Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Latin Essays

             Over the past few months, my knowledge of spoken and written Latin has increased immensely. Not only have I been taking Henle Latin, First Year (which I just finished, by the way!), but I've been hunting after Latin videos on the internet, and my search has turned up some excellent results. In addition to all this video-watching and Latin-studying, I've begun to write Latin essays, some of which, perhaps, I will post on this blog. If there are any others out there who are literate in the Latin Language, it would be cool if you came and read my writings. I, for one, am obsessed with Latin. 

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Greek vs. Latin

                  Being interested in studying the Classics in college, I thought it only logical to get a head start on Greek before I go to school, so a month or two ago I bought myself a Greek textbook, thick with grammar and all that hard, gritty stuff. After getting past the excruciatingly painful sections that had to do with Greek spelling and accents and such (mega ouch), I now find myself already translating long and not so simple Greek sentences with some proficency--and enjoying it. While listening to recordings of ancient Greek and reading Greek text, I also find myself picking up one or two words and understanding their specific import. Greek really is a fascinating and strange language. Although it shares many things in common with Latin, it is also differs from Latin in many ways. Here are some of the ways that Greek is similar to and different from Latin:
                   (1) Both languages are inflected. This means that their nouns change form to show how they relate to other words in the sentence, and that their verbs change form to express different persons, numbers, moods, etc. The nouns in both Latin and Greek have several cases. The Greek noun has five cases: the nominative, genetive, dative, accusative, and vocative. Latin has all of these plus an extra two: the ablative and locative. Both languages use the cases that they share in common in many of the same ways. For instance, just as in Latin, the Greek nominative is used as the case of the subject, while the accusative is used as the case of the direct object. But the genetive and the dative in Greek have some additional functions that they do not have in Latin.
                   (2) Greek and Latin both share some of the same words, and some of the same noun and verb endings. For example, the Greek word for "I" is "ego," just as in Latin. The word for "assembly," which was eventually used by the Christians to refer to the Church, is "ekklesia" in Greek and "ecclesia" in Latin. All Greek verbs that I have learned so far have the endings "-o, -eis, -ei" in the singular of the Present Inicative Active. Compare that to the Latin "-o, -s, -t." But while Greek and Latin are very alike in some ways, they are very distinct from eachother as well. The endings of the present optative active, for example, are "-oimi, -ois, -oi," etc., a very weird bunch of endings for a student of Latin. The endings for the plural of one of the Greek declensions are "-ai, -on,-ais, -as, -ai" instead of the familiar "-ae, -arum,-is, -as, -is."
                   (3) Greek and latin share the same noun and verb numbers, and the same verb tenses, moods, and voices. But, oddly enough, Greek adds more to all of these things, sometimes to my bewilderment and wonder. Greek has the numbers "singular" and "plural," but it adds a third number, the dual which it uses to speak of things that come in twos. Greek has four moods, sharing three with Latin and including one of its own: the optative. Greek has seven tenses instead of Latin's six. The addition it makes is a tense called the "Aorist." Finally, Greek makes a mysterious and unheard-of addition to the voices of the verb. The voice of a verb tells us what part the subject takes in the action performed. There are only two voices in English and Latin: the active and the passive. The active voice tells us that the subject is performing the action, and the passive voice tells us that the action is being performed on the subject. In the sentence "He is smashing," the verb is active; in the sentence "He is being smashed," the verb is passive. I always thought, until I began studying Greek, that these were the only two voices that a verb could have, but I was totally wrong. Greek has three voices instead of two! The third voice is called the middle, and it tells us that the subject is performing the action, but it also shows that the action returns to the subject in some way. Since there is no middle voice in English, it will be a unique challenge to translate it.
                   Those are the points on which Latin and Greek agree and differ, although I'm sure there are many more. From my short time in studying this language, I gather that Greek grammar really is complex--more complex and subtle than Latin grammar. No wonder the Greeks were good philosophers! Their vehicle of communication was truly suitable for good thinking. I've heard, althugh I have only seen this in one or two instances, that Greek vocabulary is also very subtle, another feature of the language which makes it incredibly good for making tiny distinctions. I think that it is a very mysterious and awesome language, and I'm sure that I'll get a lot out of the experience of studying it.  

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

What is Logic Anyway?

              "Logic," says Sarek to his son Spock in J. J. Abrams' first Star Trek film, "offers a serenity Humans seldom experience: the control of feelings, so that they do not control you." This, and other similar quotations from Star Trek, have provoked me to speak up on this subject. Throughout Star Trek, the Vulcans always insist that one must be logical, and I agree. But what the heck is Logic? Since no Vulcan ever offered a definition, I will have to provide one myself, to the best of my ability. Therefore, I have four questions to ask: (1) What is Logic? (2) Of what is it composed? (3) Where do the laws of Logic come from? (4) What is Logic's purpose?
             
              (1) What is Logic? Logic is not an easy concept to define because it includes many things, but I will do my best. Logic is the tool that the mind uses to think, and often, to gain new knowledge. It is the science of coming to a proper knowledge of concepts, making correct judgments about them, and reasoning validly from two or more premises to a conclusion. We all do these things all the time, no matter where we are. After all, we human beings are always thinking.                

