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: 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!

“Smells ‘n Bells” VS “Drums ‘n Chums”

As a Roman Catholic, I have been to many Masses in my lifetime. The majority have been your typical, run-of-the-mill parish Sunday Masses or your quick daily Masses, but I’ve also been to youth Masses, Novus Ordo Latin Masses, Tridentine (Pre-Vatican II) Latin Masses, and even Masses involving people collapsing into tears and wailing after receiving Communion.

That being said, I would like to discuss what I perceive to be two different “styles” of the Holy Mass. The first is one I’ve referred to here as “smells ‘n bells” (which alludes to the frequent use of incense and the bells that are rung at the moment of the Consecration), which one might consider to be orthodox. A Latin Mass is a perfect example of a “smells ‘n bells” Mass, but many vernacular Masses will also neatly fall into this category. Each piece of music is referred to as a “hymn” and the primary instrument is the organ. With these details, I am assured that the reader has been to a Mass of this sort before, so I will not spend any more time on describing it. For brevity’s sake, I will hereafter refer to this as the solemn Mass.

Blessed Pope John Paul II at World Youth Day

Second, there is the style of Mass that I refer to as the “drums ‘n chums” Mass (which refers to the frequent use of rock drums sets and the emphasis on the community of those in attendance). The style is largely attributed to the influence of Blessed Pope John Paul II and his institution of World Youth Day. From what I know of its history, the youth Mass was a method to attract young people who had no firm foundation of faith to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Thus, its execution is less conservative and of a higher energy. Guitars and drums belt out songs that focus primarily on the greatness of God and worshiping him. I will define this and refer to this as the youth Mass.

Most of the time, the style in which Mass is celebrated is a blend of these two and most people have a preference for one style over another, but it is my perception that a large number of faithful Catholics have strongly critical opinions about one or the other. Of the solemn Mass style, people say that it is too boring which makes it difficult to pay attention. Another frequent complaint is that the priest’s homilies are too difficult to follow or contain content irrelevant to them. Of the youth Mass, common criticisms are that the Mass becomes more like a social hangout spot where kids go to see their friends instead of going to receive Christ. Also, the sign of peace lasts fifteen minutes and everyone is so "touchy-feely".

So which is better? The goal of faith is to increase in it. Ultimately, the more faith we place in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, the better our lives will be and the better life after death will be. Anything that keeps us from increasing our faith must be discarded and a solution to this blockage should be discovered.

It is no mystery to any observant Catholic that generations of Catholics since the 1960’s have been without firm foundations for faith. John Paul II saw this crisis around the entire world, so he began World Youth Day to draw the youth of the world to Christ, and the concept of the youth Mass spun off of that. Had the Church said, “Well, we really can’t do anything for these people because that would involve adapting the Mass and our approach towards apostolate to a degree we’re not comfortable with,” that would have been an obstacle to the Church’s increase in faith, and an evil.

A youth Mass

The youth Mass has to attract young people, while staying true to its purpose. Why is the youth Mass emotionally appealing? For many people with emotional baggage, there are significant obstacles from their past lives that have to be overcome before a deep faith can be achieved. It is OK to be on fire with Christ’s love, after all. Why does the youth Mass seem to place an emphasis on relationship with one another in community? Many people are unaware of the unity of the Body of Christ, made up of the members of the Church. Society encourages individuality and rejects community, so it's very important that people realize that they are part of something bigger and more amazing than just them. Also, emphasizing healthy, virtuous relationships with one another is a step towards fostering a close, loving relationship with Christ.

However, many youth Mass attendees that I have known stop there. They get into a routine of going to youth Mass every Sunday and hearing the music and seeing their friends, but they do not look inward to discover if there is anything more that they’re missing. Truth is, they’re missing 2000 years of Church history and tradition. They could be missing doctrine and teaching on Mary, the lives and writings of the saints, and the other sacraments that are vital to a flourishing life of faith (just to name a few). They stay where they’re at because they are comfortable there and no one tells them otherwise. This is also an obstacle to the Church’s increase in faith, so it is also an evil.

Tridentine Mass

A return to the solemn Mass is the answer. The solemn Mass moves beyond the secularly appealing aspects of the youth Mass and focuses intently on deep theological truths of our faith. These truths are by no means those you would only find in a PhD theology program; rather, they are those deep aspects of Christ, His Mother Mary, and His Church that we are called to contemplate. The solemn Mass removes the guitars, drums, buddies, and girlfriends, and places the individual in a chapel with a monstrance containing the Blessed Sacrament, alone in mental prayer and Adoration. Ultimately, the Mass is meant to draw us to Christ and, in doing this, to one another; not the other way around. The Church allows for the secular noise to which we are accustomed with the hopes that in a desire to grow more deeply in faith, we will cast off the training wheels by doing things like spending Holy Hours with the Blessed Sacrament, reciting the Rosary, and going to silent retreats for contemplation.

