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)

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!

Schedule Killed the Action/Adventure Star

I use Google Calendar every day. It's incredibly handy and helpful, and all my appointments and events are on there. With alerts, I can be reminded of events that I might otherwise forget. I have separate calendars for my different kinds of events (birthdays, fitness training, etc.) The plethora of different views allows me to see my schedule in any way I might (or might never) want.

I hate Google Calendar. And any kind of calendar/schedule-maker that is easy to use. If it's easy to use, people will use it, and with calendars and schedule-makers, that just won't do.

The Face of Boredom

When you have a schedule, you subtly believe you know what is going to happen during your day. You set the events of your day and you move from one appointment to the next, one task to the next, and one pre-planned moment to the next. It's true that society could hardly function without schedules, but it's just a cultural symptom of our obsession with productivity and efficiency.

This is bad for two reasons: First, because your day is "planned", nothing new or exciting can happen. You know the sequence of events (in fact, you have determined most of them). You become the ultimate master of your own destiny and therefore, there are no surprises.

Second reason: how mind-numbingly boring is that? The chief problem afflicting our culture today is not poverty, hunger, or filthy interstate rest stops... it's boredom. When we use a schedule to line up every minute detail of their days, weeks, years, and lives, we perpetuate this heinous evil and rob ourselves of engaging stimulation.

Maybe each day feels the same because they ARE the same.
"Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today."

For most people with schedules, each day feels exactly the same. It's like you know what's going to happen tomorrow. In corporate America, a select few people have truly exciting jobs, but for the rest of us, it can be a drudge. If you're expecting  the same unexciting day as yesterday, what are you looking forward to? Tomorrow will come and go, and you might ask yourself why do you really care?

Maybe we like schedules to feel in control of our lives. In an effort to be certain of as many things as possible, we plan our lives as a sequence of calender events and appointment invites. It's like giving someone a wrapped gift that you picked out. They may have no idea what's inside, but you do. For that reason, there is no surprise for you. Imagine always giving people wrapped gifts and never receiving one yourself.

What is this ultimately taking a toll on? Reliance on schedules negatively affects our ability to be spontaneous and adventurous that romantically invaluable skill. Imagination is the heart and soul of spontaneity. A common error is to believe that one must be erratic or impulsive to be spontaneous. However, it is imagination that gives the human soul the agility to be spontaneous. But there are few things that kill imagination, and consequently spontaneity, more than pre-planning your life and relying on rigid structures. Consequently, we become slaves to our schedules, both self-imposed and imposed from the outside.

Spontaneity also has a profound influence on one's courage. When an unexpected opportunity or challenge arrives, our ability to rise to it will be diminished, just because it does not fit into whatever we expected. Life is meant for action, and courage is what enables us to take appropriate action in any circumstance. Without courage, we miss out on life's rewards. Life is not always pre-canned or predetermined, and the most critical moments in life are usually those ones that are not planned or expected. Most of us don't need to chase after tanks on horseback or stop an alien invasion or escape from an island of genetically-engineer dinosaurs to satisfy our spirit of adventure and test our courage (if you do, you might be a fictional character), but that courage and adventurousness needs to be reclaimed.

Seize the moment. Push yourself to heroics. Do not settle for blindly following the established order, and do not be afraid to throw the schedule out and blaze your own trail!

I'll bet Indiana Jones didn't schedule this... and he turned out just fine.

Maybellene: A Young Man's Car

This post is a portion of a larger untitled work in progress and a continuation of the previously published post, My First Car ...

Having driven my car for nearly nine months now, I can honestly and realistically notice those personality traits that make her special. I say ‘her’ because all cars driven by young men must be feminine, and her name is Maybellene. It had taken me nine months to arrive at this name, but it was well worth the wait. Unique and memorable, I named her after the Chuck Berry song of the same title, which in turn acquired its name from the popular cosmetic brand. It was Berry’s first rock and roll hit and was influential in developing the genre.

Just as the song lyrics suggest however, there are a few problems with Maybellene. Although her exterior is sleek and her upholstery is sexy red leather, the rest of the interior is made of plastic. Well, one has to cut costs somewhere, but the areas of primary concern are the door handles, both inside and outside. Without a doubt, they will see the most wear and tear of the entire car, so it would only have been fitting if they were made of a more durable material. And in the frozen winter, between the ice forming on the outside handles and the increased brittleness, one must be very gentle.

