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...

The Most Rare Human Virtue

As with many of the inspirations I have for posting something to this blog, I could most often cite TheArtofManliness.com as a common source. The blog/website is a fantastic source of information and helpful encouragement for those who wish to see more in their fellow man. Recently, Mr. McKay "retweeted" an article that appeared in a 1902 issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine (of all places). The post can be found here and the material is from the article entitled "What Men Like in Men", written by Rafford Pike. I started reading down the page and I came to this paragraph, reproduced here for the reader's convenience:

"... The average man will name a number of qualities which he thinks he likes, rather than those which in his heart of hearts he actually does like.

In the case of one who tries to enumerate the characteristics which he admires in other men, this sort of answer is not insincere. Although it is defective, and essentially untrue, the man himself is quite unconscious of the fact. The inaccuracy of his answers really comes from his inability to analyze his own preferences. The typical man is curiously deficient in a capacity for self-analysis. He seldom devotes any serious thought to the origin of his opinions, the determining factor in his judgments, the ultimate source of his desires, or the hidden mainsprings of his motives. In all that relates to the external and material world he observes shrewdly, reasons logically, and acts effectively; but question him as to the phenomena of the inner world – the world of his own Ego – and he is dazed and helpless. This he never bothers his head about, and when you interrogate him closely and do not let him put you off with easy generalities, he will become confused and at last contemptuous, if not actually angry. He will begin so suspect that you are just a little “queer”; and if he knows you well enough to be quite frank with you, he will stigmatize your psychological inquiries as “rot.”…"

At this point, I looked ahead to see how many more paragraphs were left in the article and though I returned to read the rest of the article later (this was only the second paragraph, mind you), I had decided that the mission of the article had already been fulfilled: it had just stated what I admire in other men (and other women, for that matter).

Human virtues, like anything else of value, are prized for their rarity among men, and just as a flawless diamond takes much perseverance and hard work to obtain due to its rarity, virtue also is rare because of the demands it makes on the man who seeks it. If human virtues were as abundant as blades of grass in a field or grains of sand in a desert, we would assign them the same value as these. However, virtue is not that easily found or obtained, so it is natural that we value it in other men.

The most rare of all human virtues is self-awareness, or maybe more accurately, self-comprehension. It is rare because those who seek it must do battle with the most common and deadly of the human vices: pride. Self-comprehension permits every agent in an environment to be judged in the context of that environment, including the individual himself. This man understands that when judging a situation or situation of persons, he is never exempt from being included in those circumstances which he scrutinizes. Regardless of the subject matter, he always makes some alteration to that environment and thus must be included in its judgement.

In this manner, self-comprehension enables the individual to perceive himself in the context of his surroundings, almost as a completely alter-ego. The self-comprehensive man's gaze reaches farther from an independent perspective than any person who fails to understand that his personality has effect on the circumstances. The mystery of why a friend is quick to temper with us is easily solved when we realize our own tendency to make inflammatory remarks.

The self-comprehensive man not only knows of his leanings and biases: he also knows why he has them. He keeps record of his influences, in a way, similar to a student citing his sources in a research paper. Every agreement he has to an idea is properly labelled and everything is organized. With this organizational system, it's not only important to know one's flaws or weaknesses, but it's knowing where those flaws and weaknesses originated from which set the self-comprehensive man apart from the rest as a gem of uncountable worth.

As the worth of virtue is in its practice, the worth of self-comprehension is most notably found in the practice of self-improvement. While self-awareness permits the man to admit to his failures and shortcomings, the self-comprehensive man does this and also understands why he fails in these ways. The answer to "why" is the answer to what strategies he must take to better himself, putting himself in a more advantageous situation than the sick man who knows that he's ill, but knows not why.

The Highest Human Science: V. Plato

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

Once more, we return to that most important study of philosophy, and this is indeed one of the more important chapters in our study of philosophical history. Up to this point, we've been discussing and looking into the various erroneous ways of thought from the ancient cultures and religions of the world, as well as the turn towards the reason properly, though misguidedly exercised in the early Greek thinkers. This all culminated in the great thoughts and teachings of Socrates, who would inspire one young student of his to change the scope of the entire study...

Yes, a "Play-Doh" representation of Plato

Plato (BC 427-347), student of the eminent Socrates and intellectual giant of his time was now given the torch of Philosophy: the standard of intellectual progress to further the understanding of mankind. Really, this was to be a vast task and not one lightly undertaken and for all this pressure riding on Plato... he didn't do half bad.

As a start, he believed in an ultimately perfect Being. He perceived that the things around him had perfection and imperfections mingled together, so it was not out of the realm of imagination to suppose that there was something after which all perfection was an imitation. This perfect being is the basis, the foundation and source for everything that we see.

