Humble Servitude and the Good Master

In writing my previous post on Aristotle in the "Highest Human Science Series", I had the opportunity to review one of his more controversial philosophical views. I say "controversial", but only because our too-often arrogant modern perspective shuts us off from learning anything about the world unless it comes from a contemporary and up-to-date 'world-view'. Our tendency to ignore great thinkers and men of virtue from history just because they didn't have the Internet is a handicap that makes any attempt at intellectual honesty evaporate instantly. I think that's a topic for another time.

The Aristotelian doctrine that I am referring to is his commentary on the composition of the household. In Chapter 3 of Politics I, the Philosopher starts from the basic communities, these being man and woman or a master and a slave, and works his way up to the city-state. However, in Chapter 5, he makes the very startling claim, and I quote directly from C.D.C. Reeve's translation:

"... There are some people, some of whom are naturally free, others naturally slaves, for whom slavery is both just and beneficial." (Pol I.5 1225a 2-4)"

To the careless reader, this might be enough to stop reading and move on to a task which requires significantly less intellectual digestion. However, can this really be true? I do not hold individuals' opinions in high honor unless I have heard all of it and find all of it honorable. This pricks that nagging, hopelessly modern part of my conscience that is the mark of everyone born in this age of history. But it's so aggressively bold that given how high I have admired Aristotle's intellect up to this point, I am willing to give him a fair shot.

Aristotle's understanding of "slave" is not at all the same as that which we typically hold when reflecting on our nation's history. True, he is most likely referring to slaves taken in the conquest of one nation over another, but the imagery of Uncle Tom's Cabin is a modern intellectual prejudice exclusive to human thought in the last few centuries.

Aristotle uses the term "natural slaves" to denote that these men (or women) are made slaves by nature. So in this sense, he is not strictly referring to those slaves won as spoils of military conquest. Instead, these human beings had it in their nature to be slaves from birth. As a biologist by study, Aristotle gravitates towards assigning the distinction of "by nature" to his observances. However, he does have proof to back this up. He asserts that, "Nature tends... to make the bodies of slaves and free people different," specifically, a slaves body is physically superior to that of a free person's. (Pol I.6 1254b 26) Harkening back to his argument about function, it is plain to see that a strong body is best suited for tasks that are physically strenuous. 

Also, though I do not fully agree with the sweeping generalization of this next statement, he also points out that the natural slave "shares in reason to the extent of understanding it, but not have it himself." (Pol I.6 1254b 22-23) This statement makes it clear (and if it doesn't, he makes it more obvious later in the work) that according to Aristotle, natural slaves do not possess reason at all. However, to avoid getting into an entirely tangential argument on what Aristotle is actually saying, I think we can sufficiently agree that the people that tend to end up at the bottom of the pile are those less capable of intellectually robust activity than those above them. So I think it is fair to say that though Aristotle's statement above might not ring entirely true; there's enough to it that I can believe it to an extent.

This startling claim gathers more credence when you think about the vast majority of the people in the world that are not seriously capable of thinking for themselves. The phrase of "following the herd", an aimless hive-mind, describes this phenomenon perfectly. Following what everyone else is doing is the norm for these individuals. On a small scale, these individuals might have their checkbook balanced and their schedules planned, but if you survey their global quality of life, especially in terms of ethics, these people lack the intellectual robustness to comprehend their life's meaning on their own. 

At this point, my conclusion is that Aristotle was definitely on to something when he defines the natural slave. Though I might not agree with every characteristic that he associates with them, I do accept that there are persons capable of understanding human reason, though incapable of vigorously applying it themselves.

But to return to the initial claim, Aristotle's view that slavery could ever be both "just and beneficial" is still very difficult to swallow, despite the natural slave only being fit for physical labor (as shown above). Though without any guidance to his labors, he would be useless and unproductive. For it to be just, it would have to be in accordance with the virtue of justice and fittingness; and for it to be beneficial, it would need to be in the individual's best interest to be ruled by another man.

If a natural slave were to be ruled by another man, then who more beneficial to his interests than the virtuous, or eudaimon, man? Given the master's virtue, he would be of a superlative intellect, as contemplative wisdom, along with action-based practical wisdom, are the crowning achievement of the virtuous man and the most visible marks of his intellectual prowess.