Maybellene’s sunroof is also a constant source of her infidelity. The mechanism works well enough, but it is the shutter on the inside of the car that fails to operate properly. It is made from two separate pieces of board, one sliding over the other when opened. However, Hyundai somehow made this design very unreliable as the two pieces frequently came apart and jammed the whole mechanism. Thus, the sunroof has not seen as much use as I would like.

Another cosmetic issue with poor Maybellene is a circular piece of plastic that has come apart in her headlight. Originally, the ornamental ring was fixed around the low beam headlight, but it had never been fully fixed to the bezel since I got her. In an attempt to correct this, the entire piece came loose and began to roll freely within the epoxy sealed headlight. After hours of fruitless attempts to return the piece to its original place without breaking the moisture-proof epoxy seal between the lens and the bezel, I only succeeded in scratching the plastic ring and the bezel with a rusty coat hanger. 

Of comparable sports cars, Maybellene has the sportiest form I have ever seen by far. However, sportiness makes the driver sacrifice ride comfort. The suspension of the car feels pretty shoddy, though I am not sure what else I would expect from a sports car built for high-responsiveness, grip, and performance. A lot of the times, the ride does not bother me significantly, but from time to time, roads have not been properly made. Rough roads always cause me significant worry about what kind of damage is being done to my poor Maybellene.

Finally, there is the sad fact that Maybellene only has a four-speed gear box. One arrives at 45 mph and jumping into 4th gear, that’s all she has for you. You’re up at 3000 rpm, then 3500 rpm, then 4000 rpm, and there’s just no next gear. This is probably for the best, though. I’m pretty sure I’d have more than two speeding tickets if I had been given even one more gear to tempt me.

"Maybellene" on the day I got her

These foibles make Maybellene a real car, though; for no car is without her faults. It gives the machine a personality and a temperament, but despite these shortcomings, the most influential factors on the car’s persona are those that make you fall in love again, just like the day you got it.

I suppose I cannot say enough about the leather interior. It gives Maybellene that sultry debonairness that is tailor fit for young men. The “black widow” red-black color scheme assures you that if Maybellene is going to be the one to kill you, she’s going to do it with both visually-pleasing and sensational fashion in a James Dean-esque ball of fire, and the red leather interior plus bucket seats has much to do with that embracing experience.

Something else that is evident about Maybellene is that she’s not a mother or a nanny: she’s just a girl. She warns you that your seat belt might be off, but she is not incessant about the reminder, just a couple chimes of sweet concern for a few seconds. She knows you’re an independent man and she cannot tell you to do something when you don’t want to do it. She’s just not the nagging type.

Though I mentioned Maybellene’s limited four-speed gear box earlier as a regrettable idiosyncrasy of hers, I must also mention that it is a “select-shift” four-speed gear box, which makes all the difference. Sometimes, a man like me wants to be in complete control, but I’d rather not get embroiled in the minor details. Take operating a clutch, for instance: it is a detail about manual transmission automobiles that I have never handled with any amount of grace or success because I do not care to give it that much attention. With the select-shift mode, I let Maybellene handle those little details, and I just concern myself with shifting down on the tight corner, hunkering down to zip right into the ensuing straight-away.

It is often said that a young man’s first car is his first step to independence and freedom; that with this car, he was proceeding from boyhood to manhood. Therefore, it was important to choose this first car wisely, despite frequently constraining financial means, because this car was going to mean something sentimental to the driver, no matter how appalling or flawed. Maybellene, though, has proven a true companion, one with whom my adrenaline-fueled, thrill-seeking, speed-craving young life will be better spent. 

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?

The Culture of Coffee

This post is a portion of a larger untitled work in progress...

I love coffee. Since I was a boy, studying for the Advanced Placement Physics test in high school, my affection for this drink has known no bounds. Through college, it was the muse to my philosophical meanderings and stimulated both thoughtful and humorous conversations between my friends and myself. And in the working world, I greet it every day as the encouragement to welcome both the blessings and challenges of that day, yet to come.

In the past, I have often been accused of “coffee snobbery”. I prefer the term, coffee connoisseur. This term suggests that I respect the history and traditions surrounding coffee, whereas the former term implies that I arrogantly abuse my knowledge of coffee to compensate for my own lack of, shall we say, “beans.” I assure the reader: that is not the case.

