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

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.

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?

A Cold Walk, Twilight/New Moon, Wikihow, and Unfinished Homework

I was home alone tonight and I sat down to watch Top Gear with some Butterscotch ice cream. When I looked down at myself. I was feeling particularly obese, so I threw my ice cream out...all of it. I went through the act in my mind to evaluate it ethically. It was objectively a bad action (wasting food) but the motive (moderation) was good and the situation was good (I'm already morbidly obese). So I figured it was ok to do.

I've been reading Twilight and now am half way through New Moon. This officially makes me gay, I know, but I think it's just because the books are about love and beautiful girls and stuff, and I'm desperately lonely (in the words of SNL jeopardy's Martha Stewart). But they've been making me think I really need to find a girlfriend again. It's been a year and 2 months since I last kissed a girl and that's far too long.

In my sudden bout of self-hatred I did 2 stupid things. I went to my bathroom to try to throw up (I could never be bulimic if I don't even have the willpower to diet don't worry). And then I decided that instead I should try and exercise (so that I could get a Bella of my own). I put on my rosary, and went for a walk in the freezing cold. I prayed a pseudo-St. Michael Chaplet "O God make Speed to Save me, O Lord Make Haste To Help Me, Glory be...etc." x ? , as well as some of my usual painfully honest and blunt prayers which contain far too much Anglo-Saxon.

I finally got home and my legs were tingling from the friction and yet freezing from the weather. I read some more New Moon - a terribly depressing book , which isn't helping my recently returned Depression.

So then for some reason I looked and saw that I had twice as much Latin homework as I had thought. So I just decided to put it off, and looked on WikiHow for how to find a girlfriend.

One thing I think was hillarious, they kept saying "be confident" and "be yourself". What if your personality is self-deprecating and unconfident. Eh?! riddle me that !

Anyway, I think it was a waste of time as I already know how to talk to girls, and I think I'm pretty charismatic, it's just that if I was about 100 pounds lighter, wasn't Catholic / dogmatic, and cared about meaningless pop-culture stuff, i'd be fine. But I am all those things, so it doesn't seem like anythings going to happen for a while. I should probably get up and do my Latin.

Oh but 4 good things happened (so that it's not all depressing)..

1. I had an amazing talk with my philosophy prof about St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotelian Metaphysics, and Post-Modernism (the fact that those things excite me are a perfect example of my aforementioned unpopular interests).

2. I openly disagreed with a girl on Religion in the American Revolution and argued it was a Presbyterian revolt against the CofE and she actually said she respected my opinion and was glad I challenged her. A kindred spirit! (I bet she has a boyfriend).

3. I got to have lunch with my best friend today.

4. I got to have a good meeting with the Roman Catholic asst. chaplain and we discussed the faith and what I was learning from the Newman Club, and he treated me like a person/end rather than means to something.

Well. Another week chasing Eudaimonia via women, weightloss, and wishy-washy teen literature, as well as western philosophy

Another School Year

If you're tired of reading depressing things you can skip to the heading "Good part"

Sad/Depressed/Critical Part
I find it funny as I walk down the halls at Uni and look at girls faces because they always have this look of disgust when they see me. Like, not openly, and maybe disgust is too strong a word, perhaps disdain is a better word. They'll be smiling with their friends and walking as if they're modeling something and then suddenly they see you and their expression changes. It's like when people see a "differently abled" / handicapped person. They will immediately try to cover it, but there's that initial disdain. It's really kinda sad, but I'm sure I do the same thing.

That's the worst part ^ . When you realize that there's something terribly wrong with the world, only to find out you are an equal part in it.

The other thing is how girls dress. I swear that it's like they're trying to get you to look at them inappropriately. It's as if their own objectification is the goal...

I dress weird. I realize because one of the guys in my group of friends dresses weird and we laugh at him, and now I realize, about 80% of the time, I dress the same way. I have these giant ugly golf shirts that I wear. The uniform colours of them just accentuates the curvatures of my body. I used to look at my dad's friend who wore these types of shirts and think "wow, that's ugly" and then one day I realized, I was wearing them.

When I speak in class, I'm usually the mouthpeice for a dumbed down version of St. Thomas Aquinas. Whenever our teacher asks what we think about something, and all my cool-looking classmates start giving Nietzschean answers (which aren't original, but everyone thinks they are because they sound "rebellious", and then I give the standard Medieval Christian answer, and everyone becomes visibly antagonistic towards me. It's amazing to me how much I can love something Aristotelian and Catholic philosophy and how much other people can hate it.

Good Part
BUT - lest you think this is all depressing: I have the most beautiful drive to school everyday. Now this will sound stupid, but, it's true, it's an awesome stretch of country road to get to school. That's my favourite part of university I think. And the Newman Club that I joined this year is alright.

G.I. Joe Review

I was taught in American history that G.I. Joe was started to help the army recruit me into the general infantry and to make daily tasks of military life at the lowest rank seem action-filled.

