Monday, April 15, 2013
Our Two Cults; The Cult of the Body, and the Cult of Smallness
I have, and have always had, a number of problems with the modern world, but as I studied those problems, I began to realize that they all stem from a single source; or rather, two sources that intertwine in many key areas; two cults that modern, secular society (and unfortunately, many people in religious circles) obey without question.
So, after spending a while thinking this over, I decided to try to put it into words. Putting it simply, the pagan cults that the modern world sets up are "the Cult of the Body," and "the Cult of Smallness." When I say "cult," I mean, of course, a group of people who follow a dogma which, while it may have some good ideas, is false when you get down to it. These cults express themselves in every aspect of our lives (which is how we know they're cults, rather than just predispositions or preferences,) so I will, in this post, be going over a few of the ways in which these cults effect us, starting with the least damaging, and moving on to the most.
-----
1. With Regard to the Human Body
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body views the human body as the absolute center of the universe. It worships the human body, and in particular, the health, appearance and physical wellbeing of the human body, often refusing to acknowledge that any other kind of wellbeing even exists.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness insists that human bodies should be as small as possible. Sometimes even to the extent of damaging the person's health, though usually in a way that most people don't notice. The reason the cult of smallness doesn't want people to notice any negative consequences that they're having on bodily health is simple; they don't want an open war with the cult of the body. As long as they manage to keep the unhealthy results of "over-smallness" out of the public eye, war is averted between these two cults.
-----
2. With Regard to Dress and Appearance
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body insists that however one dresses, it should not disguise the body. This means that nothing (or at least very little) should be left to the imagination, and that's why they refer to immodest dress as "proud of my body." The cult of the body views the exposure of the human body, under any circumstances whatsoever, as a sacrament, and protects this "sacrament" through the use of lawsuits against those who rightfully hate debauchery.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness agrees with the cult of the body that the body should be revealed, but for different reasons. It -despises- large outfits with long sleeves, skirts and pant-legs, and it -especially- despises dresses, since these are larger than the legs that they cover by more than an inch or two. The cult of smallness hates, in reality, any form of fashion that's large and noticeable, using the word "gaudy" to describe it, and trying to discourage people from wearing it by seeking to convince them that no one else does or wants to. This is why celebrities and television shows, in spite of their wealth, seem to focus so much on wearing shorter dresses and lower-cut tops, rather than actually using their money on fabric.
It should also be noted that this is not exclusive to the upper class. Poor people, a hundred years ago, generally wore long garments in layers, which simply isn't done as often; even by the middle class.
-----
3. With Regard to Art and Expression
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body wants all art and expression to be about the human body exclusively. They fund "art" that depicts excessive nudity, generally in poses, and they love pornography as though it were a sacred right. However, the moment that art depicts physical imperfections or weaknesses in a body, they will put it to scorn, because the body is sacred to them.
B. The Cult of Smallness
Yes, there is the insistence on depicting only small bodies, but more importantly, the cult of smallness encourages a very small artistic spirit, and cooperates with the cult of the body on this. It teaches people to mistake "I can draw whatever I wantity" for artistic spirit. Real artistic spirit, of course, is drawing dynamic and important things, which touch us spiritually and emotionally, and nothing in modern art is capable of this, because both cults have cooperated to exclude religion from art. The cult of smallness hates religion because it's not small, and the cult of the body hates it because it encourages worship of something other than the body. Yet, refusal to depict religion has drained all the life out of art. Just ask yourself this question; are you spiritually or emotionally touched by anything in modern or recent art, or is it just offensive for the sake of offending, or odd for the sake of being odd?
-----
4. With Regard to Knowledge and Understanding
A. The Cult of the Body
You might think that the cult of the body would encourage knowledge of the body, but in fact, it does not, since that knowledge might discourage one from worshiping it. Instead, the cult of the body spreads misinformation about the body, the importance of the body, and how it works, seeking to mislead people into joining their cult. After all, what possible harm could misinformation do to the body?
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness regards the possessing of information as something of a handicap in people. It tells them that it's harder to be happy if you know lots of things, and discourages learning through social pressures and the popularizing of the word "whatever." It also fills the world with mindless, shiny distractions, in a deliberate effort to keep people from learning, because the moment people fill their heads with knowledge, they begin to realize just how wrong-headed both of these cults are.
-----
5. With Regard to Hopes, Dreams and Aspirations
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body seeks to crush any hopes that imply there is something in life other than the body (such as God and eternal life.) It makes up excuses for why we can't dream of anything non-physical (and thus non-bodily,) and perhaps most damagingly, it tells people that it's arrogant to have any aspirations except for the health of their bodies and the bodies of others. You see, people have a lot of hopes, dreams and aspirations in their lives. Some want to make money. Some want to become carpenters. Some want to visit Rome, etc... However, none of these dreams or hopes are proper to the body -as such.- Therefore, the cult of the body seeks to discourage them.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness discourages all the same things that the cult of the body does in this area, but for a different reason. Namely, it discourages large hopes, big dreams and massive aspirations, -simply because they're large, big and massive.- The cult of smallness hates things that are large, and that includes dreams and hopes. So, like the cult of the body, it will tell people that they're arrogant and foolish to even consider such things.
-----
6. With Regard to Passions
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body seeks to reduce all passions to something that the body can do, or to natural urges that the body has. In other words, it seeks to explain all passions as a desire for some form of food, drink, sleep, sex, etc, because these are all natural urges that the body has, which do NOT imply the existence of the human mind or soul.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness insists that all passions be small. It does this through a false philosophy; relativism. The fact of the matter is; you -cannot- be a relativist, and also have strong passions. The moment your passions become strong enough to take some form of action, your relativism would say "no. Who am I to judge? Their way is just as valid as my way." Then, you'd stomp on your passions until they were nearly or completely extinguished. This method of diminishing the passions of mankind en masse has proven quite effective, and the cult of smallness uses it to this day.
-----
7. With Regard to Self-Image
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body obsesses over the "perfection" and "health" of the body, and because of this, will put to scorn anyone whose self-image doesn't depend on physical "health" or "perfection," particularly if that person seems to be allowing their body to slide into "unhealthiness" or "imperfection." If your self-image is not, in this sense, based on your body, the cult of the body is displeased.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness agrees with the cult of the body in that self-image should be mainly body-based, since that's the smallest kind of self-image that one could possibly have. However, in addition, it denounces every form of self-image that sees the self as special, or particularly good in some way as being arrogant and evil. This leads inevitably to the next problem.
-----
8. With Regard to Origins & Destiny
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body is only concerned with the origins and destiny of -the body,- and will put to scorn anyone who has any concern for the origins or destiny of anything else about man, since after all, the soul, the mind, the spirit; those things aren't the body, and we -must- worship the body if we belong to the cult of the body.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness actually goes further than the cult of the body in this. Not only does it reject the origins/destiny of any human dimension other than the body, it insists that those origins, and that destiny be as minimal and unimpressive as possible. For example, insisting that human beings are the sons of primates, and destined to be eaten by worms and go out of existence.