Furthermore, without the capacity for agile rational activity, natural slaves are incapable of full human virtue, according to Aristotle; however, in the company of a virtuous master, the natural slave could share in his master's intellectual wisdom and share in living a virtuous life. Aristotle is very scrupulous when it comes to assigning the term, "virtuous". Both excellent acts and thoughts are require for the virtuous man, and on those grounds, the natural slave is disqualified from the title unfortunately. While I agree with this on the grounds that to achieve the highest status of any human being, you must perform your function the best, I believe there is a similar value and virtue associated with knowing your intellectual betters and modeling your conduct and contemplation after theirs.

And it is here that I think we have come across the most helpful and universally practical nugget in this lonely corner of Aristotle's political theory. Modern thinkers would never have discovered it because modern thinkers wouldn't have made it past the first paragraph. But we have. To some degree, we are all natural slaves; there is something deficient in our human understanding and it's something we can always work on. We need to make our understandings subservient to virtuous men; we must sit at the feet of the intellectual masters and allow ourselves to be guided by their practical and contemplative wisdom. In modern terms, it is comparable to discovering our role models and fashioning our thoughts and behavior from theirs.

To conclude, when considering Aristotle's political and ethical theory in its entirety, I believe he presents the most mature and responsible blueprint for a society that permits servitude. His biological (natural) perspective may overstep its bounds in some respects to a comprehensive understanding of the nature of all human beings, but in the end, he holds the masters of other men to high standards of conduct and responsibility in governing those under their charge. And in applying Aristotle's theory of natural slavery broadly with a little humility, we discover that we could all allow ourselves to cease our intellectual rebellions and naturally "enslave" our minds and hearts to men and women of high and admirable virtue.

A Small Coffee Shop...

The King’s Coffee is more than just a caffeinated beverage. It’s a culture. In a world where Red Bull and Monster energy drinks get people their caffeine drug fix or where Starbucks serves up sugar comas by the environmentally-friendly disposable cup, coffee seems to have lost the fine traditions and culture that have surrounded it in its long history. But not here.

Here, there is inspiration. The rustic and uniquely librarian feel to the shop encourages the next great idea, whether you’re a student cramming for a test, an entrepreneur talking over the next big thing with your business partners, or even just a part-time philosopher like me. Building on centuries of coffee tradition, we believe that the coffee house is a source of intellectual discussion, break-through ideas, and the search for truth. From handcrafted wooden tables to our old-fashioned library, the contemplative atmosphere of The King’s Coffee encourages adventure into uncharted ideas. Literary classics can be removed from the library shelves and perused while you sip your coffee or even purchased before you go.

If you will be staying with us as you enjoy your coffee, you can select your favorite, unique coffee mug from our Wall of Mugs. No two mugs are exactly the same and each one has been handcrafted to create a unique experience with each visit to our shop. When you’re finished with the mug, you may either return it or purchase it at the register. If you choose to purchase, know that it is the only one exactly like it and no duplicate will ever be crafted. The uniqueness of your experience at The King’s Coffee is ultimately the measure of our success to create an inspirational and intellectual prolific atmosphere. Though we do also offer to-go cups and lids, we encourage our patrons to enjoy the quiet and thought-provoking atmosphere of the shop.

As much as coffee is a stimulant of the intellectual exercises, we believe that it unlocks the artist in all of us. The walls of the shop are adorned with beautiful artistic originals from local artists to create a perpetual art show for our patrons. Art may also be purchased off the wall and new works will be rotated in as they are received for display. The finer arts will permeate the audible surroundings as well, exhibiting only the finest classical music selections.

Finally, the coffee itself will reflect all of the values inherent to the mission of The King’s Coffee. All of our beans are roasted to perfection on site, treated with the highest care to ensure freshness and quality. Coffee is freshly ground to ensure that your cup of coffee is handed to you in prime flavor. Temperatures of brewed coffee are monitored to prevent coffee from burning and becoming bitter, and only the purest quality spring water is used.

So step into The King’s Coffee and revitalize your intellectual inspiration with a mug or two of our fine coffee!

The Highest Human Science: VI. Aristotle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Most Rare Human Virtue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Highest Human Science: 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!

The Dangers of God's Grace

Since middle-school, I had been very fond of swimming, particularly racing. I prided myself on being the fastest free-style and backstroke swimmer on the team, and winning first place in races was a common occurrence. One meet, however, the coaches had signed me up for my usual free-style and backstroke events, but also on my list of race events was the butterfly stroke race. This was a problem: I had never swam butterfly.

