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?
Friday, April 26, 2013
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)