Redeem the Time

Some of the best arguments out there right now against embryonic stem cell research/cloning, by some of the best writers/thinkers who oppose it.

Careful with that link—these guys make actual, honest-to-goodness, arguments that go right to some of the fundamental issues. Of course, the vast majority of their opponents dismiss them by saying that they oppose the destruction of embryos because of their belief.

Never, ever let someone get away with that in argument. Belief has got little or nothing to do with it. The Bible says nothing specifically about embryonic research, and when the Church speaks about the issue it doesn’t just issue one page position papers with one sentence proclaiming “God says” destroying embryos is wrong—it gives reasons for it.

The tactic of the enemy these days is to dismiss all religious people in the public square by reducing their arguments for things to the basis of belief, which in the popular mind is simply your will. Thus the opponent can say, “You have your beliefs, that’s fine, but don’t force them on us.”

This does two things: A) It makes it sound like one can’t argue about the issue at all (e.g., you have your beliefs that you choose, I have mine, lets call the whole thing off and have the government be “neutral”). B) It allows them to seem to be the one with reasons and arguments for things, while you are dismissed as incapable of reason and being argued with—unscientific, as it were.

In reality of course, for all the absurd talk of the Christian Right and theocracy these days, I see places like the Family Research Council and people like Senator Rick Santorum, giving more arguments then any of their opponents. In fact, these opponents are usually dogmatists of a sort that would make Torqemada blush.

Given the present framework of the debate in the public square, however, many people on both sides would be hard pressed to realize this.

The reason?

Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric.

…started here and the Shulamite is still carrying it on here.

here …so long as all the anger is cut off at the pass.

Stick to the issue at hand, and as Sicut says (nice ring to it—”as Sicut says”):

We should remember that we haven’t undertaken this endeavor to hurt feelings.

Such are the characters of Young Men and Elderly Men. People always think well of speeches adapted to, and reflecting, their own character: and we can now see how to compose our speeches so as to adapt both them and ourselves to our audiences.

I almost think that after this, the short bit on the middle aged (below) which follows this sentence in the text is sort of a joke. I bet the book is marketed to early middle aged lawyers, and that Aristotle was middle aged when he wrote it. Of course, this is just a jovial suspicion, and probably wrong:

To put it generally, all the valuable qualities that youth and age divide between them are united in the prime of life, while all their excesses or defects are replaced by moderation and fitness. The body is in its prime from thirty to five-and-thirty; the mind about forty-nine.

In any event, as the description of the young itself makes clear, they’re not very interested in politics. For the same reason, politicians aren’t much interested in them. On the other hand, advertising executives are very much interested in the youth. And every good advertising executive, although they may not ever say it, knows every bit of what Aristotle says posted below and exploits it as much they possibly can. Come to think of it, there are a lot of very wealthy people based on those principles—its easy to suck money from the young these days. It always has been, but these days kids actually have money, and they possess the freedom or distance from their families necessary for one to seduce them.

So far as what Aristotle says about the old, as the description indicates, they do have reason to vote. And every politician knows what Aristotle says below about them, even though no one of them would, ever, ever say it. The elderly, especially when they allow their selfish side to rule them, are as easily led around as a well-broken horse. Play certain notes by sounding the alarms of a politics of fear, etc., and they react quite predictably.

In a certain sense, virtue is that which saves one from being duped by rhetoric.
These passages show that nicely, along with blurting outright truths about the young and old that many of us would not admit or say out loud today.

Aristotle didn’t much care.

People always think well of speeches adapted to, and reflecting, their own character. . .

Take that one home to the bank, cuz’ it will always be true.

As for Men in their Prime, clearly we shall find that they have a character between that of the young and that of the old, free from the extremes of either. They have neither that excess of confidence which amounts to rashness, nor too much timidity, but the right amount of each. They neither trust everybody nor distrust everybody, but judge people correctly. Their lives will be guided not by the sole consideration either of what is noble or of what is useful, but by both; neither by parsimony nor by prodigality, but by what is fit and proper. So, too, in regard to anger and desire; they will be brave as well as temperate, and temperate as well as brave; these virtues are divided between the young and the old; the young are brave but intemperate, the old temperate but cowardly. To put it generally, all the valuable qualities that youth and age divide between them are united in the prime of life, while all their excesses or defects are replaced by moderation and fitness.

Heh.

Or at least that’s the way its supposed to work.

Interesting that he doesn’t say anything about a “midlife crisis.”

Who is this guy?

He’s known simply as Aristotle, and the text we’ve been quoting is from his book on Rhetoric.

The character of Elderly Men-men who are past their prime-may be said to be formed for the most part of elements that are the contrary of all these. They have lived many years; they have often been taken in, and often made mistakes; and life on the whole is a bad business. The result is that they are sure about nothing and under-do everything. They ‘think’, but they never ‘know’; and because of their hesitation they always add a ‘possibly’or a ‘perhaps’, putting everything this way and nothing positively. They are cynical; that is, they tend to put the worse construction on everything. Further, their experience makes them distrustful and therefore suspicious of evil. Consequently they neither love warmly nor hate bitterly, but following the hint of **** they love as though they will some day hate and hate as though they will some day love.
Read the rest of this entry »

Young men have strong passions, and tend to gratify them indiscriminately. Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they show absence of self-control. They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they last, but quickly over: their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted, and are like sick people’s attacks of hunger and thirst. They are hot-tempered, and quick-tempered, and apt to give way to their anger; bad temper often gets the better of them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted, and are indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated. While they love honour, they love victory still more; for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this. They love both more than they love money, which indeed they love very little, not having yet learnt what it means to be without it-this is the point of ****’ remark about ****.
Read the rest of this entry »

Ever wonder what its like to have kids—to actually BE that couple with the annoyingly loud kid at the restaurant?

Read this.

Well, at least that’s what its like for one TAC grad and soon to be ex-marine.

My favorite line:

I deal with embarrassment the same way I deal with all of my emotions, I get angry and defensive.

Amen, brother. Except my pasty white skin gets really red and irritable as well.

Has the Reader Any Rights Before the Bar of Literature?

There is a new kind of literature abroad in the land, whose only obvious fault is that no one can understand it. Last year there appeared a gigantic volume entitled Ulysses, by James Joyce. To the uninitiated it appeared that Mr. Joyce had taken some half million assorted words— many such as are not ordinarily heard in reputable circles—shaken them up in a colossal hat, laid them end to end. To those in on the secret the result represented the greatest achievement of modern letters—a new idea in novels.

It is rumored that The Waste Land was written as a hoax. Several of its supporters explain that that is immaterial, literature being concerned not with intentions but results.

This is one of the best blogs on the internet.

As we say, read the whole thing.

On a related note, this and this might also be of interest to all.

An excerpt:

In Conrad’s Lord Jim, a storm comes up, the crew panics and Jim, persuaded that the old tub on which he is sailing cannot possibly makes its destination, jumps ship with the other officers, leaving a shipful of pilgrims to their fate. After anxious days in an open boat, with time for Jim to reflect on what he has done, the deserters make their intended port. As they enter the harbor with their well-rehearsed story of what happened, Jim sees, docked, safe, arrived, the bucket of bolts they had left to sink with all its passengers.

There have always been a lot of not so lordly Jims in the ranks of Thomists, jumping ship because they were persuaded that the Cartesian or Kantian or Heideggerian turn called for a complete overhauling of Thomism.

Read both links to see what Ralph McInerny has to say about Charles De Koninck, the man who taught the founders of Thomas Aquinas College. McInerny is De Koninck’s most famous student.