I don't know how, but tonight I actually learned alot about myself. I think the 3 causes of these changes that I noticed are: 1. Going to Counseling, 2. Accepting Aristotle/Thomas into my brain, 3. Becoming Catholic (I know everyone's sick of me talking about it, but it will be really brief I promise).
Tonight, I was guilted into going to a party I didn't want to go to. It was with a bunch of friends from my Mennonite high school. The birthday boy is an atheist and all night he was provoking conversation about God and/or Atheism. But to my surprise, I didn't take the bait. I just accepted him as he was - not to say I thought he was right or anything, but I felt he needed time and space and that it wasn't worth arguing about right then.
After everyone was finished at the bar we were seated in, they all wanted to go to another bar. I felt that I was done, I'd had a great time, but didn't wan to go to this new bar. Everyone started guilting me and trying to persuade me. The nicer folk tried to make excuses for me ('he probably has to work in the morning'), and one friend even used Religion to taunt me "it's because we aren't Catholic isn't it!" (I enjoyed this ridiculous red-herring, along with people shouting about Ireland). But I thought - what would Aristotle do/what will make Andrew most fulfilled. After pondering this I thought, going home will be the happiest choice. I didn't owe any obligation or responsibility to anyone, I had been nice to everyone, so why did I have to go out afterwards? The short answer is: I didn't. So I just refused, I just said no. I decided not to lie and make excuses, I just said it plainly that I didn't want to go. So I left.
I remember my counselor once saying about depression 'if you're sad, just say "I'm sad, and that's ok, so what?" So tonight I just said "I don't want to be cool, I don't want to go to another bar, and that's ok". It was classic peer pressure - my friend caved and went with everyone else (though I think he was just chasing a skirt). But on the drive home I had an epiphany: I don't need to be cool, I never will be cool, and that's ok. I have facebook quotes from 18th century Tory MP Viscount Henry St. John Bolingbroke, and the medieval philosopher Boethius, that's not cool or normal. I'm 275 pounds give or take some, that's not normal, that's not cool. I have depression that comes and goes. And I'm Catholic - which to cite Evelyn Waugh just makes me completely different from the surrounding world. There's nothing normal or cool about me, and I'm just accepting that. ... Maybe that makes me cool...
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Invisible, Uncreated world of Being, Makes More Sense than the Material World of Becoming
Plato, Kant, Thomas, Augustine, and Jesus all posited a (post) hellenic worldview whereby behind everything in the physical world, there existed ideas, the non-material, the noumenal, God. Something Other, something not like what we see. From our life experience and our own human being/existence, we know that Being must exist.
Plato posited that there was a realm of the Forms whereby every essence existed in a non-material state. This means that when I use the word "is", the concept is a universal one that people can actually understand. The fact that no one can define "Being" is proof that we use in every language concepts that are beyond our explanation.
Crazily enough one deity is rumored to have said "I am who I am" - interpretted by many as "I am Being", and that for every human being, it is possible to say of this deity "in Him we live and move and breathe and have our being".
If Being (invisible world) is the whiteboard, Becoming (visible material world) is the writing on it. Without Being, Nietzsche rightly said, we can only speak in verbs. There are no nouns. You are not essentially anything, you are an accidental cluster of atoms constantly in flux until you die.... oh, and by the way. You weren't caused.... figure that out.
Accepting that all of existence and your own personal life does not follow logic (because logic necessitates causation which would require an existant non-material 'spiritual' entity to have created time and matter), accepting such a worldview would mean that everything is meaningless, there is no truth, there can be no true emotion between people. There can only be chemistry and biology and physics, and again remember none of those sciences can follow any pattern as this would imply logic or meaning. That is one alternative. It's as I've said objectively illogical (as it would be since logic doesn't exist). It's rather like a paranoid person who says all the world is conspiring against them, and then another person trying to explain to them that this is not true. The more the rational person explains, the more the paranoid person believes they are vindicated. (I stole that one from Chesterton).