-----
9. With Regard to Human Value
A. The Cult of the Body
In the cult of the body, you simply -are- your body, so you have no value unless your body has value, and any value you -do- have is -solely- the value of your body. Because of this, the cult of the body strongly encourages lust and sex-mindedness, since these things focus the attention on the body, and on its value alone.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness is mainly concerned with diminishing the value of human beings as much as possible; to convince us that we're all animals, and we have no rights, or responsibilities, or values beyond those that an animal would have. They even try to claim that certain types of people (like the unborn,) have no value at all, and as long as that type of person doesn't resemble a perfect body, this doesn't generally get them into trouble with the cult of the body.
-----
10. With Regard to Loyalty and Honesty
A. The Cult of the Body
Loyalty and honesty have no basis in the body alone, except -very- indirectly, as a means to keep others from stabbing -you- in the back too, and thus -sort of- promoting your continued good health. Still, that kind of thinking and planning ahead requires something other than just a body, so the cult of the body tends to discourage, or at least downplay the importance of these things.
B. The Cult of Smallness
Loyalty and honesty make it possible for people to unite into large groups, over issues important to them. The cult of smallness sees the word "large" in that sentence and has a knee-jerk reaction against it as a result. In addition to this, they tend to react badly to anything that would threaten to extend the dimensions of the human person beyond their bare minimum, and that includes social obligations like being loyal or honest.
-----
11. With Regard to Self-Discipline
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body believes in self-discipline, but only selectively. One may, in their view, practice it for the purpose of promoting the health and appearance of one's body, but not for anything that builds character, since "character" implies something is there, other than the body.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness doesn't really believe in self-discipline, seeing it as a means of increasing human nature beyond its bare minimum, and therefore an unwelcome thing. However, they generally don't say that out loud, because they don't want to get into a complicated fight with the cult of the body.
-----
12. With Regard to Moral Character
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body has a code of honor which it follows -very- rigidly. Anything which harms the body in any way, or prevents the body from being "perfect," is evil and must never be done. Anything which helps the body to live longer/more perfectly/in better health/more "pretty," is not only a good thing, but a -necessary- thing, which we're -obligated- to do. They then -call- this "morality." If you disagree, the cult of the body will oppose you.
Interestingly, there are areas in which the cult of the body has been forced to develop strange dogmas on this score, which the cult of smallness simply ignores. For example, when a homosexual person has sex with someone of the same gender, and contracts an STD because of it, they don't generally view this as immoral, even though it harms the body. I believe this is because it forces them to choose between two factors; the bodies of two people participating in a revealing, bodily act, which this cult adores, and the causing of harm to a human body, which they don't adore. In this kind of situation, it's often easier to just ignore the connection between these two things than to make a tough choice like this one (requiring non-bodily thinking,) so that's precisely what the cult of the body does for these allegedly tough issues.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness views all morals and ethics, and indeed, all sense of these things, as a means of increasing human nature beyond its bare minimum, and therefore, as unpleasant and unwelcome. This is the principle difference between these two cults, as neither is willing to accommodate the other. Yet, for some reason, even people belonging to -both- don't seem to realize this, or feel conflicted. They just flit schizophrenically from one view to the other, and back again.
-----
13. With Regard to Faith
A. The Cult of the Body
Not only does the cult of the body deny matters of faith, as they're outside of the body, and thus forbidden, it actually denies, in some instances, that we can have faith at all. Faith, after all, is not a function of bodies. However, they tend to get more worked up over this than they would otherwise, because of the fact that it's a bur in the saddle of the cult of smallness.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness -despises- faith, and in particular, religion, because these things add -tons- of dimensions to the human person, and are -intensely- complex. Theology, in particular, is more complex, in some ways, than -any- other field of study, because it pertains to, and requires knowledge of all the others. Because of this, the cult of smallness will oppose religion and faith, doing everything in their power to tear it down, weaken it, wear away at it; just stop it somehow every chance they get.
-----
Given that these two cults are doing their utmost to diminish and impoverish every aspect of human life, I think it behooves us to ask ourselves; are we part of these secularist regimes? Do we ever participate in these cults?
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Orthodoxy
By G. K. Chesterton
Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5
I've given most books by G.K. Chesterton high marks in the past, because I like his wit, and frankly, his orthodoxy. I was also impressed by his sharp understanding of the errors in the thinking of the time in which he lived, and his talent for humor and rhetoric, and especially his admiration of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who single-handedly saved me from a ten-year run of agnosticism.
Nevertheless, sometimes, his prose gets decidedly purple; more so than is good for it. I just don't complain about it because he uses the prose to outline some very clear and provable truth.
Orthodoxy, though considered by many to be Chesterton's magnum opus, is, in fact, one of my least favorite of his books, and the main reason is that he demonstrates so clearly that it is prejudices and preferences; not reason, on which his view of the world rests.
I'm sorry to have to say this, because we share so much in common, but in the early parts of the book, Chesterton begins saying that he is assuming that he's speaking to people who want the world to be dramatic and romantic, rather than a system. He starts talking about lessons that he learned from classic fairy tales, and about the joys in monotony that babies seem to experience, and none of this has anything to do with logic or reason. If I could ask Chesterton about these passages, I would put it in this way.
"Suppose that you met a person who had never heard any of the old fairy tales, never heard a poem or a song, and discovered joy, only in those rare instances in which he was victorious over something. How would you defend your world view to this person? What frame of reference would you use? What frame of reference would you -be able- to use?"
I fear things have gotten much worse since Chesterton's time, in that children no longer hear the instructive fairy tales, and no longer have much experience of the world outside their doors. Because of this, the process of "letting fresh air in," as Chesterton puts it; letting it into their thoughts is not so simple as reminding them of their childhood. Their childhood, very often, did not contain any recognition of the things that make life worth living.
However, as the book progresses, Chesterton extends this problem, making aesthetic claims as though they were truth claims.
In chapter 4, he claims that we should be grateful for snow being white, because it could have been black, and for roses being red because they could have been blue. The problem is, I don't see any reason to agree with him on this, simply because my aesthetics differ from his. Aesthetics are not objective statements, but expressions of how certain stimuli make one feel. If white snow and red roses make him happy, then good for him, but this is not a statement of fact, nor is it constant for everyone. I, for example, love red roses, but would -prefer- black snow to white. I just dislike the color white. It provokes unpleasant emotions in me. So what? That proves nothing, and for the most part, it effects none of the choices I make, simply because I choose not to let it.
In the same chapter, he seems to praise monotony, or at least, to claim that it's better, since small babies seem to enjoy it so much. Then, he criticizes naturalism for being monotonous. Clearly there's a problem with this. I'd say monotony is the least of naturalism's problems, of which there are many.
Chapter 4, paragraph 31; Chesterton claims that people choose which emotions to have. This is false. People choose which emotions to -express,- but the emotions which you have are completely beyond your control.
He then goes -far- off topic, defending "smallness" as being inherently more lovable and romantic than "bigness," and again, using only personal sentiments as his evidence. Needless to say, I was unconvinced, and even somewhat angered, as it seems, to me, totally irrelevant to the subject of the book, and unlikely to provoke the reaction that he wishes. The fact that I personally find smallness repulsive, and bigness enchanting is a side issue, though it is, in fact, one of my primary reasons for being willing to listen to the gospel message of dying to this life in pursuit of the next; the pearl of great price is not worth pursuing because of its smallness.