Sure, we had done some practice with it, but I never possessed the proper coordination to make it more than a few meters before I was doggie-paddling. I approached the starting blocks, shaken with fear of not only losing the race, but possibly not even finishing. Silently, I prayed to God that I should at least finish the race, let alone not drown in my attempt.

I not only finished, but I earned first place. It's difficult to convince anyone that the occurrence of this result was a miracle, but to me, it's profoundly clear that it was. Whatever grace I received was accompanied by the unsettling fear of failure before and a consequently very sore and worn-out body afterwards. In this instance, God's grace had been a painful experience.

"The Calling of the Apostles Peter and Andrew"
by Duccio di Buoninsegna

Today's gospel provides Luke's account of the first meeting between Christ and Peter. A few weeks ago, I published a post on the struggle with habitual sin and proper contrition for them, and I cited the example of Peter's initial encounter with Christ in the gospel of Luke. They meet on the shores of the Sea of Galilee and Christ instructs Peter to cast out to open water and lower his nets. Peter, having caught nothing at night, remained doubtful with the success of this course of action, but he acquiesced anyway. Once the nets had been lowered, the catch of fish was so great that their nets began to tear and even with the help of a second boat, they were both in danger of sinking.

First, receiving God's grace only takes a simple "yes". Peter's dubious "yes" led to an incredible catch of fish. Mary's simple, yet perfect "yes" opened her to the conception of the very Son of God. On the mountain, the young boy's "yes" to providing the few loaves and the fishes he possessed led to the feeding of five thousand people with some to spare. Our gifts may be small, but in cooperation with God, miracles become possible. Most people have heard of this aspect of God's grace (or have experienced it for themselves). It is definitely a wonderful blessing to realize this and acknowledge it in our lives.

However, what you don't hear is that sometimes, God's grace may nearly kill us with its intensity. In the today's second reading, Paul refers to his conversion story of being cast off his horse simply at the sound of Christ's voice, and in the Gospel, Peter and his fellow fishermen nearly drowned as a result of an incredible catch of fish. In both circumstances, God's grace manifested itself in violent, threatening ways. These accounts challenge a common notion that God's grace is always quiet or subtle because sometimes, the furious power of God's grace comes to us in these "life(style)-threatening" situations.

Focusing on the Gospel account, the fishermen's nets were tearing, the boat was capsizing, and the human help of the second boat could not even alleviate the sheer enormity of God's grace. Similarly when we encounter His grace, the nets of our vices will be torn through and our lives, it seems, will be in danger of sinking and drowning. The manner in which we have allowed ourselves to just "float" through life will be shaken to such a degree that in order to be set right, we will be confronted with the reality of that very real danger of death to our lifestyles, If we're open to it, God's dangerous graces will "kill us", but our death will be a "death to self" and our rebirth will be in His divine love. Our sins and depravities will be put to death and all that will remain is our charity. 

"The Conversion of St. Paul" by Francesco Mazzola

So why is God's grace sometimes so violent in this fashion? Grace must necessarily purify us. In today's first reading, Isaiah had a hot coal placed on his mouth. In the second reading, St. Paul was cast from his horse and blinded. In the Gospel, Peter's physical strength fails him and even with the help of his companions, he is filled with fear of a drowning death. Each of these men were flawed and each received the cleansing gift of God's grace. However, just as Purgatory prepares us to see God face to face by a painful purification, God's grace to these sinful men is so great that in their fallen nature, they perceive it to be painful. To eyes that have never seen the sunlight, even the slightest ray of sunshine is blindingly painful, but once the eyes become accustomed to the goodness of the illumination around them, they rejoice at that purifying grace which was once excruciating.

How often do we allow ourselves to experience this fearful level of grace in our lives? Do we shirk away from it for fear of braving the danger to our lifestyles? There is a significant amount of dying-to-oneself that we all need to do in our lives, and if we avoid this death, we will always be devoid of God's greatest graces and blessings. But if we are open to that painfully purifying grace in our daily lives, we are given a blessed opportunity to suffer with the Suffering Servant, the Crucified Christ.

“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

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.

Fight to the Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Becoming Beautiful: A How To Guide

An Advertisement for American Eagle Outfitters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joy: Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan

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

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

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

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

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.