Muse

Oklahoma Summer

2007-08-27T20:28:00.000-04:00

I know many of my friend are wondering what crazy things I’m up to down here in Oklahoma, so here is a little update for all of you. The opportunity to work here was a completely unforeseen blessing that was offered me last minute as I was finishing my final semester over in Austria this past Spring.

The opportunity came from some old family friends, the Lawlesses, that we met in our home school group when I used to live in San Diego. They moved here to Clear Creek, Oklahoma almost two years ago. They have about 220 acres of rolling pastures and woods, creeks and ponds. I’m staying in a little pop-up trailer right next to their house. They have a great family full of energy and enthusiasm. They are always ready for adventure as is evident in their bold move from a somewhat regular life outside San Diego to a full immersion in country life.

My decision to come down here was somewhat of a leap in the dark. I am admittedly not a country boy by background. After all my philosophy in school I began to become a little antsy to get out of academia (at least for awhile) and get some work experience in the “real world”. I was not a very “handy” guy and until coming here didn’t even know how to change a flat tire. While I’m still not quite Bob Villa, I have come a long way in the two months since coming here. I’ve milked goats, herded cattle, slaughter chickens, felled trees, built things, etc. I have to say, I love it too. It sure beats office work (by a lot).

So what exactly is my position out here? Without going into the nitty-gritty details it is a employee/apprentice type arrangement. My main “job” is working on the saw mill and the whole process that that entails. So it starts with going in the woods with chain saws and cutting fairly sizable trees down. Once down you need to get all the limbs off. Once the log is all clean then you need to transport (or “skid”) it over to the saw mill. There you mill it into usable dimensions. So that’s my main area of work. However, that’s not all I do around here. Right now we (meaning Mr. Lawless, David and Joey, and myself) are in the process of building a little cabin for myself. We will build it out of the wood that we mill ourselves. It’s a pretty sweet setup if I do say so myself. =)

The other big thing about here (and one of the main draws to this particular area of Oklahoma of all places) is that there is an awesome Benedictine monastery just a couple miles away. This particular group of Benedictines comes from France and they did not make any major changes during the whole liturgical upheaval after Vatican II. So every morning starts with the Tridentine “low” Mass at around 6:45 am. Usually I will walk to low Mass with some of the Lawlesses at around 5:45 am. Watching the sun rise on your way to Mass is always a great way to begin the day.

So what are my plans for the future? Don’t quite know myself. He knows though. Life is so good. I miss all of you my good friends and family.

World-Openness as Constitutive of Man as Person

2007-06-25T11:01:00.000-04:00

Matthew Ryan
Dr. Crosby
Philosophy 436
23 April 2007

‘World-Openness’ as Constitutive of Man as Person

Introduction

The constitutive characteristic of man as a personal being is his ability to relate unlimitedly to all that exists. This capacity distinguishes the nature of man from vegetative and animal beings. I will argue that man’s ability to relate to the world in its entirety is what constitutes his being as spiritual or personal subject. Pragmatists, such as James and Dewey, deny man’s world-openness by approaching man practically and positing an evolutionary anthropology explaining man and his faculties entirely in terms adaptation to the environment. While it cannot be denied that man does have a practical dimension to his existence, man’s restless wondering indicates a dimension in which he transcends the practical. We see and observe that men are not ultimately content with knowing the significance of things in their consequences for him, but wonders about how things are in themselves. The consideration of a being as a being for itself and in itself requires as a necessary precondition that he be open to all that exists. Our analysis of man will hinge on this peculiar act of distancing himself from the considered object and simultaneously putting himself in relation to it. I will attempt to show that this act requires man to be open to the world and that it must be grounded in personal subjectivity.
My thesis that world-openness is constitutive of man as person has import for every man because it sheds light on the purpose of human existence. Since in order to answer the question ‘why am I here at all?’, the “here” or the human situation must first be understood, yet we must go further to answer this question by first asking what man is. I will assert in this paper that world-openness tells us that man is essentially a person. When the nature of man’s personhood is seen the human situation becomes manifest and consequently illumines his purpose in that situation. While it is not my immediate concern how my thesis specifically relates to the purpose of human existence, it is enough to note that it is important in that regard.
In order to demonstrate how world-openness is constitutive of man as person, I will proceed by outlining the metaphysical character of living material beings such as plants and animals so as to compare them to man’s nature. Subsequently, I will examine a peculiarity about man in that he manifests evidence for existence in a dimension transcendent to that of plants and animals. We will then see why this transcendence must be open to all that exists and how that openness has to be grounded in personal subjectivity. In order to draw out the precise nature of man’s world-openness, however, we must first examine the nature of life and the situation of the organism and its relation to its environment.
Life and Interiority
Traditionally, the power for self-movement was seen as the most evident characteristic of what we call “life”. Self-movement defies a purely physical explanation and goes beyond the blind causality of action and reaction of inanimate matter. The principle that accounts for autonomous movement of living beings we will refer to as the ‘vital principle’. The vital principle seems to be immaterial in itself such that organizes and structures the material components from ‘within’. Accelerated video footage of the growth of plants is helpful in conceptualizing what I mean by the ‘vital principle’ because it is evident there is some dynamic principle that actively takes up nutrients from the soil and organizes and integrates them into the visibly growing plant. We can observe the external activities of the plant’s life processes, but the vital principle itself escapes physical observation and thus is immaterial.
The ‘vital principle’ constitutes an “inner-side” or a “center” of the living being from which the individual organism senses and responds to the surrounding world of things, which touch upon the drives, and aims of life. The “center” of which we speak in this context is not a geometrical center as an inorganic being such as a stone might have an innermost point in its space designated as its “center”. The vital principle or the ‘life’ in the organism unites all the parts into a true unity. If the organism is dissected into its constitutive material parts, the life ceases to exist in it. There is no real unity, however, found in inorganic beings because the matter of which it is solely composed is really only “one” in the sense that it is an aggregate, much in the same way a pile of hay is “one”. There is, however, a stronger unity in the case of an atom or a molecule in that their components are held together by chemical bonds, but even this is does not approach upon the unity we find in a living organism.
The interiority manifested in all organic beings is inconceivable without a corresponding “exterior”. As the interior of the living being is not a physical inside likewise the “exterior” of the living being is not merely physical objects around it. The whole range of things to which the living being relates constitutes the 'exterior'. In other words, every organism can be said to have its own exterior environment in which it acts and to which it reacts. Josef Pieper calls this sense of ‘environment’ a “field of relations” (82) which the organism possesses. The German word “umwelt” captures well the sense of ‘environment’ that I intend here. Literally translated, umwelt means ‘a world around’. The exterior environment of the living individual consists of those things around it that pertain to its vital center; the umwelt is not the world, but its “world”. Here we come to a dimension of life that is particularly relevant for our present discussion, namely that a living being has a real relation to a world.
The relation of an organism to a world is possible because as a living being, the vital principle constitutes a dynamic center from which a relation exists between that center and everything outside and touching upon that center. This metaphysical ‘interior-exterior’ dialect makes relationship possible. Josef Pieper remarks on this point saying, “relationship can only exist, where there is an “inside,” a dynamic center, from which all operation has its source and to which all that is received, all that is experienced, is brought” (81). Without the interiority proper to living beings, there can only be blind causality and random correlation as there is between rocks drifting in outer space. Even operations according to the physical laws of the universe are “blind” in that they are not teleological; only in the case of a living being do actions become teleological. This point is very important for our present discussion because we will be examining what man’s relation to the world is.
We know empirically that life has its own drives and aims. These “directions”, as we might call them, are the “channels” in which life moves. The most fundamental drive of life is towards satisfaction. The nature of this satisfaction is twofold. The satisfaction of the condition within elements of the organism itself and its adjustment to its environment.
Since the aim of this paper is to point to the character that constitutes man as a person, essentially different from plants and animals, we must first briefly investigate some essential characteristics of vegetable being and animal being and the relation they have to their environments. Vegetative life makes up the lowest form of life because its independence from the environment is severely limited, both in its physical immobility and also sensibly in its lack of a central nervous system. Consequently, the plant’s world is the smallest in scope as Pieper notes, “The lowest world is that of the plant, which does not reach beyond what it touches in its own vicinity” (82). The lack of a central nervous system required for sense perception restricts its “world” only to what touches its vicinity. We may say because of these limitations, the plant cannot relate to its “world”; it is utterly immersed in its environment.
Animals possess a radically higher interiority because of their ability to perceive things in its environment. Its central nervous system allows it to distance itself to a greater degree than the plant, yet even the animal possessed of sensation is unable to objectify things. Scheler also remarks on this point and says, “The animal has no “object.” It lives, as it were, ecstatically immersed in its environment which it carries along as a snail carries it shell” (39). The work of the biologist Jakob von Uexküll also bears this fact out. He notes, “The environments of animals are not at all the whole expanse of nature, but resemble a narrow, furnished apartment” (40). Von Uexküll goes on to explain that crows for instance do not perceive a motionless grasshopper in front of it until the grasshopper moves because only then does the grasshopper enter into its practical range of relations. The nature of the animal is marked by its ability to sense and perceive things around it, but we see that these abilities do not establish a true distance between the animal and its environment that would open it to the world. The animal is always limited to its particular environment composed of the complex of things which have a practical aspect for the animals vital impulse toward satisfaction.

World Openness

We now come to our consideration of man and his relation to his world as essentially distinct from plants and animals. At first glance, we see that man too has the nutritive and biochemical elements that characterize plant life and the centralized psychic consciousness of animals. Being possessed of such vegetative and animal principles, man likewise has a practical dimension to his nature due to the drive for ‘vital’ satisfaction. Upon deeper scrutiny, however, man manifests a peculiar behavior in that he restlessly wonders about things.
It has been said that when an animal satisfies all its needs it goes to sleep and when man has satisfied all his needs he asks a question. Man wonders why a thing exists such as it is and not differently. He also wonders why anything exists at all instead of nothing. This sort of questioning completely leaves the practical domain of usefulness. Crosby shows that this putting things in question indicates a step outside of the scope of practical needs and throws the ipseity of the thing in question into relief (161). In other words we see that man makes the thing in question an object seen in its own right by wondering about it as it is in itself and not under any practical aspect.
The ability to see things as they are in themselves requires as a condition that man be a world-open being. When we say that man is being open to the world, we first need to clarify what we mean by ‘the world’ how it is distinct from a surrounding environment or an umwelt. As we said earlier, every living being has a “world” understood as its own surrounding environment, but when we speak of the world, we are referring to the sum total of being, everything that exists. Understood thus, the human world is the world. This transcendent dimension of human nature above the ‘life’ dimension we will call the “spiritual”. On account of his spiritual nature, man can philosophize or intuit essences. When man takes a step beyond the practical dimension, he does something uniquely human. Pieper notes this saying, “By its nature, spirit (or intellection) is not so much distinguished by its immateriality, as by something more primary: its ability to be in relation to the totality of being” (85). The ability to know things in themselves requires that man be open to the world and we can see this clearly elucidated and demonstrated in Karl Rahner’s theory of the Vorgriff auf das Sein.
Vorgriff is a German word that is some times translated into English as ‘preapprehension’ and is meant by Rahner to indicate an a priori condition for all human “innerworldy knowing and acting” (Rahner, 54). The nature of the Vorgriff becomes clear in the context of human abstraction and knowledge. For instance, when we know an object in itself, we grasp the intelligible quiddity or “whatness” of the object as a limitless possible determination for any number of individual objects. This process of deriving a universal concept from a singular object is basically the process of abstraction. The importance of the Vorgriff for our discussion on world-openness is that it is the necessary condition for the possibility of this abstraction.
In affirming the limitless quality of the quiddity from our encounter with the individual object, we experience and are aware of the limitation found in the individual object itself. Rahner points out that in experiencing the “thisness” of the particular object as a limitation we presuppose a ‘reaching out for more’ that comes against the limit and therefore experiences it as such, as an obstacle. It is precisely this restless ‘reaching for more’ that is the Vorgriff. The “more” that is being aimed at in the Vorgriff “can only be the absolute range of all knowable objects as such” (54) according to Rahner. The significance of the Vorgriff is that it opens up to us the “horizon”, so to speak, in which we place the singular objects of our human knowledge. As such, then, the Vorgriff and its range cannot be an act of knowledge and an object properly speaking because this horizon is the very condition that makes “objectification” possible. When we put a thing in question we are trying to grasp with our intellect its essence, what it is in itself. Rahner’s theory shows how this intellectual act must be open to everything that is. The “horizon” or “range” of the Vorgriff cannot be anything but what we have called the world as a whole.
Max Scheler takes up this theme of objectification and its implications for man as a spiritual or personal being. He says, “Man alone—in so far as he is a person—is able to go beyond himself as an organism and to transform, from a center beyond the spatiotemporal world, everything (himself included) in to an object of knowledge. Thus man as a spiritual being is a being that surpasses himself in the world” (Scheler, 46). Man’s openness to the world allows him this unique act of objectifying a thing by putting it in question. While some may be wary of such a seemingly far fetched conclusion, Crosby points out that by the very act of understanding our environment as a mere environment “we have already reached beyond it, taken a position above it, situated it in the world, in a sense relativized it, and so transcended it as no animal can transcend its environment” (167). In pointing out that man indeed takes a position as a world-open spirit above his environment is not to say that he does not have an environment. Man lives so to speak with a foot in the world and in his environment.
In order to elucidate this phenomenon of man living in an “overlapping” of world and environment, Crosby offers a helpful concrete analogy of the hiker (Crosby, 166-167). While climbing to a peak, the hiker has many practical consideration that occupy his mind such as what route he will take, what the weather conditions are, and even something as simple as where to place his foot on the path. All these practical concerns narrow his world to his pragmatic environment. The hiker, however, can stop and take a look around him and place his whole environment as an object in front of him and admire its beauty. In doing so, man leaves for moment the world of his practical concerns and opens himself to the world.
Pragmatist Anthropology
Pragmatism is a school thought that seeks to approach reality, including man, from a practical or “realistic” point of view. In this paper, I will take John Dewey as my primary point of reference for my thesis’ pragmatic counterpoint. In approaching man practically, pragmatists take seriously the value of consequences for understanding reality. Dewey says, “The doctrine of the value of consequences leads us to take the future into consideration. And this taking into consideration of the future takes us to the conception of a universe whose evolution is not finished” (Thayer, 33). This pragmatic doctrine leads us to consider things in their relation to the future toward which they are in a trajectory towards. I shall outline what this means for our understanding of man and subsequently its implication for our consideration of man as a world-open being.
Adhering to an evolutionary worldview, Pragmatism interprets all of man’s faculties and actions in terms of adaptation to the environment. While it may be easy to see how eating, drinking, and sleeping function as adaptive mechanisms, Dewey explains even human intelligence in terms of its adaptive function. In his chapter titled, “Habit and Intelligence” (172-180), Dewey gives us an illustration of the origin of thought and its place in the life of man. Thought is “provoked” by the conflict between “habit” and “impulse” as a sort of reconciler of the disturbed situation. In order to more clearly illustrate Dewey’s conception of human intelligence and its function I will employ a metaphor of human life as a game.
The usefulness of the ‘life-game’ metaphor comes from the fact that Dewey sees all of man’s faculties and actions in terms of their practical relation to the objective of adaptation to the environment. When some one really “gets into” a game such as soccer or even a war, everything is seen and considered practically according to its relation to the goal of the game. Dewey might not exactly say life is a game, because a game always has a definite objective and outcome. In another sense, however, I think he would agree. The ‘life-game’, however, should be understood as a type of game where there is not one set objective, but objectives that are always changing from moment to moment with the development of conflicts between our environment and our habits. What “adaptation” concretely means for man varies according to the given situation he finds himself in.
As we said before, the pragmatist holds that thought is provoked by the conflict between habit and impulse. Keeping with our metaphor of the ‘life-game’, impulse is understood to be the drive to win the game, to achieve the objective and our habits are the strategies we have developed over the course of our past experience. As often happens, our strategies sometimes prove to be inadequate in a new situation and thus come into conflict with our impulse to reach the goal. We constantly need to update our strategies to take into account new information and new circumstances. For example, when a military general is about to begin his assault on the enemy and receives a piece of intelligence that thwarts his plan and any backup plans he may have, he is forced to reconsider how to achieve his objective, winning the battle. This is the point where thought is provoked and human intelligence functions according to Dewey.
Without some disturbance between our habits and impulse we would not think because our habits operate routinely and take place absentmindedly (Dewey 173). We do not think about tying our shoes because our habits are so adept at it. Likewise, the more adapted we are to the given environment the less thought is required. When, however, our habits turn out to be ineffective or inadequate for the environment, it is like coming up to a dead end in a maze. Our impulse is to reach the exit but our chosen path (habit) conflicts with it. This conflict is the point at which thought is provoked. As a man needs to reconsider and adjust his route in the maze as he has come upon an obstacle, thinking is the process whereby he takes a view from above the maze and sees how he might adjust his route (habit) and thus bring it into harmony with his impulse again. This process of “clearing up” the disturbance between habit and impulse is the “essential function” (180) of intelligence according to Dewey.