Chesterton uses the last few paragraphs of chapter 4 to try to outline why the need to practice economics is a fun and romantic need, by comparing it to Robinson Crusoe being marooned on an island with only a few items surviving the shipwreck. However, there are several reasons why this comparison fails.
1. Sure, economics can be part of an adventure, but only when there seems to be some chance of losing, or of winning. Crusoe had the chance to do either, and that's what makes his experiences an "adventure."
2. Simply because something -can- be fun, it doesn't follow that it -will- be. I doubt that Crusoe thought it was very much fun being shipwrecked, regardless of how much we may enjoy reading about his escapades from a safe, warm armchair, which brings me to the next reason.
3. There is a difference between fantasy and reality. We may have great fun watching a movie about a boxer who's badly injured in a fight, and has to work his way back to the top, but that doesn't mean that it would be fun to -be- badly injured, or that bad injuries are somehow good because of this.
4. Even if something -is- fun, it doesn't follow that it's in any way related to drama or romance, or even to risk. If you can appreciate having small tools at your disposal for large tasks, you can also appreciate having large tools for even larger tasks.
5. None of this is relevent. It's all subjective aesthetics, which we don't all share, and since that's the whole message in this case, if you don't already share his aesthetics, you won't get his message.
Chapter 5 opens with a cursory glance at the concepts of pessimism and optimism, which, unfortunately, he gets completely wrong. He remarks that he thinks optimists are people who think everything is good except pessimists, and pessimists are people who think everything is bad except themselves. Again; problems.
1. Many optimists (and pessimists) think that pessimists are good.
2. Many pessimists -loath- themselves.
3. Pessimism and optimism, even as abstractions, are not about whether you think things are good or bad. Rather, they're about how often you -dwell on- the things that you think are good, versus the ones you think are bad. A man may recognize that his neighbors never talk to him, except to scorn, that his government is run by a tyrant, than the businesses that surround him are all using their money for evil purposes, and that he himself is friendless, relationless, childless and destitute, and yet, still be an optimist, because he comforts himself by reminding himself of the things that -are not- horrible, even if those things are mere dreams.
4. Pessimism and optimism are not real people-types. They're abstractions invented by psychologists to try to keep track of trends in psychology. It would be a mistake to assume that any human being is a -pure- optimist or a -pure- pessimist.
5. Again, what does this have to do with philosophy? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Next comes the point where Chesterton begins to speak as though we have some obligation to be loyal to the universe, by our very nature. This sounds suspiciously like "My universe, right or wrong," which he seems to admit later, strangely. Then, in Chapter 5, Paragraph 6, he launches a broadside attack against pessimists, claiming them to be "candid friends." This is clearly not always true, since often, pessimists will be very candid about -not- being your friend, especially when you criticize them for being pessimists.
He becomes more and more derogatory towards pessimists as the chapter continues, calling them traitors to the universe and the like. It's just garbage by this point. None of this has anything to do with sanity or philosophy. He's just coming down on his least favorite type of personality. For example, he claims that pessimists don't love the things they chastise. I know for fact this is not true of all pessimists. Frankly, I expected better.
Next, Chesterton defines the difference between "good" and "bad" optimism; that bad optimism leads to laziness and complacence, while good optimism leads to eager action. It's an important point to make, and I'm glad he made it, but in a way, it also serves to further outline his mistakes regarding pessimism. After all, if optimism can motivate a person well or badly, why can't pessimism do the same? Why is it only optimism which has a "good" version, while all pessimists are lumped into the same pile?
However, midway through chapter 6 (paragraph 16,) Chesterton begins defending the faith again, and the book picks up! He includes several brilliant examples of accusations thrown at the church, and how they contradict one another, as well as a fantastic interpretation of the "lion will lay down with the lamb" passage in paragraph 27, which seems to imply that there's room for more than one type of personality in Christianity, in defiance of his previous remarks.
However, it doesn't last, and by the end of chapter 7, he's singing the praises of levity again, and trying to claim that the saints would back him up (I can think of at least a dozen of the great saints of the Church who were as serious-minded as IRS agents.) If he wants to claim that the faith has plenty of room for those who don't take themselves too seriously, I would say that claim is true, but the way he's talking, it almost sounds as though serious individuals have little or no place in the kingdom of God. I hope I don't need to explain why that's false.
Nevertheless, Chapter 8 opens up, and once again, we're back to strong critiques of anti-Christian arguments, then in Chapter 9, arguments for why doubt is unjustified in the case of belief in God. These chapters are -really good.-
I guess my conclusion with regard to the book is a sort of "halfway" conclusion. It gets points just for being orthodox, but I have to say that I think the book meandered somewhat between legitimate defenses of the faith, and irrelevant aesthetics, with which I very much disagree. Statements of aesthetics and outlook (positive vs. negative) are not matters of faith or morals, and don't really matter when it comes to believing in God, or being a Christian. As long as you take it in that context, I can't imagine this book's "low points" doing you any harm, and I do recommend the other half of it, because, as I said, the "high points" are -very- high.
Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5
I've given most books by G.K. Chesterton high marks in the past, because I like his wit, and frankly, his orthodoxy. I was also impressed by his sharp understanding of the errors in the thinking of the time in which he lived, and his talent for humor and rhetoric, and especially his admiration of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who single-handedly saved me from a ten-year run of agnosticism.
Nevertheless, sometimes, his prose gets decidedly purple; more so than is good for it. I just don't complain about it because he uses the prose to outline some very clear and provable truth.
Orthodoxy, though considered by many to be Chesterton's magnum opus, is, in fact, one of my least favorite of his books, and the main reason is that he demonstrates so clearly that it is prejudices and preferences; not reason, on which his view of the world rests.
I'm sorry to have to say this, because we share so much in common, but in the early parts of the book, Chesterton begins saying that he is assuming that he's speaking to people who want the world to be dramatic and romantic, rather than a system. He starts talking about lessons that he learned from classic fairy tales, and about the joys in monotony that babies seem to experience, and none of this has anything to do with logic or reason. If I could ask Chesterton about these passages, I would put it in this way.
"Suppose that you met a person who had never heard any of the old fairy tales, never heard a poem or a song, and discovered joy, only in those rare instances in which he was victorious over something. How would you defend your world view to this person? What frame of reference would you use? What frame of reference would you -be able- to use?"
I fear things have gotten much worse since Chesterton's time, in that children no longer hear the instructive fairy tales, and no longer have much experience of the world outside their doors. Because of this, the process of "letting fresh air in," as Chesterton puts it; letting it into their thoughts is not so simple as reminding them of their childhood. Their childhood, very often, did not contain any recognition of the things that make life worth living.
However, as the book progresses, Chesterton extends this problem, making aesthetic claims as though they were truth claims.