              (2) Of what is Logic composed? Logic is divided into two main parts: Formal Logic and Material Logic. The former is involved with the structure of argument apart from the content. The latter is primarily concerned with content, the statements of argument, and not with the structure. Formal Logic is divided into deduction, which begins with universal principles and reasons to particular conclusions; and induction, which reasons from particular things to universal conclusions. There are a couple more divisions under deduction, but suffice it to say that under deduction lies the classical syllogism in all its forms, both categorical and hypothetical, and it is with these forms of reasoning that a Traditional Logic course is particularly interested.
              As I said above, Logic is divided into two main parts, Formal Logic and Material Logic. The second division, Material Logic, is quite a bit different from the first. Material Logic includes the Ten Categories, the Five Predicables, Definition, and Division (by which the concept we are now exploring is divided). All the things listed above help immensely in understanding concepts.
             

              (3) Where do the laws of Logic come from? The laws of Logic are some of the most fundamental laws in the universe, part of the structure of reality that God has designed. In fact, some of them are so fundamental that we cannot disobey them even if we want to. The law of identity, for example, is that everything is what it is. If you try to disobey this law by saying that things aren't what they are, then you are still assuming that they really are what they are by the very act of saying that they aren't what they are. But there are also many other laws of Logic (many of them formulated by Aristotle). For example, there are certain laws that govern the categorical syllogism, the hypothetical syllogism (in all its forms), the definition of terms, and the division of concepts.
             

              Finally, (4) What is Logic's purpose? Logic's ultimate and highest purpose is the discovery of truth. This truth can be universal and eternal, or it can be particular and temporary. Temporary truths are sometimes very important in our daily lives and sometimes useful. Eternal truth, however, is far more important, and it is toward this truth that we should look more.
              I hope this article has been informative. Unfortunately, I don't have time to write more, so I'll just close here.

Monday, September 23, 2013

Two Opposing Themes

         A few days ago, I saw the new Star Trek Movie Into Darkness. Of all the things that were in this movie, two opposing themes stuck with me. (WARNING: if you have not seen Into Darkness, then DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER. I'm about to spoil the movie.)
         The first theme that I noticed concerned the value of life. At many times, in many places, and in many ways, the filmmakers brought attention to the fact that life has worth. In the opening scene, Spock almost gave his life for the natives of a world that was about to be destroyed by a volcanic eruption. His comrades, in desperation, broke the prime directive so that they could beam him to safety. By so doing, they demonstrated that the many are sometimes willing to go to great lengths to save just one friend from trouble.
         Later on, a Starfleet officer killed several of his superiors, and escaped to the planet Kronos. Captain Kirk was therefore ordered to hunt this man down and kill him (or rather, Kirk requested permission to go). When Spock heard about this order, however, he objected that it is entirely unjust to kill a man without a trial. Although Kirk at first argued with Spock over this point, he eventually relented and decided only to capture the man and bring him back to Earth for court martial.
          In yet another instance, the Starfleet officer (who happened to be Khan) was about to be blasted to bits by special torpedoes. Khan, perhaps to the slight confusion of Kirk and Spock and Uhura, asked how many torpedoes they had. "72," they respond. Then, oddly enough, the villain laid down his weapon and surrendered. Only later was it revealed that these 72 torpedoes contained Khan's 72 fellow genetically altered humans. Khan had surrendered in order to save their lives.
          Sometimes, the characters were willing even to preserve the lives of their enemies. When Khan demanded that Spock lower his shields so that he could beam out his 72 precious torpedoes, Spock complied. But he had armed the weapons before they were transported; the torpedoes exploded, heavily damaging Khan's starship. When Kirk had heard the news he objected to the massacre of Khan's crew. But Bones said, "Spock's cold, but he's not that cold." It turned out that the doctor had emptied the torpedoes before returning them to Khan.
           Of course, there is one last story to tell concerning the value of life. At the end of the movie, Kirk saw that the only way to save the enterprise from a collision with Earth was to fix the warp core--but if he did, it was almost certain that he would die. And so with one last redeeming effort, Kirk gave his life to save his crew.
           That was the first theme that I noticed. The second was very different. From early on, it was clear that this was also story about revenge. Kirk was eaten up by a desire to avenge himself on Khan, who had murdered Admiral Pike, the only father-figure Kirk had ever had. Kirk did decide to get Khan a proper trial, but he hated Khan ever after. Instead of murdering Khan, Kirk severely beat him up before taking him up to the Enterprise as his hostage.
           Disappointingly, Spock also went down the path of revenge. After Kirk died, Spock hated Khan vehemently. He thought (illogically--hey, I thought Vulcans were logical!) that Khan had murdered Kirk--or rather, he blamed Kirk's death on Khan. (This was unreasonable of him. Kirk, and Kirk alone, had chosen to die.) When he had the chance, he went to beat the brains out of Khan, just as Kirk had done before him.
           In conclusion, I find that these two themes, put together in the same movie, are quite contradictory. Even as they protected the lives of those around them, some of the characters ignored the fact that revenge goes against the sound principle that seemed to have been upheld through most of the movie, the principle that all life is valuable. The presence of this contradiction was only brought more to home during Kirk's speech at the end of the movie, where Kirk acted as though revenge was wrong (even though, for the last two hours, the filmmakers had been portraying revenge in a different light). What are we to make of this contradiction?
          I hope this was thought provoking.
             

