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).

My First Car

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


V6 and black. That’s all I told my brother when I asked him to find me a car. He found me a V6, in black, with red leather interior.

Ok, let’s test drive this.

An hour later, I was buying this car, my first car, a 2.7L V6, 172 horsepower, 2008 Hyundai Tiburon GT Limited (tiburon is Spanish for “shark”), the most accessorized trim for the model with the red leather interior, Sirius XM radio, sunroof, fog lights, low-profile sport tires, and ‘select-shift’ transmission. I had performed my own research and was having trouble finding something for which I was comfortable paying. Whatever I drove away with, I needed to love it. Finances would be tight and I wanted to be sure that I wanted to pay for it every month.

I wanted a 6-cylinder engine because I was a young man. I wanted to pull out into traffic and roar up to speed with everyone else. I wanted to be pushed back in my seat as if I were on the back of some wild animal. I wanted to drive down that straightaway 70 mph highway feel the power of freedom over the bellowing of the engine.

Two speeding tickets later, though, I had given up on the whole going faster than the speed limit notion. You would think that fast cars were made for young people to get caught speeding in. But for someone my age, the acceleration of this beast leaves nothing to be desired.

I wanted a black car because black is appropriate for any occasion. It is colorless, but not characterless. It projects class and composure like a sharp man in a tuxedo, but also stealth and elusiveness like a thief in a black turtleneck and ski mask.  Black is about business and silent power, formality and dark strength. It has good manners, but will quietly dispatch opposition.

A complex duality to the color that lacks any color, but I wanted both personalities for my car. I am not a rambunctious red or a pristine white car man. I wanted both professional functionality and sleek style.

With the inclusion of red leather, this car became all about stylish business on the outside, and party on the inside. I had never expected or dreamed that I could afford a car with a leather interior, much less a fashionable leather interior. The expression “icing on the cake” does not properly do it justice. Rather, was like “icing with flowers made of icing on the cake made entirely of corner pieces”.

Of course, she has her one foible. Miles per gallon? Not too great, and I have the V6 to blame for that mostly. But after what I’ve mentioned previously, who cares?

With time, I would come to properly appreciate the ‘select-shift’ manual transmission, referred to as ‘Sport Mode’ in the user’s manual. I had initially been shopping for a manual transmission car, but after a harrowing experience with my father’s Jeep, I had decided that I was not that interested in dying so young. However, the select-shift on the Tiburon was exactly what the doctor ordered for the hand-foot coordination nightmare that is manual transmission for me: manual shifting with an automatic clutch. Because sometimes, you’ve got to be able to shift down to jump off that corner as fast as you want.

With all of these things combined, you get the sheer delight I experienced driving 70 mph down Highway 55 in the early morning in my stylish, sleek ‘shark’ sports car, Genesis blaring over the voracious roar of the V6. Is this love?

My History of Coffee

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


When birthday or Christmas time rolls around, people ask me for gift ideas for me. Typically, I don’t appreciate this question because that spoils all the fun of getting someone a gift. But I play along anyway. What I usually say is very simply, “Coffee.” I get a laugh or two and then they ask me what I really want for my birthday.

This puzzles me. I just told them. Coffee.

People that don’t know me very well seem not to take that answer seriously. Wait, was I being serious? Was I really talking about the beverage that everybody makes, half-asleep, a couple minutes after dragging themselves out of bed in the morning? Was I actually referring to the chewable, black tar that the bushy-mustached old man makes at the office, referring to it as a “cup of Joe” when it would be more accurate to refer to it as a “cup of– wait a second… is this dirt”? Was I speaking about the beverage that represents just a "caffeine fix", as easily replaceable by Red Bull, Monster, or RockStar?  Oddly enough, coffee is not my source for a caffeine fix.

Coffee is a source for spiritual experiences.

Kaldi, son of Aldi

Given to mankind from the Mug of God himself, coffee has a long and hallowed history. Originating in Ethiopia in the 9th century and discovered by Kaldi, son of Aldi (who himself was the successful founder of a global discount supermarket chain), the drink quickly became known for its healing powers and use in religious ceremonies. It was adopted by many Middle Eastern countries and became a staple as a drink of the Muslim world. Despite the success of the drink in the immediate area, the Islamic nations withheld trade to the Western and Far Eastern countries.

It was not until the early 12th century when Saint Drogo, blessed by the Lord with the ability to bilocate, was able to liberate the bean covertly from the Middle East’s grip and brought it to Italy, thereby earning the title of “patron saint of coffee and coffeehouses”. Unfortunately, the Christian world was not yet prepared to accept the strange brew from the Muslim world. But in 1600, Pope Clement the VIII proclaimed that the drink be made available to all Christians, declaring, “Non magis excusat desideraturus mane Missam!” The western world was ecstatic, blessing God for his infinite goodness and generosity.

The Boston Coffee Party of 1773

Since then, nations all around the world began to discover the black and life-giving treasure. In America before the Revolutionary War, the King of England had laid a heavy tax on tea, prompting the colonial peoples to import coffee as a substitute. After tasting the first arrival of the new beverage, they were astonished at the superior taste and tossed all of the British-imported tea into Boston harbor in celebration. The event was erroneously misnamed because the drink of choice at the ensuing party was in fact coffee, making it accurately known as the “Boston Coffee Party”.

In the early 19th century, Napoleon Bonaparte sought to invade and conquer Russia. Despite the Russian’s “scorched earth” tactics, the French army was resolute on entering Moscow. Although two thirds of Moscow lay burned upon their arrival, it was not the ruin and spoil of their prize that disheartened the Emperor of France: the Russians did not have any coffee in the city . Unable to devise a strategy to survive the bitter Russian winter without the soul-warming brew, Napoleon sounded the retreat and his army limped back to France, discouraged, defeated, and de-caffeinated.

Without coffee, Thomas Edison’s 10,000 attempts to invent the light bulb would have been impossible to accomplish during the long days and endless nights of work. Without coffee, Ward Cleaver would have woken up every morning to the sound of Beaver’s voice without the character-fortifying agent that restrains the disciplining backhand. And without coffee, countless research papers and final projects would have lay in ruins before procrastinating student.

Every culture, every land, throughout all of human history, has benefited from this wonderful beverage. If fresh, it is sweet to taste and refreshing to the mind. Though truly fresh coffee is difficult to obtain, roasts abound that harness the power of the bean and still yield not to bitterness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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