As an example of my respect for the traditions surrounding coffee, I bring to your attention a misnomer regarding coffee proper in our culture. When you ask a friend to grab a cup of coffee with you, what you really mean is to grab a latte, an Americano, a mocha, or, saints preserve us, a “frappuccino”. It is very rare that I find myself sitting in a coffeehouse with a cup of freshly-brewed traditional black coffee before me. The above mentioned beverages are actually espresso blends, not made from traditional drip coffee makers.

Though I will be the first to agree that espresso possesses a rich, poignant flavor to it that is not found in regular coffee, it is a dainty European beverage. To me, it is the drink of the high-class and wealthy.  With their menu consisting of either overpriced espresso drinks or “freshly brewed coffee”, your next visit to the nearest Starbucks will either leave you with a small fortune missing from your wallet or a simultaneous regurgitation and loss of bowel control.

While I mention Starbucks, I would be remiss if I refrained from expressing my disdain for the establishment. They either fleece you or they “release” you. But I have disputes with Starbucks on crimes against the culture of coffee.

Starbucks has commercialized the coffeehouse. With their political awareness and patented coffee cup and heat sleeve design, they have infringed upon the peace and warmth that was once the local coffee shop. Starbucks has driven out the truly conscious and thoughtful people and made the coffeehouse into a rabble house of mindless, unimaginative pretenders. It is now considered “trendy” to drink Starbucks coffee, to hold the branded, recycled cup and carry it as a symbol of status, long after the liquid essence is gone. I once asked a man that I knew was a regular Starbucks coffee drinker why he preferred Starbucks coffee.

"It's because I'm sold on the brand." he grinned.

If I manufactured, packaged, and marketed mediocrity, despair, and misery in a buy-one-get-two-free combo pack, would you buy that too?

Among the throngs of people, there is something lonely about sitting in a Starbucks, knowing that maybe a few blocks away, there is another one, exactly like it. There is nothing unique about where you are sitting at this moment. For centuries, coffeehouses have been the source of inspiration for writers, actors, inventors, scientists, and every other occupation. And when one is sitting in a commonplace room that has been replicated in other locations a thousand times over, with overpriced, bitter hot water, and the noisy, zombie rabble, inspiration is very hard to find. I have achieved no manner of peace sitting in a Starbucks.

However, for me, the culture and traditions of coffee are alive wherever I call home. In fact, coffee has become a necessary part of my home. To many, this may sound radical, but coffee has been as integral a part of my history as it has been in all human history. Although the worldly pleasures of drugs, sex, and alcohol beckon temptingly, coffee is my innocent release. It is a necessity to maintain a caffeine habit for many, but I have no habit to maintain. It is just second nature.

The true traditional roots of coffee lie in its reputation as the drink of the working man. It has become a great American tradition in the workplace. Many people consider it just a caffeine fix, but I am sure that those same people would not substitute it with an energy drink. They do not drink it simply for its utility. It is an organic and wholesome stimulant.

Coffee is an agent of relaxation, taste and smell. I would wager that nearly everyone that has experienced the smell of coffee has wanted their kitchen to perpetually smell like a coffeehouse. You imagine yourself just breathing in that toasty aroma every day and feeling comfort. It slows your breathing to a relaxed rhythm; your days begin and end with that calming scent.

In my own experience, coffee stimulates social, intelligent conversation in a leisurely setting. As the smell and taste encourage relaxation, coffee is a catalyst for creating a comfortable atmosphere where friends can come to discuss their thoughts and opinions. Were I ever to become a philosophy teacher, I would have enough coffee in my classroom to give to my students. It turns what could be a boring, uninteresting college requirement lecture into an energetic exchange of ideas, a true search for the truth and right understanding. I could be wrong about this strategy, but at least none of my students would ever fall asleep in class.

Speaking of sleep, I frequently enjoy coffee while listening to classical music. Some might say that there is no other way to listen to classical music without falling asleep from boredom, but they are wrong. There is a true fittingness to this combination.

As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, coffee is an intellectual beverage. Scientifically, the caffeine in coffee increases the effectiveness of nervous impulses in the body, making you more alert and quicker to absorb information. Smell, flavor, and chemical composition combine to create an atmosphere of scholarly expedition.