Monday, September 9, 2013

Latin--Why??

            Over the past year or so (maybe longer), I have been studying Latin using the Henle books provided by Memoria press. Now that I've gotten this far, I can actually orally construct some sentences on the spot with which I can say something useful and meaningful, so sometimes I walk around speaking the language. But I have two major problems: the first is that I have no one around me with whom I can speak Latin; the second is that some of the people around me have a deep-seated distaste for the language. Perhaps I cannot get near people who do speak Latin, and perhaps I cannot convince those who hate Latin to like the language, but I think that I really must say something in defense of it. Therefore, I will deal with these following points: (1) the claim that Latin is a dead language, (2) the apparent uselessness of Latin, and (3) the "impossibility" of learning Latin.
            (1) I have several times been met with the (apparently infallible and irrefutable) claim that Latin is a dead language. But what, may I ask, do people mean exactly when they use this term? There are two possibilities: either (a) "no longer used as a vehicle of communication", or (b) "no longer identified as the language of any country". If people use (a), they simply do not speak the truth. A minority of people worldwide still use Latin. If people decide on (b) then they do speak the truth; Latin is no longer the language of any country, and this has been so for centuries. But a look back at history makes even this definition of the word "dead" sound a little ironic, for although Latin was not the language of any country in years past, it was universally used and understood by all the scholars in Christendom. Sadly, that is not the case today, but it was so once.
            (2) I think that something needs to be said about Latin's uses, it's usefulness. It is useful, though it may not appear to be so, and though "usefulness" is not the only thing we should consider here. For what reasons should people study Latin? There are three kinds: (a) in order to learn grammar, (b) in order to learn word roots, and (c) in order to read the classics. These three reasons are not mutually exclusive; one can learn Latin for all of the above reasons. I'll deal with the first two; I will have to deal with the third some other time, though it is even more important than the other two.
            (a) The first reason to study Latin is to learn the structure of language. But why study Latin grammar? Why not English grammar? The answer is simple: Latin is an inflected language, which means that almost all of its nouns change form to show their function in a sentence. English rarely does this, except with personal pronouns, relative pronouns, and possessives. This absence of inflection, along with many inconsistencies, makes English grammar subtle and difficult. On the other hand, Latin grammar is very consistent, and this makes it easy to learn--if you only take the time and trouble (and if you have a good curriculum).
             (b) The second reason to study Latin is to learn word roots. The vocabulary of the English language (and of many other languages for that matter) relies heavily on that of Latin. Latin vocabulary is so pervasive in English that every other word is of Latin origin. If you know your vocab, then in order to understand a particular word, all you have to do is pick it apart and translate it.
             (3) Now I come to my last point: the "impossibility" of learning Latin. From some conversations with my friends and with others, I gather that there is a lot of frustration attached to the learning of this language. Not only that, but I'm certain that I know what causes this frustration: a lack of grammar. A couple friends of mine, when I asked them, described their Latin courses to me, and one thing seems to be certain: they were either stuck with courses that taught little or no grammar, or they simply did not want to learn the grammar that was being taught, or the course required them to dump immense amounts of grammar into their brains in too short a time. Whatever the case, they were not learning the grammar. But how else will anyone learn the language? When learning how to play a game or play an instrument or argue a point or write a book, what must first be done? One must learn the rules, of course. Otherwise, one will be totally lost in the subject and not understand its structure. Why shouldn't this principle apply to Latin as well? I think that some people, sadly enough, would prefer to learn the language without learning the grammar--but this would be a grave mistake, and would lead to all sorts of frustration later on. Latin grammar must be learned first and learned well, and constantly drilled and memorized--not too quickly, but at a pace at which a student can slowly master all of it. This process of learning the grammar takes time, but in the end it all pays off very well. I myself am a witness to that fact.
              I hope that with this article I have sparked some interest in this apparently dead language. It is a language that I believe deserves to live on, to be spoken, and to be appreciated. I hope that many others think the same.      
     

Monday, July 15, 2013

End or Means?

John: Hey, Socrates, wait up!

Socrates: Eh? Oh hello, John.

John: (Out of breath) Hi, Socrates. Could I join you on your walk?

Socrates: Certainly. You did not have to run so fast to catch me, you know. I like to walk slowly. This is a beautiful place.

John: Yes. Sometimes I realize that when I bother to come outside and walk. These trees are magnificent. So, what's on your mind?

Socrates: Nothing at present; I'm simply enjoying myself. Still, that could change quickly. You know how I am always concerned about philosophical inquiry, the search for truth.