Pragmatism and World-Openness

It may be asked if the position of thought above the rut of habits according to the pragmatic theory of human intelligence outlined above is basically another way of articulating man’s openness to the world. We must first recall that we said it is the consideration of things as they are in themselves that requires man to be open to the world. Dewey could be seen to come close to positing a kind of world-openness when he speaks of the relation of habits to thought. He says, “[Habits] prevent thought from straying away from its imminent occupation to a landscape more varied and picturesque but irrelevant to practice” (172). Dewey goes on to say that habits never fully prevent thought from “straying” to its “landscape” (172). The question for us is whether this “landscape” is basically the world as the ‘horizon’ of Rahner’s Vorgriff is. If I read Dewey correctly, this “landscape” of thought is what man falls back upon when habits fail in order to search out an alternative means of adjusting to the environment. For Dewey, this “landscape”, however, is not the world of being but an imaginary and fanciful landscape for the most part irrelevant to man. Like the military general from our previous example who must reconsider his strategy and imagine all possibilities, thought, considered thus, does not really break free from the game and open man to the world. Intelligence is no more than a special tool for producing or adjusting new habits or strategies in the ‘life-game’ when the current complex of habits fails. In order for man to be really world-open he must be able to recognize that he is in fact in this ‘life-game’ of adjusting to the environment. When he can recognize that he is in a game, he takes a position open to the world above the game. If I am successful in showing that in objectifying the “game” man must be open to the world, it is ironic to note that this transcendence of the “game” would be exactly what Dewey does in even speaking of man as an exclusively practical being.
We have said that considering a thing as it is itself places man in a position open to the world, but might we say that even this act is not truly open to the world, but a very indirect way of seeking desirable consequences? Scheler tried to refute the pragmatic anthropology on this issue by pointing to instances of “pure cognition” by which he means knowledge sought for its own sake and not for any consequences it may have for man. Scheler uses the example of a researcher who conducts an experiment not to any specific end or with any knowledge of possible future usefulness his research may have (Frings 215). Here he simply wishes to know, just to know. This example, however, does not exclude for me the objection that the researcher need not be aware of the consequences of his work even at a general level. It may seem that he simply wishes to know, but that may be because at some level he is dissatisfied with his current situation and is exploring possibilities that may lead to a greater control of the environment. Since the more that is known, the more effectively man can adapt whether by changing his behavior or the conditions of his environment.
This objection, however, has more to do with the example itself than Scheler’s premise and so it remains to be seen whether we might find a better instance of “pure cognition”. Though I agree that Scheler’s instance can be in fact an act of “pure cognition”, I do not think it can be denied that any use of the scientific method seems to be eminently practical and thus open the pragmatist’s critique. I propose that an instance of pure cognition less susceptible to a pragmatic approach is that of a lover cognizing a personality trait of his beloved. In this case it seems obvious that the lover wishes to know his beloved better because of his love for her, assuming a pure love. I should also remark that it does not follow that simply because an act may have a practical aspect, that it must have been performed for that intention. I think that this instance of the lover and the beloved succeeds in completely escaping the practical and thus defies a pragmatist explanation.

World-Openness and Personal Subjectivity

We have seen how a common experience of considering a thing in itself points to a transcendent dimension of man’s existence that is open to the world. Our task now is to show how openness to the world can only be had by a person and to see the nature of the relation of man to objects in the world and to other persons. Martin Buber’s account of the “principle of man” as a twofold movement of ‘distance’ and ‘relation’ is a very useful insight, which we will take as our starting point. From here I will show how only a personal subject can put objects in the world at a distance and have an experience of the world. Furthermore, we will see how this recognition of the ‘other’ at a distance is not only the presupposition of entry into relation, but is also the origin of our awareness of ourselves as a ‘self’. Finally, we will conclude our investigation in discussing how the metaphysical distance between two selves or persons is not only overcome by relation, but how the very foundation of their self-possession and self-realization is had through mutual affirmation in the gift of self.
Appealing to our experience of the world, we cannot help but recognize a metaphysical distance between ourselves and the rest of the world. Everything outside of myself is seen as ‘other’, an independent opposite over against me. This primal movement of ‘setting at a distance’ is none other than what makes the consideration of a thing in itself possible. We detach an object from the sheer presence of its place in our complex of practical needs and wants when we put the object in question. For example, walking through a zoo, a man might be passing all kinds of animals in their habitats on his way to some particular exhibit. It may happen that on his way over there a certain peculiar animal catches his attention and he stops to observe and marvel at it. His fascination for this animal is completely irrelevant to his way to his destination. If he had not stopped, he still would have seen the same animal in passing, but his relation to it would be little more than an image in the peripheral of his consciousness. However, his stopping to consider the animal is a moment of setting the animal before him that he may contemplate it. Buber says, “’what is’ (das Seiende) becomes detached from him, and recognized for itself” (51). This detachment from practicality and setting at a distance is no more than what we said before was the indication of man’s world-openness. Furthermore, in our experience of the world as an independent opposite over against me, I am able to be aware of myself as present to myself as a self. Since everything is placed at a distance, I cannot help but be aware of myself as distanced from the world. Being self-aware, however, is not to say that the state of being distant from the world is what realizes our selfhood, it is only the origin of our self-consciousness.
Before proceeding to discuss man’s relation to the world, we should consider an objection, which our pragmatist adversary might offer regarding this act of ‘setting at a distance’ that we have taken as the basis of our understanding of world-openness. The objection here is not a denial of man’s world-openness, but that world-openness is basically a means of adapting to an environment. Buber himself touches upon this possible objection saying, “The view could be put forward that this giving of independence to a world is the result of agelong development of mankind, and that it can therefore not be constitutive of man as such” (52). Buber does not concern himself with this objection at this point, but I think it merits serious consideration in this paper, given our thesis. If giving an independence to the world developed in response to a practical need at some point in human history we may indeed conclude that it could not be constitutive of man because what is essentially human is valid not for a particular time or place, but as long as being is, eternally. The objection seems to be based on the notion that world-openness is an accidental characteristic of man’s that has arisen in response to a need. My answer to this objection is that if world-openness is constitutively human as I hope to demonstrate sufficiently in this paper, then it goes to follow that world-openness could never be an accidental characteristic as another degree in an evolutionary process. As world-openness is the metaphysical ground of a kind of being, without that ground a being would not be human, whatever else it might be. It still remains, however, to be shown how exactly world-openness is grounded in personal subjectivity, so let us continue.
Having briefly considered the implications of man’s primal movement of distancing himself from a object put in question, we need to consider the relation present between the two in order to come to some conclusion about the significance of world-openness for man. In the course of our investigation of world-openness, we remarked on two modes under which man relates. He relates to things practically and also to things in themselves. Buber names these two modes respectively as ‘I-It’ relationship and ‘I-Thou’ relationship. An ‘I-Thou’ relation, however, is most truly a relation because an ‘I-It’ relation is only a relation inasmuch as the ‘It’ is only significant for the ‘I’. The ‘I-It’ relation is more of link between two beings found in connection the to the purpose the ‘It’ has for the ‘I’ as we examined in our ‘life-game’ metaphor. The ‘I-Thou’ relation is the relation we are particularly concerned with because it is this kind of relating that is constitutively human. The ‘Thou’ in the ‘I-Thou’ relation, it should be noted, is not restricted to personal beings; ‘Thou’ indicates the position of an object being considered in its self by an ‘I’.
We must be careful not to see man’s entry into relation as something separate or subsequent to the movement of ‘setting at a distance’; man can only enter into the ‘I-Thou’ relation when he sets the ‘Thou’ at a distance. We have said much of how distance is necessary for man to be open to the world, but the ‘I-Thou’ relation really makes man world-open. It is not the distance that gives man a world, but his connection to it that establishes a world as a world. Here we come to a crucial point for our thesis because man’s relation to the world is not one as to an aggregate of objects or parts that make up the world, but the world as a whole. In fact, the world would simply be an aggregate or a sum of its parts without a person to establish it as a wholeness. The power of man to say ‘Thou’ to the world as a whole is an act that necessarily involves his entire being. The ability to gather or recollect one’s entire being is uniquely personal because only a person can have themselves as a self.
In order to get a more concrete understanding of what we are trying to say here, let me offer an illustration of this manifestly personal dimension of man’s being. A businessman walking down a crowded street sees the people around him as little more than peripheral images as he makes his way to his destination. His relation to the others around him is what we have called with Buber an ‘I-It’ relation. His only relation to them is according to their usefulness, which in this specific case they are obstacles in his path. If all of sudden the man recognizes the face of an old friend walking the opposite direction, the man “comes to himself” and immediately is cast in a different mode of relating to this person than he had been but a moment before. In this moment of recognition, the man transcends his ‘I-It’ mode of relating to his surroundings by stopping and recollecting himself—gathering his entire being—by distancing himself from everything that is not himself and putting himself in relation with the friend (considered for himself) in his surprised greeting. The reason I think this illustration is effective in showing the essentially different characters of the modes of relating is because the transition from the one to the other is so abrupt and is a fairly common human experience. Before recognizing the friend, he is not really present to any of those around him; he is absorbed in his purpose. In greeting his friend, a excellent instance of an ‘I-Thou’ relation, he makes himself entirely present to him.
The power to “gather” one’s being is indeed uniquely personal, but in itself is not yet a complete act of relation. Man enters into relation and completes distance in making himself present to another ‘I’ through the gift of self. Self-donation here requires the self-possession inherent in recollection since one cannot give what he does not have. The significance of this self-donation is found in the affirmation of the self by the other. When a man makes himself present to another, the other’s affirmation and confirmation of his being is a reciprocal gift of actualizing that given ‘self’ that completes the gift. This is precisely what Buber means when he says:
For the inmost growth of the self is […] accomplished […] in the relation between the one and the other, between men, that is, pre-eminently in the mutuality of the making present—in the making present of another self and in the knowledge that one is made present in his own self by the other—together with the mutuality of acceptance, of affirmation and confirmation. (61)

So while world-openness as such is what constitutes man as person, the actualization of man’s personhood only occurs in the act of the gift of self and the reception and reciprocal gift by the other.
We can also infer something about man’s personal interiority not only from his relation to the world, but from the quality of the world as an absolute. Since man is able to relate to an absolute world and not merely a subjective and particular environment, that must presuppose an absolute, yet contingent, interiority. Pieper notes this same thing saying, “to have a world, to be related to the totality of existing things – that can occur only in a being that is “established in itself”: not a “what,” but a “who” – an “I,” a person” (90). The necessary correspondence of the kind of interiority with the kind of exteriority cannot lead us to conclude anything but that man must be a personal subject. Consequently we are justified in making our thesis statement that ‘world-openness’ constitutes man as a personal being.

Conclusion

In coming to a conclusion, we should note first the import of our thesis. It is not enough to say that man has a world; we need to recognize that this openness to the world constitutes man as a person because world-openness is grounded in personal subjectivity. World-openness shows man to be a person, a category of being radically higher than that of plants and animals. This is significant for men and women today because world-openness shows what the characteristically human situation is. The human situation is the possibility to find actualization through the gift of self. This is the same truth affirmed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in the document Gaudium et Spes, where she says, “[Man] cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself” (Gaudium et Spes, 24).
So we have seen in the course of this paper that our thesis that world-openness is the constitutive character of man as person does not abolish the pragmatic anthropology, but incorporates its view of man as a practical being as one dimension of human existence into a fuller vision of man. We saw how man as a living bodily being exists, like plants and animals, in a concrete spatiotemporal environment. The ability of man to “objectify” things by putting them in question, however, is evidence that he exists in a transcendent dimension. This transcendence necessarily consists in being open to the world since the philosophical act, which is nothing more than putting a thing in question, requires as a necessary condition that the known object be placed against the “background” of all that exists and thus seen as this being.
As man has such a capacity for unlimited relation to all that exists, this power requires a corresponding absolute interiority. An interiority where the being is so ‘in itself’ that it actually has a ‘self’, is a person. This correspondence is necessary because the power to enter into relation is in direct proportion to a being’s power over itself. Recognizing man’s power to relate to the absolute world of all that exists, he must be a being that can gather his entire being and possess himself fully. Self-possession is exclusively characteristic of a personal subject and therefore we may conclude that world openness is what constitutes man as a person.

Works Cited
Buber, Martin. The Knowledge of Man. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD, 1956.
Crosby, John F. The Selfhood of the Human Person. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996.
Dewey, John. Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Random House, 1922.
Frings, Manfred S. The Mind of Max Scheler. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1997.
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes. 7 December, 1965. 22 April 2007 .
Pieper, Josef. Leisure, The Basis of Culture. New York: Random House, 1963.
Rahner, Karl. Hearer of the Word. Trans. Joseph Donceel. New York: Continuum, 1994.
Scheler, Max. Man’s Place in Nature. Trans. Hans Meyerhoff. New York: The Noonday Press, 1961.
Thayer, H. S., ed. Pragmatism: The Classic Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1982.
Von Uexküll-Kriszat. Streifzüge druch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen. Berlin: 1934.

Bibliography
Buber, Martin. The Knowledge of Man. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD, 1956.
Crosby, John F. The Selfhood of the Human Person. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996.
Dewey, John. Experience and Nature. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1958.
---. Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Random House, 1922.
Frings, Manfred S. The Mind of Max Scheler. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1997.
James, William. Pragmatism . New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1948.
Moore, Edward C. American Pragmatism: Peirce, James, and Dewey. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1961.
Pieper, Josef. Leisure, The Basis of Culture. New York: Random House, 1963.
Rahner, Karl. Hearer of the Word. trans. Joseph Donceel. New York: Continuum, 1994.
Scheler, Max. Man’s Place in Nature. trans. Hans Meyerhoff. New York: The Noonday Press, 1961.