In chapter 4, he claims that we should be grateful for snow being white, because it could have been black, and for roses being red because they could have been blue. The problem is, I don't see any reason to agree with him on this, simply because my aesthetics differ from his. Aesthetics are not objective statements, but expressions of how certain stimuli make one feel. If white snow and red roses make him happy, then good for him, but this is not a statement of fact, nor is it constant for everyone. I, for example, love red roses, but would -prefer- black snow to white. I just dislike the color white. It provokes unpleasant emotions in me. So what? That proves nothing, and for the most part, it effects none of the choices I make, simply because I choose not to let it.
In the same chapter, he seems to praise monotony, or at least, to claim that it's better, since small babies seem to enjoy it so much. Then, he criticizes naturalism for being monotonous. Clearly there's a problem with this. I'd say monotony is the least of naturalism's problems, of which there are many.
Chapter 4, paragraph 31; Chesterton claims that people choose which emotions to have. This is false. People choose which emotions to -express,- but the emotions which you have are completely beyond your control.
He then goes -far- off topic, defending "smallness" as being inherently more lovable and romantic than "bigness," and again, using only personal sentiments as his evidence. Needless to say, I was unconvinced, and even somewhat angered, as it seems, to me, totally irrelevant to the subject of the book, and unlikely to provoke the reaction that he wishes. The fact that I personally find smallness repulsive, and bigness enchanting is a side issue, though it is, in fact, one of my primary reasons for being willing to listen to the gospel message of dying to this life in pursuit of the next; the pearl of great price is not worth pursuing because of its smallness.
Chesterton uses the last few paragraphs of chapter 4 to try to outline why the need to practice economics is a fun and romantic need, by comparing it to Robinson Crusoe being marooned on an island with only a few items surviving the shipwreck. However, there are several reasons why this comparison fails.
1. Sure, economics can be part of an adventure, but only when there seems to be some chance of losing, or of winning. Crusoe had the chance to do either, and that's what makes his experiences an "adventure."
2. Simply because something -can- be fun, it doesn't follow that it -will- be. I doubt that Crusoe thought it was very much fun being shipwrecked, regardless of how much we may enjoy reading about his escapades from a safe, warm armchair, which brings me to the next reason.
3. There is a difference between fantasy and reality. We may have great fun watching a movie about a boxer who's badly injured in a fight, and has to work his way back to the top, but that doesn't mean that it would be fun to -be- badly injured, or that bad injuries are somehow good because of this.
4. Even if something -is- fun, it doesn't follow that it's in any way related to drama or romance, or even to risk. If you can appreciate having small tools at your disposal for large tasks, you can also appreciate having large tools for even larger tasks.
5. None of this is relevent. It's all subjective aesthetics, which we don't all share, and since that's the whole message in this case, if you don't already share his aesthetics, you won't get his message.
Chapter 5 opens with a cursory glance at the concepts of pessimism and optimism, which, unfortunately, he gets completely wrong. He remarks that he thinks optimists are people who think everything is good except pessimists, and pessimists are people who think everything is bad except themselves. Again; problems.
1. Many optimists (and pessimists) think that pessimists are good.
2. Many pessimists -loath- themselves.
3. Pessimism and optimism, even as abstractions, are not about whether you think things are good or bad. Rather, they're about how often you -dwell on- the things that you think are good, versus the ones you think are bad. A man may recognize that his neighbors never talk to him, except to scorn, that his government is run by a tyrant, than the businesses that surround him are all using their money for evil purposes, and that he himself is friendless, relationless, childless and destitute, and yet, still be an optimist, because he comforts himself by reminding himself of the things that -are not- horrible, even if those things are mere dreams.
4. Pessimism and optimism are not real people-types. They're abstractions invented by psychologists to try to keep track of trends in psychology. It would be a mistake to assume that any human being is a -pure- optimist or a -pure- pessimist.
5. Again, what does this have to do with philosophy? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Next comes the point where Chesterton begins to speak as though we have some obligation to be loyal to the universe, by our very nature. This sounds suspiciously like "My universe, right or wrong," which he seems to admit later, strangely. Then, in Chapter 5, Paragraph 6, he launches a broadside attack against pessimists, claiming them to be "candid friends." This is clearly not always true, since often, pessimists will be very candid about -not- being your friend, especially when you criticize them for being pessimists.
He becomes more and more derogatory towards pessimists as the chapter continues, calling them traitors to the universe and the like. It's just garbage by this point. None of this has anything to do with sanity or philosophy. He's just coming down on his least favorite type of personality. For example, he claims that pessimists don't love the things they chastise. I know for fact this is not true of all pessimists. Frankly, I expected better.
Next, Chesterton defines the difference between "good" and "bad" optimism; that bad optimism leads to laziness and complacence, while good optimism leads to eager action. It's an important point to make, and I'm glad he made it, but in a way, it also serves to further outline his mistakes regarding pessimism. After all, if optimism can motivate a person well or badly, why can't pessimism do the same? Why is it only optimism which has a "good" version, while all pessimists are lumped into the same pile?
However, midway through chapter 6 (paragraph 16,) Chesterton begins defending the faith again, and the book picks up! He includes several brilliant examples of accusations thrown at the church, and how they contradict one another, as well as a fantastic interpretation of the "lion will lay down with the lamb" passage in paragraph 27, which seems to imply that there's room for more than one type of personality in Christianity, in defiance of his previous remarks.
However, it doesn't last, and by the end of chapter 7, he's singing the praises of levity again, and trying to claim that the saints would back him up (I can think of at least a dozen of the great saints of the Church who were as serious-minded as IRS agents.) If he wants to claim that the faith has plenty of room for those who don't take themselves too seriously, I would say that claim is true, but the way he's talking, it almost sounds as though serious individuals have little or no place in the kingdom of God. I hope I don't need to explain why that's false.
Nevertheless, Chapter 8 opens up, and once again, we're back to strong critiques of anti-Christian arguments, then in Chapter 9, arguments for why doubt is unjustified in the case of belief in God. These chapters are -really good.-
I guess my conclusion with regard to the book is a sort of "halfway" conclusion. It gets points just for being orthodox, but I have to say that I think the book meandered somewhat between legitimate defenses of the faith, and irrelevant aesthetics, with which I very much disagree. Statements of aesthetics and outlook (positive vs. negative) are not matters of faith or morals, and don't really matter when it comes to believing in God, or being a Christian. As long as you take it in that context, I can't imagine this book's "low points" doing you any harm, and I do recommend the other half of it, because, as I said, the "high points" are -very- high.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Heresy
By Michael Coren
Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
I very much enjoyed Coren's last book; Why Catholics Are Right, and I highly recommend that book, as it delivered precisely what it claimed to; giving a strong defense of the Catholic Church, both in teachings and in history.
However, although I enjoyed this book too, it's very different from "Why Catholics Are Right" in two essential ways.
First, unlike "Why Catholics Are Right," the book's title doesn't describe what's actually in the book. I don't just mean that the book doesn't contain heresy, of course. I mean that it doesn't discuss heresy, and doesn't talk about what heresy is, nor does it provide any historical information about past heresies and how they're all resurfacing today, despite having been proved false long ago.
The second part of the title is more relevant to the contents of the actual book; "Ten lies they spread about Christianity." However, even this is not quite right. There are ten chapters, each with a broad topic, but the individual lies addressed here number far more than ten, all told.