John: Do you mind if I ask you a question?

Socrates: No. Ask.

John: One of my teachers once made the claim that a means is more important than an end.

Socrates: Really? On what did your teacher base this claim?

John: She told us the story of three hundred Chinese students that were shot for their Christian faith. She said that their means was more important than their end. I disagreed with her when she said this, and I thought--and still think--that she was wrong, but I'm not sure how to refute her. I know she's not in deliberate error--she's too honest for that. But what's wrong with her argument?

Socrates: You said that this story is the reason why she believes that a means is more important than an end?

John: Yes, pretty much.

Socrates: That is a rather strange reason to come to such a conclusion, and I find fault with it. You, as a Christian, would see through it clearly.

John: Why?

Socrates: You tell me. What was the Chinese student's end?

John: Heaven.

Socrates: And what was their means of attaining it?

John: Death by martyrdom.

Socrates: Now, is heaven infinitely important than all their deaths put together, or not?

John: It is.

Socrates: Then does it not follow that the end--at least in this case--is far more important than the means?

John: Yes.

Socrates: So, we have established that in at least one case the end is more important than the means. Do you think we should inquire further into the matter to see whether ends are always more important than means?

John: Sure.

Socrates: When you are on a journey, which do you care more about, the road, or your destination?

John: My destination.

Socrates: Why? Is it because the destination is the place in which you want to be, while the road only serves to get you there?

John: Yeah, that seems to be it.

Socrates: The road is your means, while the destination is your end; is that so?

John: Yes.

Socrates: Therefore, the end is more important than the means?

John: Yes.

Socrates: Let us try another example. Suppose that you decide to devote yourself to extensive exercise. What is your end in that case?

John: To become strong, I guess.

Socrates: And is this end enjoyable and profitable when it is attained?

John: Yes.

Socrates: But in order to become strong, you must drill and drill and drill, even when it is painful. Would you continue to do this unless you had your goal in mind, to become strong?

John: I don't think so.

Socrates: So this pain you experience, is it more important than the strength and endurance that come after it?

John: No. It is less important.

Socrates: So, once again the end is more important than the means. Do you think that this is because of the nature of ends and means?

John: Yes.

Socrates: Well then, if you don't object, we will look at the definitions of both those terms. Is an end the goal toward which any action is directed?

John: Yes.

Socrates: And what is a means? Is it that which is used or done in order to attain an end?

John: It is.

Socrates: Now, does the goal toward which any action is directed exist for its own sake, or for the sake of something else?

John: For it's own sake.

Socrates: What about a means? Does it exist for its own sake, or for the sake of something else?

John: For the sake of something else, for the end.

Socrates: Is that which exists for its own sake more important than that which exists for something else?

John: Yes.

Socrates: Does it not follow, therefore, that an end is more important than a means, since it exists for its own sake, and what exists for its own sake is more important than what exists for something else?

John: Yes.

Socrates: So we have proved this to be true, and we have simultaneously reached the end of our walk, since we have reached your home--unless you wish to continue.

John: Later, Socrates. We might want to talk next time about means and ends and what else follows from them. Maybe we could even explore morality using the definitions you just made.
 

Friday, July 5, 2013

Wanted: Alternate Definition of Marriage

            There's one question that I would like someone to answer for me, please. It's not a rhetorical question, it's quite serious.
            In our country, a lot of people have been arguing about whether we should legalize same-sex "marriage", but I don't know yet whether a single one of them has ever asked this simple question: "what is marriage anyway?" That's the question I want answered. How do the homosexuals and their supporters define marriage?
            Whether gay "marriage" advocates admit it or not, the definition of marriage is important. In fact, it's crucial. It may mean the difference between life and death--literally. In one of my earlier  articles, I dealt with a definition of marriage which appeared bad enough at first glance, but which, upon closer inspection, was clearly more dangerous than I had ever thought. It was dangerous because it labelled as marriage every sexual activity whatever (except for child abuse and rape) as long as it was legal. Since it allowed for so much, it rendered the meaning of the word "marriage" virtually meaningless.
            If homosexuals have no definition of marriage at all (and I don't know if that's not so), then they are no better off than the people who hold meaningless definitions of marriage. An undefined term can mean whatever the people who use it want it to mean.
            So I request for someone who knows the homosexual's definition of marriage to please step forward and propose it so that we can see whether it holds any water. If people are going to argue about marriage at all, shouldn't they first of all know what on earth they're talking about?
         


Thursday, June 6, 2013

Parallels Between Music and Reality

Socrates: Hello, John.

John: Hello, I have a profound thought I wanted to talk about with you. 

Socrates: A profound thought? What is it?

John: Well, I noticed a really interesting parallel between music and reality. I was talking to my brother once about sameness and change. Apparently, the earliest philosophers had to wrestle with this question: is all of reality sameness or change? 

Socrates: Yes, and like a lot of people do, some chose one side, other people chose the other side.