The Truth About Genetically Modified Foods

2006-12-24T17:25:00.000-05:00

As many of you know, I am very involved and interested in matters pertaining to health because I really believe that we have been fed lies about what it means to be a human being. We are body, soul, and spirit and all too often we unconsciously buy the lie that the mainstream medical and scientific community implicitly asserts that our bodies are somehow a biochemical tool that we can use and manipulate however we please. You just pop a couple of drugs (which more often than not have terrible side effects and long-term consequences) and everything is supposedly all better. Our bodies are sacred because they are temples of the Holy Spirit and we have a responsibility to care for these wonderful bodies our Lord has given to us. Most people are unaware of how much abuse we have subjected our bodies to through environmental abuse, agriculture abuse, etc. This video is a real eye-opener to just how bad things and how fast we are falling. In my opinion, even though big business deserves a lot of blame here, we must remember that we struggle not against "flesh and blood" here. There are a lot of factors that have led to the situation we are now in. The father of lies has been planning and working on all fronts to attack humanity and he does not restrict himself to spiritual warfare; he will try to undermine our bodily integrity as best he can and he will control, degrade (and worse) our food supply, the primary source of our bodily nourishment. Please take the time (approx. 90 mins) to watch this very important video and let other know about it as well.

h/t: Mercola

Also see a related article here:

Philip Sherrard’s Eco-conscious Rape of Scientism

Some Favorite Maxims

2006-11-13T21:37:00.000-05:00

-Humble Yourself

-Live Gently

-Deny Thyself

-Think on paper

-Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise

My Myer-Briggs Personality Type

2006-11-13T21:26:00.000-05:00

This past Thursday night I went to a Myer-Briggs Personality Workshop put on by the University’s Career Planning office to see if it could help me understand myself and what I should do with my life better. I was pleasantly surprised to find out how accurate and insightful this personality test was for me. While of course personalities don’t come in 16 cut and dry types, there are according to Carl Jung and his followers about 4 basic personality poles (which multiplied by four gives sixteen, hence the number of personality types). Anyways, to the point… apparently I am a ‘INTP’ type. You can judge for yourself by going to the following links for description.

About Myer-Briggs System
Brief explanation of my type INTP
In-Depth Accurate Description
Click here to see what your type is
I was very much an ‘I’ (Introverted), an ‘N’ (iNtuitive), and a ‘P’ (Perceiving) and then I was slight more on the ‘T’ (Thinking) side. So for reference my polar opposite would be an ESFJ (Extroverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging).

My point in mentioning this is that as being an “Architect or Analytical” type, I am naturally constantly thinking about things, how they’re important, how they relate to each other, etc. Judging from the response I got on my post on music (link), I think that what made that post so “successful” is that I simply just wrote down my thoughts on an issue I had been thinking a lot about. Since now I realize, having taken this personality thingy, that that is my natural gift to be able to analyze ideas in that way others may be interested in what I think about various things (which is actually what I originally started the blog for). I have these ideas all the time, but I’m usually too lazy and undisciplined to ever write them… hence the infrequency of posts. =) So I decided to take a break from studying tonight and just write what’s been on my mind recently. So keep checking…

Best of the Web Resources

2006-10-19T13:22:00.000-04:00

As some of you may know, I will be studying in Austria come January and will riding my bike around Europe for a month afterwards. The biking trip is going to require some outdoor gear that I don't have so I have been doing some research online to find out where I can get good quality at a decent price. My dad always taught me to think before I make a purchase because if you buy on impulse you will waste time, money, and energy. Buying a quality set of knives for example (just pulling examples out of thin air here ;-)) will save you time in your cooking by not having to deal with dull blades, money because you won't have to replace your knives every 5-10 years, and energy because you don't have do any more shopping for that item for years to come. Anyways, to the point... I love finding out about cool tools and what the "best" item in a particular category is. Like "surefire" flashlights for example.

Cool Tools

This site run by a man named Kevin Kelly is an awesome resource for so many different things. People write in and tell him about a product that they have found to be extraordinary or extremely useful.

Zappos

This is probably the best online store besides Amazon that I know of. Their customer service is unparalleled in my experience. You will be amazed.

Sierra Trading Post

These people have quality products at very discounted prices.

Backcountry

This store I like a lot because of the layout of the site, but more importantly because they actually use the stuff you can read reviews on the items you are interested in. Plus their prices are hard to beat (especially in their outlet store).

Most Comfortable Shoes

I was very pleased to find this site. These people basically tell you what 5-10 shoes are the most comfortable in any category of shoes that you are interested in.

Froogle

This is basically a search engine by google that searches online stores for the item you're looking for. Just type it in, then you can arrange your results by price, relevance, etc. Then you can click the link and you can buy knowing that you're most likely getting the best price for that item there is.

Tom Bihn Backpacks

This guy from Seattle makes the best backpacks according to Cool Tools.

Merino Wool Clothing

Basically for Fall, Winter, and Spring, Merino Wool is the way to go. Period. Forget underarmor and all those other fancy synthetic fabrics. I always knew natural is best and I'm proven right again and again.

Pandora

2006-10-07T21:16:00.000-04:00

Pandora

This has to be the coolest thing I have seen online in a loooong time. I found out about through Dr. Mercola. These people make playlists that are perfect... you get to listen to your favorite music you haven't even heard yet and all for free. Brilliant idea.

You Might Be A Home Schooler Graduate If...

2006-10-07T19:11:00.000-04:00

Came across this on the home schooler graduate group on Facebook. I thought it was funny enough to share with all of you. =)

1. You went to school in your PJ's.
2. Your biology lab consisted of assisting in your sibling's birth.
3. Your stacks of books to check out was taller than the librarian.
4. Your PE came from chasing little toddlers around.
5. Your school bus was a 9 passenger van.
6. You considered school work after lunch to be cruel and unusual punishment.
7. Your father has ever told the check-out lady at Wal-mart, "We're on a field trip."
8. Your social life was viewed by some to be one rung lower than that of a Benedictine monk.
9. Your teacher has ever written your report card on a napkin.
10. You had to move dirty laundry off your desk before your can start school.
11. The signatures on your diploma all end with the same last name.
12. Everyone else in the world is referred to as "Non-homies." (or PSers)
13. Your Mother's wardrobe consists primarily of denim jumpers.
14. Your first real date is on your honeymoon.
15. The word 'homework' sounds like a foreign language.
16. Your yearbook is also your babybook.
17. A snow day meant that you shovel the driveway after you finish your school work.
18. You enjoyed the pastime of watching public school kids walk home from school.
19. You had to look at the clock to see if you can call your public school friends yet.
20. You think that public-school-kid is an insult of the highest degree.
21. Health class consisted of eating breakfast.
22. You had to decide what year you want to graduate.
23. You were always late but just call it "homeschooler time."
24. You can remember nearly every single day you went to public school.
25. The teacher can kiss the principal, and no one thinks it's unusual.
26. You got to school and the teacher asks you if you've done all your chores.
27. You are one of the best people in the world!
28. Your friends talk about waiting in line for seven hours to try out the new roller coaster in town, so you went and waited five minutes on a school day.
29. Your school lunches contained any food item easily identifiable to a person without a microscope and extensive scientific knowledge.
30. You've ever listened to Beethoven and Michelle Branch on the same day. Not counting music lessons.
31. Gym class was actually a fun activity like swimming.
32. You're on a first-name basis with the clerks at the local bookstore.
33. The closest thing to a bully in your school is your slightly strange two-year-old sister.
34. Your friends complained about a hard day at school, and you have to keep yourself from giving them "that homeschooling smile."
35. You hear the phrase "socialization" and laugh because you have more friends and know more people than your public school friends.
36. Your school dress code is: No Nudity Allowed
37. You don't own a television
38. You are firmly convinced that high school causes brain damage
39. You sleep in till 9 am on weekdays but get up at 7 am on Sundays
40. You have more siblings than sweaters
41. You know what a 'Park Day' is
42. Your favorite author is Jane Austen, G.K. Chesterton, or P.G. Wodehouse
43. You have ever suffered through Saxon Math
44. All birthdays were school holidays
45. You have ever finished your schoolwork before breakfast
46. You taunted high schooled friends during finals week
47. You spend more than 2 hours each day reading and writing....voluntarily
48. You are 16 years of age or older and still have never been on a date
49. You know what 'Unit Studies' are
50. You had more than 2 science experiments going on in your room
51. You know more than 1 Latin paradigm
52. You have ever spent the entire school day in pajamas
53. You regularly utilize words such as: "malingering", "tedious", and "indubitably"
54. You consider sled riding phys ed
55. Your IQ is greater than your weight
56. You checked out more than 10 books each time you visit the library
57. You have ever attempted to teach yourself physics
58. When asked about your GPA, you say: "Oh, probably 4.0."
59. You have no idea as to what rock bands are currently popular...but you can recite all of the stages of cellular mitosis (in order).
60. You believe that you are the most intelligent human in your age bracket within a ten mile radius.
61. You actually wanted to recieve books on your birthday
62. Cleaning your room counts as Phys-Ed.
63. Your field trip takes you over seas.
64. Shop class includes watching your brother fix his car.
65. Your track meet is riding into town to race bikes with a friend.
66. Your mom wished you'd stop reading and do something else for a change.
67. Your bedroom was your classroom and your bed or floor is the desk.
68. You stayed up till whenever, and not because you are doing homework.
69. You could get days ahead in almost any subject.
70. You recorded, planed and graded your own school work.
71. You forgot about the minor holidays until you see your dad sitting home in sweats or your public school friends ask you over the weekend what you did on your day off.
72. You didn't know what's spring break is.
73. Your mom counted watching a war movie as history and playing out in the snow as PE.
74. You had more friends way older and younger than you than ones your actual age.
75. You read for fun

76. You know what the acronym “ATI” means; if you know there used to be an “A” on the end of it, you are really hardcore. – Thanks Elizabeth

Chain Letter Thingamajig

2006-09-25T20:22:00.000-04:00

I have been tagged by Miss Lawless - so here it goes:

1. A Place You've Visited and Your Favorite Thing there

Oklahoma - As you can read in my post put up after my visit... I loved the whole way of life down there. The people, the food, the land, the monastery, pretty much everything about it. =)

2. A Country You'd Like to Visit and Why

Well, I am going to be studying abroad in Austria this upcoming Spring and will be staying a month after I gradutate to bike around Europe, so this question has been on my mind a lot recently. =) Hmmm.... now the question limits me to only one of the countries that I'm *going* to visit. I'm really looking forward to going to Italy and especially Assisi and Rome. When I have asked people who have traveled Europe where their own single favorite place is, many have said that Assisi was their very favorite. So I guess you could say I'm looking forward to seeing this marvelous medieval town, which BTW is where my patron saint (Francis) was from.

3. A Place From History You'd Like to Visit and Why

Jerusalem (before its destruction) - Though I am still trying to work it out so I can go there in the Spring which would be beyond cool.

4. A Place You Know a Lot About

Depends on what you mean by knowing a lot about it... as in geography or history? Geographically speaking I know the northwest suburbs better than anywhere else. Historically, I don't know that I could single out one place that I know a lot about.

5. A Place You'd Like to Learn More About

Russia... after reading Anna Karenina (which BTW was one of *the* best books I have ever read) I really would like to learn more about the Russian people and their country.

6. A Fictional Place You'd Like to Visit

Hands down Valinor from the Silmarillion.

Five things in our freezer:
1. No freezer here at school so... nothing.

Five things in my closet
1. Clothes
2. Clothes
3. Clothes
4. Belts
5. Tie

Five things in my car

1. No car and no family car so again, nothing.

Five interesting things in my backpack (laptop bag in this case):

1. Heavenwards Prayer Book
2. Cards
3. The Tags to some winter gloves I bought awhile ago
4. Notecards
5. A Receipt from Coca-Cola vendors from when I was Student Government president.

Mid-Summer

2006-07-09T11:21:00.000-04:00

Ave Guys Reunion
(left to right: John, Dave, Me, Thom, Chris, Jeff)

Well it is Sunday, July 9th, 2006. Summer is more than half way finished and it's only a few more weeks until school starts again. I had a pretty good time these past couple of weeks. I visited my roommate from Ave, John up in Minnesota and hung out with his cousins and played lots of volleyball. We then went down to Iowa together to a friend from Ave whose family was throwing their annual Fourth of July party. The party was actually on the third and on the fourth I mostly drove all day (approx. 780 miles). Also at the party, first thing in the morning I went outside after breakfast and saw some people setting up for the party so I decided to help out. They were putting up a fence to keep the volleyball from rolling down the hill next to the net. So I grabbed the t-post and the sledgehammer and started pounding it in when all of a sudden my thumb got in the way and I gave myself a direct hit on my thumbnail... ouch. Pretty much for the rest of the day I was in constant sharp pain except when I froze my thumb in ice. Anyways, the blood pressure building up under the thumb nail started to be too much for me and so I consulted some people at the party and one girl said to stick a needle underneath the nail and let the blood out. I did that and almost passed out (again), but that didn't help out much. A couple hours later I found a doctor at the party and he say that you have to go through the top of the nail with a red hot need or paper clip. I did both and finally found some relief at about 11:30 pm.

Now I'm teaching piano, reading, riding my bike, and attending various summer events and parties throughout.

Mein Geburtstag (Birthday)

2006-06-21T21:02:00.000-04:00

Monday was my 21st birthday. I am now no longer a second class citizen. =) I don't feel much different unfortunately.

I had Fr. Don and my Grandparents on my mom's side over for dinner. I made my lemon-garlic chicken dish that I made up at school.

Afterwards, my mom and I picked up my Aunt Ann and Uncle Mike and went out to Millrose Restaurant and Brewery in South Barrington. (To his and my great disappointment, my dad had to be out of town on business that night, but we're going downtown this weekend most likely.)

It was an absolutelly beautiful night and after it got dark they lit up all the fireplaces outside and we all had a good chat over fresh draft beer.

Oklahoma Trip Pictures

2006-06-20T23:57:00.000-04:00

As suggested, I decided to put up some more pictures of the trip so people can get a better feel for my experience. Enjoy...

Mr. Lawless and I right before we left for the airport.

The Lawless Ranch right about dawn.

Looking out at their yard in the morning... wow.

Taking a break from work and chatting with some neighbors.

David and I stacking the hay bales on the truck.

The temporary Clear Creek Oratory right after Vespers.

My room at the monastery.

A picture of my with my monk-cut while relaxing at a picnic in the Lawlesses' yard.

David and I talking to Kateri while we were working on putting up fence posts.

This is outside the livestock auction, some of the Lawlesses and their neighbor.

Vita Bella (Est)

2006-06-18T15:04:00.000-04:00

Life is Beautiful

I recently returned from a 3 week trip out to northeastern Oklahoma where I visited our friends from San Diego, the Lawlesses and the nearby Clear Creek Monastery. After the trip I almost immediately went to Grand Rapids, MI for the Acton Institute's "Acton University" 3 day conference on religion and liberty.

The primary purpose of my trip to Oklahoma was to dedicate some time exclusively to God and discern His will for me in the silence and solitude of the monastery. When you give to God, He will bless your gift and make it bear much fruit as I have seen these past 4 weeks. I had originally planned to only spend one day at the Lawlesses' house during the three week period, but as it happened I fortunately was able to spend almost a week there. The entire trip did not seem to last long, but I certainly did and experienced a lot in that time. Unfortunately, I know there are a lot of details and events that I will not be able to recall, so I will highlight the impressions and experiences that have had the deepest impression on me and that remain with me today.

The Clear Creek Experience

The monastery and its grounds were absolutely beautiful. The property there is approx. 1200 acres. The monks would do the Divine Office everyday (a practice of prayer that occurs seven times a day) which really made the days go by very quickly there. Unlike you would expect a quiet monastic life to be, because of the Divine Office the time never seemed to drag. Life was like a 'Liturgical Merry-Go-Round' where you would do all of your daily activities in the time intervals between prayer.