Socrates' philosophy, as previously reviewed, is purposed towards determining the essences of things; Plato's thought, on the other hand had the goal of determining perfect ideas of things. For according to Plato, the apprehension of a particular thing's essence is well and good, i.e. what is the essence (or essential qualities) of this glass of Rex Goliath malbec wine that I'm drinking while writing this post,  but what about wine as an idea? What is the essence of Wine, the idea? After all, these are universal to everyone. If I tell you I want wine, sure, you might bring me an expensive chardonnay or a cheap merlot, but the fact that with a word, "wine", you understood what I was essentially referring to, this indicated to Plato that there was an idea of Wine that we all shared in and could all comprehend. With this, the nature of wine could be contemplated and we could analyze what it essentially meant to be "wine-like".

"Plato's Cave" by Jan Saenredam

Though everything looks good, thus far, Plato's next thought led him off the beaten path and into his first error. He claimed that since these ideas are universal and with the ultimate perfections of these ideas, there must be an eternal archetype of "wine" that exists in the heavenly realm. It is this that we get a glimpse of when we think of the subject, though our perceptions may be imperfect, because the physical representations of this idea around us are imperfect (i.e., all the bottles of wine in the world just don't encompass the perfection of that single ultimate idea of wine). He called these perfect ideas the Forms, and it was the goal of our existence to obtain perfect apprehension of these holy ideas.

A representation of Plato's Cave by Bryce Haymond

This led Plato to claim that if perfection is to be found in the heavenly Forms, then the sensible world is to be regarded as a deceptive shadow of reality. This notion is the source of Allegory of Plato's cave. In essence, the citizens of the cave are chained the floor and are unable to look anywhere but the cave wall straight ahead, upon which is projected the shadows of characters and animations from a backlighting fire (similar to the notion of "shadow puppets") The sensible world, therefore, is only a crude representation of the truth, and a soul is meant to leave the cave and walk into the sunlight and see the world as it truly is.

So if these ideas, these perfectly divine Forms are what reality is all about, how do we have them in our heads? Certainly we didn't obtain them from our sensible experience of the world because the objects of this perception are imperfect. Plato claimed that we had previous knowledge of these ideas before our incarnation, and with our birth, our physical bodies and perceptions obscured these truths. He also subscribed to the mistaken belief (shared by the Brahmanist) of transmigration of the soul from one body to another after death.

Ok, so if we're honest, Plato is beginning to sound a bit hokey. Wine, shadow puppets, and transmigration? Sounds like a bad children's bedtime story. Though it would not be accurate to say that Plato completely dropped the ball with the intellectual inheritance that to which he was entrusted, he did screw up quite a bit and a more complete and accurate philosophy would be need to be built on Plato's good ideas before we could call it a day.

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.

"I'll Know My Name as It's Called Again"

If I began a sentence with "I was listening to some Christian rock and...," most people have one of two reactions. If you're one of those people that would get really excited and eager to talk about your favorite Reliant K song, I'm sorry to say I'm going to disappoint you with this post. On the other hand, if you're one of those people who says that Christian rock is for uncool, churchy kids, then I'm going to surprise you by revealing that some of the most Christian music I have ever heard is actually from a popular band.

"Jacob Wrestling with the Angel" by Rembrandt

My primary criticism of much of the popular Christian music that I've heard is that it lacks the human element. Personally, I find much of it nauseatingly upbeat and predictably appealing to my feelings (if I had any). As a result, much of it fails to wrestle with faith, as Jacob wrestled with the angel. For this generation, faith doesn't come easy, and I think it doesn't come easy for anyone. There are far too many challenges to it for it to be simply a walk in the park. Personally for me, it's a regular struggle to push past my own rational outlook on the world and seek to understand the Divine Being who is the source of all good. Therefore, simply praising and worshiping is not something I completely "get".

Whether you have this same conflict as I do or not, everyone has their own reasons to struggle with faith. It might not be perpetual, though. Often times, it's a thing that works in a cycle: you find an inspiration to your faith, you cultivate and treasure it. Then, when you're feeling strong on your feet, you forget what go you there, which is why you fall flat on your face soon after. But ultimately, the true Christian will arise once more and fight his way back to faith and this time, in an effort to keep it.

Therefore, the Christian rock that is going to popularly engage this generation of people is going to appeal to this seemingly contradictory notion of zealously high aspirations for our faith, frustration and anxiety at our repeated failures, and a committed conversion back to our faith in God. The band I have in mind, then, is none other than Mumford & Sons, and more specifically, their album, "Sigh No More".