John: Yeah. Some philosophers, my brother told me, chose the first option: that all reality is sameness. But this leads to absurdity because all differences between things would only be illusions. Some philosophers chose the second option: that all reality is change. But this also leads to absurdity because then nothing exists. Either way, nothing would be as it seemed. 

Socrates: So what is the solution to this dilemma?

John: Both sets of people made the mistake of assuming that it was either one way or the other. But why couldn't it be both? Couldn't things change in some ways, and yet remain the same in other ways? I think that they could. We can observe this truth in the way that objects in the universe have accidents (changing features) and essences (unchangeable, necessary features). 

Socrates: Certainly. So how does this relate to music? 

John: Well, I've noticed that music seems to strongly resemble reality in that it is a balance of sameness and change--or at least it should be. Music with too little change is minimalist, while music with too much change is total chaos. So good music has a balance between these two extremes. That is why I consider works like "Duel of the Fates" and "Battle of the Heroes" from "Star Wars" and Beethoven's Fifth, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 4(?) etc. to be so great, because they are so much the same throughout, but they change so much. 

Socrates: Yes, indeed. 

John: Sorry for doing all the talking, Socrates. I hope you don't feel left out.

Socrates: Left out? No, I'm just listening. I'm sure that I will have plenty of questions to ask next time.

The Essence of Marriage: Part 5

X: So let's get started, Socrates. I think that we have now gotten to a point where we can actually define marriage.

Socrates: Hopefully we have, nameless one, since we've gotten rid of a lot of confusion. You aren't going to reveal your name, are you?

X: Um, no. I'm going to keep it the way it is.

Socrates: Why?

X: Because it's the name I've had for the past few dialogues. I might as well keep it until I can find a better one.

Socrates: All right then; back to our discussion. We've discarded one or two definitions of marriage, finding them insufficient or absurd, and we've also discussed the problems with one of the alternatives of marriage. But we never mentioned one definition of marriage that stands out like a sore thumb: the "traditional definition", as many would call it. What is this definition? Enlighten me.

X: All right, Socrates. This is what it is. Marriage is the covenant between one man and one woman who agree to love each other till death, and to accept and raise the children that they procreate through their union with each other.

Socrates: Thank you. What is a covenant?

X: An exchange of persons.

Socrates: So a marriage is a union in which a man and a woman exchange their very selves?

X: Yes.

Socrates: May they or may they not use contraception?

X: They must not. It is forbidden.

Socrates: Then the definition should be slightly clarified on that point. Why is it forbidden?

X: Because contraception separates the act of procreation from the pleasure experienced. This is a problem because it teaches spouses to use each other as objects, since they no longer need to "suffer" the consequences of their actions, and it also shows that they are not truly living their covenant. If they do not give themselves to each other in every way--their fertility included--then they are lying to each other and breaking their vows, since their vows demand a total self-surrender.

Socrates: Oh. If those are the reasons, then the definition you gave above is already sufficient by itself. Still, in your wreck of a world, it could use clarification.

X: Yes indeed it could. I wonder, is there anything more to be said, or should I just leave it at that? I can't think of anything else to say about marriage--at least not right now.

Socrates: I suppose that you could close the matter here--unless someone has objections to the definition?

X: I don't think I do, unless the definition needs more clarification. But that can be done later.

Socrates: So I suppose that wraps up our discussion about what marriage is.

X: Yes. I think our next topic will be who instituted marriage. I'll see you soon to talk about that, Socrates.

Socrates: I look forward to it.



        

Monday, May 27, 2013

An apology

        I've just removed an article that I wrote about the Boy Scouts situation because I really did not understand the case at all, and I'm sorry for what I wrote. Before I understand what's going on, I'll need to do some research. The case, it appears, is not at all what everyone claims that it is.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

The Essence of Marriage: Part 4

X: Hi, Socrates. It's been a while since I've seen you.

Socrates: And it's been a while since I have seen you. We really must chat more often.

X: Sorry, Socrates. I'm low on time.

Socrates: Low on time? Do you mean that we'll have to cut our conversation short instead of letting it wander down its natural course? 

X: Er, yes.

Socrates: That is very disappointing. But since you are short on time, let's get started, shall we?

X: OK. Here's my question. What harm does homosexuality do to people and to society?

Socrates: Well, let's start with the most obvious answer. Isn't homosexuality sterile by nature?

X: Yes.

Socrates: So if everyone were homosexual, what would happen?

X: Man would die off. It's as simple as that.

Socrates: Exactly. So wouldn't it appear that homosexuality is not at all the way for man to fulfill his nature, since he does not even replace himself by it?

X: I think so.

Socrates: All right. Now, what is the basic building block of society?

X: The individual.

Socrates: Is that so?

X: No, Socrates. I'm just trying to provoke you to ask more questions.

Socrates: An interesting tactic. I don't need to be asked to ask. Well then, where does the individual come from?

X: A pair of parents, obviously. A man and a woman.

Socrates: And what do a pair of parents and their children together constitute?

X: A family.

Socrates: So isn't the family--and not the individual--the basic building block of society?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Then wouldn't it appear that whatever is changed here and whatever is taught here will affect the entire structure of society?