For the rest of humanity, that isn't ready to kiss away Love, Meaning, Human Rights, and Reason, there exists another possibility in the invisible world. That's personally why I'd rather be a Platonist, or an Idealist, or an Aristotelian, or a Thomist, or a Jew, or a Deist, or a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Morman, or a worshipper of the Flying Spagetti Monster (provided he was immaterial) than be a materialist.
For the philosopher, Materialism is a joke, the phrase "the material world is the only reality" disproves materialism (language implies reason, which implies non-material principles, more "invisible" reality). Similarly a "God's eye view" of the world that claims God doesn't exist is impossible, as it would be a universal statement in a universe without universal truth! (oft repeated but true nonetheless).
Thus one can say "I don't think the (realm of the Forms/God/Noumenal/Ideal) exists" but the statement must be understood as an illogical claim, based on either emotion or unjustified opinion.
Humanities: 1 , Material Sciences: 0
Plato posited that there was a realm of the Forms whereby every essence existed in a non-material state. This means that when I use the word "is", the concept is a universal one that people can actually understand. The fact that no one can define "Being" is proof that we use in every language concepts that are beyond our explanation.
Crazily enough one deity is rumored to have said "I am who I am" - interpretted by many as "I am Being", and that for every human being, it is possible to say of this deity "in Him we live and move and breathe and have our being".
If Being (invisible world) is the whiteboard, Becoming (visible material world) is the writing on it. Without Being, Nietzsche rightly said, we can only speak in verbs. There are no nouns. You are not essentially anything, you are an accidental cluster of atoms constantly in flux until you die.... oh, and by the way. You weren't caused.... figure that out.
Accepting that all of existence and your own personal life does not follow logic (because logic necessitates causation which would require an existant non-material 'spiritual' entity to have created time and matter), accepting such a worldview would mean that everything is meaningless, there is no truth, there can be no true emotion between people. There can only be chemistry and biology and physics, and again remember none of those sciences can follow any pattern as this would imply logic or meaning. That is one alternative. It's as I've said objectively illogical (as it would be since logic doesn't exist). It's rather like a paranoid person who says all the world is conspiring against them, and then another person trying to explain to them that this is not true. The more the rational person explains, the more the paranoid person believes they are vindicated. (I stole that one from Chesterton).
For the rest of humanity, that isn't ready to kiss away Love, Meaning, Human Rights, and Reason, there exists another possibility in the invisible world. That's personally why I'd rather be a Platonist, or an Idealist, or an Aristotelian, or a Thomist, or a Jew, or a Deist, or a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Morman, or a worshipper of the Flying Spagetti Monster (provided he was immaterial) than be a materialist.
For the philosopher, Materialism is a joke, the phrase "the material world is the only reality" disproves materialism (language implies reason, which implies non-material principles, more "invisible" reality). Similarly a "God's eye view" of the world that claims God doesn't exist is impossible, as it would be a universal statement in a universe without universal truth! (oft repeated but true nonetheless).
Thus one can say "I don't think the (realm of the Forms/God/Noumenal/Ideal) exists" but the statement must be understood as an illogical claim, based on either emotion or unjustified opinion.
Humanities: 1 , Material Sciences: 0
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Beauty and the Beast, Existentialism, and Love
I was woken by my cat at 6:15 this morning and couldn't go back to sleep. So I brought my bedding into the loft and watched Beauty and the Beast which my brother's wife had left at our house. No not the new remastered edition, the old VHS. I hadn't watched the film since I was a kid when it was released in 1991, and as usual my memory served me quite accurately, though of course some parts were surprises again (I forgot what a douchebag the beast is).