Mumford & Sons

The album contains more Christian themes than I myself understand, and yet it maintains a firm grounding in the human person, with all of our struggles and trials. Anyone who is truly a Christian knows that it takes hard work to be one. If you don't feel like your sweating blood sometimes, just to keep your faith, then I would say you're not a Christian: your faith is not being tested, you are not truly following the path of Christ in suffering and sorrow. It is a constant struggle, one in which we occasionally, or even frequently fail to meet. But the hallmark of such an epic fight for our souls is to dust off and try again.

It all begins with the statement: "Serve God, love me, and mend". (Sigh No More) Service to God, love others, and then take care of yourself. This, of course, is none other than the Golden Rule, learned from Jesus Christ. Our lives belong to God and it is through our interaction with others that we can show our affection for God, by keeping his commandment first with the people around us and then with ourselves. The song continues with a statement so hopeful, I must reproduce it here in its entirety:

Love; it will not betray you
Dismay or enslave you, it will set you free
Be more like the man you were made to be

First, Love is what sets us free, and as God is caritas, the highest, ultimate form of love, that voluntary servitude towards God and others will paradoxically give us freedom, not take it away. It is in this choice of service that we demonstrate that we are free to do so. The third line suggests that to love like this is Man's true purpose, which is confirmed in the second song of the album, The Cave. The desire for freedom is once more urgently desired, "Cause I need freedom now, and I need to know how, to live my life as it's meant to be." (The Cave) The imagery of the song makes unmistakeable references to Homer's The Odyssey, in which the homeward hero, Odysseus, instructs his crew to tie him to the mast of the ship as they passed by the island of the deadly Sirens, temptresses of the sea who draw sailors to their deaths on the rocky island shores. The song draws on this desire to resist their temptuous call, even taunting the sirens with the lines, "The harvest left no food for you to eat. You cannibal, you meat-eater, you see, but I have seen the same, I know the shame in your defeat," (The Cave) for it was believed that the Sirens were cannibalistic. The third song of "Sigh No More", Winter Winds, speaks further of this same hope, reminding us that "remember spring swaps snow for leaves, you'll be happy and wholesome again, when the city clears and sun ascends." (Winter Winds) Hope that is a sure mark of the Christian, for while the rest of the world despairs in its damnation, this soul understands that he was made to be united with God and He will deliver him.

Ulysses and the Sirens by John William Waterhouse

However, pride, doubt, and rebellion begins to creep in. Despite the obviously Christian references of Roll Away the Stone, it is not a positive song towards faith. In fact, it is contemptuous and bitter towards God: "It seems that all my bridges have been burnt, but you say that's exactly how this grace thing works." (Roll Away the Stone) To be honest, I sympathize with the verses of this song because faith often results in the free choice of the Creation against the Creator. It is certainly not Man's purpose to do this, as we have seen, but we do it anyway because our created natures "know better" than the omnipotent nature: "But you, you've gone too far this time, you have neither reason nor rhyme, with which to take this soul that is so rightfully mine." (Roll Away the Stone)

My interpretation of White Blank Page, the fifth song on the album, presumes to put words in the mouth of God, as I believe he reacts to this rebellion. The opening verses of the song question Man's desires and probes his very soul for fittingness:

Can you lie next to her
And give her your heart, your heart
As well as your body
And can you lie next to her
And confess your love, your love
As well as your folly
And can you kneel before the King
And say I'm clean, I'm clean

To me, this echoes a soul's Examination of Conscience, in which the Christian surveys their words, thoughts, and actions for any sins committed for which reparations need to be made. It is true, a man in rebellion against God cannot answer these and still claim to be His servant. However, it is with great sadness that the words mournfully carry on, "But tell me now, where was my fault, in loving you with my whole heart." (White Blank Page) Who can claim no fault or harm towards us and also have loved us with His whole heart? My guess is Jesus Christ.

The human soul is now steeped in bitterness towards his Creator. He has forsaken Him and has turned towards his own passions, "Stars hide your fires, these here are my desires, and I won't give them up to you this time around." (Roll Away the Stone) But it is in I Gave You All that Man must express his unmistakeably anguish at having been separated from God.The lost and wayward soul has given his God everything he has, and yet "... you rip it from my hands, and you swear it's all gone. And you rip out all I have, just to say that you've won," like a small child who takes what is not his and hides it behind his back, claiming complete ignorance of the wrong.

