Taking a knee

So I’m reading over my blog so far, and I can’t believe with what arrogance I pontificate about this, that, and the other thing. Now, I’m not recanting, I think what I’ve written so far is true, what I’m trying to gesture at is the measure of humility and intellectual grain of salt that is required for any of us who try to expose and walk with the Truth. It’s honestly very simple. Jesus explained to us that he is the way, the truth, and the light. And he wasn’t speaking in riddles. It’s as plain as day. The truth is not an abstract concept, or platonic form, its a person. It’s a person who understands what it means to suffer, to be one of us, to love, to lose, to be disappointed. St. Paul speaks and tells us he knows only one thing Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Crucified. Wisdom! Lean your ear! To the mighty modern academy it is the same foolishness that it was to the Greeks. But I look at this God-man on the Cross and know that humanity could not have known the ‘meaning of life’ had he not plainly shown us. All of the Aristotle’s in the world could not present to humanity Christ Crucified. If you want to gain your life, seek to lose it, truly I say to you, from one hypocrite to another. Praise be Jesus Christ, like us in every way except sin. Amen.

Deciding for ourselves

The Dominicans have a saying: never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish.

In our weeklong critical examination of the Enlightenment one question must always be brought back to the forefront: who is the arbiter of Truth?

As mentioned before, the Enlightenment, running in the tradition of Descartes’, made the individual the sole arbiter of Truth. Forgetting their motivations for doing so, let us examine only the soundness of this move. It would seem, at first glance, that we make our own decisions about what is true and false, right and wrong, etcetera. To a certain extent, at least upon reflection, the deciding, arbitration, element, does appear to be our own. But few pieces of the information we are asked to decide upon comes from within, most from without, and most of that is in the form of testimony. For instance; I know little about particle physics, but the little I do know comes to me from other persons in the form of testimony. I believe my limited knowledge about particle physics to be true only on the basis of the authority of the individual who is telling me. Now, here is where the Enlightenment decries “fallacy! fallacy!”. The question is whether or not the appeal to authority constitutes a fallacy or not. Using our handy tool passed onto us from the Dominicans we can distinguish between different types of fallacies to see what kind of fallacy the appeal to authority is. It would seem that appeals to authority are not formal fallacies (affirming the consequent, for example), but rather informal fallacies, meaning that it depends on the context. So, let’s say that I wanted to learn about dogs. I might easily make the mistake that consulting a dog on this matter would be a good authority. This, I think, can be reasoned out to be fallacious. However, let’s say instead that I went and consulted a canineologist to find out some more about dogs. Here I think it can easily be reasoned that I am appealing to legitimate authority. And so we have a distinction. A good rule of thumb that I’ve found helpful, though far from perfect, is what one could call the “full-time authority” rule. Basically, it runs along the assumption that someone who has made it their life’s work to study a particular field of knowledge ought to be able to give me clear insights into that field of knowledge. If I do not understand the jargon used, they should be able to clarify it for me. Obviously to say that this works every time, would be a fallacy! But as a general rule, it seems to serve the average interlocutor (me, in this case) very well, and this brings us to the roots of what I wanted us to look at today.

As individual humans we get to decide for ourselves. We get to choose whether to assent or dissent from various teachings and propositions. It is a unique talent so far undiscovered anywhere else in the universe [do other animals make decisions? Probably, but many things need to be distinguished, and we will leave that for another day]. So what’s the problem? The Enlightenment thrust upon man too great a responsibility. It encouraged him to go out and figure everything out for himself. This proposition is not only too demanding, it is also imprudent. Using our reason one can critically reflect on who/what is a good authority, and can then absorb the wonderful knowledge of that authority, without ever having to do any of the hard work on our own. Imagine that, other people have done the hard work for us, and often freely give it away! For the Christian there are several sources of authority that are transmitted through one overarching authority, namely, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. This group of professional philosophers and theologians, guided by the Holy Spirit, has been exercising its teaching authority since Pentecost. The Enlightenment, in its rejection of all appeals to authority, rejected , by and large, the unfailing and infallible teaching authority of the Church through its successors of St. Peter and its Church Councils. If we accept that appeals to authority can be, and are, rational appeals, as I hope to have sketched at least somewhat, then I think we can characterize this decision of the Enlightenment to be an irrational one.