Anyway, the movie while arousing my interest, didn't satisfy my desire to find some deep message. I thought for a while about the admixture of modern pagan and romanticized post-christian humanist values and thought this could only be disney's doing. So I read the original (dubious as any claim to originality a fairy story can have), by Jeanne-Marie LePrince de Beaumont (http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/beauty.html) it was short, but much better than the film. I liked the Thomistic 'moral' of the story
"come and receive the reward of your judicious choice; you have preferred virtue before either wit or beauty, and deserve to find a person in whom all these qualifications are united." -spoken to Beauty after her choice of the Beast and his transformation
It reminded me of the biblical story of Samuel/God choosing David based on the virtue rather than appearance.
"And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD's anointed is before him. But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." - 1 Samuel 16:6-7 (KJV)
Of course to me, there could be two much more interesting tales which I'll outline here:
1. The Handsomest and the Hag - a story about a handsome man who falls in love with an ugly woman. To be fair to the ladies, the story is usually reversed, and women are still seen as having to be attractive. (For a cartoon Belle was pretty hot). Imagine a reversal of what I like to call the King-of-Queens-syndrome, where we always have the fat ugly guy, and the beautiful girl. I don't know how people (myself included) would react to a story like that.
2. A Tale of Two Uglies - a story about two ugly people who remain ugly and learn to love each other even if they aren't attracted to each other. At the end, when they both realize that they still love each other even if they're both ugly, no transformation takes place, and they live average lives.
Although to the credit of the film, the fairy story, and my other ideas, the one transcendent truth coming through each, is the idea that loving something makes it lovable.
For example, there is a girl in one of my classes at Brock, whom upon first glance was rather ugly. Her ears were big and uneven, her voice squeaky, and she had no chest to speak of. But as I got to know her and listen to her ideas and life, suddenly I found myself attracted to her. Admittedly, not overwhelmingly, and certainly not in a true love type way.
In taking an Existentialism class, this is one thing I am appreciating the most. We put meaning on objects we conceive. When I look at a piece of bread, I conceive it as food. When I look at a consecrated Eucharistic host, I conceive it as the Body and Blood of God. Very divergent meanings for empirically the same accidents/appearances.
This is what love I think is most like - no wonder they talk about love potions and spells - it is deceptive, it doesn't follow appearances. And in this post-Christian culture, it is perhaps the only gift of grace that people have certain faith in. This is a beautiful revelation/reminder to the Christian as the apostle tells us that Love is the greatest (1 Corinthians 13).
and now that I think of it, you could make a great WoW version of the movie with a Tauren male and a Human/Blood Elf female.
Anyway, the movie while arousing my interest, didn't satisfy my desire to find some deep message. I thought for a while about the admixture of modern pagan and romanticized post-christian humanist values and thought this could only be disney's doing. So I read the original (dubious as any claim to originality a fairy story can have), by Jeanne-Marie LePrince de Beaumont (http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/beauty.html) it was short, but much better than the film. I liked the Thomistic 'moral' of the story
"come and receive the reward of your judicious choice; you have preferred virtue before either wit or beauty, and deserve to find a person in whom all these qualifications are united." -spoken to Beauty after her choice of the Beast and his transformation
It reminded me of the biblical story of Samuel/God choosing David based on the virtue rather than appearance.
"And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD's anointed is before him. But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." - 1 Samuel 16:6-7 (KJV)
Of course to me, there could be two much more interesting tales which I'll outline here:
1. The Handsomest and the Hag - a story about a handsome man who falls in love with an ugly woman. To be fair to the ladies, the story is usually reversed, and women are still seen as having to be attractive. (For a cartoon Belle was pretty hot). Imagine a reversal of what I like to call the King-of-Queens-syndrome, where we always have the fat ugly guy, and the beautiful girl. I don't know how people (myself included) would react to a story like that.
2. A Tale of Two Uglies - a story about two ugly people who remain ugly and learn to love each other even if they aren't attracted to each other. At the end, when they both realize that they still love each other even if they're both ugly, no transformation takes place, and they live average lives.
Although to the credit of the film, the fairy story, and my other ideas, the one transcendent truth coming through each, is the idea that loving something makes it lovable.