Classical music, as well, is an intellectual experience. If you have not heard of the “Mozart Effect”, look it up. For at least two decades, classical music has been a hot topic in developmental psychology as to whether or not it makes one smarter, more intelligent, or whatever terms they have created to describe the phenomenon. Most people I have spoken with say that they listen to classical music primarily while they are studying… or trying to fall asleep, unfortunately, that was the runner-up usage. Either way, it proves, at least to me, that classical music at least allows one to focus their intellectual efforts and drive out distractions. Combined, coffee stimulates the mind without assaulting it, while classical music stimulates the senses without overloading them. They strike the perfect balance for intellectual pursuits, of which I am very fond.

To conclude, coffee has a long tradition. I do not believe that I invented it; I would not be nearly clever enough to pull that off. But there is a deep integrity and culture behind the simple mug of hot coffee that can be enjoyed in the peace and quiet of the little coffee shop on the corner. With the first sip of the day, you sigh and smile, and it almost sounds like someone nearby is playing the “Morning” piece from Grieg’s Peer Gynt Suite just for you.

Political Philosophy Pt. 3 "The City-State"

Part 3 in a three-part series.

In my previous poli-philo post, I specified that because each human being is capable of a measure of rational activity, they should participate in the political process of an ideal nation. However, a citizen's participation can easily be nullified by a badly established structure of governance. Sure, we claim to strive for a democracy, but is that what the political establishment facilitating?

Aristotle, in his Politics, describes his political establishment in terms of the polis, or rather, "city-state". The polis is comprised of a "downtown" area and the surrounding countryside. The size of the polis is large enough that the people that live in it are self-sufficient, but small enough that every citizen has a reasonable opportunity to know every other citizen. They are capable of feeding, housing, blacksmithing, clothing, and other necessities. They also may have some finer crafts and arts that they could use to trade with other poleis. Each polis would be governed independently from the other poleis, in accordance with that particular peoples' traditions and culture.

Currently, this is not how our political system in the United States appears to work today. The Founding Fathers granted all rights to the States, while giving the federal government only the power to regulate interstate commerce, provide for the national defense, and handle foreign policy. However, even today, that right is stretched to the limits in nationwide decrees on divorce, abortion, business, and in the most recent debate, healthcare. These are all decisions and laws handed down by the federal government and they apply to all states. As a result, most of the power in today's legal and judicial system is wielded by the federal government.

A possible advantage of having a strong central government is that it would make standardization laws among states easier. There is a universality among the states and their governance comes down to a singularity, the federal government. All decisions are made from D.C. and wherever you go, the laws will be uniform.

However, this returns us to my first blog post on the topic of political philosophy, concerning the viability of the philosopher-king. A singularity of power is not what a nation should be governed upon, especially in the vastly dissonant moral atmosphere of modernity. The moral health and character of this singularity will affect the governed body as a whole. If the leadership is sick, then the whole nation is sick.

In more recent times, our democracy has appeared more as an aristocracy (the term "career politicians" springs to mind). As the size of the federal government increases, the power of the federal legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) grows in terms of making federal laws. Political parties have been narrowed down to two groups, Republican and Democrat, and in order to receive any support from your party to win elected office, you must buy into the party's platform. Also, within the judicial system, the term "legislating from the bench" has become a popular phrase in light of many Supreme Court justices handing down decisions that essentially write laws for the whole nation.

But in recent years with the deadlock between entirely contrasting viewpoints, the President has gained legislative power. Nothing is accomplished in Congress's stalemate, so the President passes laws and declares wars without congressional approval. With the legislative branch rendered impotent, our political establishment appears more as a monarchy (or tyranny). Once more, the singularity narrows from the aristocracy (rule of the few) into an monarchy (rule of the one).

This is indeed troubling and worthy of much alarm, especially when 535 members of Congress legislate for over 311 million citizens and even worse when the President gets involved in the legislation process without Congress. So what is the solution?

The answer is to return power to smaller governing entities. Each area is aware of their governing needs, based upon their real-world experience in that area. Being at the "ground level" of a particular territory, whether it be the state or city level, will always be a more advantageous position to gauge the particular challenges of a population than a singular position in Washington DC.

In addition, the elected officials that wield the most power will be those that are of the same background and culture of the population. And a political system that establishes personal acquaintance and knowledge of the elected official is always to be encouraged in order that a citizen might be more informed when selecting those for governing duty.

In essence, this returns our nation from the folly of national political parties and encourages local groups with real concerns for their own community. Aristotle used the polis as a model for governance because it would prove large enough for self-sufficiency, the minimum for a decent living, but also small enough that it might not be encumbered by such extreme vanities and legislative singularities that currently plague our modern nation. Such global governing institutions cannot effectively and properly rule such a vast population. As a result, injustices occur and government is rendered incapable of completing the task it was designed to do: create and enforce laws, designed for the good of the people.