What does this mean for us? Practically speaking it means that we can trust in the organically developed teaching of good authorities. A great boon to anyone who thirsts for knowledge. For most of us, myself definitely included, are not qualified (in authority or talent), nor do we have the time or resources to undertake these critical examinations ourselves. It means I can learn about particle physics without ever having to go to the LHC and run my own experiments. What it does not mean is that we must blindly submit to anyone and everyone with a Ph.D. in their field (something I strongly, strongly, strongly, don’t recommend), but rather that using our critical faculties we can consider who is correct in receiving our assent in particular spheres of expertise. And so the skeptic may ask me then, why do you believe in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, to which I would reply, Great Question, and maybe we will get part way there tomorrow.

Enlightenment

So yesterday for the inaugural post of this blog I spoke for a little while on the Enlightenment. The reason this is so much on my mind recently, this period of transformation, is probably due to what I’ve been reading over this summer. Though I didn’t get through as much as I had hoped, I was able to make study of some key texts that bring clearly into focus some of the consequences of what took place from 1550- onwards. The date I’ve chosen is arbitrary. Yesterday I highlighted Descartes‘ as the beginning of the Enlightenment. I’m not sure that’s completely right, but is certainly not completely wrong either. Anyways. What I wanted to do today was speak a little bit more about the Enlightenment, to carefully qualify my statements made yesterday.

First, the Enlightenment was not a bad thing. Taken as a whole it has done more good than harm, however, I still think Enlightenment is the wrong word/title to use. The proponents of the Enlightenment saw themselves as bringing light (knowledge/learning) back to a civilization that had fallen under the tyranny of despotism and theocracy. Instead of faith, hope, and charity, they proposed, liberty, equality, and fraternity. They urged for the separation of Church and State, democracy, or at least meritocracy, and the end of privileges for the nobility, lay and clerical. With Francis Bacon‘s landmark Novum organum they advocated for the scientific method as opposed to metaphysical speculation, and pushed back just as ferociously, if not more, than they had been attacked by the almighty guild of theologians. Paris was an especially great target.

Were they wrong? Yes and no. I think it was John Paul II who talked about how even the atheists of the 19th century were acting out of good intentions and motives. They were upset over the wanton corruption of the governments and the oppression of the poor, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is only thanks to God‘s abundant grace that any good comes out of their methods and actions. I think the same thing holds for the Enlightenment. While the Throne and Altar was a majestic and beautiful system, it was corrupt. It was in need of dire repair and mending if it was to survive, which it did not, reform did not come quickly enough. So instead, as before the in the great schism, revolution took the place of reform, terror became the rule of the day, and civilization would never be the same. As mentioned though, thank God, a good deal of good managed to come out of it. The Church is free from her temporal bondage, and unless civilization totally breaks down, it should not need to fill in ever again. State democracy has enabled class mobility, and free markets and trade, coupled with scientific discovery and invention, have made our lives manifestly easier (have they?). Wealth has been spread out, and the disparity between rich and poor has closed, somewhat.

But Charles Taylor notices an ironic result of individuality and democracy. It seems the more our liberty and freedom increases, the less likely we are to participate in the democratic system. Unless our personal cult of authenticity demands political recognition, we are unlikely to seek it out, or even to take part in our ‘God given rights’. There shall definitely be a post about God and human rights, that’s another story. Long story short, before anyone calls me a Luddite, or convicts me of nostalgia, I would never advocate a return to pre-Enlightenment days. But I will be the last to propitiate the values of the Enlightenment on any altar. To take this to the garden. The flower of the Enlightenment is a good addition, but it is a greedy flower. In its yearning for recognition it will choke the life out of every other beautiful Truth that one has cultivated. It will subject everything to utter skepticism until it has withered and died (this is again a great topic for another day, the value and necessary temperance of skepticism). So, let us prune it carefully, and watch to make sure it does not take over, but let us not cut it down and cast it into the fire.