The solemn Mass fulfills the purpose of the youth Mass. It is a channel through which we may pass in our relationship with Christ that speaks to us in terms that we are initially comfortable with. As our desire to more fully know Christ matures, we must also work to mature our faith and contemplate those deep mysteries of the Divine Love.

Graphic Credits:
catholicseeking.blogspot.com
becketyouth.org

traditioninaction.org

sttimothy.pipertechnology.com

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. 

The Philosophical Basics of the Resurrection

Courtesy of WikiPaintings.org

Probably of all my classes at Our Lady’s University, none had me more attentive than my course on St. Thomas Aquinas’ account of human nature, taught by Dr. John O’Callaghan. Unfortunately, this was my first formal exposure to the philosophy of St. Thomas, and as a 4000 level course, I do not think I got the most out of it. I had taken a course on Aristotle’s ethical theory the semester before, but though these two great minds were similar in worldview, Aristotle’s pagan terminology and approach was nowhere near a proper introduction to Thomas’ intellectually mammoth rational constructions.

Despite this, I did benefit from this study, and as I have only and always been interested in acquiring the truth and never in spouting off any philosopher’s theories word-for-word, this was not an insignificant benefit. One thing that really fascinated me during my study of Aquinas’ philosophy of human nature was in terms of the resurrection.

As is the relationship between theology and philosophy, divine revelation can invariably be confirmed by human reason. The saying, “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology” springs to mind. Basically, if our understanding were to be laid out on a line spectrum with things we know from human reason and things we know from divine revelation, each would generally lie on either side of the spectrum and there would be a gap in between. This gap represents our lack of full understanding of the higher bits of knowledge, specifically those things divinely revealed to us, creating what we call “mysteries”. Divine revelation gives us those truths that would otherwise be impossible to reach solely with our own reason, though these truths are coherent with our own human reason. Everything divinely revealed can be confirmed with the same human reason that we use to work a math problem or organize a closet or make a gourmet meal.

The resurrection of the body promised by Christ at his Second Coming is just one of those things that, with a little Thomistic ontology, is completely reasonable to believe, though the particulars certainly remain a mystery. First, it is important to remember that we are human beings (don’t forget that definition), and “human being” is defined as a living body animated by a rational, immortal soul. Therefore, it is accurate to say that when John dies, John (the unified human being) ceases to exist because his soul is separated from his body. However, John’s essence, his soul, is immortal and survives the body.

So our soul lives on, separated from our body which decays and fades away with time. At this point, do our souls just remain in Heaven? It is eternal beatitude, after all, so what more could we want or need? Why does Christ promise that our souls will be reunited with our bodies in the Resurrection? Is that really necessary after achieving eternal beatitude?

I certainly cannot say what is divinely necessary, but I can definitely say that it’s perfectly reasonable that I should be reunited with my body after I die. In the state after death, our human nature is divided: our soul is in Heaven and our decomposing body remains on earth. But since we were created as human beings (body and soul) and not as angels who are purely spiritual and incorporeal beings, it would seem a little odd that we should spend eternity in such a divided state, especially when our bodies are an intrinsic part of our own creation and being. (if they were not, why should we bother caring for them in this life?)

As an analogy to illustrate this, a free-floating balloon is caught by a child and tied down. The balloon’s natural destiny is to float away into the sky, but here, it is separated from that destination and tied to the ground. If the balloon was meant to remain close to earth, why was it filled with a lighter-than-air gas to begin with? Similarly, it is our natural destiny to be unified, soul and body. When we die, our soul is separated from our body and allowed to take root in Heaven. If this were the end of the story, then why did God create us with bodies in the first place? It seems perfectly natural to believe, then, that the destiny of our human nature is to be unified, body and soul, in eternal beatitude with God after the Resurrection.

So our use of human reason confirms the revelation of the Resurrection. I am not suggesting that while in Heaven after death, we will in some way miss our physical bodies or feel uncomfortable without them. This would suggest that eternal beatitude is deficient in some way. But as it has been revealed to the human race, Divine Justice promises to return us to our bodies at the end of time, and this is at the very least is something we can partially understand.

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 Science of Santa Claus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Becoming Beautiful: A How To Guide

An Advertisement for American Eagle Outfitters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joy: Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan

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

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

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

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

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.