Devils from a fresco in the Rila Monestary in Bulgaria

Now, the devil has his prize. Man has forsaken God for his own passions, and now Satan claims what is his. He taunts Man, "Weep for yourself, my man, you'll never be what is in your heart. Weep, little lion man, you're not as brave as you were at the start." (Little Lion Man) This hits very close to home for me and for anyone who recognizes, despite their best intentions, there is always that evil voice, whispering in your ear and telling you about all the things you could never do because you lack the strength and courage to do them. This song is by far the most angsty and frustrated of the entire album. Even the chord progression sounds like a demon's jig over his winnings. The devil gloats to us that despite all our strength, all our virtue, we are still subject to his power and "your grace is wasted in your face, your boldness stands alone among the wreck." (Little Lion Man) In fear is the way the devil likes to keep Man, and it is in our fears that Satan reigns supreme.

If Little Lion Man is Satan's triumphant jeering, then Timshel, the proceeding song, is God's invitation to return to His grace. Upon seeing the peculiar title of the song, I was immediately curious about what it meant. As it turns out, timshel is commonly understood to be Hebrew for "thou shalt", as it is found in the Ten Commandments. However, in John Steinbeck's book East of Eden, two characters have a discussion of its meaning, and one of them reveals that it's original meaning has been confused and that it actually means "thou mayest". He claims that the "mayest" distinguishes itself from "shalt" because it puts emphasis on Man's freedom to choose, and not on the deterministic and inevitable implications of "shalt". Mumford & Sons makes this a critical, tender moment after the previous harsh, and at times vulgar tune of Little Lion Man. The soul now realizes that despite his despair, "you have your choices, and these are what make man great, his ladder to the stars." (Timeshel) Man's freedom is what makes him like God, in his image and likeness. God does not leave Man to these choices, alone and unaided: "you are not alone in this, as brothers we will stand and we'll hold your hand." (Timshel) However as the song ends, the final haunting words, "But I can't move the mountains for you" (Timshel) put the ultimate responsibility on Man to make the right choices. God's grace is sufficient to do anything, and He gives it to us all time, but if we are not willing to to do the will of God, His grace will fall on fallow ground or  choked by thorns. (Luke 8:4-15)

Thorns, or Thistles and Weeds, which coincidentally enough, is the title of the next song, rise up and choke our faith in Christ's Parable of the Sower. The lyrics tell us to "plant your hope with good seeds, don't cover yourself with thistle and weeds, rain down, rain down on me." (Thistles and Weeds) In keeping with the Parable of the Sower, the teachings of Christ are the good seeds we should seek to plant within us, and those of the world only yield destructive fruits. The song creates an air of impending doom, as if the vices of this world threaten to strangle any faith that we have.

Landscape with the Parable of the Sower
by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Threatened by this evil, Man cries out to be free of these vicious habits and temptations. Our souls were made for higher things, but when our back have been turned to God's graces, these higher things are impossible to realize. Very soon, a soul must admit that he's been wrong, that "now my heart stumbles on things I don't know, my weakness I feel I must finally show." (Awake My Soul) That 'weakness' of dependence on God is a lie from the devil. Of course, we are weak, but the notion that we are autonomous, that we have no dependence on anything is a clever deception of the devil to take advantage of our pride: "How fickle my heart and how woozy my eyes, I struggle to find any truth in your lies." (Awake My Soul) But Man knows in the depths of his heart that he is dependent and that he cannot live without a higher Helper. The Helper, which is a term used by Christ in reference to Holy Spirit, offers to us, "Lend me your hand and we'll conquer them all, but lend me your heart and I'll just let you fall. Lend me your eyes I can change what you see, but your soul you must keep, totally free." (Awake My Soul) God permits us to keep our souls and our freedom. He does not take that timshel away, but gives us that responsibility to make those choices. He allows us to fall sometimes because that is how we realize our dependence on our Creator, "For you were made to meet your maker." (Awake My Soul)

The eleventh song on the album, Dust Bowl Dance, deviates strangely from the rather abstract, introspective tone of the rest of the album. It tells the story of a young man whose farm is being foreclosed upon after a recent famine. The young man's anger and bitter frustration with those who would take his land is frighteningly apparent with, "I'll go out back and I'll get my gun, I'll say, 'You haven't met me, I am the only son.'" (Dust Bowl Dance) However, this song is retrospective because the crime has already been committed, "Well, yes sir, yes sir, yes, it was me, I know what I've done, 'cause I know what I've seen." (Dust Bowl Dance) After the evil Man does in a moment of passionate rage, the soul feels the crushing weight of its sins and the feeling is one of intense contrition, "So collect your courage and collect your horse, and pray you never feel this same kind of remorse." (Dust Bowl Dance) And this is how we reapproach our God who we have denied: with sorrow and true contrition for our sins. The soul, having made this painful journey illustrated in each chapter of this album, now looks to return to God and seek his forgiveness.