Political Philosophy Pt. 1 "The Philosopher-King"

Part 1 in a three-part series.

In Book VI of his seminal work, The Republic, Plato writes about the need for philosophers to fill the Guardian role in his utopian society. They will be fit to rule over the rest of the polis because of their wisdom and knowledge obtained in their study of philosophy. His student, Aristotle, wrote in his Politics that only those capable of rational activity should be allowed to participate in the state's politics. Despite modern philosophy's general aversion to confronting the arguments of these two ancient geniuses, there is much to be understood and gained if only we were to follow the reasoning of these honest thinkers. Sure, they made some errors, but I am confident that although I have never met these two in person, they attested to what they observed and described their thoughts without prejudice.

And so begins my first post on political philosophy. It has been a long time in coming, but with the impending election, everyone will more than likely be burned out from all the political talk after the election results come out and no one will be interested in reading this post. (so really, this is a chance that only comes once in 4 years)

First, my political views do not endorse any political party or candidate. Parties typically represent ideologies, which tend to be dangerous, and if a party offers a strict creed of political policies and not some kind of rich, dark beer (like a proper party should), than I'm ultimately not interested. That is not to say that I do not find myself aligning with one party or another; however, that only occurs because a choice must be made if anything resembling my idea of an ideal political atmosphere is to exist.

Second, the persons that have influenced my political philosophy include Plato, Aristotle, Alisdair MacIntyre, and G.K. Chesterton. Please note that none of these men are or ever were politicians. They are philosophers of one sort or another and have applied themselves to determining the goals of political activity, something that is nonexistent in today's political discourse.

In contrast, I will be the first to admit that philosophy, alone, is useless (numerous potential employers looking dubiously at my academic credentials have confirmed this). It is a guide in all areas of study and aides the thinker to understand the principles behind the other sciences. So it would not be helpful in today's political discourse to write about a "dream society" where each detail was figured out and everything was engineered for peace.

Every society in history has been faulty, some more than others. From small fishing towns to vast empires, each society has one thing in common: they are comprised of human beings. For millennia, each society has been created by human beings and comprised of human beings. I claim that the problem with creating a perfect society is man himself. There is something about human nature that consistently thwarts the establishment of a lasting, good society. Therefore, as long as a civilization is made up of human beings, it will have its faults.

However, my philosophical outlook on politics is not all that bleak. There are definitely some sound insights to be applied to a forming society.

I agree with Aristotle that the best form of government is a monarchy, and I agree with Plato that the ruler of a society should be a "philosopher-king". A monarch represents a singularity of rule and law. He discerns the good and commands his subjects towards that good. His subjects are accountable to him, just as he is accountable to God.

Most of you, I'm sure, are playing out the scenario of your college intro-philosophy professors being elected president, cringing at the thought. Fear not, I suggest no such thing. A true philosopher performs both contemplation in addition to cultivating practical wisdom. A philosopher-king is not just a philosopher (*SPOILER ALERT*: he's also a king). Devoting all one's time to either philosophy or governance makes for a poor ruler. Rather, seamless incorporation of the two is both possible and necessary for the philosopher-king because one rational activity forms the other.

Now that I've put the idea of the philosopher-king out there, I'm going to admit that it cannot be done for several reasons. First, the line between monarchy and tyranny (according to Aristotle, the best and worst forms of government respectively) is very thin, and anyone less than a virtuous man will abuse his power or be rendered impotent. Also, the means of selecting a successor would be very difficult because democratic elections would be fraught with self-interested politics and primogeniture doesn't always work properly.

The interesting thing about a monarchy would be that everything comes down to a single link, as far as decision-making is concerned. This is either very good or very bad for the society, heavily dependent on the moral stuff of the ruler. If an aristocracy (rule of the few) was installed where there were several people ruling a nation, the vices of one individual might be lessened by the virtues of the others. However, the fate of the nation still rests in the hands of a few people, and in the currently aimless moral climate of modernity, a true sense of honor and honesty in an individual is hard to come by. Therefore, we must not allow ourselves to be ruled by one or a few and aim for democracy (rule of the people), endeavoring not to fall into ochlocracy (rule of the majority).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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