Guests are not required to participate in all of the prayers, but I tried to attend as much as possible. So my typical day there would consist in waking up at 6 am and be in the chapel at 6:15 (after the monks finish matins and begin lauds). After lauds is low Mass where 7 Masses are all said silently in the Tridentine rite and you need to follow along with the missal and visual cues to participate as much as possible. After Mass there was about 30 mins for silent mental prayer before Prime at 8am. Right after prime we would have breakfast which consisted the entire time of a half a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich, a bowl of Raisin Bran, and a cup of coffee. After breakfast I would return to my room and pretty much read until 12:50pm when we had Sext (I would usually not go to Terce and High Mass at 10am). Lunches at the monastery were very good. We would always start off with soup and a piece of homemade bread, followed by a tasty main course, and would finish with a dessert (usually yogurt, pudding, or some tasty French dish). After lunch the guests and Fr. Guest master (Fr. Bethel) would have a little chat outside followed by some free time before None. Every afternoon I would earn my keep by doing manual labor with the monks after None. I learned a lot during these work periods because I had the opportunity to help with projects I would not likely encounter at my house. Among other things, I helped build a shed, did metal work with a circular saw, drilled metal sheets on to a roof being built, helped lay a cement foundation, organized wood beams fresh off the mill, tested a well, painted an old dump truck, etc. After I was done with work I would go to the kitchen to drink some iced tea and then I would wash up before Vespers. We had some free time after Vespers and then dinner was at 7:30 followed somewhat closely by Compline at 8:35. After that sometimes I would go for a walk and say the rosary or I would go back to my room and read before retiring at about 9:30pm. So that's pretty much how the day would go with some variation.

The most significant insight during my time at the monastery was in my understanding of what 'discerning a religious vocation' really entails. I had come to the monastery with the paradigm that you had to storm heaven asking for a near definitive sign/feeling/conviction of what your "special" or particular vocation was. Pretty soon after I arrived at the monastery I asked Fr. Bethel if I could have some spiritual direction, so after dinner one night we sat down and I asked him if he had any specific tips or recommendations on how to discern a vocation, particularly to the religious life. He referred me to The Commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict, chapter 58 on vocations. This book said that there are only really three "vocations"' in the proper sense of the word. The first is God's call to all men to faith, this vocation is universal and obligatory. The second type of vocation is the religious vocation (loosely defined as the way of life that radically follows the Evangelical Counsels as Christ did), this vocation is also universal, but a matter of counsel. That was what really struck me. (The third by the way is the ecclesiastical vocation which is elective and somewhat obliging, sort of like being elected pope.) The Commentary proceeded to explain that there is not really any such thing as a "special" religious vocation. In the Gospels Christ tells the young rich man that 'If you would be perfect..." this invitation is given to everyone, but Christ is also aware that 'not everyone can take this, but those who can, let them take it'. So pretty much I went there to ask God if He wanted me to be a religious and He really just threw the question right back at me. As far as my answer, right now I have other duties and obligations to attend to like finishing up college, paying off debt, and developing personally. So I am not declaring any intentions one way or the other for the time being. Anyways...

The Lawless Way of Life

My time at the Lawlesses was unexpectedly quite an enjoyable visit and experience. I am very glad I was able to spend as much time with them as I did. I have not seen them since they visited our house back in 2002 for the World Youth Day trip about four years ago, except for a short visit we made out to San Diego in summer of 2003. We have all grown over these past few years that we have been apart and visiting with them now that I am a little bit older made me appreciate what a truly wonderful family they are. I have many many fond memories of my stay there. From our morning coffee ritual after low Mass to taking out 'Musk Thistles' under the merciless sun. =)

Their house is situated very far from civilization on a dirt road and on none less than two hundred and twenty three acres. It is difficult to conceptualize what a large parcel of land that is to the city slicker's mind. The yard has more than a couple of ponds, cedar forests, and pasture/meadows; you need a 4x4 vehicle just to get around the property in reasonable amount time. They have goats, chickens, and cattle all on their property. One of the first things that struck me after arriving there was the silence and peacefulness of the country. Unlike the 24/7 static hum of traffic in the distance here in suburbia, if you stood still all you could hear were the sounds of nature.

I was at their house kind of off and on. One day at the beginning of my trip, a couple more days after the monastery started overflowing with guests, and then a couple days right before I flew back home. For the majority of a day there I would work out in the yard with Mr. Lawless, David, and Joey. Since they've only been there for about 6-7 months, the primary task while I was there was putting up fences so they could utilize the pastures in their yard. So we dug holes, put in posts, cemented them in, etc. I must say, I am a lazy person. I am not nearly as energetic as the Lawlesses are, but one thing I realized out there was that to get energy you need to spend energy. The harder I worked, the more energy I seemed to come away with (not immediately of course, after working hard for 7-8 hours outside I wasn't exactly rearing to go =). Since coming home, I have been trying to do more around the house, especially yard work, which has been very satisfying for what little I've done. Anyways, regarding the trip... another highlight of working at the Lawlesses was haying time. I missed the bulk of the work because I was at the monastery, but I came back in time to do the last of the gathering of the hay bales. David and I got on the back of the truck, on the side was attached a rig called a 'lifter' (I think) that would grab the bales from the ground and lift them up and plop them on a small platform from which we would grab them and stack them on the back of the truck. You really needed to be on your toes (figuratively speaking) because the bales came in fast and didn't wait for you to finish organizing them. I really felt like I was living the farm life on top of 5 layers of hay bales on a moving truck. I sweat so much every day, you could say that ranching is a detox in and of itself. =)

One night that I'll never forget was the big bonfire we had out in the yard on top of a little bluff looking out over a pond and the main meadow under a full moon. There was a gentle summer breeze; you couldn't have asked for a more perfect night. We stayed up talking until 2am and could have easily stayed up later it was so nice outside. Ahhh... you had to be there to know the magic of that night. Life was truly beautiful. That has to be the simplest way to encapsulate 'the Lawless way of life": Vita Bella.

I wish I could remember and write more, but this will have to do for now if I'm ever going to get this posted in a reasonable amount of time. It was a great trip and I thank God for it. I do not know what Providence has in store for me, but you just trust and take life one day at a time. I am very blessed to have so many great friends and family, thank you all so much.

Monthly Post

2006-02-06T18:53:00.000-05:00

Time for my monthly update. ;-) Actually, I was just getting sick of seeing the same old post. Anyways the bottom line of the last post was buy gold, silver, oil, platinum, palladium, commodities, and stocks that are in those industries.

I'm working 30 hrs a week at Target as a Shelf Appearance Improver. I'm also at home going to CLC this semester taking General Biology II and Intro to Psychology. I miss Ave. I really miss Dr. Fedoryka and philosophy.
Come this Fall, Steubie or bust.

We got rid of the Green Maxima and now I'm driving around a Grey Toyota 4Runner.

Finally a vehicle that is not afraid to get a little dirty. It also guzzles so much gas that I feel like I work just to drive to work. ;-)

Market Watch 2006

2006-01-03T15:54:00.000-05:00

With the beginning of the new year, it is appropriate to examine among other things, your economic and financial position. What we can except of this new year is very relevant to your financial well being. I am posting an article I received from one of periodicals I am subscribed to. This article is a brief lesson in macroeconomics which will help you understand the economic world of today so that you may make educated and intelligent economic decisions based on market trends. Without further ado:

Direct Link

Is the Inflation Monster Tamed?

by Mike Shedlock

[Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006]

I am pleased to report the inflation monster has been captured and placed in a jar.

This stunning announcement as well as an accompanying video detailing the highlights was made by the European Central Bank in cooperation with the national central banks of the euro area. Along with the announcement, the ECB has produced an information kit on inflation entitled "Price stability: why is it important for you?" It is targeted at young teenagers and teachers in all the official languages of the European Union.

The ECB's eight minute video is actually somewhat entertaining so I recommend that everyone click on the above link take a look. Even though it is entertaining, it sure flops as an educational tool unless of course the goal is self serving promotion by the ECB, for the ECB.

Unfortunately the video does not explain that the real source of inflation is printing of money by the central bank itself. Nor does it explain why 2% is such a good inflation target. Finally it does not really explain how prices across the board can be contained by broad brushed practices like setting of short term interest rates.

Those things were not explained simply because they can not be explained.

Why should inflation be targeted at 2% and not 1% or 3%?
Why should any inflation be targeted at all?
Even if it was for some reason smart to target prices, can prices really be measured it accurately?
What do central banks do to overcome lag effects of monetary tightening and loosening?
Is this just blind faith "we know neutral when we see it"?
The problem of course is targeting prices in the first place. Sometimes money flows into houses and stock and bonds instead of goods and services. Sometimes productivity improvements mask inflation. Sometimes falling commodity prices mask inflation. Of course I am talking about "real inflation" as measured by increases in money supply as opposed to hedonically adjusted price inflation as seen through the eyes of central bankers.

The last paragraph is exactly what made a fool out of Greenspan. In the mid-to-late 1990's, "real inflation" (a rampant increase in money supply), was masked by productivity improvements, falling oil prices, and falling prices of goods from Asia.

Greenspan called it a "productivity miracle". It was a "miracle" indeed. Rampant increases in money supply fueled the 2000 stock market bubble and spawned nonsensical talk about "new paradigms". Then in sheer panic "after the bubble pops" adjustments that he likes to make, Greenspan refused to allow a recession run its course. Instead he slashed interest rates to 1%, fueling the biggest housing bubble the world has ever seen. Here we are three short years later now facing a "new paradigm" in housing, with debt levels far worse at both consumer and governmental levels.

Greenspan will soon be gone and Bernanke is next to bat, waiting in the on-deck circle. Like the ECB, Bernanke wants to set price inflation targets of 2%. I have some advice for him: It simply can not work.

With all the hedonic adjustments, with all the nonsense about core inflation vs. non-core inflation, with all the imputed economics, with all the understating of medical costs, and with enormous discrepancies between rental costs vs. housing ownership costs, there is not a person on this earth that could possibly know 2% price increases if it hit them smack in the face.

Compounding the problem for these so called "inflation fighters" is energy costs. One reason energy costs are rising is peak oil. Another reason oil costs are high is geopolitical tensions. A third reason energy prices are high is supply disruptions. Finally, oil and natural gas demand are relatively inelastic. As prices go up, people more or less have to pay it. To maintain a CPI price target of 2%, central banks might have to raise interest rates to unreasonably high levels if energy prices are included in their measurements. That clearly would be bad policy. The root problem of course is assuming it is wise to target prices rather than money supply in the first place.

The Deflation Monster

I almost forgot to mention that the ECB claims to have “the deflation monster” bottled up as well. I guess we will see but I think they are hopelessly wrong. The ECB points out "deflation monster" problems when in fact deflation is both a blessing as well as the natural state of affairs.

Rising productivity is "price deflationary": more goods are produced faster by fewer people. Prices naturally decline as a result. Look at how few farmers today produce more grain than 100 times as many farmers did not that long ago. Corn prices fell to 1943 levels a couple weeks ago. Is that a problem? For whom? It's only a problem because the US and ECB blow countless billions of dollars every year on price crop supports.

It is a total waste of money. Bear in mind that China is actually losing textile jobs. The enquiring mind might be asking: to whom? The answer might be shocking: to no one. Fewer workers are needed to turn out the same amount of goods. That is one of the reason this protectionist talk you hear right now out of Congress is total nonsense. Those jobs simply are not coming back ever. Cranking up money supply in an attempt to create jobs lost by productivity improvements and outsourcing can only result in asset bubbles and/or increased overcapacity. Besides, who does not like lower prices on goods and services?

If deflation is such a good thing, why do central banks fear it?

One answer is because deflation is debt's worst enemy.

If asset prices and wages fall, people can not possibly ever pay back what they owe. Banks and credit card companies don't seem to like that state of affairs. Is that a problem with deflation? No, that is a problem created by a reckless lending, easy credit, and endless cheerleading on CNBC every time consumer spending rises and people sink heavier into debt.

The second answer is because inflation benefits those that receive money first: the government and banks. The former is via automatic tax increases not indexed to inflation (especially property taxes), the latter simply because banks are first in line to receive money from the FED at rates no one else sees. By the time lending standards drop so that the masses have access to credit, the boom is well underway. By the time credit is granted to anyone that can fog a mirror, the boom is nearly over. Those buying assets late in the game will eventually be crushed by those selling assets that got in early. Simply put, inflation eventually becomes a moral hazard.

The Pivot Point

We are now at or close to the pivot point. The pivot point or tipping point if you prefer, is the point at which consumers can not or will not take on any more debt and/or corporations simply are unwilling or unable to extend more credit. I have been writing about various tipping points for some time now and we seem to be hitting those tipping points simultaneously in many areas: jobs, housing, consumer spending, and credit expansion.

The malinvestments of the have-it-now, me too, ownership society is about to be unwound. We are where we are because Central Banks have printed ever expanding amounts of money to prevent normal business cycles, to satisfy politicians wanting to waste more taxpayer money with silly projects, and to foolishly fight deflation. The only thing the Central Banks have accomplished is putting off the inevitable deflationary credit crunch while making it worse along the way.

There are many that think true deflation (decrease in money supply) can not happen under a fiat system. I disagree but perhaps the point is moot. Money supply itself actually never contracted in Japan. Instead, it grew very slowly for quite some time. However, bank credit outstanding contracted for 60 months in a row. Clearly there was a credit contraction. How did money supply still manage to grow? Fiscal deficits were ramped up immensely, roads to nowhere were built, and the Bank of Japan monetized all of it.

In addition, money velocity plummeted. The net effect of the credit contraction on prices was clearly what one would nowadays call "deflationary". Prices across a broad range of assets and goods and services fell. Indeed, practically everything fell but government bonds.

People were amazed at the alleged "bond bubble" as well as the Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) of the BOJ. However, a 1% interest rate on a 10-year bond makes sense when prices fall 2.5% annually. The real yield is obviously far higher than 1%. Perhaps a practical way to think of deflation under a FIAT system is the destruction of credit/debt that exceeds growth in money supply.

Regardless of social and economic differences I fully expect the US to follow in the footsteps of Japan. Although a central bank might be able to sustain a certain amount of inflation by resorting to extreme measures, it can not stop a credit contraction in the private sector. Nor will a central bank bail out consumers at the expense of themselves and other creditors. The Fed like the BOJ will stop short of destroying themselves and their power.

At some point, most likely tied to a property bubble implosion, consumers will refuse to take on more debt and/or banks will refuse to lend consumers credit as the value of assets behind the loans plunge. Consumer bankruptcies will soar as various credit bubbles implode. Furthermore, in a world awash in overcapacity there will be no reason for corporations to borrow. That is why the Bank of Japan failed to defeat deflation and that is why Bernanke will fail as well.

In due time I suspect we will find out that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 will fail its intended purpose.

We have already seen massive bankruptcy filings to beat the October filing deadline. That is one such consequence. Given there is now a "means test" based on median family income, I just wonder if the way around that test is for someone to manage to lose their job. If so, that will only increase the size and number of writeoffs during the established credit counseling and waiting periods.

One of the complaints by the US and others against Japan in their long battle with deflation was Japan's refusal to write off bad banking sector loans. The US "solution" to that problem was to pass legislation designed to make people debt slaves forever. I am convinced that legislation will backfire in ways we have not yet begun to understand.

The problem by now should be obvious. Central Banks are attempting to do the impossible as well as the unwise. Arguably the best thing that could happen would be for the Central Banks to abolish themselves. Since that is not about to happen for many reasons, let's instead turn to more practical solutions for "stability".

Instead of trying to achieve "price stability" which as we noted is something that can neither be achieved nor measured, how about shooting for "money supply stability" instead?

