Redeem the Time

Had to type this up fast, but let’s play a quick game of “draw your own conclusions”:

________________________

Traditional Catholic political philosophy holds that government exists for the sake of the common good.

Libertarians hold that government does not and/or cannot exist for the sake of the common good.
________________________

Traditional Catholic political philosophy holds that men are naturally social, and thus government is natural and good.

Libertarians hold that government is, at best, a necessary evil.
________________________

Traditional Catholic political philosophy holds that the end of the political community are goods that can only be attained in common by the members of said society—goods that, ultimately, all the members of society ought to desire.

Libertarians hold that the end of the political community is to bestow freedom on individuals so that they can attain what is good in their own eyes—goods that are primarily material and/or vary from individual to individual.
________________________

You get the point.

Man is a social animal.

Man is rational animal.

I can’t emphasize enough how much of political philosophy flows out of the understanding of these two premises: you must understand both of these propositions in order to understand what the proposition that “man is a political animal” means. To understand the propoposition “man is a political animal” is to understand that government is partly natural and partly artifice.

If you emphasize man’s social nature and ignore or downplay his rational nature, you could end up saying government and everything else that helps man achieve his good is organic, or arises out of nature in the sense that nature means everything that moves and is changeable simply speaking. You could end up thinking that governments grow like everything else in nature, ignoring the extent to which they are produced, or “constituted,” by human reason. Absent reason in man, one can easily ascribe the cause of man’s actions and artifices to history. Yet providence, or the “practical reason” or “prudence” of God as it exists in directing history, is unknown to man in this life at least. Although one will likely hold that the end of government is the common good if man is naturally social, it will be very difficult to say what that good is or ought to be in an unchanging or immovable way while denying the reason of man, as reason provides an unchanging standard.

If you emphasize man’s rational nature and ignore or downplay his social nature, you can end up saying that government and everything else that helps man achieve his good is made up or determined by him, a product of his nature in the sense that the most immoveable or unchangeable part of his nature allows him to manipulate physical things, including his fellow men. You could end up thinking that governments are pure creations of the human mind, able to be produced in accordance with whatever our reason sets forth as good, ignoring the extent to which man is naturally social and drawn together in particular ways through family, village, and polis. Absent the social nature of man, one could see man’s reason as supreme over the limits or givens of nature, which you will claim man’s reason can judge and seemingly reject. If men are atom-like individuals that can determine their relation to everyone else on their own terms, there is no principle of unity between them, and hence if man is not social there is no common good. It will be very difficult to say that there is a fixed good for men in common, as men will only associate with each other as they choose or think best, and one might even end up saying that each man is free to determine his own good in an unqualified way.

When it comes to describing the American founding, lots of people love to play a “gotcha” game of intellectual history. For instance, many people talk about Locke, the English thinker, a lot more than the founders did while they ignore all the other thinkers the founders mention. There are an infinite number of ways to judge and characterize the American regime that are similarly misleading. These people ignore what ought to be the most significant way to understand the American regime—to consider its founding and/or form in the context of political philosophy.

Of course, in order to do this one must understand the founding, and this is where everyone gets lost in the “who influenced who” problems that immediately arise if we take up this task. Aristotle famously put together a collection of constitutions for a reason. Given what Aristotle wrote about politics, I think that if Aristotle wanted to judge the American regime the first thing he would do is read the Declaration and the Constitution and inquire about the historical facts that relate to them. Regardless of culture, the plain words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution remain, and if we take their author’s words and the plain history of their creation seriously we should regard these documents as expressing what America is regardless of all the thoughts and schools of thought that may or may not have gone into their making.

I happened to be reading Tocqueville during the current clashes between civilizations across the Atlantic over a few political cartoons. If anyone still read Tocqueville these days, the following passage would be enough to get the keen eyed Frenchman banned from the schools:

Mohammed had not only religious doctrines descend from Heaven and placed in the Koran, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, in contrast, speak only of the general relations of men to God and among themselves. Outside of that they teach nothing and oblige nothing to be believed. That alone, among a thousand other reasons, is enough to show that the first of these two religions cannot dominate for long in enlightened and democratic times, whereas the second is destined to reign in these centuries as in all others.

