King Quinlan

My door in St. Edward's as decorated by Kyle
and Patrick after my 2nd LSAT

William Shakespeare, a writer that I greatly admire, once said, “Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them."

My ‘greatness’ was thrust upon me.

It is not with pride that I publish this account because it does not seem entirely appropriate that I have been given this title. Rather, I write on this topic to “let everyone in” on the inside joke that is my undeserved nickname and the namesake for half of the title of my blog.

Kyle, Herald of the King and Servant of the Kingdom, and Dan, Knight of the Kingdom, (if I have a title, it's only fair that they have ones too) in the year 2011 gave me the title of “King Quinlan” on the event of our yearly pilgrimage to Washington DC, to bear witness to the life of unborn children and the atrocities committed against these innocents (aka, the March for Life). The night before the march, men and women mingled in the men’s sleeping quarters until well after time permitted in our school’s student rulebook. Some men were attempting to retire to be ready for the early morning ahead; however their attempts were in vain as the incessant giggles and cries from the nearby women made sleep impossibly elusive.

At this injustice, I rose to action. Finding the nearest chair, I mounted it with arms outstretched, to be seen by all the transgressors.

“Everyone, it is now 12:15 AM, fifteen minutes past our school’s parietal policy for weekdays. Since this is a school sponsored field trip, the rules of Du Lac still apply. We have guys trying to sleep here, so the women in the area will need to either go back to their own sleeping quarters or find somewhere else to socialize.”

A young woman with an exasperated expression replied, “But we have nowhere else to go.”

I paused, attempting to determine what bearing this had on what I had just said. Giving up trying to reconcile nonsense with reason, I replied.

“Well, you will just have to find somewhere else to go.”

And with that, the crowd dispersed and the men were allowed peace. It was deemed by Kyle and Dan that I had handled the conflict with such a firm conviction and regal presence that thenceforth, I was given the title of King Quinlan.

However, like Prince “Harry” of Shakespeare’s plays before he became King Henry V, I was not always as kindly and virtuous.

I was a brash, hot-tempered youth. Following a traumatizing sophomore year, I had learned to despise a group of individuals known collectively as the “bros”. They were deplorable individuals who gave themselves to drinking and lewd activities every weekend, and it was such a weekend as these when they incurred my wrath.

I had retired for the evening, as had my roommate Patrick, the King’s Court Fool. It was about 4 AM when there was a loud commotion in the hallway outside our door. The bros had returned from their night of debauchery and were looking to make more trouble.

They sought to disturb a senior who lived across the hall from me and Patrick by finding a nearby vacuum cleaner and turning it on outside his door. They pounded thunderously upon his door and jeered at him. This went on for nearly 10 minutes without any sign of the arrival of hall authorities to put an end to this madness. Fully awake and angry now, I leapt from my 8 foot high loft, flung open the door, and entered the guilty hallway in naught but a pair of shorts.

Consumed by unfathomable rage, I cannot recall exactly what I said upon my appearance. I do remember that whatever it was, I had used such profuse profanity that the transgressors immediately ceased their depravities and met my fury with surprise and uncertainty. I could feel every muscle in my body strained, resisting the urge to enter the throng of at least a dozen miscreants and commit violence to each of them. With vulgar bellowing, I advanced upon them and forced most of them to retreat.

Scott, alone, defied me.

Of all those previously present, Scott despised me the most. I had never injured him, so it always puzzled me as to why he hated me. It actually was he that had stolen my Xbox the previous semester and used it for his own purposes in his room. Of course, the established social understanding among this group was that whatever belonged to one, by default, was accessible to all. I never agreed with this policy and Scott had frequently taken advantage of my belongings. Thus, I deprived his sense of entitlement to whatever he desired and invited his derision.

Now, three yards separated Scott and me in the deserted hallway.

“Go on! Get out of here!” I shouted at him.

With eyes glassed over, he slurred a reply, “It’s a free hallway.”

With deft agility, I closed the distance between us in a moment and was now close enough to smell the repulsive combination of Kamchatka vodka and Keystone beer on his brutish breath.

“No, it’s not,” I trembled with rage, “It’s MY [expletive] hallway! Now get the [expletive] out!”

With each word, he cringed as I involuntarily spewed him with venomous spittle. Thankfully, this had the desired effect because he drunkenly turned and stumbled in the same general direction as his friends. Had he not moved, I dread to think of what might have happened next.

Upon my return to the room, Patrick had remained silent. We had only known one another for a few weeks, and I imagine this event had cast some doubt on my general mental health. Kyle, who lived in a room next door to the commotion, also later bore witness to these events, but it was only well into our friendship that the topic of that night arose. He had not realized that it was I who had walked out into the hallway, surging with wrathful madness. We shared a good laugh over the incident and it became only greater cause for the royal title. Though I am certainly not proud of my intemperate behavior, I have endeavored since then to become more level-headed, and I am largely succeeding in this task.