In our Gospel readings today St. Luke tells the story of one of Jesus’ banquets with the scribes and the Pharisees. Jesus gives us an important lesson in humility that is anathema to the Enlightenment. Read it for yourself, and perhaps tomorrow we can speak about why. Yes, perhaps we shall spend a whole week talking about this important, formative, period of western civilization.

For now, here is a video from Ralph McInerny, a brilliant Enlightenment scholar who has recently passed towards the hope held. He taught at Notre Dame University, alongside Alisdair MacIntyre, another master of the Enlightenment. I had a chance to read “After Virtue” this summer, and I highly recommend it to anyone who studies ethics.

Salve!

I’m not sure there could be a more appropriate day to begin an adventure such as this. Today the Catholic Church of the Roman Rite celebrates the feast day of one of my best friends: St. Augustine of Hippo. Hopefully a biography of this master is not necessary, if you don’t know about him, go and inform yourself for your own good.

So what is this blog about? What’s with the title?

I have titled this blog ‘Gardening with Sophia’ for a few specific reasons, few of them horticultural. Sophia is the greek word for Wisdom. Philosopher’s (Phila – [fraternal] love of – Sophia – wisdom) claim to be in love with her, though many I meet (both in word and speech) treat her more like a mistress, which is very sad. The main focus of this blog will thus treat our treatment of Sophia. Gardening is an activity of making beautiful things grow. But in any plain of untamed soil weeds, vines, and thickets, are bound to spring up. The mind is like a garden. It is capable of contemplating beautiful arrangements of the Truth via processes that themselves, when examined, are enough to make your head spin (not to go too off track already, but think about the idea that humans can even dare to perform metaphysics, to easily conceptualize the whole of existence, to manipulate ideas like this with our minds). Thus the garden. Sometimes we allow weeds to grow up and choke the life out of our gardens. Learning and study is the difficult process of building a garden. It requires to be done cum magna cura, if you want good results. Our dear, and Great, Holy Father, took as his episcopal motto “COOPERATORES VERITATIS” which translates (but loses something in the process) to “Co-worker of the Truth”. In one sense then, I’m trying to follow in the tradition of papa in titling this blog ‘gardening with Sophia’, for I hope they mean the same thing. So come ponder this image with me of gardening with wisdom as we look at issues and ideas that crop up from day to day, and let us tend them together.

To be more analytical: this blog will deal with issues of philosophy and theology, in addition to participating in various commentaries and criticisms born of, what is known to insiders, as the new evangelization. So can you enjoy my blog if you don’t share my beliefs? I sure hope so. It’s primarily for you anyways.

A nice bold place to start could be with Truth itself. Truth (with a capital T) is a somewhat controversial thesis in the academy these days (it could perhaps be ironic if it weren’t so sad). Many professional philosophers (?) will accept some idea of objective truth, but certainly not in the richest (and truest) sense, as it was understood for a very long time.

During the Enlightenment (this period of intellectual history is in dire need of a name change) a critical turn was made that switched the whole project of learning on a scale of civilizations. For a long time (~1900 years+) Truth was seen as something, by and large, that could not be separated from the idea (key word here) of God. Whether that God was some form of logos infused pan(en)theistic naturalism, of many of the Greeks, or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in antiquity, the idea of God and Truth being two separate and distinct things was impossible. But then one day a mercenary, turned mathematician and philosopher, ended up starting an intellectual revolution that is still being played out today. Rene Descartes insisted that he had been decieved. Things that he thought were true, he began to doubt, and he founded a program of individual introspection that would become the norm for most of the philosoph’s that fell out of him. In Descartes model, one must doubt everything in order to build up a system of truths that one can hold without any doubt whatsoever. Seems innocent and noble enough, except that a serious wedge had been placed between truth and God. God, in Descartes system, comes only after knowing that he exists. This separation of Truth and God would be printed on the banner’s of Descartes’ successor’s, and eventually would place the individualist enlightenment philosophers against God altogether. Much in the same way I imagine Luther, I imagine if Descartes could look back and speak to us, he would resound with a big “Oops!”, for I’d be hard pressed to imagine that he did this on purpose. The major question is, was he right? To the atheist, skeptic, non-believer, of course he seems right. But this, I think, is begging the question. The skeptic believes that the individual is the sole source and arbiter of truth to begin with, therefore, by default, God is not the sole arbiter of truth, and thus neither of us is able to speak directly to the other. We spend much of our time talking past each other. Let us then tend to our garden’s and see if we cannot prune these idea’s into something beautiful.