The second thing that makes this book noticably different from "Why Catholics Are Right," is the shift of focus off the Catholic Church, and onto "all people who believed that Jesus is God."
I mind this somewhat more than I would from a non-Catholic author like C.S. Lewis. As obligated as we are to reach out to those who've become separated from the church, I've always had a problem with this tendency to lump all Christians together, as if we were all one group. It doesn't make Coren's statements any less true, but there's something bittersweet about this style of writing.
Again, I can't find any claim in this book that I really disagree with, nor anything which a normal Joe with an internet connection can't verify for himself with maybe fifteen seconds worth of work, but then, I'm sure that won't stop certain people from decrying it as trash, because they're emotionally-invested in God not existing.
The main subjects of the book are the historical evidence for Jesus being a real person, the traditional atheist arguments, like the argument from evil and so on, the historical blunders of the Da Vinci Code (rather an old chestnut by now, but appreciated nonetheless,) the notion that Christians are in some way less intelligent than Atheists, the proposition that Hitler was Christian, the bunk about Christianity supporting slavery, opposing science or progress, the real Christian stance on the life issues, and a few others issues put together in the last chapter. This is the collection of lies that Michael Coren has decided to refute, and done pretty well at, although my favorite chapters are the last two, just as reference material.
Coren does make one remark at the start of the book about how we can't really prove our faith for certain, which I very much disagree with, and another few remarks about the place of Christians in society later on, which, while technically correct, are worded somewhat weakly. Still, it's a decent book, and if you're under any illusions about Christianity not being an essential component for civilized society, you might want to give it a look.
Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
I very much enjoyed Coren's last book; Why Catholics Are Right, and I highly recommend that book, as it delivered precisely what it claimed to; giving a strong defense of the Catholic Church, both in teachings and in history.
However, although I enjoyed this book too, it's very different from "Why Catholics Are Right" in two essential ways.
First, unlike "Why Catholics Are Right," the book's title doesn't describe what's actually in the book. I don't just mean that the book doesn't contain heresy, of course. I mean that it doesn't discuss heresy, and doesn't talk about what heresy is, nor does it provide any historical information about past heresies and how they're all resurfacing today, despite having been proved false long ago.
The second part of the title is more relevant to the contents of the actual book; "Ten lies they spread about Christianity." However, even this is not quite right. There are ten chapters, each with a broad topic, but the individual lies addressed here number far more than ten, all told.
The second thing that makes this book noticably different from "Why Catholics Are Right," is the shift of focus off the Catholic Church, and onto "all people who believed that Jesus is God."
I mind this somewhat more than I would from a non-Catholic author like C.S. Lewis. As obligated as we are to reach out to those who've become separated from the church, I've always had a problem with this tendency to lump all Christians together, as if we were all one group. It doesn't make Coren's statements any less true, but there's something bittersweet about this style of writing.
Again, I can't find any claim in this book that I really disagree with, nor anything which a normal Joe with an internet connection can't verify for himself with maybe fifteen seconds worth of work, but then, I'm sure that won't stop certain people from decrying it as trash, because they're emotionally-invested in God not existing.
The main subjects of the book are the historical evidence for Jesus being a real person, the traditional atheist arguments, like the argument from evil and so on, the historical blunders of the Da Vinci Code (rather an old chestnut by now, but appreciated nonetheless,) the notion that Christians are in some way less intelligent than Atheists, the proposition that Hitler was Christian, the bunk about Christianity supporting slavery, opposing science or progress, the real Christian stance on the life issues, and a few others issues put together in the last chapter. This is the collection of lies that Michael Coren has decided to refute, and done pretty well at, although my favorite chapters are the last two, just as reference material.
Coren does make one remark at the start of the book about how we can't really prove our faith for certain, which I very much disagree with, and another few remarks about the place of Christians in society later on, which, while technically correct, are worded somewhat weakly. Still, it's a decent book, and if you're under any illusions about Christianity not being an essential component for civilized society, you might want to give it a look.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
St Bernadette of Lourdes
Unrated
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
I generally consider it unwise to do a movie with a cast of -only- children. Occasionally, there's a child actor who knows what they're doing, but most of the time, people just don't have any faith in all-child casts, and so, a film like this one would wind up with very poor sets or costume-design, or with several lousy shots, which could have been done over, to make them look better, and while I will admit that many of the children in this movie are clearly reading from cue-cards, I was surprised by just how many of the key players in the piece were convincing.
Bernadette, to start with, and the skeptic, the priest, and although he played a somewhat cliche part, I though the police commissioner did a fine job acting it out. Some actors were truly bad, and others just average, but there were just enough good ones, and in the right places, that the movie is enjoyable nonetheless.
As for the rest, I was genuinely shocked by how good the costumes and sets were. For the most part, they actually looked convincing, which is hard to do when you're dressing kids up as military guards or saracens. I was particularly impressed with the scene, near the very beginning, of dozens of kids, all dressed up as saracen invaders and Charlemagne's troops, charging each other from either side of a field, and battling it out as best they could. Clearly, some significant manpower, and expense for costuming was needed to put just that one scene together, and it wasn't lost on me.
There is a narrator, but only briefly at the beginning and end of the film, so I didn't mind him so much. What surprised me, though, was that while there is humor in the movie from time to time, it doesn't generally play up the humor of having an all-child cast, preferring to play the story almost completely straight, regardless, and here's the weird part; it actually does a pretty good job of that.
The sight of kids in nun outfits, or wearing soldier's uniforms did throw me off just a bit, but not as much as I might have expected it to. I'd like to give it a slightly-less-than-perfect grade, but to be honest, it's amazing they were able to do so much with the cast they had. I was very impressed, overall.
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
I generally consider it unwise to do a movie with a cast of -only- children. Occasionally, there's a child actor who knows what they're doing, but most of the time, people just don't have any faith in all-child casts, and so, a film like this one would wind up with very poor sets or costume-design, or with several lousy shots, which could have been done over, to make them look better, and while I will admit that many of the children in this movie are clearly reading from cue-cards, I was surprised by just how many of the key players in the piece were convincing.
Bernadette, to start with, and the skeptic, the priest, and although he played a somewhat cliche part, I though the police commissioner did a fine job acting it out. Some actors were truly bad, and others just average, but there were just enough good ones, and in the right places, that the movie is enjoyable nonetheless.
As for the rest, I was genuinely shocked by how good the costumes and sets were. For the most part, they actually looked convincing, which is hard to do when you're dressing kids up as military guards or saracens. I was particularly impressed with the scene, near the very beginning, of dozens of kids, all dressed up as saracen invaders and Charlemagne's troops, charging each other from either side of a field, and battling it out as best they could. Clearly, some significant manpower, and expense for costuming was needed to put just that one scene together, and it wasn't lost on me.
There is a narrator, but only briefly at the beginning and end of the film, so I didn't mind him so much. What surprised me, though, was that while there is humor in the movie from time to time, it doesn't generally play up the humor of having an all-child cast, preferring to play the story almost completely straight, regardless, and here's the weird part; it actually does a pretty good job of that.