This movie was basically driven by 3 factors:

American-style Violence
I'd like to refilm the movie shot by shot and just show all the civilians (and 1 polar bear) die. The cars that are choreographed to spin and blow up, and the babies and families inside dying for a vaguely liberal cause that just seeks to re-establish the order of America as military power #1. Imagine a popular action film where France was the dominant military power in the world at the end. It would be seen as a horror-movie. Any non-Anglospheric country is a bad guy if it isn't humorous and stereotypical or in bowed subservience to the altar of Washington.

For a country in a war (Iraq) where over 1000 times the amount of native civilians were killed as a result of the formal cause (september 11th, 2001), you could see how this movie functions as an apologia. By making America the perpetual good-guys you can kill Parisian civilians in graphically entertaining ways and it doesn't matter because it's all for the 'greater good' which is American perseverance.

I think the greater good would've been non-violence. If the Americans never bought the weapons that the movie was centred around, none of this would happen. If everyone on earth, or at least a large portion of people just refused to fight unless it was just, there would be no international arms trade to villanize on screen. (Ironically America is the world's largest international arms dealer which is conveniently left out).

The Bad guy of G.I. Joe was an arms dealer who sells weapons to both sides, AMERICA sells weapons to both sides, HELLO! Iran-Iraq war anyone? ring any bells?

Cleavage

I'll put it this way, I searched Sienna Miller on Google and I couldn't find a picture clean enough to post on here.

Since when did supermodels with abnormally large bust-sizes join the army, and since when does the army allow women to have shoulder length, perfectly styled hair?

Technology

This of course is the West's favourite new god, from the iPod to GPS to "nanomyte war heads" Steve Jobs is the Muhammad of the 21st century. The whole film had strange super-technology that deified the humans who use it. It empowered them in a pseudo-Nietzschean Overman-esque way that makes people think materialism is fun and exciting and that man is the measure of all things. Cancer in the film was destroyed by the technology and the G.I. Joes had super-human / evolved human powers and were pretty much invulnerable. Life is frail, and the thing 21st century man still fears most is death. But unlike the other generations he is failing to think about it at all. Technology is the new god that can save him from whatever fears he places in it's trust. This is not only untrue, it's idolatrous.

Such was the film which will probably be followed by numerous sequels.

I'm still waiting for a movie about St. Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle or "Virtue Heroes" who captivate the audience with their Prudence, Temperance, Wisdom and Fortitude.

Van Gogh, Happiness, and Work

You (dan, the only guy who reads this blog) will notice that my new profile picture is Vincent Van Gogh's Red Vineyard. I've had a thing for vineyards recently and I've appreciated Van Gogh alot ever since I learned about his life.

He was a clergyman who tried to cheer people up who were destitute coal miners. But he couldn't help them there (he thought). So he began to paint pictures of their toil and sadness so that others would be motivated to help them. But then he succumbed to depression and madness himself.

That is my oversimplified and probably wrong summary of Van Gogh's life. It is what I remember learning about Van Gogh, which teaches me something about myself. It is a warning not to allow yourself to be completely immersed in trying to bring about complete temporal/earthly happiness

Going to my gurus, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine I read on this issue:

"A certain participation of Happiness can be had in this life: but perfect and true Happiness cannot be had in this life. This may be seen from a twofold consideration.

First, from the general notion of happiness. For since happiness is a "perfect and sufficient good," it excludes every evil, and fulfils every desire. But in this life every evil cannot be excluded. For this present life is subject to many unavoidable evils; to ignorance on the part of the intellect; to inordinate affection on the part of the appetite, and to many penalties on the part of the body; as Augustine sets forth in De Civ. Dei xix, 4. Likewise neither can the desire for good be satiated in this life. For man naturally desires the good, which he has, to be abiding. Now the goods of the present life pass away; since life itself passes away, which we naturally desire to have, and would wish to hold abidingly, for man naturally shrinks from death. Wherefore it is impossible to have true Happiness in this life.

Secondly, from a consideration of the specific nature of Happiness, viz. the vision of the Divine Essence, which man cannot obtain in this life" - St. Thomas Aquinas "Summa Theologiae" First Part of the Second Part, Question 5, Article 3

To translate as best I can Sts Thomas and Augustine say that basically while we can be happy in this life, we can't have complete happiness for 2 reasons: evil in the world (our ignorance, unhealthy appetites, bodily problems/sickness) and because true happiness is seeing God/ The Divine Essence.

For their vision of Heaven is the concept of "The Beatific Vision" that is, seeing God's essence 'face to face'. It's like looking at a beautiful landscape or a sunset or a piece of art that is so beautiful you completely forget about yourself.

I agree with those two, that sounds like heaven. I suck at art, but I'd like to say I appreciate some art, because it makes you do that (lose yourself, the literal meaning of extasy).

Today I have to go to work (in 20 min) and I'm nervous and despairing as usual, but I woke up today like everyday, seeking happiness. And the biggest part of today's work will be avoiding the error of Van Gogh and the error of myself. Trying to find complete happiness in temporal things. I need to align my understanding of happiness not with my ignorance and lust and inordinate bodily desires, but with the summum bonum, the greatest good, the divine essence, and the virtuous life.

If I can get through today by seeking happiness there, and not in the places I naturally (or rather unnaturally go), i'll be one step closer to Eudaimonea, that is fullfillment and happiness.