Democracy in America
Mansfield and Winthrop trans.
U. of Chicago Press (2002)
Volume Two, Part One, Chapter Five
Pages 419-20
_______________________________
Read the rest of this entry »

Father Schall is always worth reading:

No doubt today, more people lie awake at night worried about the world supply of oil, itself a product of past eons, or the conditions of endangered bird species than those worried about their immortal souls or the upcoming burnt out sun.

(Via the Ignatius Insight Blog)

Three old school posts with more mentions and links to Father Schall here, here, and here.

[I was going to sharpen this stick, and believe me I could, but its been sitting as a draft for months now, and this is only a blog after all, so its time to purge the unfinished pieces.]

Amid all the above stupid and oh-so frustrating terms and debates, I have some questions.

I really, really want an answer to this one:

Why do all the pseudo-monarchist, anti-American, conservative Catholics who never cease from railing against all the “intrinsic” evils of modernity: liberal democracy, capitalism, “neo-conservatives,” technology, etc., etc.—and whose arguments seem to reduce to the confessional state and/or the Holy Roman Empire being a desirable thing:

Also

Oppose George Bush (and sometimes even Abraham Lincoln) for being too imperialistic and/or monarchical . . . Consistently opposing any real world example of strong executive power, including the war in Iraq and any power the government tries to take during times of war, like the Patriot Act, etc . . .

What possible problem could they have with an American Empire? They certainly can’t argue with the form of goverment.

Shoudn’t they be praising Bush and the “neo-cons” for taking us away from the evils of the liberal democracy they hate so much? What possible problem could they have with strong executive power? Why do they care about the letter-of-the-law and the constitution? What possible reason could they have for defending the autonomy of other cultures, or their own right to avoid unjust search and seizure, etc. when they constantly deride “rights” as a bad thing?

Most of all, what are their solutions? Its easy to talk about problems. What would a regime that officially recognized and promoted Catholicism look like? Oh sure there are problems with politics. Hell, there are problems in your neighborhood, in your home, in your self . . . but maybe one shouldn’t be so quick to rip on “regime change” [and believe me there sure are real arguments against that] when oneself effectively advocates regime change for the most stable nation in the word. Things are always a lot easier as playtoy problems in our head rather than making our heads address those problems actually in the world that really don’t have easy or even necessary answers.

I gather that their best solution often seems to be to associate in common, through various groups, communities, and schools, preserving what they see right. Of course, outside of liberal democracy, they wouldn’t be able to create this haven for themselves, as other forms of government wouldn’t offer them this freedom.

One of those be careful what you pray for sort of things, people . . . the hypocrisy of some hyper-conservative Catholics knows no bounds, methinks.

Remember that Plato, besides his devastating critique, also indicated that democracy was the best form of government for philosophy. We are a unique kind of democracy, and not wholly one, but insofar as we are it is good to remember the reasons Plato said this.

If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what is right? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is, and of which of the sciences or capacities it is the object. It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man. For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our inquiry aims, since it is political science, in one sense of that term.

I betcha lots of us would object.

Aristotle contemplating a bust of Homer
1653, Rembrandt

What?!

What follows below is about all that anyone else is saying about her. Speaking complete sentences about her is impossible without knowing any [insert category of Being here] one could say of her. So thank me for breaking down the current news for you while sparing you the trouble of reading all the other words people are writing in relation to Harriet Miers, who, as you can no doubt tell from her name, is an older woman (I think she’s about sixty).

And now I get to sit back and watch my traffic spike meaninglessly as people quickly realize that this blog focuses on. . . whatever it focuses on. . .while it thinks about focusing on St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle and Plato and so on. . .

Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers Harriet Miers

In the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4., St. Thomas is arguing “that to give assent to the truths of faith is not foolishness even though they are above reason.” He gives his argument, in part based on the way Christianity was founded and proceeds still. Then he contrasts these reasons for accepting the truths of the faith of the Christian religion with the lack of reasons for believing in another religion, based on the way this other religion was founded and proceeds still:

On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this. The point is clear in the case of Mohammed. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men.

As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.

He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.

What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.

Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity.

It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

For some reason, no one quotes this text in the schools anymore, and I don’t think it is even considered as a teaching text in many homilies these days, despite the fact that it seems to directly relate to current events.

St. Thomas, I suppose, would be considered “anti-ecumenical” today. (Ironic, because the Summa Contra Gentiles could be considered the most ecumenical tract ever written.)

___________________________________________________________
Transcribed from the Pegis translation here in my cozy kodiak.island, broken up into paragraphs with added emphasis by yours truly.

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.