The sight of kids in nun outfits, or wearing soldier's uniforms did throw me off just a bit, but not as much as I might have expected it to. I'd like to give it a slightly-less-than-perfect grade, but to be honest, it's amazing they were able to do so much with the cast they had. I was very impressed, overall.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Saint Thomas Aquinas
By G. K. Chesterton
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
No, this book does not contain the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. It's merely a biography of him, written by none other than G. K. Chesterton; one of the finest writers whose work I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
Not too many distinct facts are actually known about Saint Thomas Aquinas, apart from his philosophy and theology; the teachings that he wrote and the things he believed and taught. Actual facts and legends about his life are few and far between, as Chesterton himself remarks, and while he faithfully reports them, they're hardly enough to fill a whole book.
Because of this, Chesterton fills the remainder of the book with observations on the scholarly opposition, history and political atmosphere of the time period, which Thomas Aquinas dealt with. He talks about the problems that he had to deal with and the issues that he resolved, and finally, how his masterworks of logic were forgotten and why.
Inevitably, Chesterton's personality and writing style intrude into the tale, as the tale itself is hardly told in a normal, narrative format. Chesterton was a sharp-witted man with a brilliant sense of humor.
However, I didn't enjoy this book as much as I might have, for two reasons, and regrettably, both have to do with the -way- in which it's written.
First, while Chesterton's wit is clear in the text, I'm afraid that I found many of his jokes to be less -funny- and more -ironic observations.- This is a minor issue at most, though, and my other problem with the book is more intrusive by far.
My second problem is that Chesterton just doesn't talk like a historian. He talks like he's describing the history of this saint to a bunch of his friends at a club; peppering it with analogies, comparisons and amusing anecdotes, and while, in discussion, I have no difficulty with this, it does make it a little harder to keep track of the point of the chapter, or of the paragraph, or to remember where Saint Thomas Aquinas was when we last left our hero. I just found it a little distracting.
Now, that's not to say it ruined the book for me. I certainly enjoyed it, and I agree with most of the points that Chesterton made; even in his comparisons. Frankly, I've never read a Chesterton book that I didn't, in some respects, enjoy (except for some of his fiction.) I -especially- like this book's accuracy and faithfulness to church teaching. Still, it wasn't without its problems. If you're not easily distracted, and you want to learn about this great doctor of the Church, then by all means, pick this book up. It's a fine book, and very enjoyable. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you enjoyed it even more than I did.
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
No, this book does not contain the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. It's merely a biography of him, written by none other than G. K. Chesterton; one of the finest writers whose work I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
Not too many distinct facts are actually known about Saint Thomas Aquinas, apart from his philosophy and theology; the teachings that he wrote and the things he believed and taught. Actual facts and legends about his life are few and far between, as Chesterton himself remarks, and while he faithfully reports them, they're hardly enough to fill a whole book.
Because of this, Chesterton fills the remainder of the book with observations on the scholarly opposition, history and political atmosphere of the time period, which Thomas Aquinas dealt with. He talks about the problems that he had to deal with and the issues that he resolved, and finally, how his masterworks of logic were forgotten and why.
Inevitably, Chesterton's personality and writing style intrude into the tale, as the tale itself is hardly told in a normal, narrative format. Chesterton was a sharp-witted man with a brilliant sense of humor.
However, I didn't enjoy this book as much as I might have, for two reasons, and regrettably, both have to do with the -way- in which it's written.
First, while Chesterton's wit is clear in the text, I'm afraid that I found many of his jokes to be less -funny- and more -ironic observations.- This is a minor issue at most, though, and my other problem with the book is more intrusive by far.
My second problem is that Chesterton just doesn't talk like a historian. He talks like he's describing the history of this saint to a bunch of his friends at a club; peppering it with analogies, comparisons and amusing anecdotes, and while, in discussion, I have no difficulty with this, it does make it a little harder to keep track of the point of the chapter, or of the paragraph, or to remember where Saint Thomas Aquinas was when we last left our hero. I just found it a little distracting.
Now, that's not to say it ruined the book for me. I certainly enjoyed it, and I agree with most of the points that Chesterton made; even in his comparisons. Frankly, I've never read a Chesterton book that I didn't, in some respects, enjoy (except for some of his fiction.) I -especially- like this book's accuracy and faithfulness to church teaching. Still, it wasn't without its problems. If you're not easily distracted, and you want to learn about this great doctor of the Church, then by all means, pick this book up. It's a fine book, and very enjoyable. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you enjoyed it even more than I did.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Two Suitcases
Unrated
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 0.5 of 5
I thought about just launching right into a normal critique of everything I did and didn't like, but really, there was one main thing I liked, and a lot of things I didn't like. For the sake of brevity, I'll mention the one thing I liked first, and then try to classify the problems in the next section.
Nothing in this film; and I mean -nothing at all,- contradicts actual history, scripture, or the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Now, on to the problems. Again, I could be brief and just say "everything else," but I think it would be better to divide these problems into categories, to make them easier to understand.
I've heard this film called a docu-drama. That's two categories right there. How does it fare as a documentary, and how does it fare as a drama?
The last category I'll want to look at is how the film stacks up to the -other- Bakhita move; the one that, in spite of its inaccuracies (it was a historical fiction,) I actually liked.
Category 1: Documentary.
Documentaries exist in order to provide people with a method of gaining information about a particular subject by watching a video. This is done without a lot of embellishment, in order to keep the focus on the information, which is what viewers of documentaries are after. They're not looking to be entertained. They want to know about the subject of the documentary. Therefore, documentaries succeed on the basis of whether they deliver -true- information, and whether they deliver -sufficient- information.
As I said, there's no question that this film delivers -true- information about Saint Bakhita. The problems arise when it comes to whether the information is -sufficient.- It's not. At all. All you find out here is that Bakhita was black, that she was raised in Africa, that she was captured by men as a slave, sold to other men as a slave, was repeatedly beaten and suffered, and eventually became a nun. Much more is known about her life than just this. This is only the barest skeleton of what happened to her, and it doesn't even say why she was canonized. As a documentary, this movie fails.
Category 2: Drama.
The greater part of the film is gobbled up by drama-like scenes of a Bakhita-obsessed nun and her brother, who didn't want her to join the convent. They go on a tour to places that were important for Bakhita, and in the process, the brother learns some kind of lesson, or something. What, precisely, he learns, and how is not sufficiently explained, however. He gets upset from time to time, but I wouldn't call it "drama."
"Drama" involves some kind of emotional scene taking place on screen; some sympathetic character going through something that's difficult for them. However, there are no sympathetic characters in this movie. I cared less and less about the nun and her brother as the film wore on, because all they talked about was Bakhita or things related to her, and you can't consider Saint Bakhita to be a sympathetic character in this movie, for the simple reason that -she's not in this movie.- As a drama, therefore, this movie fails.
Category 3: From Slave to Saint
The very-inaccurate movie "From Slave to Saint," is superior to this film in a lot of ways. It does drama exceptionally well, where this film does not, and tells an amazing story which, even though it was fiction, was still entertaining. There is really only one thing that this film could offer to surpass it, and that is information that the previous film left out; another chapter in Saint Bakhita's story. It could talk about Augusto Michieli and his wife and daughter. It could talk about the time she spent in the convent (something that the previous movie touched on very little,) or, perhaps most conspicuously, it could discuss that one elephant in the room; her forced conversion to Islam while she was a slave.