The Importance Of A Good Professor - Teaching Thomism

I'm looking forward to this year at Brock University for a few reasons. One of them is to be taught by a good professor. I get the 'religious status' of every professor I have. Most start off with a quote from Nietzsche and it's easy enough to figure them out. But I've had a few great exceptions.

One prof I had was Leonard Ferry, I don't know if I'm allowed to mention him on this blog - I doubt he'll ever read it - but through the course of the year I learned a great deal from him. He taught us "Ancient Political Philosophy" which was code for "Aristotelian Moral and Social Philosophy". He challenged all of our (myself included) modernist assumptions about ethics, he taught us from a Natural Law perspective (something I'd never encountered before Catholicism) and when I heard him quote Aquinas I got suspicious. Normally they don't let conservatives of any kind into liberal public universities, but Ferry had snuck in it seemed.

The problem was I had been beaten down by secularism at university. He was another philosophy professor, and I assumed a Nietzschean. So when we discussed the Republic, I used my modernist (or post-modernist) criticisms in the hope of scoring brownie points. He rebutted everything I said with Thomistic philosophy, and I knew then, that this was the smartest non-atheistic (I didn't know he was Catholic yet) philosopher I'd ever met. I soon learned through the grapevine (Mel) that he was indeed a Romanist. His teachings on Aristotle (and by continuation - smuggled in Aquinas/Christianized Aristotle) mixed with the scholastic epistemology I had learned from my Grade 12 philosophy prof made it so that I was ripe for conversion to Rome.

This good professor made us read 2 works of Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, and The Politics) and I read both in a course of a few days. Aristotle hit me like a ton of bricks, he was a genius, and (best of all) he could prove the existence and value of virtues without resorting to God. I could use reason alone to prove the natural law.

I remember how much this changed my life when I was at a "Focus on the Family" event at my parents Baptist church, before I had entered the Catholic Communion. It was called "The Truth Project" and was basically teaching presuppositional apologetics - apologetics that take for granted that God exists, and that the Bible is true. As everyone looked around the room satisfied with the state of things I was trying to stop myself from laughing. "If someone believes God exists and that the Bible is true, aren't they already a Christian? and isn't the only purpose of apologetics, conversion?" No one got it. We were on different frameworks. They were on divine command ethics, I was in virtue ethics. They had "Answers in Genesis" to 'prove' God, I had the Summa and St. Thomas' Five ways (and at that point Descartes).

Speaking of Descartes, Dr. Ferry also ripped apart all my Cartesian theism which had got me through 1st year, and after the course was done and I'd read through G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" I had safely executed the Cogito, as well as a completely uncritical acceptance of Reason alone.

Aquinas, Scotus, and other scholastics always warned about a trust in reason alone, something the Reformers reacted to, but that's another issue. Anyway, that is how I got a Thomistic (Or possibly just Catholic) basis for what I believed.

I've found Aristotelian Thomism to be the most ingenius thing. Although my catechesis has made me pretty Molinist (Catholicism is obsessed with foreknowledge...), I'm really hoping to figure out some more Thomism, and hopefully read some Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain.

Professor Ferry also taught me that those Thomistic philosophers helped pioneer the UN Declaration on Human Rights. pretty cool.

All Too inHuman & The Story of a Girl

If you don't feel like reading all this post just skip to the "BUT"

We have our extended family visiting our house this week (all the Mennonite Brethren folks). I used to be able to talk with my uncles and aunts about theology and my future as a preacher. But now that I'm of the 'peculiar Roman Catholick religion' (as Rabbie Burns would've said - ), no one asks me about anything or talks hopefully about my future.

In that same Roman faith there is a philosophy that is popular among the Pontiffs. It's the idea of "the full human person" or "the intrinsic dignity of the human person". It's the idea(l) that everyone who is born has intrinsic worth and value just because they are in existence. It's what Seneca and St. Thomas Aquinas said when they gave us the choice between "Being a beast, or being a human". The modern neo-Darwinian socialist materialist positivist atheism of today seems to treat us like we're beasts rated on our ability to contribute to the world (by us I mean morbidly obese grocery store workers and other valueless people).

*******
*******

BUT

*******
*******

Tonight after a long shift at work I was about to walk out as usual without much hope to my house to sit alone in the slanted room (I'm making the story a little melodramatic). But then a girl I work with asked me to help with a recipe and supplies for a meal she was making for her boyfriend, and so we went around getting the groceries and talking and then we drove home (she followed me 'cause we live on the same street, and i drove crazily). I then realized, as I listened to Radiohead and waved goodbye, that I felt like a human being.

Obviously I'm not telling the story to predict a 'deeper' relationship (she's like 5 years younger than me and in a relationship, and I'm just a creepy deli guy). But the reason I wrote it was because it was an example of someone just treating me like a human being, like my opinion was at all important, and that I could contribute something.

Anyway, that's my pathetically boring post you've wasted your time reading. But sometimes I wonder what life would be like to always feel like a human. Gah, all this introspection - blame St. Augustine and his Confessions, he started this Western philosophical phenomenon. Blogs are totally a result of him.