Benedict XVI, as Joseph Ratzinger, looking back to Greeks, especially Plato, gives us the argument from intelligibility. The purpose here is not to give a strict, deductive, proof for the existence of God, but rather to align our sights with a ray of truth that should help scatter many other “philosophic problems” (we will get to Wittgenstein!). Ratzinger invites us to carefully consider the intelligibility of the universe. See, everything in the universe, it can be argued, consists of a set of states of affairs. The universe can be characterized best, perhaps, by its “radical contingency”. In other words, nothing in the universe/the universe itself, necessitates its particular existence. The Hard-Determinist might take issue with me here, but for now, lets assume that you’re not her. Since this is the case, it is not the case that the universe need to be intelligible to us at all. There is no particular reason that the universe ought to be able to be understood, and yet, we have an amazing capacity and ability to understand it with the help of an amazing epiphenomenal worm tucked between our ears. This intelligible universe, when fully fleshed out, gives us the best explanation that our ability to say true things about the universe is dependent on Truth itself. Intelligibility presupposes intelligence. Some will claim this is some version of the watchmaker argument, and loosely, I suppose that it is, but I believe it begins its approach from one step further back.

Okay! So in gardening with Sophia I am alluding to the idea that all good philosophers are co-workers of the Truth, we are not arbiter’s, but co-workers.

One of my favourite images in St. Augustine’s (vast) letters comes from his work on the Holy Trinity. Augustine was walking along the beach and he saw a child scooping the ocean with a scallop shell into a hole of sand in front of him. Augustine uses this image to show his humility before the Truth. Even with our amazing capacities as human beings, specially gifted with logos, any attempt to scoop the whole of the ocean of Truth into our own little bucket of clay will surely be a futile attempt. Perhaps most interestingly, Augustine does not despair. Even though he realizes the futility of the project on a grand scale, it does not stop him from doing his best, something all of us, especially those brazen enough to call themselves philosophers, ought to look.

It was written yesterday in one of my favourite collections of blogs, First Things: “The dawning of the Age of Aquarius is now in its sunset repose and the bright young things who seem to be cropping up now all over the place with new information from Fortescue and Ratzinger, may either be the professional mourners for a lost civilization, or the sparks of a looming golden age”. Not only did I laugh, I think, and I hope, this is true. This next generation of Catholic Philosophers and Theologians is nothing like the two earlier generations in their rebellious and skeptical attitudes. My generation, it seems by and large, is dying to live what they believe to the fullest. World watch out. This quote is, I think, specifically in reference to the Liturgy, but I think it pans out across the whole intellectual milieu, and I’m happy to be, in whatever small capacity, a co-worker of this new movement.

Things you ought to find regularly here:

i. Catholic Philosophy – from the “School of Athens” to the “Disputation of The Sacrament”. Raphael painted two beautiful frescoes for the papal library at the Vatican. The School of Athens is famous. You’ve seen it before. I’ll post the picture. Anyways. In the picture Plato and Aristotle are disputing about, it seems, the nature of the forms, but they are peripatetic (walking). They are walking towards the fresco painting across from them – the disputation. The idea, from Raphael, is that philosophy ought to lead us to theology, when

studied properly. If this blog tries to do anything, it’s bring us from the school of Athens to the disputation.

ii. Cultural commentary

iii. New evangelization commentary

iv. Personal updates (but who cares!)

v. Anything else that I want, because 2010 is kind of awesome like that.

This blog is under the patronage of, and wholly dedicated to, Saint Mary Magdalene.

Questions, comments, criticisms, are happily welcomed, just try to breathe before you post.

St. Augustine, ora pro nobis!