However, the movie doesn't do any of these things. No mention is made of Michieli, of Alice, of what she did in the convent, or worst of all, of Islam. What term do they use when describing those to whom she was sold? "A man." Care to be a little more specific, movie? We're waiting. Sorry, but... fail.
Conclusion
This is a very poorly-constructed and low-budget travelogue with stock footage and narration played over the rare instances where information is given about Bakhita. Even then, it's information that is -all- in "Bakhita; From Slave to Saint." My conclusion is this; just watch the other Bakhita movie instead. It will give you all the information you get here, and perhaps encourage you to read up on the real person, as it did for me. Besides, it's actually entertaining and well-written, and this simply is not.
My grade, however, will be lenient, because what little information it -does- put in is correct, for whatever that's worth.
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 0.5 of 5
I thought about just launching right into a normal critique of everything I did and didn't like, but really, there was one main thing I liked, and a lot of things I didn't like. For the sake of brevity, I'll mention the one thing I liked first, and then try to classify the problems in the next section.
Nothing in this film; and I mean -nothing at all,- contradicts actual history, scripture, or the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Now, on to the problems. Again, I could be brief and just say "everything else," but I think it would be better to divide these problems into categories, to make them easier to understand.
I've heard this film called a docu-drama. That's two categories right there. How does it fare as a documentary, and how does it fare as a drama?
The last category I'll want to look at is how the film stacks up to the -other- Bakhita move; the one that, in spite of its inaccuracies (it was a historical fiction,) I actually liked.
Category 1: Documentary.
Documentaries exist in order to provide people with a method of gaining information about a particular subject by watching a video. This is done without a lot of embellishment, in order to keep the focus on the information, which is what viewers of documentaries are after. They're not looking to be entertained. They want to know about the subject of the documentary. Therefore, documentaries succeed on the basis of whether they deliver -true- information, and whether they deliver -sufficient- information.
As I said, there's no question that this film delivers -true- information about Saint Bakhita. The problems arise when it comes to whether the information is -sufficient.- It's not. At all. All you find out here is that Bakhita was black, that she was raised in Africa, that she was captured by men as a slave, sold to other men as a slave, was repeatedly beaten and suffered, and eventually became a nun. Much more is known about her life than just this. This is only the barest skeleton of what happened to her, and it doesn't even say why she was canonized. As a documentary, this movie fails.
Category 2: Drama.
The greater part of the film is gobbled up by drama-like scenes of a Bakhita-obsessed nun and her brother, who didn't want her to join the convent. They go on a tour to places that were important for Bakhita, and in the process, the brother learns some kind of lesson, or something. What, precisely, he learns, and how is not sufficiently explained, however. He gets upset from time to time, but I wouldn't call it "drama."
"Drama" involves some kind of emotional scene taking place on screen; some sympathetic character going through something that's difficult for them. However, there are no sympathetic characters in this movie. I cared less and less about the nun and her brother as the film wore on, because all they talked about was Bakhita or things related to her, and you can't consider Saint Bakhita to be a sympathetic character in this movie, for the simple reason that -she's not in this movie.- As a drama, therefore, this movie fails.
Category 3: From Slave to Saint
The very-inaccurate movie "From Slave to Saint," is superior to this film in a lot of ways. It does drama exceptionally well, where this film does not, and tells an amazing story which, even though it was fiction, was still entertaining. There is really only one thing that this film could offer to surpass it, and that is information that the previous film left out; another chapter in Saint Bakhita's story. It could talk about Augusto Michieli and his wife and daughter. It could talk about the time she spent in the convent (something that the previous movie touched on very little,) or, perhaps most conspicuously, it could discuss that one elephant in the room; her forced conversion to Islam while she was a slave.
However, the movie doesn't do any of these things. No mention is made of Michieli, of Alice, of what she did in the convent, or worst of all, of Islam. What term do they use when describing those to whom she was sold? "A man." Care to be a little more specific, movie? We're waiting. Sorry, but... fail.
Conclusion
This is a very poorly-constructed and low-budget travelogue with stock footage and narration played over the rare instances where information is given about Bakhita. Even then, it's information that is -all- in "Bakhita; From Slave to Saint." My conclusion is this; just watch the other Bakhita movie instead. It will give you all the information you get here, and perhaps encourage you to read up on the real person, as it did for me. Besides, it's actually entertaining and well-written, and this simply is not.
My grade, however, will be lenient, because what little information it -does- put in is correct, for whatever that's worth.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
The Problem of Feminism
I decided to write this today, because I've had the subject of feminism brought to my attention, and I felt there was a lot about the subject that people just didn't understand, but which deserved to be looked at.
A lot of people today wave feminism as though it were a flag of inherent virtue. It's a widely-held philosophy today. However, the truth is that feminism has some pretty nasty problems, and it probably won't take long to explain what they are.
-----
1. Feminism, as a philosophy, does not focus on how to do the right thing.
This is a big one. The sad truth is that many of today's most popular philosophies are purely negative in nature. They will eagerly point out where people went wrong, but not how people should go right again.
In the case of feminism, this is -very- pronounced, since nothing seems to unite all feminists except opposition to "oppression of women," which is just an expression of what some people have done wrong if taken literally.
In practical terms, what this means is that feminism cannot inspire unity in its adherents, because there's nothing to unite around. Some claim that men are inferior, some don't. Some claim that women should be allowed to dress however they want, and some don't. Some are political activists, and some aren't. Some claim that abortion is a woman's right, and others, correctly, think this view is absurd and immoral.
The whole point of even -having- a philosophy is to learn the truth. What kind of truth can you learn when your philosophy divides people so much? This is problem number 1.
-----
2. Feminist philosophy recognizes no difference between "equality" and "sameness."
Another big one. If pressed, certain feminists will answer the first problem by saying "we believe in equality between women and men," even though many don't believe this. The problem is that being "equal" to men is not the same thing as being "the same" as men.
Roman Catholicism recognizes the fundamental equality between women and men; that each is a child of God, and therefore, each has equal value and equal human rights. Therefore, those who say they're feminists because they believe that women are people too should consider switching to a Roman Catholic view of philosophy.
However, what Catholicism does -not- teach is that women and men are the same. They are -not- the same. In fact, no person is the same as any other person, and therefore, while certain basic rights should be extended to women, as to men, it is ludicrous to suggest that each person should have the same opportunities. We simply don't, and that's how the world goes.
Professor Stephen Hawking will never have the opportunity to be a bodybuilder. My neice will never have the opportunity to lift a thousand pounds. I will never have the opportunity to walk on the moon. My grandfather will never have the opportunity to be young again (at least in this life.) Yet, these are opportunities which -others- have, no matter how badly we might wish we had them. We're not all the same. Life's tough.
Yet, feminism recognizes no difference between being of -equal worth,- and being -the same in terms of the opportunities that one is afforded by society.- These things -are not- the same, and therefore, feminist philosophy has a large problem here. If you blame every difference in society between women and men on inequality, you simply have a wrong understanding of what it means to be equal.