X: Yes.

Socrates: So if, for example, all children are taught and shown that they must love each other no matter what, then society as a whole is likely to be much closer to the ideal?

X: Correct.

Socrates: Now, let us apply this new principle to a less agreeable topic. What happens when children are taught and shown that homosexuality is "OK"? Won't children probably come to assume that sex is all about pleasure, and not about love and family?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Why, then, will these children--when they become adults--feel inclined to put the effort into raising a family if they are not taught that sex brings responsibility along with it? Won't they be inclined instead to not have any children--or very few--and wouldn't they use people as objects for their own gratification?

X: Yes Socrates. Homosexuality, like contraception, separates pleasure from procreation, which the Church absolutely forbids. The separation of pleasure from procreation causes people to treat each other as objects; it causes people to see other people as means to their own pleasure. But this selfishness would not be exclusive to sex. It would permeate every aspect of life. Therefore, the promotion of homosexuality leads to injustice in society, since people would now only use each other.

Socrates: Very true. You've become quite a logician.

X: That's practically the only syllogism I can crank out right now. Thanks a lot for the talk, Socrates. It was very refreshing and enlightening.

Socrates: You are leaving? This is all too soon. A philosopher like me is short on people with whom  to converse. Thank you for your time, all the same.

X: You're welcome. Next time I hope that we will finally accomplish our object. We were supposed to define Marriage, remember?

Socrates: Yes, and we began to stray down many other paths instead. But why should you see that as a waste of time? All those questions you asked helped us to come closer to the truth, and that is never a waste of time.

X: Very true, Socrates.











Thursday, May 2, 2013

The Essence of Marriage: Part 3

X: Hello again, Socrates. I'm afraid that we'll be talking about some sticky subjects today. 

Socrates: Sticky subjects? Oh, don't worry about that. Most of the time, topics aren't what bother me--people are.

X: That's a relief to hear. Now for the topic. Socrates, once again I might sound dumb, but I know that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong, and I'm not entirely sure how to convince myself or others that it is so. What is wrong with it? Why must it be forbidden? What possible harm could it do?

Socrates: You've just asked a load of excellent questions. Now I'll ask some of my own. To begin with, what is the reproductive system for?

X: For producing new people, of course.

Socrates: (Sigh. How few people today know that.) Are married couples able to procreate children?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Does this give them both pleasure and responsibility? Are they responsible for caring for their children, and for feeding them and clothing them and educating them and giving them their time and love?

X: Yes to both questions.

Socrates: Do homosexuals inherit any of these responsibilities?

X: No. Their unions are sterile. They get enjoyment without responsibility. You know, this is all very well, Socrates, but I still don't have quite the strong argument that I'm hoping for.

Socrates: Don't worry; you're building lots of little ones right now. Let's move on. In nature, do we not observe that all animals follow the laws to which they are subjected?

X: They do.

Socrates: Does this not apply to their reproduction? There are no such things as "gay animals", are there?

X: No, of course not.

Socrates: Why, then, do men break the laws of nature, which even the beasts do not disobey?

X: Well, Socrates, men have the odd ability to disobey some laws at will, the moral and natural law.           You asked just a minute ago what the reproductive system is for. What is wrong with the way that homosexuals use their bodies?

Socrates: Well, first of all, we know that the primary purpose of the reproduction system is the procreation of children, correct?

X: Correct.

Socrates: The opposite sexes were created to complement each other for this purpose, were they not?

X: They were.

Socrates: And yet homosexuals do not use this system for its intended purpose?

X: No.

Socrates: What meaning can their "union" have then? Can we even call it a "union"?

X: Oh, I see that now. Neither male nor female homosexuals can call their activities "union" of the physical kind. In neither case do their bodies complement each other. They simply cannot unite at all. (Males would claim that they can, but of course this is not true. They only have union by unnatural means.) To say that they could unite is like saying that a key can be used to unlock a key or that a lock can be used to unlock a lock. Their acts are devoid of meaning. Why did I use the word "union" to describe these acts?

Socrates: You're not using it anymore; that's an improvement.

X: Sorry, Socrates. Gotta go.

Socrates: You're always so abrupt.


Friday, April 26, 2013

The Essence of Marriage: Part 2

X: So let's begin where we left off, shall we?

Socrates: Of course. I have a little observation to make. You never said whether marriage was a covenant.

X: Oh well, I'm sure that can wait. But you said that you had another definition to test?

Socrates: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. While surfing the web--I'm the first ancient philosopher to do so and I did not find much joy in the experience--while surfing the web, I discovered another possible definition of marriage that your modern society supports. Some would make the claim that any legalized sexual union among adults could be considered marriage, as long as the partners consent. Tell me: is any legalized sexual union between consenting adults to be considered marriage?

X: Of course not! That's absurd.

Socrates: All right. Why is it absurd?

X: Because that definition allows for homosexual unions, and for polygamy in all its forms. Come to think of it, that would also allow for legalized fornication, adultery, prostitution... you name it. It allows for just about every kind of sexual union except for rape. The results could only be worse if the age limit was lowered and if the parties were not required to consent. Obviously, no one calls these things marriage because they know better. But wait; is this quite the definition that you found?