The Storm on the Sea of Galilee by Rembrandt

It is fitting then, that final song of the "Sigh No More", After the Storm, draws on some imagery from the Parable of the Prodigal Son. After his defiance to God, after his bitter rebellion against his Creator, Man's pride fails him and he cannot run anymore, "And after the storm, I run and run as the rains come and I look up, I look up, on my knees and out of luck, I look up." (After the Storm) His soul is weary of his insurgency against the Lord, for he has found the bottom of the pit which he himself has dug. He sees the meaninglessness of his own acts, but still desires to not waste away, "But I won't rot, I won't rot, not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot." (After the Storm) Now, the soul must return to his God. His loneliness in his appalling state has shown him that God is the only one who can welcome him back: "And I won't die alone and be left there. Well I guess I'll just go home, Oh God knows where." (After the Storm) Though his sorrow for his own sins makes him realize the grave injustice that he has done to his Maker, it does not stifle all his hope. With God, there is a better life, and these verses make that abundantly clear:

And there will come a time, you'll see, with no more tears.
And love will not break your heart, but dismiss your fears.
Get over your hill and see what you find there,
With grace in your heart and flowers in your hair.

And with that, Sigh No More reaches it's conclusion, and the Christian begins once more in his quest for unity with God. So am I totally full of it? Am I just making this up and really this album is another rant meant to fulfill any lingering teenage angst? Maybe, but as far as I'm concerned, this is the most Christian rock album I've ever heard.

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: IV. The Sophists and Socrates

Amphitheater at Epidauros

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

Although our previous post in ancient Greek philosophy in this series was of a bunch of guys with some pretty crazy ideas, at least they were using their brains. Unfortunately, Greece was plagued by a rampant intellectual disease known as sophistry.

The Sophists, as they were called, were the primary communicants of this sickness of the rational soul. Many of them were accomplished individuals in various fields of study. However, their aim was not towards the discovering of truth; rather, it was because intellectual prowess brought benefits. Their "expertise" gave them power and influence over others. Their opinions were highly respected by the like-minded, and they were praised and held in high esteem. Ultimately, the sophists practiced their art for the recognition it won them and the pleasure that their intellectual vanity afforded them

One of the primary teachings of the sophists was relativism or, more specifically, moral relativism. The arguments for their teachings were mostly attempts to rationally pick apart the established order without making any honest attempt at putting something back in its place. Relativism, or the theory that all laws are arbitrarily set by man and that man is his own judge of what is true, was the latest in intellectual pessimism and indeterminism. This was their primary doctrine and would have destroyed intellectual progress if it were not for one man.

A bust of Socrates by Lysippos

Socrates. Yes, though present culture has bestowed upon Albert Einstein the bizarre distinction of using his name as an intellectual insult (e.g. "way to go, Einstein"), Socrates, in my humble opinion, should be the runner-up. He taught for free to anyone who would listen and preferred to ask questions of others to illustrate his philosophy. That is to say, he did not put forth a specific "philosophy" for men the consider; rather, he required them to think about the topics of greatest importance.

One such encouragement was his focus on essence. Socrates taught that in our rational discussion and thought, we must always seek to separate accidental qualities (might also be referred to as secondary or unnecessary qualities of that being's nature) from those essential qualities (qualities that are primary and necessary to that being's nature). For example, a being is not a "human being" unless it has the capacity for rational thought. Or a being is not a "plant" if it does not have the ability to grow, nourish itself, and reproduce. These things are essential to the constitution of that being, because you would not call a being "human" unless it had the capacity to think, or a "plant" unless it had to capacity to grow. Furthermore, accidental qualities are things such as having blue eyes (which is not essential to constituting a human; if it were, all people with green eyes wouldn't be "human") or having a stem or stalk (many plants do not have these either).

The Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David

Socrates also laid the ground-work for rational discussion, known as the Socratic method. The method counter-acted the flourishing wordplay of the Sophists and gave rational discussion the means to achieve its goal of truth. It aimed at creating a coherent structure of logic and reasoning that would explain reality for all to understand. This essentially set rules for rational discussions and served as an excellent guide for those wishing to understand the truth for themselves.

However, Socrates' biggest contribution to philosophy, by far, is that he redirected the Sophists' aimless intellectual wanderings and set rational thought upon its purpose: the truth. He sought to reform the human intellect, which had been poisoned and misled by sophistry. He did not teach men what to think by writing down specific doctrines; instead, he taught them how to think in the middle of a world where the novelty of an idea was more important than its agreement with the truth.

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: 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!