-----
3. Many feminists and feminist leaders give feminism a bad name.
This comes, really, in two flavors. First is the fact that many; perhaps most leaders in the feminist movement are radicals with little or no respect for men. Many have even been quoted as saying that men are inferior, worthless or pathetic by comparison to women, and -most- support some kind of intrinsic evil, such as the scourges of abortion and/or contraception, or the absurdity of women priests.
The second flavor is that many feminists are kind of ignorant with regards to how governments are supposed to work. By this I mean that they often expect -the government- to provide the missing opportunities discussed at the end of problem 2, and this is not the job of the government. The government receives its funding from the people as a whole; the -commonwealth,- and is supposed to use it to promote -the common good.- Not the interests of pushy lobbying groups representing minorities.
"But women aren't a minority!" You might say. Yes, that's certainly true, but self-professed feminists are. Make of that what you will. In either case, many feminists and feminist leaders give the movement a bad name.
-----
4. Feminism has a tunnel-vision understanding of women's history.
Though feminists will claim to support "women's history month," they will almost always use it to discuss poor, downtrodden women who were oppressed by rich, white guys sometime within the last hundred years, and rebelled. Almost never will you hear about Cleopatra, or Joan of Arc, or Eleanor of Aquitaine. There's a reason for this, which I'll explain in a moment.
The true history of women in the world is that in most nations up to the time of Jesus, women generally were given very little respect. Barbaric nations bought and sold women like cattle, and this was especially obvious in societies that claimed to respect law, such as ancient Rome, where the wife of the governer wasn't permitted to even voice an opinion on matters of state, and Jerusalem, where the testimony of women was considered inadequate in court. Pretty much the only way that a woman could attain power was by being born royalty in the absence of a brother.
Suddenly, along comes Christianity, and for the first time, people are told that all men and women have equal worth in the eyes of God, and that they should strive to treat each other as equals. Everything changed after that.
Some people still chose to treat women as inferiors, but all of a sudden, it wasn't the status quo anymore. You could treat your wife with respect and honor, and single women could work for money without being looked down upon for it. There were still certain jobs that women were badly-suited for, thanks to their weaker upper bodies, but by no means was it normal to see them as inferior and useless.
This continued until rather recently. European (and thus American) upper classes began to have less worries about what Rome would think after the dawn of protestantism, and therefore, less fear of imposing their will on the lower classes. They developed stuffy standards of etiquette by which certain types of activities and work just "weren't womanly," and this same reasoning was applied to industrialized work and voting over the course of the last century; the use of a popular custom to try to justify excluding women from things for which some of them were perfeclty-qualified, just because they were women.
Whether you agree that women should work in industrial manufacturing, or whether you agree that they should vote, the fact was that there was tremendous opposition to these things in the popular mindset, until about the dawn of the second world war.
At that time, men were going off to war, and women were needed to comprise the manufacturing workforce. Rosie the Riveter was created to encourage women to do hard, industrial work, manufacturing supplies and ammunition for the troops, yet, there was no real controversy about it. Men were doing something, and women were doing something. Everyone was working to help their nation as best they could, and when the war ended, so did that.
Women were laid off or had their pay docked by the thousands after the ending of the war, and while some women agreed to take the lower-paying jobs, or to return home and find other work, many realized that this was a serious problem, which needed a serious solution. This is where feminism began.
The feminist movement, as it exists today, started out as an attempt to correct this discrimination against women in the workforce, and soon, women were working in office jobs and doing industrial work again. It was a success. It had worked. However, the leaders in the feminist movement, for whatever reason, decided not to take advantage of this success, and instead keep doing what they'd been doing for a while; telling people that women were being oppressed, and that they were needed to correct it.
While there are still cases of women being oppressed, the story told by modern feminists is very different from the one you would have heard in the late 50s. The modern feminist remembers the ancient societies, which treated women like dirt, and the American 1950s, in which women were universally expected to be homemakers and nothing else, then just skips over the rest of human history. They skip over all of Christianity, and the progress that it brought to the relationship between men and women in those times among the poor, since after all, the poor didn't write it down. They skip over the more recent successes in women's suffrage and office jobs, because that would mean that the feminist lobbyist should be laid off, and you know they're not going to do that to themselves.
This is done for a reason. By concealing the role of Catholicism in improving the rights of women throughout the last two millenia, the feminist makes feminism look like the only bright spot in thousands of years of misogyny; the only ones who ever let women do any work in all of human history. However, that's a rather transparent lie. They're not the only bright spot, and they -certainly- are not the only ones who ever let women work. Women have always worked; especially poor women, who are always in the majority. They just didn't do the same work as men (plowing, smithing, masonry,) because it was too strenuous or backbreaking. This only became a matter of discrimination during the industrial revolution, when work of that sort became less common, and all of this is a -very- recent development.
Feminism simply doesn't speak the truth about history, and this is a big problem with it.
-----
5. Modern feminism, as a cause, is mere sex-based factiousness.
I hesitate to say this, because I don't like to make broad, sweeping statements, but if you take a look at any major feminist institution, and then at what they support, you will find that they will support anything that seems like a cause for "helping women," and oppose anything that seems like it might increase the rights of men. They also oppose things which really -do- help women, like forbidding them to have abortions.
The reason I use the qualifier "as a cause," is that many people who consider themselves feminists are not associated with or involved in any of these organisations, nor have they even heard of many of them. Still, these groups do exist, and they have a lot of support from feminists. There's simply no excuse for that. In just a few decades, these groups have turned a legitimate request for fair jobs and a greater role in society, into a gaggle of lobbying groups, united by radical sexism.
I can appreciate the need of feminists to support the rights of women. In fact, I agree with it. However, you can't support rights by encouraging evil.
-----
6. Feminists base their understanding of morality on what they believe the world owes women.
This is the last big problem, but in my view, the biggest one. Our understanding of morality needs to be based on the value of the human person, and their human rights. Those rights are life, bodily integrity, certain social and cultural liberties, personal respect, freedom to seek truth, freedom of moral speech, choice in terms of what one does for a living (within ethical guidelines,) truthful information, gaining an education from our society, opportunity for some form of great responsibility for the gifted, correct worship of God, free discussion of religion, choice between raising a family or remaining celibate, the right to educate one's own children, to work on our own initiative, in the kinds of work we're suited for, in exchange for a just wage, the right to private property, to meet with each other, form groups, set non-immoral goals for those groups, and criteria under which people can join, the right to live in our own country, or move to another, and finally, to participate in the wellbeing of our society. Those are -all- the rights that human beings have, and they are the same for women as they are for men.
Feminism in the modern age, however, doesn't accept any concrete list of rights as valid, because that would involve setting a goal which, when it was reached, would necessitate the dissolving of the feminist movement. Instead, they make up new "rights" out of wholecloth whenever a woman wants something, with the most bitter examples being abortion and women clergy. No woman has any right to kill another human being because she feels like it, or to tell God what role he should let her play in his plan.
As long as feminism fails to grasp a proper basis for its moral claims, it will be, and become, increasingly immoral, and that's the problem with feminism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)