Socrates: Yes, as far as I can remember.

X: What if this definition was changed just slightly? What if the parties were required to sign an agreement to stay together for at least a while? Would anything be different?

Socrates: Could it be different unless the parties agreed to stay together till death?

X: No. If they agreed to do that, then some of the sins on the list would be cancelled out--prostitution and fornication. If they don't agree to do this, then nothing has really changed. This is a fascinating subject, Socrates, but I really have to go.

Socrates: Ah, time. You Americans just don't seem to have enough of it anymore, do you?

 

Monday, April 8, 2013

The Essence of Marriage: Part 1

             Here's my first attempt to write on the essence of marriage. I've decided to write little dialogues about the subject, but, like this one, they may not always be complete.
             Before this dialogue starts, however, I'd like to point out that I will focus a lot on what marriage is not--not what marriage is. If we are to find out the essence of marriage, we must know what it marriage is, but even so, we must disentangle it from other things first.

                                                   Characters of the Dialogue:
                                                   Socrates
                                                   X

X: Hi, Socrates.

Socrates: Why, hello, X. Is that your name?

X: No, just a pseudonym for today. I have a question or two that I want to put to you.

Socrates: Really? What is it?

X: What is marriage? I don't mean to sound dumb, but up till now I just took for granted that I knew what it was, and now I'm not sure exactly how to define it. What is it?

Socrates: Thank you for your honesty. Instead of telling you the answer, however, I will ask you some questions. Don't you think you would profit more from a discussion if you taught me the answer, and not vice-versa?

X: I guess I'll try.

Socrates: All right. Is marriage a contract?

X: ...I don't think so, but I'm not sure why.

Socrates: Think about it. Isn't a contract an agreement in which the two parties agree to exchange property or service on certain terms?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Now, is marriage an echange of property or service?

X: No.

Socrates: Then it follows that marriage is not a contract, does it not?

X: Yes.

Socrates: All right. Now that we've cleared away one possibility, let's try another. Is marriage a covenant?

X: I think it is... but what exactly is a covenant?

Socrates: You're the Catholic. You tell me.

X: Hmm... I think it's a sacred family bond, an exchange of persons that makes the two people or groups into a family. It makes them belong to eachother in some way.

Socrates: See, you know a lot more about marriage than you thought you did.

X: Thanks, Socrates. How did you like my definition of covenant?

Socrates: It was a good definition--for now. You'll find out over time whether it's technically the best one.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The Four Neglected Causes

        I was unfortunate (or perhaps fortunate) enough this past Sunday to hear a bit of junk on the radio all about gay "marriage" advocates. What struck me was that these people often didn't even care about arguing the issue. They just wanted to push it through. "Who cares if two men or two women want to get married? If it makes them happy, why not let them do it?" (Some people also voiced their hope that when the pro and anti-gay "marriage" people got together, there would be no serious disagreements between them. I certainly hope that that is not the case!)   
        What frustrates me was that not one of them asked the four simple questions about marriage that they need to ask to understand what is right and what is wrong. I will ask these four questions for them, but I will not answer them--not yet. I think each deserves an article at a time. Here they are:
        
         #1: What is marriage?
         #2: Who instituted it?
         #3: What is it's end/purpose?
         #4: What does it consist of?
       
         These questions are actually an application of Aristotles "Four Causes", a very important tool in philosophy. They have largely fallen into disuse, and this affair is no exception.
         Chew on these for a while, and I will do the best I can to write answers to them, either in dialogue form or article form.
            
          

Monday, March 25, 2013

A New Way to Write

            Right now I'm fascinated by the idea of Socratic dialogues. Socratic dialogues are arguments written not as monologues but as conversations between two or more characters. Since the added human element makes the argument more like a story, it tends to do better than a monologue because it is more interesting.
            I want to write a few of my own dialogues when I have time. Perhaps I can post a few here on this blog--but we'll see.
            