Central banks should refuse to monetize government spending and trade deficits
Central banks should let the market set interest rates
Central banks should embark on a campaign of tightening reserves requirements over time to rein in fractional reserve lending
Life would be so much simpler if Central Banks everywhere would stop trying to micromanage both prices and economic cycles. Quite simply, they are trying to achieve nirvana when nirvana can not possibly be measured, nor can nirvana be achieved in the first place with the policies they have in place. Of course if they stop doing these things, they will cease to be Central Banks in the modern sense, so perhaps they will get the hint and just close shop.

Yes we will still have economic cycles if Central Banks do those things, but the cycle peaks and valleys would not be as exaggerated as they are now. It seems as if we have learned nothing from the great depression or the more recent experience by Japan. I fear we may get a second chance.

4.0!!!

2005-12-27T16:35:00.000-05:00

Woohoo!! I just found out that I (FINALLY) got my 4.0. As some of you may know previous to this past semester I tried very hard to get that perfect 4, but was twice eluded by a single A-. It is a very satisfying feeling to have finally achieved this goal of mine, especially since this was my last semester at Ave.

Anyways... I am currently applying to Steubenville. Developing...

Masculinity and Femininity

2005-12-12T13:52:00.000-05:00

Matthew Ryan
Issues of the Age
Dr. Fedoryka

Masculinity and Femininity

Much confusion regarding the issue of “homosexual unions” plagues Catholics and Christians today. The criticism of the so-called homosexual “unions” thus far has been mostly based upon theological or biological arguments. What is really needed to illumine the error of “homosexual unions” is a sound and accurate understanding of what it means to be a person and specifically as masculine and feminine persons. The common tendency when speaking of masculinity or femininity is to reduce each to a set of traits or characteristics generally found in men or women. These traits, however, stem from a deeper meaning of masculinity or femininity. Two fundamental relationships will be at the heart of our investigation of masculinity and femininity: the relationship of the human body to the personal dimension in general, and the relationship of the specific bodily difference between men and women to the personal dimension.
The exact relationship between the body and soul is a mystery that can never be exhausted, yet that does not preclude any understanding of it. The human body in general does “express” the personal dimension. The upright stature for instance expresses the dignity of the human soul. The body externalizes and manifests the interiority of the person. Likewise bodily actions can express certain spiritual acts of the person. In this sense we frequently speak of interpreting and reading “body language”. “Body language” usually refers to things such as the length of time someone will hold eye contact, the way they sit up or slouch, etc. There are, however, other forms of body language that are more than signs of the person’s psychic or spiritual disposition. The friendly hand-shake, reverential bow, the kiss of love are all examples of a body language that actually embodies a spiritual act. Somehow, the bodily action “fits” and is “similar” to the spiritual act even though they are in different orders of being. This is possible because of the body’s metaphysical capacity to carry specific spiritual content through specific bodily actions. Beating someone over the head with a rock, for example, can never be said to express the spiritual act of love. We find a certain priority of the spiritual order over the bodily order. The human being is an “embodied” soul and an “ensouled” body. The soul is always the primary principle of the human being.
Having briefly examined the nature of the body and soul on a general level we are now better able to address the relationship of the specific bodily difference between men and women to the personal dimension. Karl Stern, in his work The Flight from Woman, tries to explain masculinity and femininity in terms of the biological difference between the male and female body. He says,

“The sex organs and the sex cells manifest a polarity and complementariness in morphology and in function. In the act of sexual union the male organ is convex and penetrating and the female organ is concave and receptive; the spermatozoon is torpedo-shaped and “attacks,” and the ovum is a sphere “awaiting” penetration. That this polarity and complementariness should not be confined to the physical but also be reflected in the character of man and woman, is a view as old as history.”

The basic structure of Stern’s explanation of masculinity and femininity is that the specific bodily difference between man and woman is reflected by the personal dimension. In other words, he reverses the priority of the soul over the body. He explains the spiritual in terms of the physical. Even though Stern reverses the priority in the relationship between body and soul, he does note a valid similarity between the specific bodily difference between the sexes and the masculine and feminine soul. Even on this point of the masculine being the convex and penetrating and the feminine as the concave and receptive, he oversimplifies the relationship between the two.
In order to know how and why Stern confuses the nature and origin of masculinity and femininity it is crucial to understand that men and women as persons have a transcendent structure to their existence. The person as person has a vocation to transcendence. This is radically different from the immanent structure of animal and vegetable existence. The cauliflower, the acorn, and the dog all have their end within their being. They are “beings-for-themselves” as opposed to persons who are “beings-for-others”. This capacity of the person to be for a transcendent end, specifically other persons, puts the person in a dialogical relationship of receptivity and response. The dialogical relationship is distinctly personal and cannot be reduced to the active-passive structure of non-personal beings. Interpersonal relationship is one of receiving others and responding by spontaneously going out of oneself in a reciprocal gift of self. Receptivity and spontaneity are complimentary instances in the dialogical relationship. A receptive act is not complete until it adequately responds and a spontaneous act presupposes a prior reception. The concept of the gift really elucidates this phenomena. If someone receives a gift from a friend and stands there mute with a blank expression, can we say they have really received the gift? No, his reception is not complete until he responds with a ‘thank-you’ or some other appropriate reciprocal response. Likewise, how can a man give something if he has not first received what he gives prior to his giving? His spontaneity presupposes his prior reception. These two complimentary instances of the interpersonal dialogue frames our entire understanding of the essence of masculinity and femininity.
The essence of masculinity is a spiritual character of a human soul that “colors” all his relations in the specific mode of spontaneity. The essence of femininity is the same, but in the specific mode of receptivity. There is a temptation in the conceptualization of this insight to equate spontaneity with masculinity and receptivity with femininity. The fact is that both men and women have the mutual capacity for receptivity and spontaneity, yet we say that men find their “home base” in the mode of spontaneity and likewise women are “at home” in the mode of receptivity. Many proponents of the homosexual cause who have fallen prey to this oversimplification of the essential character of masculinity and femininity are quick to point that there are “feminine” men and “masculine” women. Most people are familiar with “girly men” and “tomboys”. Indeed, as has already been pointed out, men can be receptive and women can be spontaneous, but they always receive as a man or as a woman.
Masculinity and femininity are not pre-determined qualities that a person either has or does not have. Masculinity and femininity are either formed or deformed in the individual person’s relation to transcendent values, particularly persons. In other words, a man’s moral character determines the formation or perversion of his masculinity. Edith Stein notes that “the vocation of man and woman is not exactly the same in the original order, the order of fallen nature, and the redemptive order.” We find the “original” or authentic masculinity in the just man that gives the adequate response to transcendent value. Conversely, we find the “fallen” or deformed masculinity in the self-centered man that appropriates and uses transcendent values as means for his own satisfaction. We find that precisely on the account of these two different manifestations of masculinity or femininity and the lack of distinction between the two, many erroneous explanations have been proposed.
One common error in explaining the essence of masculinity is the characterization of masculinity as aggressiveness. Stern says, “Man’s attitude toward nature is that of attack and penetration” and later, “Man’s activity is always in a sense directed against nature.” Masculinity, as we pointed out earlier, is the mode of being spontaneous, of springing forth out of oneself. If the man is morally righteous, his spontaneity will take the form of genuine transcendence, being for the other. No aggression or hostility is indicated in this spontaneity. If, however, the man is motivated by his own satisfaction, his ‘springing forth’ will be perverted and deformed into an aggressive appropriation of other people and his environment. Edith Stein says,

“The decay of man’s dominion is seen when we consider his relationship to the natural riches of the earth: instead of reverential joy in the created world, instead of a desire to preserve and develop it, man seeks to exploit it greedily to the point of destruction or to senseless acquisition without understanding how to profit from it or how to enjoy it.”

Stein clearly sees the specific way that man’s relation to the world changes when his true masculinity is deformed by the destructive pursuit of satisfaction.
The complementary character of the original masculinity and femininity in their modalities of spontaneity and receptivity is also affected by immorality. As Sister Prudence notes in her work, The Concept of Woman, “one of the most striking features of complementarity theories is their vulnerability towards disintegration into either a polarity theory or a unity theory.” The “unity theory” holds that men and women are essentially the same with some minor physical differences for reproductive purposes. The “polarity theory” holds that men and women are not equal, but polar opposites. Sister Prudence says that complementarity theories have a “vulnerability” to disintegrate into a unity or polarity theory. This “vulnerability”, however, is not limited to the theoretical level. The self-centered pursuit of satisfaction as the person’s primary motive deforms his relations with other persons and consequently impairs his ability to understand the proper relationship between men and women. In the case of lustful man, the gender of other people does not matter to him as long as he gets satisfaction he is seeking and he thus assumes a kind of “unity” attitude towards men and women. Paradoxically, the same selfish mode of relating to others also can disintegrate the complementarity of men and women to a “polarity” of opposites. The selfish man and the selfish woman’s self-interests clash and the proverbial “battle of the sexes” ensues. Stern speaks of a “polarity and complementariness” between men and women, but the two, as we have seen, can hardly be said to be the same thing. The confusion is understandable, however, in light of the deforming effect the satisfaction motive has on the masculinity or femininity of the person.
The complementarity model asserts the equality of human nature and dignity in both men and women, but the articulation of the person as feminine or masculine also involves a complimentary difference. Men and women alike, have the spiritual faculties of mind, heart, and will. However, the use of these faculties will be articulated in different modes by men and women on account of their masculinity and femininity. In the intellectual sphere, the man’s spontaneity manifests itself in discursive reasoning. He analyses or “breaks down” the object into its components in order to understand it and subsequently synthesize it, all the while respecting the integrity of the object. The specific articulation of the feminine intellect is its intuitive manner of grasping the object “as a whole”. She does not break the object down through analysis as the man does. She understands the object “from within”.
In the affective sphere, the woman in her femininity manifests an “openness” and a special sensitivity to the inner life of transcendent object. By virtue of her openness she is able to connect with the object in an intimate and close way, that the man does not. In the spousal relationship, she is particularly delighted by the generosity of her lover because his gifts stir or “quicken” her love for him. The affective manifestation of masculinity is a special sensitivity to justice. His sensitivity is particularly expressed in his reverence for the sacredness of the transcendent. He is also deeply touched and moved by the beauty of woman, a property which may be properly attributed to the feminine. Her beauty also engenders new life in him and enkindles a desire to serve her.
In the volitional sphere, man encounters his calling to a specific task to be done. Man’s specific capacity to “go outside of himself”, analyzing and synthesizing, indicates his unique role as master of the world. This mastery or “kingship” is a vocation of service. He is called to serve and develop what is entrusted to him, namely, women and children and the world. The man serves the inner life of the woman and child and provides them a domesticated environment in which they can develop their “inner secret” and potential. While man’s specific vocation is the service of life, woman’s vocation is to receive and engender life. The unique “openness” of her being makes her particularly suited to receive the gift of life. This call to receive life is deeper than the physical conception of new life, it extends to the reception of the spiritual inner life of those entrusted to her. Children and man, particularly her husband in the spousal relationship, are entrusted to the woman. The woman’s response to those she has receive should be one of engendering, awakening, and nourishing new life within them according to her specific feminine vocation. Having briefly sketched the manifestations of the original masculinity and femininity and their complementary character, we can now better understand the specific deformations of masculinity and femininity as we find in their caricatures.
The deformation of masculinity and femininity brings about the perversion of all the specific manifestations of masculinity and femininity discussed above. Edith Stein says,

“A woman shares with man the powers to understand, enjoy, and act; but she also shares the same degenerate desire for the possession of things through violence, a desire which falsifies, distorts and destroys. However, the Fall affected man and woman differently; this becomes clear when examining the different meaning and orientation of the three functions (understanding, enjoyment, and creativity) in the total personality and total life of man and woman.”

The analytical capacity of the masculine intellect is deformed into a destructive analysis that “breaks things down” without regard to the integrity of the object. His intellect is divorced from his affective sensitive and respect for the integrity of the object and he falls into a “one-sidedness”. “[Man’s] one-sided endeavor to achieve perfection easily becomes a decadent aspiration in itself; our desire for knowledge does not respect limits placed on it but rather seeks by force to go beyond these limits.” He “over-rationalizes” things disrespecting the laws inherent in the nature of things and falls prey to a “dehumanization”. Instead of following his vocation to serve life as king, he becomes the tyrant, domineering those entrusted to him. He shirks his parental duties to his children and uses women for his own satisfaction.
As Stein noted, woman’s deformation is different than that of man’s because of her unique capacities and vocation. Stein says, “woman is better protected than man from one-sidedness and from dehumanization.” Whereas man’s tendency is to be “overly rational” to the point of “heartlessness”, the woman’s tendency is the opposite. Stein says, “Her reverent joy in the things of this world may degenerate into greed, leading her, on the one hand, to the anxious, avaricious scraping together and hoarding of things for which she has no use; and, on the other hand, a lapse into a mindless, idle life of sensuality.” We have the stereotype and caricature of woman as the overly sensitive and irrational woman. Her unique disposition to be open to receiving life, devolves into a possessiveness. “The woman who hovers anxiously over her children as if they were her own possessions will try to bind them to her in every way. […] She will check their development and destroy their happiness”. In her relation to man, she becomes the seductress in order to dominate him and use him for her own selfish purposes.
We may now return to the issue of whether or not the specific bodily difference between men and women expresses the personal dimension and conclude that indeed it does. The physical and psychic structure of man and woman are the externalization of the spiritual character of masculinity and femininity. The relation or “analogy” between the masculine or feminine soul to the psyche and body can be said to have a “sacramental” character. The body is a symbol of the spirit that “ensouls” it, but moreover, the body embodies that masculine or feminine soul. Now it is apparent how the homosexual argument that “we love each other as persons” is inadequate and erroneous precisely because the human person as person is already masculine or feminine. The complementary nature of spousal love thus excludes the possibility of a spousal union between two masculine or two feminine souls. Homosexual “union” is impossible not simply because their bodies are not complementary, but because even as persons, masculine or feminine, they are not complimentary. Without the intuition and sound understanding of the essence of true masculinity and femininity the error of the homosexual argument is impossible to articulate accurately.

Bibliography

Fedoryka, Damian. Reflections on Homosexual “Union” In the Light of the “Hermeneutics of the Gift” of John Paul II. Draft, Nov. 10, 2005.

Ong, Walter J. Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1989.

Stein, Edith. Essays on Woman. 2nd Ed, Rev. 2nd Ed. Washington D.C.: ICS Publications, 1996.

Stern, Karl. The Flight from Woman. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1965.

I pledge upon my honor that I have not received any unauthorized aid on this assignment.

Matthew Ryan

Two Papers for You

2005-12-10T01:06:00.000-05:00

Well folks... I'm almost done with the semester. I have two more papers to go and five finals and less than a week. Earlier I posted the two papers I have finished with. I know at least a couple of you are interested in reading over them and for everyone else, they should give you a taste of what kind of thinking I do academically.

I just got back from watching Narnia. I have to say, the movie was excellent. Lewis is a genius. I felt the power of the Truth coming through the story. The story is so unabashedly Christian it's wonderful. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the Gospel message in the story. When Aslan sacrifices his life for the sin of Edmund, it was almost as emotional for me as Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ was. The thing that really struck me though was how beautifully Lewis portrays the dignity of being a human. We are really sons of God. We are all kings and queens of this world. Absolutely incredible. Lucy, in particular, was amazing as an actor. Her childlikeness was such a joy to behold. Anyways, if any of you have not seen it yet, please do so, for your own sake. I can't wait to read these books to my own future children (God willing).

