soul, it stands to reason that it must have either a positive or negative effect. And since "the good" is the aim for all of our actions, why would we ever desire to listen to "bad" music? (Note: by "bad", I am not referring to poorly performed or untalented music; I am referring to music that deteriorates the mind and corrupts the soul)

Music informs our minds and souls, just as the rhythm of a drum cadence informs a marching army to march in step. In the case of the human soul, good music is going to be that which inspires virtue in the individual. It lifts man's heart and mind to higher things and inspires him to perform heroic feats in everyday life. In times of struggle, it must comfort and console him, but always encouraging him to keep his goals of character firmly fixed. Music moves the human heart, and for the man who aspires to virtue, it must always move him towards his goal of being the virtuous man.

Therefore, good music inspires and directs man's desires, will, and actions to the achievement of virtue, and therefore, this is the best kind of music.

And now, here's a small sample of music that inspires me personally to virtue!

The Lost World of Children

"BOYS! Look away!" my mother said, sternly.

Immediately, I obediently scrunched my eyes shut and turned my face to my skinny, boyish legs. I wasn't missing anything important, my mom would always tell me. Sometimes, I would become curious and try to catch a glimpse, but Mom would have none of it. She made sure that each of the boys had their eyes shut and faces turned away.

A brief moment later, the passionate kiss between the film's main characters had ended, and I was allowed to resume watching.

A kiss? Seriously? Were you home-schooled or something? That's nothing compared to the other stuff out there!

Yes, it was just a mildly zealous kiss between a man and a woman, but I thank God every day for the first woman who taught me to value affection and guard my heart. It's true, I have not always been good at it. I have never stopped trying though, hoping one day to return to that childlike innocence.

Can one reclaim that innocence that we sacrifice over age and experience? In Genesis, Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They did so willingly because their pride directed them to challenge the only restriction that God placed upon them.* So after their sin, could Adam and Eve re-enter the Garden of Eden? Could they return to the paradise of blissful innocence? No, they could not, and because of original sin, neither can we. There is no going back, and what is gone is gone now for good.

Last weekend at Mass was Scout's week, and before the Final Blessing, the pastor distributed a good Christian award to 15 young Cub Scouts for completing the merit requirements. The boys, no older than 10 years old, processed from their pew towards the front to the side of the sanctuary, but as they did, I noticed that the last boy was wearing jeans that had the pant hem ending awkwardly right above is skinny ankles. No doubt, the poor kid was beginning to hit his growth spurt. And at that instant, my heart wept for him.

In his innocence, he was oblivious to what lay ahead of him. He has no idea that in a short time, his boyish heart will be violated and assaulted by a cruel society, intent on stealing that precious gift. It will be gone forever, and if he values virtue, he will weep for this loss as I do. In that moment, I made a quiet, but urgent prayer for the safety of their hearts, now and in the future. I prayed that they might desire to become virtuous and upstanding men and that this award might be the first step in that direction.

And it's not just for boys that I worry about: I worry for the girls. They will be abused, objectified and disrespected to a degree lower than animals. Any semblance of integrity will be challenged and lost in the hormone-driven high school and college years by the "skin race", an escalation of how much they can bare for a boy's hungry eyes. A frightening thing is that most girls never realize this, but the most disturbing thing is that even if they realize it, they may never have the courage to reclaim their dignity and restore their innocence.

However, I do not believe all is lost with the departure of childlike innocence. St. John in the Book of Revelations writes:

"And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away." And he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." (Revelation 21:3-5).

Christ has taken what was, and he has fulfilled it and glorified it. He took a human body, made filthy and a vehicle for immorality by Man, and glorified it in the Resurrection. He took on a human heart, made bitter and selfish by Man’s sin, and glorified it, making it an eternal model of perfect charity. Christ makes these things, and all things new and better. Therefore, it is Christ who has made our innocence new.

With that statement, two things are important to realize. First, this is not something we can do alone, for Christ works on this through us. This innocence is a unmerited gift that God gives to those who are open to receiving it. Therefore, its attainment is not directly related to any effort that I make to achieve it; rather, my effort to remain in God’s holy grace and foster a real relationship with Christ is what will open me to this gift.

Second, because our childlike innocence is made new and glorified by our struggle, it is better than the innocence of the child. Just as the resurrected body is more perfect than our sinful body, the glorified innocence renewed by Christ is more perfect than that given to Adam and Eve in Eden. This is because we have chosen it for ourselves and the longevity of this resolution, through struggle and toil, confirms this choice with greater glory and rewards, both temporal and eternal.

It will always be a challenge to every man, young or old, to seek and find that holy innocence renewed by Christ, but once discovered, it will chase away our fears, replaced by a lasting peace that we will carry with us  until our deaths and into Eternal Glory.