Thursday, March 21, 2013

A Call to Arms

            There are a few questions I want to ask all you Catholic teens and young adults reading this.
            How many of you and your peers get together to have movie nights? How many of you get together just to hang out and have fun? I reckon that many people have raised their hands.
            OK. I have another question. How many of you get together to pray on a regular basis? I hope someone raises his hand.
            I ask this because I've noticed something over the past few years that is not at all encouraging.
            When my friends and I get together, (we're all Catholics) we usually watch a movie, or take a walk, or play some games, or talk, or act weird, or hike, or, failing all other options, lay around wondering what to do next. It all just goes to show that our lives are lacking something important. My circle of friends is important to me, yes, and I am important to them, but I'm frustrated because all of us are trying to be happy (and failing), and forgetting one very important truth: we need God above all, and nothing else will make us happy--literally.
            I have also noticed something over the past few years that is just as bad. We (my friends and I) are all Catholics and we all go to mass together. But what do we talk about 99 percent of the time? The latest movies, or our recent experiences and some other things. Those things are fine, yes. But what about God? Doesn't God deserve a bigger place in our lives? Doesn't God want so much more from us, especially during these turbulent times?
            I do not exempt myself from any of these charges, but I lay them out before everyone. These are sins of ommission, and they appear pretty harmless at first glance. But what happens when we allow them to stay? We lose our identity as Catholics. We lose our strength as a unified force in the world--simply because we do not care enough to band together for our faith.
            Here, I think, is the crux of the matter. Whether we like it or not, we are in a battle between God and Satan, and we must choose sides. We cannot sit idly by, stuck in our own little worlds, refusing to emerge. If we do this, we are simply submitting to the Enemy.
            I am writing this partly because I am frustrated and partly because I must get myself up to fight and partly because I see that we Catholics youth must unite in some real concrete way. We are the future of our country. We get to shape our country's history when our parents are gone.  If we open the door to God--even a crack--won't he shower us with grace? I'm sure he will. We just need to do it, and keep opening the door wider. But we need to do it together!
            Now, what do we do, exactly? At the moment, there is only one solution I can think of: pray! Not just alone. Yes, it is very good to pray alone, and I do not pretend to know how much any of you prays alone, but we must pray in groups as well! Pray the Rosary especially, and the Fatima intentions that go along with it. We and our country and the world are greatly in need of God's grace. I am sure that if all of us Catholic youth commit to pray the Rosary together in our own circles, all other designs that God wishes to set in motion will follow.
            I'm sorry if this article strikes you as a little angry, and I hope I have hurt no one, but I must say all this. I'm writing this for my own benefit as well as yours because I am in just as much need of reform as any of you, and I need to band together my own friends to fight this fight in prayer together. Not that I have recruted all the people I need yet, but I will soon. I just feel that we are in the middle of the desert at an oasis--which we ignore when we could so easily draw from it. This oasis will give us the strength to fight on in this dry world--it is as easy as stooping down and drinking. But, as my pastor always says, "It is as simple and as difficult as that."
            Catholics, to arms! God help us to be faithful!
          
             
            
              
           
             
            
  
            
             

Monday, March 18, 2013

The Transcendentals

               Here I just want to record a thought I had recently.
              
               Repeatedly, I've run into a problem that seemed to have no solution, and one that only baffled me more the more I learned about it. I'm talking about the concept of Beauty. Every time I tried to find a definition for it, I failed. Whenever I dug into a book or article about music, I always came away thinking that I understood less after reading it than before reading it. But I have discovered the reason that this appears to be such a frustrating problem.
               The solution appeared in the form of Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic. As Kreeft points out, there are some things which we simply cannot define. One of these things, says Kreeft, is Beauty. Beauty is one of the "transcendentals".
               
                "We can describe the transcendentals but not define them. E.g. the transcendental 'one' means 'not divided in itself and divided from others,' and beauty means 'that which, being seen, pleases' (id quod videtur placet)." (Socratic Logic, Peter Kreeft, 2010 [St. Augustine's Press, South Bend, Indiana] p. 130.)
               
               This book made me think, "Why can't Beauty be defined?" Then it dawned on me: beauty cannot be defined because God is beauty, and if we could define Beauty, we could define God. But of course we cannot define God!
               Now that I know this, I have come to accept that Beauty is mystifying and will remain mystifying, because it cannot be defined. This truth should lead me not to appreciate beauty less, but to appreciate it more.
               I have one more thing to say. There may be an error in my reasoning. If anyone sees one, please tell me.
                
               
                 

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Three Reasons Against Abortion


As I am going to participate in the March for Life this Friday, I want to talk about this very controversial issue of abortion, since our country’s future depends on it. Of course my basic position on abortion has always been very clear to me. Even so, I have not ever given the matter much thought. So here I will expand my thoughts.  Why should we not practice abortion?

1.      The first reason is rather simple: “You shall not kill.” (Exodus 20:13) God has commanded us not to murder. Therefore we must not murder, and no murder can be justified. It is a commonly accepted truth that the deliberate killing of an innocent human life is murder. But abortion takes an innocent human life. This being so, abortion must also be murder. It is therefore immoral, no matter what the case, no matter what the situation. Abortion murders a human baby, and we know better than to deceive ourselves about that.

2.      Secondly, all human beings are endowed by their Creator with the right to life. If this right is taken away, then none of the others can be given. Why should we refuse this fundamental right to the most vulnerable and innocent in our society? We are terribly unjust if we do. 

3.      Abortion will have devastating social consequences that we need to examine. If a society embraces abortion and universalizes it (like we have), the family will disintegrate, and if that happens, society will disintegrate as a direct result, since the family is the basic building block of society. There will be no more families; therefore there will be no people left to form a society. That being said, abortion is not just immoral, it is downright foolish. Who would be foolish enough to murder all their children if they knew what would follow? Sadly, we are.

            These are just a few of the reasons why abortion must not be allowed. There are countless others.  
                        This weekend, pray for our country to come back to God and back to the culture of Life.