The State and the Economy

2005-12-09T17:26:00.000-05:00

Matthew Ryan
Political Philosophy
Dr. Muller

The State and the Economy in Light of Catholic Social Teaching

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood subjects in America’s public consciousness is the relation between the government and the economy. Many people mistakenly take for granted that our nation’s currency has its value through the decree of the State and view the Chairman of the Federal Reserve as a quasi “shepherd” of the national economy. The underlying assumption of these ideas is that the State somehow has the power, right, and duty to control and manipulate the economy. In order to gain a proper understanding of the State and its relation to the economic sector of society, we first need to understand what the nature of both the state and the economy is and what the proper end of each is. In this paper I will analyze and critique both the socialist and capitalist models of the State-Economy relationship in light of the Catholic Social Teaching of Popes Leo XIII and John Paul II. My thesis is that the State’s role and intervention in the economy should be limited to the minimum necessary to ensure the free market’s proper orientation to the common good of man and society both for moral and economic reasons.
Origin of Society and the State
Phenomenologically examining the situation of man as he finds himself, we can see that our very existence and being as man does not have our origin and cause in ourselves. We experience ourselves as given unto ourselves from a transcendent source. Our life and existence here on earth is, however, very precarious and demands that we nourish our bodies in order to continue our life. We thus have a duty to provide for the necessities of our physical life. The earth that we find ourselves is fertile and contains much potential for our nourishment. Furthermore, we experience the fruits of the earth as being for us. These fruits, however, do not simply fall into our mouths and nourish us though; the care of our life requires our labor and creativity in order to enjoy these fruits. Pope Leo XIII reflecting on this insight says: “The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live[1]”. We see, therefore, with Leo that the preservation of our gift of life is a duty of justice and that subsequently every man has a right and a duty to work for what is necessary for his sustenance.
Having examined the state of man isolated in nature, we are now able to see how and why man enters into society and the state comes into being. One major reason why man enters into society is because procuring one’s nourishment single-handedly can be an extremely arduous task. Self-preservation is much easier if man works together with other men towards their common good. Adam Smith identified this phenomena and articulated it as the ‘division of labor’[2]. The division of labor may be summarized as each and every man in a given society limiting his work to what he does best in harmony with all others instead of attempting to survive alone. The division of labor maximizes efficiency and consequently wealth. The efficacy of the division of labor is one significant reason for the society.
Men come together in society for other reasons as well. The most important reason, however, is man’s vocation to transcendence. To be a person means to be in relation to other persons. Aristotle calls man a “social animal”[3]. Man naturally is inclined to be in relation to others and furthermore, in his encounter with the other person, he experiences a call to be for that person for his or her own sake on account of their intrinsic goodness or value.
Since men are also imperfect, they are inclined to oppose their call to transcendence and seek their own satisfaction, even at the cost of using and dominating other men and women to achieve that satisfaction. To preserve peace, order, and justice, there must be some institution to uphold these things in society. The ordering of society requires a State for the just and smooth exercise of societal functions for the sake of the common good. The State is instituted to protect every member of society’s natural rights and to rectify wrongs incurred among its citizens. Furthermore, the State serves to protect society from external threats to public security. For these reasons men see it necessary to establish the State.
Duties of the State
In our investigation of the origin and nature of state, we can clearly see that man precedes the State and that the State only exists for the good of man and not vice versa. This concept is crucial for a proper understanding of what constitutes a valid and legitimate composition of the particular form the State takes on. Since the State is instituted by men for common good of all, it is evident that the State’s duties are directed to the good of man and are limited to the reasons for which it was instituted. Pope Leo XIII says that “the foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity.[4]” Leo asserts that the scope of the State’s duties is limited to the conformance of law and government to the common good.
What then is included in the common good of man? At the most basic level, the common good entails the protection of every man’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property in addition to the promotion of the general well-being. We have already explained how man has a natural right to his life on account of its character as being given to him. As a spiritual being, man has also been endowed with three essential spiritual capacities: the intellect, the heart, and the will. Through his will, man by nature has a right to choose the good, free from any coercion. Man’s right to property stems from his possession of self. By investing himself through labor in the land given to him ultimately by God, man rightfully possesses the product of his work and creativity. The common good of man, for which the State is instituted, demands that the State above all protect these natural rights.
Pope John Paul II reflects on Leo’s understanding of the role of the State and applies it to its relation to the economy. He says,

“The State has the duty of watching over the common good and of ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the economic one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the rightful autonomy of each sector. This should not however lead us to think that Pope Leo expected the State to solve every social problem. On the contrary, he frequently insists on necessary limits to the State’s intervention and on its instrumental character, inasmuch as the individual, the family and society are prior to the State, and inasmuch as the State exists in order to protect their rights and not stifle them.[5]”

The important insight in these passages is that the State is ordered to the common good and that indicates in particular that the State assumes an “instrumental character” in its relation to the economy. The common good does not require the State to wield absolute control over the economy; the State’s role in the economy is indeed limited by the common good. The State’s assurance of the integrity of man’s natural rights allows for and promotes economic prosperity. Protection of property is a fundamental principle needed for a prosperous economy. No man will make economic transactions if they have no security that their property will not be subsequently stripped from them. Likewise men will be discouraged from making commercial transactions if there is no security from the State that the contract will not be breached. We see that aside from the philosophical principles that limit the State’s role in the economy, the basic laws of economics argue against state control of the economy.
Socialism
Having examined the duties of the State we are now in a sufficient position to scrutinize both the socialist and capitalist socio-economic models and their understandings of the State and the economy. First of all, let us examine the nature of socialism. Socialism asserts that all men are equally entitled to an equal share of the earth its fruits. The possession of private property inevitably leads to inequalities because greedy men produce much and hoard the profits for themselves so private property must be abolished. In order to ensure an equal distribution the State is must have own and control all the means of production and consequently exercises complete control over the economy. While emotionally appealing, the socialist system rests nevertheless upon a fundamental anthropological error and is doomed to economic failure. Pope John Paul II says,

“The fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil.”[6]

This fundamental error of Socialism is the root cause of its failure both as a just and economically sound socio-economic system.
Socialism is a failure as a just system first of all because Socialism does not respect the intrinsic dignity of the human person in its degradation of the individual man from an end in himself to a means to the ideal socialist utopia. Man, in his dignity as a human person, has an intrinsic value that demands in an imperial manner to all who come into contact with him that he be affirmed for his own sake and not be used as a means to some other end or purpose. This principle is sometimes referred to as the “personalist principle”. The socialist State furthermore violates the natural law teaching that we have seen regarding the proper duties of the State. Man precedes the State; the State must be for the sake of man. Socialism reverses the proper priority of man before the State and subordinates man to the imaginary ideal of the State. Socialism would not only have man’s natural right to property given to the State, but also his intrinsic right to freedom in the economic sector of society.
The historic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 marked the downfall and failure of Socialism as a powerful economic system. The economic reasons for socialism’s failure are simple. The economic failure again stems from Socialism’s fundamental anthropological error. Without a proper understanding of man, a proper understanding of the economy is impossible. At its heart, the economy consists of the decisions of individual men to allocate scarce resources. Socialism denies this authentic understanding of the nature of economics and believes that the State can artificially assign value to objects without regard to “market value”, a true indicator of an object's economic worth. The more the State interferes with the proper freedom of the marketplace, the less efficient the economy will be and the belief that complete control is a viable economic system is an exercise in self-delusion.
Capitalism
From our discussion of Socialism it seems that we have concluded that the State has no role whatsoever in the economy and that Capitalism is the ideal model. Capitalism, like Socialism, is also unsatisfactory from both the moral and economic viewpoints. Capitalism is quite a broad term and John Paul II gives us an insightful answer on the acceptability of this model based on two different understandings of the term. He says,
“If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, […] But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”[7]

The first sense of capitalism that John Paul II affirms is the free market system that is within a juridical framework that places the market in the service of an authentic and whole freedom of the human person. Man’s economic decisions are unimpeded by the State as long as they are in conformance with the common good of the human person. The “free market system” is a better term than “capitalism” is for what the Holy Father intends as a just system.
The other and more widely accepted sense of ‘capitalism’ that the Holy Father condemns differs essentially from the true “free market system” in its understanding of personal freedom. When most people think of “capitalism” or the “free market”, they think of freedom as pure unadulterated choice. Fedoryka says, “In this more derivative usage, the notion of freedom refers simply to the absence of obstacles or hindrances to a movement. It does not refer to the ends or goals of the movement.”[8] The name for this false understanding of personal freedom and particular brand of capitalism has taken the name of “Libertarianism”. The important thing for what I will call “libertarian capitalism” is simply the choice. Man should be just as free to buy pornography, drugs, etc., as he is to practice his religion or walk his dog. Libertarians have a “laissez faire” (‘leave us alone’) attitude to any governmental role in the economic sector. The libertarian’s “free market” means that the economy is completely autonomous and independent from any state intervention or ethical norms. The true meaning of personal freedom, however, is more than the mere choice of man and necessarily includes the proper object of choice, namely the good. The common good demands that the State respect and uphold the proper object of the individual’s choice, the good. Man’s “freedom” to choose that which is evil and in opposition with the common good ought not to be respected by the State and justice even decrees that the State intervene and disallow the “choice” against the good.
Conclusions
So what then may we say is the proper relation of the State to the economy if both socialism and libertarian capitalism are unsatisfactory socio-economic models? For many, it is either one or the other or somewhere between the two. John Paul II affirms that presenting a specific socio-economic model is outside of the scope of the Church’s competency. He says, “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations”.[9] Presenting a specific model is also outside of the scope of this paper, but we can conclude on what principles an ideal relation between the State and the economy would and should be based upon.
I believe the most important requirement for a just and proper socio-economic model is an accurate and sound understanding of the freedom and dignity of the human person. The State needs to ensure the basic conditions necessary for ordering the free market to the common good and for allowing man to follow his call to transcendence in a gift of self to other persons. Both the dignity of man and his common good demand that the State respect and protect the freedom of the market. Protecting the authentic freedom of the market sometimes requires the State to intervene and punish unjust business practices. Basic conditions that employers must respect under pain of state law should include safe working conditions, a just (non-exploitive) wage, and any other conditions that respect and protect the integrity of the person, body and soul.
Since the essential characteristic of the human person is his freedom to choose the transcendent good in itself, man can work for others; he need not work only for himself and his satisfaction. A just man should be free to work for his wife and his children, for God and neighbor. The common good of all demands that this freedom be respected and revered. The State’s role is to protect and promote the common good, any and all interventions in the economic sector must be kept to a minimum, extended only as far as the good of man requires.
Some might argue that the government need not be limited to its technical duties and obligations and can do proactive social work as well, like public education, public housing, and welfare. While it is true that the State must be sensitive and especially caring for the weakest in society, there comes a great danger in giving the State more power than its strict duty requires. As the saying goes, ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Giving power to the government is a dangerous thing as history proves, and in my opinion an ideal system will give the government as little a role possible as is necessary in society. Those proactive things that “promote the common good” can be better accomplished by localized and private organizations than by an impersonal and power-inclined state.
Regardless of what shape a nation’s socio-economic system takes on, the basic principle that I believe is absolutely central is the dignity of the human person as a free agent for the good in itself. Systems such as socialism and libertarian capitalism fail to see the dignity and freedom of the person and consequently fail as moral and just economic systems. Both fail first in their duties prescribed by natural law, whether by restricting man’s freedom too much or by failing to order his freedom to the common good. They both fail secondly as efficient economic systems as a consequence of having a deficient understanding of value, subjective and objective. Socialism neglects man’s freedom to choose and his right to property and thereby steals the work of his hands before he could give it to those he loves and so dries up any desire he had to work and produce. Libertarian capitalism fails economically because it values an abstracted notion of freedom. Without the State’s role of placing that economic freedom in the service of good, the “free market” quickly devolves into exploitation and cutthroat competition that destroys itself with the mightiest business domineering and devouring any competition that would dare try to compete. I believe that the principles founded on the dignity of the person as outlined in the Catholic social teaching of the encyclicals mentioned above provide a proper and fitting solution for the basis of a just and economically efficient socio-economic system.

I pledge upon my honor that I have not received any unauthorized aid on this assignment.

Matthew Ryan
Bibliography
John Paul II. Encyclical Letter, Centesimus Annus. 1991.

Leo XIII. Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum. 1891.

Fedoryka, Damian. “The “Third Way” of Centesimus Annus: Is it Elusive or Merely an Illusion?.” Faith & Reason Winter 1991 EWTN. 26 Nov. 2005 .

Gronbacher, Gregory M. A. “The Wedding of Three Philosophical Traditions Toward a Refined Philosophy of Economics.” Religion & Liberty November and December 1992 Acton Institute. 26 Nov. 2005 < id="64">
[1] Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 44.
[2] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
[3] Aristotle, Politics, Book I, 1253a7 (Note: Some translations use the word ‘political’ instead of ‘social’)
[4] Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 32.
[5] John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 11.
[6] Ibid., 13.
[7] John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 42. [My emphasis]
[8] Fedoryka, Damian. “The “Third Way” of Centesimus Annus: Is it Elusive or Merely an Illusion?” Faith & Reason (Winter 1991) [accessed on November 26, 2005]
[9] John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 43.