Habitual Sins and Contrition

"The Miraculous Draught of Fishes" by Raphael

When one deals with a habitual sin, it can be difficult to arrive at proper contrition. True contrition necessitates that you reject the sin and resolve to never commit it again; however, because of our fallen nature, it is not unlikely that despite our best intentions, we will succumb to temptation and descend into that sin again. We acknowledge this in an attempt to be realistic about ourselves and the situation, but often it gives the effect of despair. The past is gloomy from those sins already committed, the present is dark because we are still committing the sin, and the future looms ominously because this is a habitual sin and the temptation, at least, will most certainly occur again.

What should our outlook be under these circumstances? It is possible the habitual sinner will equate the occurrence of the temptation with the occurrence of the sin itself, assuming the success of the devil’s efforts and an inevitable fall from a state of grace. In this sense, the sinner has already ‘given up’ trying to break the chain of sin formed by habit.

However, the past is only an indication of the trials we will face and not a determination of our future actions. We can certainly look to the past to ascertain the obstacles of the future and even learn from our past failures in terms of what aided us or hindered us from clearing those hurdles.  Though, it is not true that because we have stumbled over the same obstacle again and again, we are incapable of achieving breaks in the chain. It is definitely a slow process and success will be elusive at the beginning, but we must be careful to not assume the devil’s triumph, just because he tempts us.

Therefore, we return to the question of contrition: what should be the elements of our contrition, especially for the difficult case of habitual sins? Peter told Christ, “Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man.” (Luke 5:8) This certainly seems like despair at first glance, but Peter’s desire to be with Christ is so strong that at his invitation, he leaves everything to follow him. He was so eager to be with Jesus that despite his unworthiness, he was willing to give up all he owned to be with him.

So on the one hand, we must acknowledge our unworthiness; for the slightest sin, much less a habitual sin committed several times, without God’s mercy is enough to damn us to Hell forever. This acknowledgement must not, however, prohibit us from recognizing the profound, all-consuming desire we have for Christ. We may need to apologize seventy times seven times, but we must never cease to proclaim our love for him who loved us so much as to give his life for us. In our sorrow, we must beat our breasts lamenting, “mea culpa” then shout joyously, “Gloria in excelsis Deo!” for His Divine Mercy.

The Going-Away Party

Maxwell had killed his sister. It was a pretty efficient murder at that; and Sir Maxwell Stewart prided himself on efficiency, whether it was with closing a business deal or doing away with nosy siblings. Although, the business deals were a significantly more common occurrence than the occasions that required the snuffing of relatives.

It had been efficient because she had consumed enough wine at his going away party that she did not feel the slight pin-prick of a syringe as it injected its lethal payload of insulin. Maxwell was a diabetic and his sister was not. The overdose had quietly put her to sleep on the sofa of the mansion's parlor. It did not take much.

The silent killing was also an excellent method of murder because it left no crime scene clues, should the body ever be found. There were no lacerations, no stab wounds, no bullet holes, no broken bones, or anything else of the gory and ghastly sort typically associated with the dark deed. She was indeed very old and by all appearances, it would seem that her poor, ailing heart had simply given out and her soul had flown to the heights of that holy Paradise.

Maxwell knew that it was her blood sugar, not her heart, that gave out, and that her soul was actually rotting in the circle of Hell reserved exclusively for prying, gossipy nannies. She had invented this grand conspiracy theory that his business empire was somehow built on lies and cheating, all claims were woefully unsubstantiated, of course. Doubtless she had concocted this inconceivable foolishness to tarnish his sterling reputation and ruin his going-away party. Maxwell had tolerated his sister's ignorance on a variety of other subjects, but it seemed to him hardly fair that he should suffer her vague fantasies of corruption and sleight-of-hand dealings when his good name was at stake.

However, his reputation was the furthest thing from his mind when this cake knife in his chest was the closest thing to his heart. James Ironsides, his American business rival, had put it there. Just like his business manners, Ironsides had no tact: no silent poisons or macabre premeditation. He just walks right up to you and plunges the cake knife unpretentiously into your chest. He did not even have the decency to wipe the icing from the blade.

Anyhow, things were beginning to feel very cold for Sir Maxwell. He could not tell if it was the two feet of snow in which he was lying or the icy caress of death stealing over him. Whichever the case, he was alone. Ironsides had not even had the decorum to gloat over his dying form. He could have at least thanked him for inviting him to the party, yes, thank you it truly is marvelous, is this wine a special vintage? of course, most excellent, are you finished with that cake knife? here Maxwell, let me pin this thank you note to your blazer with this cake knife, comfortable? well, I must be going, lovely party, let's do this again sometime.

But it was not so, and Maxwell felt the chill of his fate long before he arrived at that frozen circle of Hell reserved exclusively for dishonest, sibling-murdering businessmen.