For example, there is a girl in one of my classes at Brock, whom upon first glance was rather ugly. Her ears were big and uneven, her voice squeaky, and she had no chest to speak of. But as I got to know her and listen to her ideas and life, suddenly I found myself attracted to her. Admittedly, not overwhelmingly, and certainly not in a true love type way.
In taking an Existentialism class, this is one thing I am appreciating the most. We put meaning on objects we conceive. When I look at a piece of bread, I conceive it as food. When I look at a consecrated Eucharistic host, I conceive it as the Body and Blood of God. Very divergent meanings for empirically the same accidents/appearances.
This is what love I think is most like - no wonder they talk about love potions and spells - it is deceptive, it doesn't follow appearances. And in this post-Christian culture, it is perhaps the only gift of grace that people have certain faith in. This is a beautiful revelation/reminder to the Christian as the apostle tells us that Love is the greatest (1 Corinthians 13).
and now that I think of it, you could make a great WoW version of the movie with a Tauren male and a Human/Blood Elf female.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
What Exists? The Senses and Reason? Thomas, Berkeley, Kant
I'm trying to figure out whether I believe the world actually exists because I see it and experience it with my senses (Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle/Realism), or whether I think it exists and so it exists, and that the only real thing I can be sure of is that I think, and so existence can only really be linked to thinking. Thus for universal existence, there must be a mind conceiving of the world all at once (thoughts in the mind of God) (Berkeley/Plato/Exaggerated Realism).
To me exaggerated realism leads to neoplatonic and protestant errors in it's emphasis on the mind, whereas empiricism is kind of baseless (why should we trust the senses) and leads to existentialism and postmodernism (which might not be a bad thing, I'm still figuring this out).
Where this is relevant is kind of funny. I was walking around Brock yesterday and I saw a girl bending over with alot of cleavage and I wondered if that was a thought in the mind of God, or a sensical discovery. I am starting to appreciate the physical world of phenomena and senses more and more (not in the way mentioned above per se), but just trying to sit down and actually experience life. To realize my body is ME and that I'm actually travelling at ridiculous speeds on a rock spinning in the universe. Realizing that this life we live now is so important and beautiful, but at the same time - as Pascal says - "the most fragile thing in the world".
The more I read about Immanuel Kant, the more I like the guy, obviously he has some problems, but his theory is that we experience, and then we reason which acts kind of like the final sense (if I've understood him properly). As I watch home movies of me as an infant and realize that I wasn't reasoning yet, I think it shows that Berkeley is out and that it's either Thomas or Kant or someone else I find. Kant said something that I've been thinking about for a while now to see if I agree with it: "to be is to do"
Any Thoughts?
To me exaggerated realism leads to neoplatonic and protestant errors in it's emphasis on the mind, whereas empiricism is kind of baseless (why should we trust the senses) and leads to existentialism and postmodernism (which might not be a bad thing, I'm still figuring this out).
Where this is relevant is kind of funny. I was walking around Brock yesterday and I saw a girl bending over with alot of cleavage and I wondered if that was a thought in the mind of God, or a sensical discovery. I am starting to appreciate the physical world of phenomena and senses more and more (not in the way mentioned above per se), but just trying to sit down and actually experience life. To realize my body is ME and that I'm actually travelling at ridiculous speeds on a rock spinning in the universe. Realizing that this life we live now is so important and beautiful, but at the same time - as Pascal says - "the most fragile thing in the world".
The more I read about Immanuel Kant, the more I like the guy, obviously he has some problems, but his theory is that we experience, and then we reason which acts kind of like the final sense (if I've understood him properly). As I watch home movies of me as an infant and realize that I wasn't reasoning yet, I think it shows that Berkeley is out and that it's either Thomas or Kant or someone else I find. Kant said something that I've been thinking about for a while now to see if I agree with it: "to be is to do"
Any Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