St. Augustine, Free Will, and Evil

2005-12-09T17:23:00.000-05:00

Matthew Ryan
Ancient Philosophy
Dr. Muller

Free Will and Evil in Light of the Thought of St. Augustine

Almost everyday we see and experience evil in the world, whether consciously or not. The presence of evil in the created world presents a particularly difficult problem for the philosopher. How is it that we can say that an omnipotent, perfectly good, God who is the ultimate cause of all that exists created a world in which evil is present? If God made everything and holds all things in existence, would that then mean that God made evil and consequently He is not perfectly good? How can these two apparently irreconcilable statements both be considered true? St. Augustine attempts to solve the problem by pointing out that evil can only be accounted for by the free will of the creature and so although the human will is created by God, we cannot attribute man’s decision for evil to Him. Furthermore, St. Augustine’s notion of evil is that it does not have existence, but is really an absence or privation of goodness. Therefore, the God who holds all things in existence cannot be said to even be a participant whatsoever in the evil action which falls short of the goodness proper to it. My contention is that while St. Augustine correctly identifies the free will of created persons as the origin of evil, his definition of evil as the mere ‘privation of the due good’ is in a sense true, but inadequate.
The Nature of Evil
Before we can arrive at an adequate solution to the problem of evil’s origin, we must first inquire into the nature of evil; we ask, ‘what is evil?’ The Catholic Encyclopedia categorizes evil into three types: physical, metaphysical, and moral.[1] Physical evil consists in natural disasters, misfortune, disease, and any other physical harm to man in his body. Metaphysical evil has to do with the so-called “evil of nature” where lions prey on smaller animals, a desert climate inhibits organic life, or any other limitation inevitable in the nature of the given thing. Moral evil is the type of evil this paper is addressing and will be focusing on because it is the evil that primarily accounts for the problem at hand. With this clarification in mind, we can continue our examination of evil specifically in the moral context.
St. Augustine and the later scholastic tradition hold evil in every category to be a mere ‘privation of the good’. Augustine says, “Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name “evil.””[2] At first glance this explanation of the privative nature of evil seems to be quite an understandable and attractive solution to the vexing problem of evil. Evil in this understanding is simply the absence of goodness as darkness is the absence of light or coldness is the absence of heat. According to Augustine, evil has no being in itself. Physical evil is the absence of the good of health. Metaphysically, goodness is a transcendental quality of all being and so evil is the limitation of the essence. Moral evil is the deviation from the norm of just and good action. Now we would seem to have a solution and consequently no problem in asserting that an all-good God created everything good. Metaphysically, all beings qua being are good inasmuch as they have being; everything that has been created by God has an ontological goodness or value. On the ontological level, it is true that no substance in the proper sense of the word is evil, but we still cannot yet justify the leap to the conclusion that evil absolutely does not exist. The fact, that being and goodness are inseparable ontologically on the metaphysical level does not preclude that something can be wholly evil on the moral level. We still have yet to arrive at a fuller understanding of the nature of evil and how evil can be compatible with a perfectly good God. Further inquiry requires an understanding of the origin of evil.
The Origin of Evil
St. Augustine asserts that the free will of man is the first cause of evil, saying, “An evil will therefore, is the cause of all evils.”[3] If, however, God is the cause of all things, how can Augustine say that the evil will of a created person is the first cause of evil? St. Augustine continues and points out that there is no incompatibility between these two ideas. Since God is the cause of the man, He is also the cause of his free will. The nature of the will, however, is such that it possesses the capability and freedom to be the absolute origin of an action. By his will, man is capable of freely initiating acts that are completely his own. His volitional acts are attributed to him and belong to him in an absolute sense. Since this autonomy is the nature of the will that God created in man, Augustine says, “No blame attaches to the Creator if any of his creatures does not do what he ought.”[4] The word “ought” is crucial to our understanding of the origin and nature of evil because it implies the authentic nature of man’s free will.
The concept of “oughtness” implies that by his will, man has the freedom to choose the intentional end of his action as well as the means to that end. This understanding contradicts the scholastic understanding of the freedom of the will which is also implicit in St. Augustine’s understanding as well. The scholastics assert that only one end is possible for all of man’s acts, namely the “good”. If, however, every human action is predetermined to the good then it is meaningless to say that a man ought to choose the good because by his nature he must choose the good. In light of a more personalist view of the person and through our own subjective experience, we can see that man is not determined by his nature to choose the good as the end or motive of his action. This personal freedom and self-determination of the individual consequently casts him into the realm of morality and responsibility. As the absolute initiator of his actions, man assumes full responsibility for those actions and thereby those actions which are free assume a moral character when directed to or against a morally relevant object, especially another person. It is precisely here in the will that we understand the origin of evil. By his free will, man has the capacity to be the origin of an action and moreover can also choose by the will the end or the direction of the action. If the person chooses an end that is contrary to the dignity and justice owed to the object he uses, we say that his intention and action are morally evil.
Even St. Augustine intuits the motivation of the will as being the cause and origin of evil. He says,
Possibly the evil thing in adultery is lust. So long as you look for the evil in the outward act you discover difficulties. But when you understand that the evil lies in lust it becomes clear that even if a man finds no opportunity to lie with the wife of another but shows that he desires to do and would do it if he got the chance, he is no less guilty than if he were caught in the act.[5]

Evodius, with whom Augustine speaks in the work just quoted, concludes with Augustine that “lust alone dominates the whole realm of evil-doing.”[6] ‘Lust’ in the broader context that Evodius uses may be best understood by the ethical terminology of Dietrich von Hildebrand. Hildebrand would articulate Augustine’s “lust” as the “disregard [for] the morally relevant value of a person and his rights in order to satisfy [satisfaction].”[7] An action may be objectively morally neutral. Destroying a building, for example, is by itself a morally neutral action. What would make this action morally good or evil is the motivation or intention of the person destroying the building. If his intent is to bring down the building so that he may rebuild a better one, his action may be considered morally good. If, however, the building is full of people and his intention is to kill those people, the action is morally evil.[8] Since a man freely chooses the intentional end of his action, the responsibility and culpability ultimately falls upon him and not upon his creator. The understanding of the free will as the origin of evil, which is the “creation” of the creature, largely resolves how God can still be said to be perfectly good and the source of all being.
Motivation and Evil as the “Privation of the Good”
Understanding with St. Augustine that the “evil will […] is the cause of all evils,”[9] we can now take a fresh look at the concept of evil as being the ‘privation of the good’. The notion that evil is the ‘absence of the due good’ is inadequate according to Fedoryka, who says, “Saying that evil is the absence of the due good is like saying adultery is the absence of the due wife.”[10] I think Fedoryka’s point is that the privation theory of evil only explains part of the reality. Of course the due good is absent in evil, but there is also something else involved. There is an active principle in evil which in the case of adultery would be the lust, even according to St. Augustine’s own admission. Alford argues that while St. Augustine’s concept and articulation of evil is lacking, his intuition of evil is deeper and more accurate.[11] He cites Augustine’s story of the pilfering of the pears from the Confessions as a point where Augustine really struggles with the nature of evil.[12] According to the story, the young Augustine and his fellow companions steal pears from an orchard for no apparent reason at all; Augustine says, “I did not desire to enjoy what I stole, but only the theft and the sin itself.”[13] The object of his action is not some “lesser good”, the object is the wickedness itself. In this example, we come close to that quality of “pure evil” that remains somewhat elusive to Augustine on the conceptual level. Namely, evil as the active “negation” of the good, an evil that desires the destruction of goodness because of the very fact that it is good. Understanding evil in this absolute sense is broader than the understanding of the ‘privation of good’ as simply being the ‘absence of good’. The really “evil man” does not do evil actions for some “lesser good”, he does them because he hates the good because its good.
We have arrived at the most significant shortcoming of St. Augustine’s conceptualization of evil as the privation of good. Understanding evil to be nothing implies that man always does everything for the good because he has no other alternative. Even St. Augustine himself holds that “Evil deeds are punished by the justice of God. They would not be justly punished unless they were done voluntarily.”[14] How can we say then that a man voluntarily commits an evil deed if we say at the same time he does the deed because he believes he is doing it for the sake of some good? We may not simply say that the goodness due in an act is not there, for there is actually some thing that is morally perverted and evil in itself. Is God the origin or cause of the evil? No, we have seen that the person who preformed the act is the originator. He is the initiator of the evil action. Since he is the initiator and metaphysical owner of the morally evil action, we can impute the moral character of the action to him; he is guilty. The moral character of his soul can then be said to be “in the state of evil”. We can see on this account the reasonableness and justice of the theological tenet that asserts that God condemns sinners to eternal punishment. If we hold that evil is a mere privation or absence of the good, then we must conclude that God’s criteria for moral goodness and evil is the degree of goodness found in a person. People who are not as good as they ought to be are punished because they do not have enough moral goodness in their character. Furthermore, if we hold that man always chooses the good then we must conclude that God sends that man to eternal damnation for making a mistake in his choice of means to the good.
The main problem in holding that man always chooses the good is that man can choose the object of his action not under the aspect of the good. The error stems from the fact that man can choose as the object of his action something that may possess some form of goodness or value objectively, but he does not always choose it under this aspect. Can we say that when St. Augustine was a boy that he stole the pears for the sake of an lesser good? While objectively pears may be good for me because of the physical health they bring, St. Augustine knows this is not the reason for which he stole. He stole simply to be wicked; He says, “I loved my error—not that for which I erred [the pears] but the error itself.[15] Motivation is the key to an adequate understanding of good and evil. St. Augustine rightly identifies the motivation of lust as that which “dominates the whole realm of evil-doing,”[16] but does not include evil motivation in his definition of evil as the “privation of good”.
The sin of envy really makes the positive nature of evil evident. Many people confuse jealously with envy. Jealously, it should be noted, is when a man wants to possess goods that belong to another because he does not have them. In envy, however, a man does not want what another man has, perhaps because he already possesses them, but rather the envious man wants to spoils what the other has because the very existence of that other enjoying those goods makes him feel less satisfied.[17] Desiring the destruction of another’s goods for no other reason than the fact that they are possessed by another is much more than a mere lack of goodness in his intention. The envious man is taking a positive stance against the good. We have arrived at essence of moral evil: The positive attitude and motivating principle of a free person against the intrinsically good because of its goodness. Augustine asserts that the turning away from the good is evil, but I assert that evil does not simply “turn away”, it turns against the good.
Conclusion
I think that St. Augustine rightly identifies the free will of man as the origin of evil and not God, but in his conceptualization of evil as being the “privation of good”, however, he limits himself from arriving at a more complete understanding of evil as a more active principle. I propose that a more accurate understand of evil to be something that positively exists in the will of man as a motivating principle that hates and wills the destruction of the good because it is good. Desiring the destruction of the good because it is good has an incomprehensible quality to it, which makes the investigation of the nature of evil elusive. In the face of pure evil, one inevitably asks himself ‘why?’ In its purest forms, evil is always irrational or “anti-rational”; evil defies reason. I think this ‘incomprehensibility’ of evil is the reason why St. Augustine struggles and falls short of an adequate articulation of the nature of evil. I assert that evil has both a negative and a positive aspect to it and St. Augustine only admits the negative in his definition, i.e. that evil is the privation of good. The positive aspect of evil is not ‘being’ in the substantial ontological sense, but ‘being’ as the motivation or intention of the will of a created person that actively wills the destruction of the good because it is good. I think that an adequate definition or understanding of evil must include both these negative and positive aspects of evil.

Bibliography

Alford, C Fred, “Augustine, Arendt, and Melanie Klein: The (De)Privation of Evil”, Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society (2005), URL = [accessed on Dec. 8, 2005]

Augustine. De Civitate Dei. URL = [accessed on Dec. 8, 2005]

Augustine., “On the Free Will.” Pojman, Louis P., ed. Classics of Philosophy. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Augustine. Confessions. URL = [accessed on Dec. 9, 2005]

Evans, G.R. Augustine on Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Koukl, Gregory, “Augustine on Evil” Stand to Reason, URL = [accessed on Dec. 8, 2005]

Mendelson, Michael, “Saint Augustine”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2000 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . [accessed on Dec. 8, 2005]

Sharpe, A.B., “Evil”, Catholic Encyclopedia (1917 Edition), URL = [accessed on Dec. 8, 2005]

Von Hildebrand, Dietrich. Ethics. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1972.

I pledge upon my honor that I have not received any unauthorized aid on this assignment.

Matthew Ryan
[1] Catholic Encyclopedia, Evil
[2] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Book XI, Chapter ix.
[3] St. Augustine, On Free Will, Book III, 48.
[4] Ibid., Book III, 46.
[5] Ibid., Book I, 8.
[6] Ibid.
[7] von Hildebrand, Dietrich, Christian Ethics, p. 405.
[8] NB: This is not to say that morality is relative. The action’s moral quality in some cases may be objectively relative, but the inner intention of the subject can be considered objectively good or evil.
[9] St. Augustine, On Free Will, Book III, 48.
[10] Fedoryka, Damian, Class Notes
[11] Alford, C Fred, Augustine, Arendt, and Melanie Klein: The (De)Privation of Evil
[12] St. Augustine, Confessions, Book II, Chapter iv, 9.
[13] Ibid.
[14] St. Augustine, On Free Will, Book I, 1.
[15] St. Augustine, Confessions, Book II, Chapter iv, 9.
[16] St. Augustine, On Free Will, Book I, 8.
[17] Alford, C Fred, Augustine, Arendt, and Melanie Klein: The (De)Privation of Evil

Two Books for Your Christmas List

2005-12-07T10:49:00.000-05:00

While reading over at the illustrious "FUMARE" blog I came across these books which look like they are very worthwhile and I hope to get my hands on soon.

In particular, this book struck my attention: "The Mysteries of Life in Children's Literature". It should come as no surprise to know that children are very impressionable to begin with and the stories they hear are the major instruments in the formation and molding of their soul. Throughout their life, even if on an sub-conscious or unconscious level, the inspirations of the stories they heard as children will remain with them. This is why children's literature is one of the most crucial fronts on our present culture war. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most neglected as well.

Anyways, I would highly recommend this book to all my loyal readers. =) I will most likely update this post after I get a chance to gloss through it myself.

Have a blessed advent and may the peace of the coming Christ child be with you all.

Home for Thanksgiving

2005-11-21T00:13:00.000-05:00

Here I am. I'm home. I got in Friday night. I got sick last week because I eat some chili Sunday night and then went out to Panera to study and drink coffee. They have free refills which is why I like to go there on top of the free wi-fi. I had a lot of coffee, too much. It didn't agree with my stomach too much and so I went to bed hoping I'd be better in the morning. I woke up a little after 6am Monday and knew it was unavoidable. Suffice it to say, I got familiar with the inside of the toliet bowl, and was in bed for the rest of the day except for my one class which I forced myself to go to. All day and the next couple, I had a major headache. It was probably all the toxins from whatever I ate (the chili or the coffee) going through my system. Now I'm home till next Sunday (one week from today). However, this is no leisure break. I have 2 weeks to write four 8-10 page papers and I don't even know exactly what I'm writing on yet. ... Yeah, so... the problem is that three of the papers are all due at the same exact time because they're all for Muller and his due date is the same from all three classes I'm in of his. Usually my main motivation (last minute panic) gets them done, but that's not really going to work in this case, so I need to create my own deadlines. Yesterday I studied for approx. 9-10 hours and I hope to keep that kind of a pace going. Oh well, keep me in your prayers, I'm sure you realize, I need them.

Brief Update of Major Things

2005-11-10T23:30:00.000-05:00

I thought I'd just post some of the things that have happened or changed in my life since I last posted.

Med School

Probably one of the biggest changes in my plans is that I am no longer intending to be a lawyer. Very shortly after I took the LSAT (163/89% btw) I spoke with a doctor friend and he got me thinking about being a doctor. After doing some research and prayer I really felt that I was called to be a doctor. That changes my plans quite a bit. Instead of being able to jump right into law school after my graduation I have to take at least one year off to do pre-med requirements. Then Medical school itself is a year longer than law school (four years). After med school you're still not done. You need to do another 3/4+ years of your residency where you specialize as a family practitioner, pediatrician, etc.

Summer Classes

I took biology and chemistry at College of Lake County over the summer. I was first taking them to get my science requirements out of the way so I can graduate early, but when I decided mid-way through the summer that I was going to pursue a career in medicine, they became slightly more important to me and my future education. I actually find science enjoyable and it is not as hard as I always thought it was.

Maggie

Most important change for me has to be that Maggie and I have been reunited in our love for each other. We are, however, still not engaged because the prospect of marriage is still far in the future. I love you Maggie.

Ave Maria - Michigan - Fall 05

I am now more than half way through this fall semester of my last year of undergraduate education. I am taking excellent classes, all of them. It is an utter tragedy that this great school is closing down. Hopefully a new one will take its place in the future, we need all the good Catholic colleges we can get. They are one of the most important things for the soul of America right now. Anyways, I am taking:

Ancient Philosophy:

Pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, St. Augustine

I'm writing my term paper on Aristotle's hylomorphic theory and its applicability (or lack thereof) to persons.

Modern Philosophy:

Descartes, Malbranche, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Kierkegaard, Aeterni Patris, and more to come... I gave a presentation on Hegel and I'm scheduled to give a presentation on Satre and 20th Century Existentialism this coming Thursday. I might write my term paper on Kierkegaard or phenomenology, we'll see.

Political Philosophy:

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, St. Thomas, Luther, Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Adam Smith... and more to come. I'm going to be giving a presentation and writing my term paper on Russell Kirk and the modern Conservative movement.

Issues of the Age:

My favorite class by far. Dr. Fedoryka is the man. We've been discussing what masculinity and femininity are and how we can understand homosexuality from a philosophical perspective something that is missing in the Christian opposition to homosexuality. We're going to be delving into Punishment (and Capital Punishment specifically) in the upcoming weeks. I can't wait to write the paper on homosexuality.

Physics

Good class. Not much to say about it though, it's not philosophy. ;-)

Happy Birthday Tommy!