All such incidents aside, though, I regret to admit that the title of King is primarily due to my manner of speech. As is the habit of the Quinlan family, I have a tone that exudes confidence and the force of truth. I rarely begin my thoughts with the words, “I think that” or “I feel like”. To me, this seems repetitive and unnecessary because anything that I say is, of course, my own statement.

This linguistic style and confidence, I have been told, creates an air of authority to my statements. My self-assuredness and lack of soft language projects each word as one of ironclad truth, unassailable by any argument. Even on topics which I have no practical experience on, I make an estimation as to a reasonable position and defend it.

However, this strength of tone often appears as arrogance to many. I will be the first to admit that truthfully, at times, my words carry at least a tinge of haughtiness. However, I do not apologize for my self-confidence, the root of this character of speech. It is sad to see many unwilling to engage in open debate with others for fear of conflict. I carry myself in a way that I hope others will follow.

Every man must be ruler and king of himself. If a man is apprehensive of the slight breezes that barely change the course of his ship, how will he weather the torrential gales and roaring maelstroms of life? A king can have no subjects under his governance until he learns to govern himself properly in the sight of God. As I have not yet learned to rule myself completely with justice, I claim no subjects as my own, but with all eagerness, I welcome into my court those willing to receive my love and affection.

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. 2 "The Social Order"

Part 2 in a three-part series.

Sponsored by Aristotle For Philosopher-King

In the previous post, it was established that the "philosopher-king" was an impractical scenario because in order for it to work, the ruler must be virtuous (lest the monarchy falls into tyranny) and there must be an impartial system in place for choosing his successor (elections and primogeniture have historically proven to be unreliable). And because a proper aristocracy (rule by the few) would be more difficult to establish (not only do you have to find one virtuous man, but you have to find several), it is to democracy we place our hopes.

In establishing democracy, it is necessary to determine who would be considered citizens, allowed to participate in the political process. Aristotle claimed that natural slaves/manual laborers and women were not to participate in the political process because natural slaves/manual laborers did not possess the ability for rational activity and women's rational activity held no authority over their emotional nature. Though I disagree with the end result of Aristotle's argument here, I believe he is only trying to make the best conclusions of what evidence he had.

Those who reject Aristotle's political system more than likely first point out that he believes that some individuals should, by their very nature, be enslaved. Oh horrid ideology! I, on the other hand, believe there is an alternate reading to this and it fits very well into his philosophy. Fact: there are alot of people out in the world who are well-endowed with physical strength but are not very intelligent. Asking the Aristotelian question, "what is the function of these persons?" can give us a decent idea of why Aristotle thinks these individuals should stick to manual labor and not participate in politics: because they're equipped for it and not very good at rational activity. So are there any modern day natural "slaves"? On the blue-collar side, farmers, factory workers, manufacturers, construction workers, etc. On the white-collar-side, interns, IT help desk, call center, etc. (note: these are simply generalities based on general observation; they are by no means scientific laws) These people are not performing jobs that require them to be physically strong, but they may not have the natural rational ability to rise any higher than work at this skill level. All "natural slaves" must be capable of some measure of rational activity because they take direction from their superiors and exhibit understanding of their respective roles.

So are there "natural slaves" that are better with menial tasks and not capable of high amounts of rational activity? Yes. But should these people vote and participate in the political process? If you say, "yes, of course!", ask yourself how many times you've seen people you've considered idiots or morons on the street and thought to yourself "Wow... and that guy's vote counts as much as mine." I have thought this many times myself, but in the end, I believe that "natural slaves" has a right and an obligation to participate in choosing its future because they are capable, by their nature, of rational activity.

As for women, Aristotle made a natural distinction between men and women that was a bit strong. As I've described in another post, there certainly is a distinction between how men and women express themselves: men in logical terms and women in emotional terms. Both are completely human, both can be valid, and both are prone to fault. Aristotle claims that women's reason has no authority over her emotions, but I think that a more accurate, albeit nuanced, representation of his observations is that the persuasive terminology of women is to appeal to emotional relationships. This can be a valid (though not strictly logically valid) form of argumentation because everyone has feelings. Though I don't think that appeals to emotion belong much in political governance, to say that reason has no authority in a woman is very harsh and not a true representation of the factual evidence.

Therefore, should women participate in the political process? Absolutely, because they are capable of rational activity and are free members of society that should have a say in deciding its future.

What's my point here? Hasn't modern thought solved all these problems already? Every citizen gets to vote, including women and uneducated workers. So what's the big deal?

I guess I am trying to rescue Aristotle's political philosophy from being completely disregarded in political discussion. There's a bad habit in modern thought that finds one thing wrong with ancient/medieval philosophy and then decides that it should all be tossed out. (another example is when Descartes threw out Aristotle's physics, including the notion of telos, or "final cause", only because it was not mathematical in basis; therefore, it was considered wrong and useless) That is not honest thought and a discussion misses alot of important ideas without the ancient/medieval approaches.

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).