Fight to the Death

A few days ago, I watch the 2012 film, "The Grey", starring Liam Neeson and directed by Joe Carnahan ("The A-Team"). It's the story of a former special forces soldier, now working for oil pipeline company in Alaska/Canada, whose plane crashes in that region leaving only him and a few others as survivors. Together, they must brave the cold, the hunger, and the pack of nearby ravenous wolves that seek to pick the off, one at a time. A quick glance at the synopsis might not interest you immensely (it didn't interest me), but upon seeing the film, it felt more like a horror-thriller film than a boring "Cast Away" survival film. It was a very frightening film, but one, I believe, that offers a happy, through realistic ending with an emotional soundtrack and stunning snow-capped, evergreen visuals to match.

I do not usually cry during films (why should I? I'm a man). I used to just get caught up in the moment of "wow, this is an awesome scene!" and that was the extent of my excitement. But there are a few elements of cinema that, if properly portrayed, bring free-flowing tears to my eyes. One element of which is the notion of fighting to the death. I will not explain exactly how this relates to "The Grey", because I hope that this post will convince you to see an amazing film without giving any revealing details.

A number of films exist in which the "fight to the death" theme exists. A few that spring to mind include "The Lord of the Rings", "Henry V", "Gladiator", "Cinderella Man", and, though no actual fighting occurs, "The Passion of the Christ". It is a concept that is nonexistent in our society because we are so obsessed with immortality and preserving our own lives. The American culture is obsessed with extending life by whatever means necessary. Acceptance of death is considered a disastrous defeat. No matter what the challenge, there is always the hope that there will be a way that we can defeat the threat and still live at the end of it. There has to be a way that we can achieve a "happily ever after" ending where everyone lives, right?

Death comes for us all. Ready or not, it comes for us. People are afraid of death because they do not know what they will find on the other side. It is not a welcome event because if we have lived our whole lives the way we wanted to and not the way we ought to have, then we make a gamble. The unknown of death, whether it be Heaven, Hell, or just oblivion is terrifying to the one without a clean conscience.

When Death does come for us, there is no more running, no more hiding. We have been caught out in the open, ragged and exhausted from our frantic flight and the end is inevitable. What more worthy thing can we do? The film "Gladiator" suggests "Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back".

The only thing we can do is gird our loins and face our darkest terror with courage and resolve. While other men will despair or beg for mercy, a man of true-spirit gathers himself up and stands his ground, despite the challenge ahead. Sometimes, we are afforded a moment of reflection. All options run through our head, and our vain hope that we could make it out of this grim circumstance alive is forever on our thoughts. But after breathing deeply and turning our eyes to our ultimate fate, we realize that there is only one thing to do. At this point, success and failure are irrelevant: our focus has to be on completing the task at hand, mustering all forces of body and soul for this one purpose.

Then comes the moment of clarity. All of the struggle and confusion of this world melts away and there is only one thing that remains: the purpose. It is finally apparent that everything that has happened to you, everything you have endured, everything that has filled you with joy and sadness in your entire life was given to you to prepare you for this moment. Now, what will you do with this precious gift of a single moment? The passengers of United Flight 93 on September 11 knew. There would be no returning from that flight, but they saw past the despair at the end of their own lives. Instead, they held onto the most critical thing to do at that moment, and if they did not do it, who would?

Becoming Beautiful: A How To Guide

An Advertisement for American Eagle Outfitters

About a month ago, I was in my local mall to purchase a pair of jeans for the autumn season. As with any mall, each store hosted large advertisements with the latest fashions and looks, featured by boyish, soft-looking men and aggressive, voluptuous women. Each display promised me, the consumer, such a clean cut look that would attract the most beautiful of women... if I only bought their product.

It's a seductive message, to be sure, and we are constantly bombarded by it. Women, I am sorry to say, have borne much of this commercial pressure and it can wear on the self-confidence. But it is fair to say that both sexes have suffered from this strain. Physical beauty has become an obsession of our society.

But, really, what criteria determine physical beauty? Some say that a particular combination of the right physical features make a person physically beautiful; Large eyes, full hair, "hourglass" body form, etc. for women and muscular, "V-shaped" body form, etc. for men. There have been many studies in an attempt to discover the mathematical proportions that make a beautiful person (size of eyes in relation to mouth, in relation to length of nose, in relation to etc.). I do believe there is something to say about these features with regard to sexual attractiveness. But is that all that physical beauty is?

I believe there is already a beauty product that has existed as long as human beings have. I started writing this post over a month ago, trying to find a logical, philosophical argument to present it with, but my own rational power has failed to describe what I know in my soul to be the truth. So, since beauty product advertisements make no appeal to reason whatsoever to get you to buy their product, I feel that I must do the same. Here goes.