Tommy's the reason why I decided to post. Today is "post day" in honor of the father of blogging. Cheers!

Been There, Done That

2005-06-08T23:08:00.000-04:00

Well, I took the LSAT this past Monday. Since I don’t' get my scores back for three weeks, I don't want get my expectations up too high, but I say with a lot of confidence that I believe I did very well. Very well as in getting a 170 or higher (translation: approx 95 percentile or so).

I woke up Monday morning knowing that this was the day I had just spent the entire past month working up towards. All of the blood, sweat, tears, and who knows how many prayers... I don't think I've had so many people praying for something in my whole life.

I had my first Chemistry class at CLC that same Monday night, so I went to the Grayslake train station so that when I got back I could hop right over and try to catch class as early as I could. I took the 11am train which arrived downtown at 12:18pm. One problem: I had to be checked in at John Marshall Law School (location of the test) by 12:30pm. So I get off the train and start running the second the door opens. As I am weaving through the masses on the street on that warm early afternoon my backpack with all of my LSAT prep books is hopping up and down scraping my back. I still have scabs from the rubbing. The only thing going through my mind is not so much "this is the most important test you've ever taken thus far" or "this results of this test are going to affect the rest of your and your future family's life", but "I really hope I get there on time!" =) I did arrive exactly at the law school at 12:30pm huffing and puffing and very moist with sweat. Thank Goodness. They took my thumbprint and checked my ID and directed my upstairs to the fifth floor where the room I would be taking my test would be. I think several rooms in the school were administering tests (LSATs).

Anyways, I arrived at the room and found my assigned spot and within a couple of minutes (12:35pm) they handed out our test books. Thankfully, they took about 30 mins to talk about the rules and everything so I had time to check my breath and calm down from all of the running I did. Then it was time.

"Open your books and begin section one." 'Here I go' I told myself. It was reading comprehension, my strongest section. The hard part was staying focused enough so I didn't waste time having to refocus and re-read parts of the passage. I did a fairly good job, though it was more difficult than focusing on practice tests. I normally will finish up with 2-3 mins to spare, but this time I had to guess on my last problem. At least I didn't have to guess on an entire section or two like I used to when I first started practicing for the test and most people end up doing.

The LSAT consists of five 35 min multiple choice sections with a 35 min essay. The rest of the test went very well. I got to every question with time to spare. Something quite rare and remarkable. The test just felt easier than a lot of my practice tests. Perhaps it was because I had given my brain a day and half to rest and I was just ready to hit hard when it really counted. I know for sure that our Mother had a lot to do with it. Thank you so much.

The test ended and they let us go at 5:30pm. I jumped up and walked as fast as I could down the stairs, out the building, and the entire way back to the train station. My legs really got a work out and I could feel them toughening up with all of the speed walking I was doing. When I arrived back at the train station I surveyed the track destinations and saw "Track 11: Grayslake" Departing 5:50pm. I quickly looked at my watch and saw that the time was exactly 5:50pm. I bolted down the stairs to the tracks below and ran as fast as I could and hopped in the first door I saw. Within five seconds of jumping on the train, the doors closed and the train slowing began to move away. I couldn't believe how providential it was that I made that train. I was going come to the train station and just hop on the next train and thought I would have to wait 20-30 mins, I would have probably had to have waited a very long time for the next train and would have missed my class entirely which I was already going to be late for since it began at 6pm. Thankfully, I was able to make the lab class that started at 7:30pm and the teacher was very cool about my coming late.

That brings me to this next chapter in my life. School at CLC: Biology and Chemistry. Along with selling Cutco. It's a lot of adjustment, but things will be too busy pretty soon for me to notice.

So now I just need to figure out whether I'm going to Yale or Harvard... ;-)

LSAT: My Life

2005-05-20T22:57:00.000-04:00

Ahhh... the LSAT. Studying for it right now is my full-time occupation. I go to the Ela Library or Mundelein Library almost everyday of the week and either take a pratice test or study techniques. I also go to Barnes & Noble sometimes because they are open later than the libraries are (11pm vs. 9pm). It is also nice to have a change of environment once in awhile too.

Actually I don't want to write anything else right now, because it's late and it's summer so I'm busy and you guys are all busy so I probably won't be writing much this summer unless there is something interesting I've been thinking about or that's happened to me. Like my LSAT results (if they are anything worth noting, which they should be if you're praying for me. hint hint). I also might be teaching an intro to philosophy class to the home school group this summer. Anyways... God love you all and I do too.

Brief Update

2005-05-10T23:05:00.000-04:00

Not really any recent musings... so I thought I'd just update my life on this blog.

Well, the semester is over. All my long nights of studying didn't quite pay off the way I'd hoped. I still got one A-. My goal was 4.0 and like last semester I came within a hair of reaching that goal. Logic & Epistemology was the class. Dr. Muller seemed like he would be a pretty easy grader, so unfortunately I didn't take that class as seriously I wish I had in retrospect. Next semester I'm taking two classes with him by the way.

These are the classes I'm registered currently for next semester:

ECO 301: Intermediate Macroeconomics
ECO 307: Catholic Social Thought
PHL 302: Ancient Philosophy
PHL 304: Modern and Contemporary Philosophy
PHL ELE: Issues of the Age: Capital Punishment and Homosexuality

As you can probably tell, my major is philosophy and my minor is economics.

Anyways, since I've been home I've been exercising, reading, and doing other various things. I've been working on a paper for my Christian Marriage class that I had to do on my honor that is due Thursday. It's pass or fail, but it's on a subject that interests me (I got to choose the topic). I'm writing on "Responsible Parenthood" and the Church's understanding of it through documents such as Humanae Vitae et al. I'm almost done with it. I've been going to the Ela Library. They have these private study rooms that you can reserve, which are very nice and conducive to studying. The other good thing about that library is that they have free wireless internet access.

I also finished Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" today. Very interesting book (actually I listened to it on tape, but who cares). She has searing insights into the utter stupidity and inconsistency of socialist thinkers. Yet her philosophy that she counters the world with as a solution is one of pure selfishness, which in itself is mired with contradictions and philosophical errors. Her philosophy is very attractive and thus I can see why many people embrace her, especially atheists. She is very anti-Christian. The reason her philosophy is so attractive is because she does have many valid and legitimate intuitions, but she draws erroneous conclusions and obviously does not fully understand authentic Christian philosophy. Her characterizations of it reveal her ignorance. She cannot comprehend the Christian paradox of only really finding your best interest in selflessly serving the interests of others for their own sake and not for the benefit you derive from your service. I'm sure I will have a much clearer vision of how she errs and what exactly Catholic social teaching is. I have picked up bits and pieces from my philosophy and economic classes so far, but I'm sure next semester will go much deeper in to the matter.

Well, I have a little less than 4 weeks before I take the LSAT and I'm also supposed to be giving a little talk about JPII's philosophical foundations for the Theology of the Body to a discussion group my parents are in. So keep me in your prayers.

Till next time...

Music: To listen or not to listen...

2005-04-27T23:08:00.000-04:00

I have just deleted 600 songs from my music library. A very hard thing to do. These past couple of weeks I have really been struggling with whether or not I should be listening to some of the music that I was. I came to the point where I really began to wonder to myself what part should music play in one's life and what kind of music should that be. I've come to the conclusion that any music with a beat is from the devil!! Well... no, not quite, but almost... ;-)

It started a couple of weeks ago when I began wondering whether groovin' with John and Jeff's rap was a participation in music that was evil (some or most of it is, the rap, that is). So I began a serious introspection into myself and what the Christian attitude is towards music. I went to confession and told the priest about my dilemma, he didn't really address music per se, but all he said was that Christ is the good shepherd and He also calls us to be shepherds (i.e. leaders). I felt that God was speaking to me, which He was and that I needed to really discern what God would want me to be listening to and how I should be His witness. I was about to go home and just go delete happy, but then I began thinking whether I might be going overboard and perhaps there were some songs that have some merit to them and didn't deserve to be thrown out with the rest. So I decided to do some research online regarding Catholic culture and today's music, in particularly rap and rock (and also jazz). I didn't find a whole lot. Most of it was denouncing music that I've always rejected such as hard rock (e.g. Linkin Park's "Crawling"), metal, and rap such as Eminem.

The stuff I was really struggling with were certain songs by Usher, Nelly, and some others that I found myself really liking that I had never really liked or listened to before. There were also other songs that I liked, but at the same time I knew I shouldn't like, so I wouldn't listen to them, such as the Killers and some other rap songs by Outkast and Usher for example.

One point in my struggle that really helped bring things into focus was during one of my Philosophy of Love classes. I knew that if anyone could help me understand what music is all about and how it relates to the human soul it would be none other than the great Dr. Fedoryka. Anyways, his comments were very insightful and helped me a lot. He didn't talk for very long about it (because it was rather off-topic), but it also made me recall some past intuitions I've had, but am not able to put into words. He said that music like rock and rap are not inherently evil, but they do tend to pull the soul down as opposed to some symphonies or operas that really make you feel like you are soaring. That insight really helped me see what the essential thing about discerning what music I want to be listening to. There is music that is not really bad, but sort of pulls you down to the level of the profane and the vulgar, not necessarily evil, but still not something you want to make a habit of listening to. That is another key point I think. Perhaps now and then it's fine to listen to some of these songs that aren't quiet Mozart, but are not on the other side of the spectrum with satanic, heavy metal, and evil rap. Folk music, country, jazz, some rock, possibly some rap or R&B is fine now and then, but nothing you want to make a habit of listening to. Much of this "intermediary" music "dissolves the sinews of the soul". What do I mean by that? It kind of saps the strength of the soul to stand upright, if you see what I'm saying. So anyways, what did I do then?

I took a few days where I really was self-conscious and aware of how music was affecting me and I cut back a lot on the music that I thought I shouldn't have as my "habit music". I thought I'd still keep it for the occasional time when it wouldn't hurt to listen to though. That changed at 7;30pm this evening though. What pushed me over the edge was I realized that I really need to be serious about being a saint (especially if the end of the world is coming in the next couple of decades). I realized that I have a lot of music illegally from Kazaa and really it is not just that I have some of that music. Going to libraries and ripping a bunch of CDs also constitutes music I shouldn't really have. I've always had a strange feeling when I've tried to justify my possession of these songs, but I just came to the point where I said "you know what? I don't need this music. I can live just fine without it. Sure, I might like it, but it's not like I'm going to die. Why am I so attached to it? I grew up without it. Even if I like it and it isn't really that bad, who's to say I can't make it a sacrifice to our Lord?" So in addition to deleting much music because it was music I did not want to make my "habit music", most of it I didn't even own lawfully. So I made the plunge and deleted approximately 600 songs. Since it was very hard at some points and I found myself still reserving some music that I really liked and was didn't really want to let go of (i.e. Cranberries, Usher, Sixpence, in particular) I didn't want to hold anything back. I am making a total commitment here. (N.B. Music like the Cranberries and Sixpence I don't think is all that bad, but I know I can listen to occasionally on CD or from Tommy. I just didn't want it to be my "habit music" like I said. But while it was very hard to click on the permanently delete button for certain music, it was also an incredibly liberating experience. It felt like I was taking a deep breath and a certain weight was lifted from my spirit. I was breaking off my attachments to this music and felt like what I was doing was right. Through it all I kept looking up to picture of Christ above my desk and I felt His pleasure. I really felt like He was right there with me when I did all of it.

So that's my story. I know it's kind of a personal (not really in the private sense, but in the sense that it's really only concerns me), but hey, that's what this blog is for. I am writing for you guys, but at the same time this is not just a list of events in my life, it also about my mental life, thus the blog's name: Muse. I do hope, however, that you guys might reflect on the music you are listening to and determine whether it is really stuff you want to be your "habit music". Over and out.

The End is Near

2005-04-22T03:33:00.000-04:00

The end is near in more ways than one... most immediately I am referring to the end of the semester. I have a 7-9 page paper that is way overdue, 2 weeks to be precise, that I am still trying to get a handle on. The paper is for my epistemology class and my topic is Newman: The Grammar of Assent and the Illitive Sense. It's a pretty dense and broad topic which explains in part why the paper is moving slower than an average paper does. I also have to give a class presentation this coming Tuesday on the same topic so by then I'll obviously be an expert on the subject. ;-) I only have 12 more days till I am done with the semester and besides that epistemology paper I also have a 6 page paper due for my Philosophy of Love class. I need to write about a topic of my choice taken from Kirkegaard's "Works of Love". This is going to be a busy weekend.

I was pretty sick a couple of weeks back and my mom actually came and picked me up from school. Needless to say I took the green Maxima back to school, so I have it here with me now. I think I'm getting spoiled though. Now I can't imagine going back to not having the luxury of having the mobility the car affords me. Which means I'll have to buy a car this summer. Oh well... life could be worse. =) The place I go the most now to study is University of Michigan's North Campus Engineering Library. It is open 24/7 which is very nice. I was there till 3am tonight (I just got back a little bit ago) and I was there till 4:30am the other day writing my American Civilization paper on America, the World, and the League of Nations. It is so inspirational studying there. All of these Asian students are seriously up all night every night studying like crazy. No wonder China is going to take over the world.

The other end of the world that my post's title refers to is some interesting prophecy info I heard from my mom the last time I spoke with her. I usually am pretty dismissive of "end of the world" predictions and prophecies because 90% of them, if not more, are completely bogus. What my mom told me, however, was pretty interesting. She heard that St. Malachai had a vision of all the popes till the end of time and I guess he made a one line prophecy about each and every single one has come true thus far. For instance he said something to the effect that Pope John Paul I's papacy would last one lunar cycle, and of course it did. For JPII, he said that he would begin and end on a solar eclipse and apparently there was a solar eclipse the day he died that could only be seen in certain parts of the world. For our present pope Benedict XVI, he predicted something like he would be called benedict (you can tell this is a really 3-4th handish explanation). The thing is though is that after Pope Benedict there is only supposed to be one more pope, who is not supposed to be very good. After that is the end times.

I'm not saying any of this is true or you should believe in it, but it really got me thinking. If our present pope lasts about 6-10 years and the next pope will be the pope at the end of the world, that doesn't leave much time for the world as we know it. For some reason I've always had the feeling like the end of the world would come in my lifetime. I don't know why, but I've always felt that. After talking with John (my roommate) about this too he said that he's always felt the same way as well. After talking about this with John we went online and did some research on things like the 3 days of darkness and prophecies from people like St. Faustina that look pretty legit. It's not going to be fun. Plus, our Lord said that the people who live during the end times will have wished they had never have been born.

That night (last night) we rented and watched the movie Hotel Rwanda. People, let me tell you. This movie blew me away. Terrifying, horrifying, incredible, heart-wrenching. I just sat in silence for about 5-10 minutes after it ended unable to speak or say anything. It is about the Rwandan genocides in '94 and this man who is doing everything he can to protect 1,200 refugees from being added to the death toll of 1,000,000 Tustis massacred by the Hutu tribe. What made this movie so scary is that it is a true story that happened ten years ago in my lifetime. The whole West just sat by and let this atrocity happen. It is sickening to see how easily man can be corrupted to kill and murder thousands of people because the are of a certain race and how the "civilized" world can sit by and watch it happen. After watching this movie, I never appreciated how good we have it here in America. Liberty is so, so, so precious. I think I understand better why so many great men throughout history have been so willing to give up their very lives for liberty and peace. Don't ever take it for granted.

One thing that made the movie so scary to me is that in some of those legit prophecies I was reading there was mentioned a great persecution of the Church where this kind of massacre would be going on. Most likely here in America as well.

*N.B. I know this is pretty much always a given but there are a couple of scenes in Hotel Rwanda, so just be cautious.