Step right up, step right up! Gather 'round, ladies and gentlemen, and see the most successful advancement in beauty care! Since the dawn of human existence, this product has transformed men and women alike into supermodels! Say "goodbye" to flab and fat, and say "hello" to a solid six-pack physique and captivating curves! Got repelling wrinkles or unsightly crow feet? This'll give you that elegant, and mature smile that you've always wanted! But, ladies and gentlemen! You won't find this product in stores! No, no! Countless have tried, but this miraculous beauty product cannot be bottled, bought, or applied. It's fabulous! Stupendous! Phenomenal! And it's called!.... VIRTUE.

No, I am not kidding. Not only does virtue solve all your soul's issues, it can also solve many of your physical attractiveness issues. No lie. I am a true believer in this.

To examine this, I first draw your attention to the physical appearance of people who may be suffering from some degree of vice. The substance abuser, whether drinker, smoker, druggie, and so on, is unattractive in appearance and behavior. Their physical dependency on their addiction will leave them haggard and grim-looking and whether they get their fix or not, their behavior is sure to be erratic and unappealing. Also, people who lack virtue are undisciplined, resulting in obesity/anorexia or sexual obsession. Lust is a bit more challenging to define in terms of physical appearances. But those consumed with sexual obsessions will try to dress and appear more as objects of sexual gratification. Whether it be a man or a woman, this desire is quickly obvious based on both appearance and behavior of an individual. Think about it: it's the difference between an encounter of courtship and one of blatantly "hitting on" someone.

Obviously, this list is far from extensive, but the groundwork is sufficiently laid. Now, what are examples of virtue working towards making one more attractive?

If one possesses virtue, one must also possess discipline. Virtue is not something that one acquires casually. It takes effort, perseverance, and hard work. In order to accomplish this, one needs discipline, which is the control and authority exerted by one's will over his/her passions. It begins with small things, but this small efforts ultimately play a vital role in developing great virtues in a man or woman. Discipline keeps you on that diet you've been needing to go on. It keeps you from drinking too much, smoking too much, and away from illegal substances entirely. It also keeps your sexual desires healthy and in-check.

Another aspect of virtue is joy. One cannot be virtuous, achieving the purpose of his nature, and not be filled with irrepressible joy. Joy is subtle and sublime because its specific physical manifestation in each virtuous individual is sometimes difficult to pinpoint. This is because the physical manifestation of joy is unique to each individual, making that person an exclusive illustration of elegance.

Joy: Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan

Wait, how does joy factor into physical beauty? As far as society is aware, joy is just a momentary feeling and beauty is sex appeal. Joy is actually a unifying state of being that extends across all moments of one's existence. It is living life "properly" and "fully". Essentially, you are getting the most out of life when you are joyful. And because human physical beauty is incomplete without that which animates the body, a soul (for example, you would not call a corpse physically beautiful), joy and fulfillment in one's soul is manifest in the animation it brings to the body. In simpler terms, if a soul is good, the behavior and movements of that person will be good and contribute overall to the person's physical beauty.

This is not the easiest concept to understand without some examples. Ballet, for instance, requires a dancer to have complete, disciplined control over her body to accomplish the very precise movements of the art. This is only obtained through frequent practice and focus. Of course, natural skill is involved, but without practice and focus, the talent is useless. However, after time, the effort put into achieving the different positions of the dance become second nature; sort of like "muscle memory". In another example, an orator must be able to control his tone of voice and rhetoric in such a way as to maximize the impact of his words. This also utilizes natural talent to some degree, but it requires concentration and discipline to develop.

Tying this all together,  because the soul is the body's source of movement, the goodness of the soul contributes to the goodness of the movement of the body.  Furthermore, it is not a goodness of movement that can be faked because it takes practice to achieve. Once achieved though, it becomes second nature and one does not even have to try to move beautifully: it just happens! Basically, that look he gives you isn't one that desires animalistic conquest of your body; it's one of complete appreciation for you, body and soul. That handshake your colleague gives you isn't a limp, dead fish; it's an energetic, welcoming grip that exudes courage and warmth. That compliments she pays you isn't fake or dubious; it's completely genuine and you can innately see that in her eyes.

To conclude: Ok, maybe Virtue isn't really a beauty product that can turn Joe Schmo into G.I. Joe, nor Plain Jane into Ms. America. But physical beauty is not just about sex appeal. It is also about the grace and beauty of your movements, and interactions with other people, which I think have a more lasting impression than physical looks alone. Even the world's best supermodel instantly loses her splendor if she's constantly scowling off-camera. So it might just be true, virtue's discipline will help you to shed those extra pounds, but more importantly, virtue's joy will turn that scowling-old-woman face into a laughing, grandmotherly smile. It is certainly not the quick and easy beauty product that you get from the mall, but trust me, the results are worth it.