Test

This is a test of a remote blogging application.

Sin psychoanalyzed

 It is difficult to find true aphorisms of Thomas Aquinas.  He was no rhetorician, his precision and brilliance with language notwithstanding, and so he’s not often good for those ‘one-liners’ that everyone else seems to be able to write.  (E.g., Augustine: “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe in, but yourself.”)  Nevertheless, I found a cool page that does its best to collect some quasi-aphorisms from Aquinas.  Here is one passage that I liked especially on the nature of weakness, choice, and sin:

  Since the act of sin or of virtue is according to choice, and choice is a desire for something previously deliberated about, and deliberation is a kind of inquiry, it is necessary that in every act of virtue or of sin there be a kind of syllogistic deduction. But a temperate and an intemperate person syllogize differently. The same holds for a continent and an incontinent person.

A temperate person is moved only by a rational judgement, using a syllogism of three statements, as:

 Fornication should never be committed.
This act is fornication.
Therefore it must not be done.

An intemperate person, however, totally follows concupiscence, and likewise uses a syllogism of three statements, as:

Everything pleasurable must be enjoyed.
This act is pleasurable.
Therefore it must be enjoyed.

But a continent and an incontinent person have two moving forces. One is reason, to avoid sin. The other is concupiscence, to commit it. But for the continent person the judgement of reason wins, whereas in the incontinent person the movement of concupiscence wins. Thus each of them uses a syllogism of four statements, but leading to contrary conclusions.

The continent person uses the following syllogism:

 No sin must be committed (a judgement of reason).
Everything pleasurable must be enjoyed (what concupiscence presents to his heart).
This is a sin (the victorious judgement of reason).
Therefore this should not be done.

The incontinent person, for whom the judgement of concupiscence prevails, argues this way:

 No sin must be committed (a judgement of reason).
Everything pleasurable must be enjoyed (what concupiscence presents to his heart).
This is pleasurable (the victorious judgement of concupiscence).
Therefore it must be enjoyed.

Thus the incontinent person has universal, but not particular, knowledge of the issue, since he does not follow the particular judgement of reason but that of concupiscence.

A personal letter from St. Thomas

I found this translation of a letter that Aquinas wrote to a friend, on the subject of study and wisdom:

LETTER OF THOMAS AQUINAS TO BROTHER JOHN
ON HOW TO STUDY

Since you asked me, my dearest in Christ Brother John, how you should study in order to acquire the treasure of knowledge, I offer you this advice on the matter: Do not wish to jump immediately from the streams to the sea, because one has to go through easier things to the more difficult. Therefore the following points are my warning and your instruction:

• I command you to be slow to speak, and slow to go to the conversation room.
• Embrace purity of conscience.
• Do not give up spending time in prayer.
• Love spending much time in your cell, if you want to be led into the wine cellar.
• Show yourself amiable to all.
• Do not query at all what others are doing.
• Do not be very familiar with anyone, because familiarity breeds contempt, and provides matter for distracting you from study.
• Do not get involved at all in the discussions and affairs of lay people.
• Avoid conversations about all any and every matter.
• Do not fail to imitate the example of good and holy men.
• Do not consider who the person is you are listening to, but whatever good he says commit to memory.
• Whatever you are doing and hearing try to understand. Resolve doubts, and put whatever you can in the storeroom of your mind, like someone wanting to fill a container.
• Do not spend time on things beyond your grasp.

Following such a path, you will bring forth flowers and produce useful fruit for the vinyard of the Lord of Power and Might, as long as you live. If you follow this, you can reach what you desire.

Good stuff.  Now I need to work at following it.  (I’m guessing that the “wine cellar” in bullet point four has something to do with the conversation that was mentioned before that?  Otherwise I have no idea of what is going on there.)

Aquinas on Truth, Health, and Urine

(FP; Q16; a6) Whether there is only one truth, according to which all things are true?

  Objection 1: It seems that there is only one truth, according to which all things are true. For according to Augustine (De Trin. xv, 1), “nothing is greater than the mind of man, except God.” Now truth is greater than the mind of man; otherwise the mind would be the judge of truth: whereas in fact it judges all things according to truth, and not according to its own measure. Therefore God alone is truth. Therefore there is no other truth but God.

Objection 2: Further, Anselm says (De Verit. xiv), that, “as is the relation of time to temporal things, so is that of truth to true things.” But there is only one time for all temporal things. Therefore there is only one truth, by which all things are true.

On the contrary, it is written (Ps. 11:2), “Truths are decayed from among the children of men.”

I answer that, In one sense truth, whereby all things are true, is one, and in another sense it is not. In proof of which we must consider that when anything is predicated of many things univocally, it is found in each of them according to its proper nature; as animal is found in each species of animal. But when anything is predicated of many things analogically, it is found in only one of them according to its proper nature, and from this one the rest are denominated. So healthiness is predicated of animal, of urine, and of medicine, not that health is only in the animal; but from the health of the animal, medicine is called healthy, in so far as it is the cause of health, and urine is called healthy, in so far as it indicates health. And although health is neither in medicine nor in urine, yet in either there is something whereby the one causes, and the other indicates health.

Now we have said (Article [1]) that truth resides primarily in the intellect; and secondarily in things, according as they are related to the divine intellect. If therefore we speak of truth, as it exists in the intellect, according to its proper nature, then are there many truths in many created intellects; and even in one and the same intellect, according to the number of things known. Whence a gloss on Ps. 11:2, “Truths are decayed from among the children of men,” says: “As from one man’s face many likenesses are reflected in a mirror, so many truths are reflected from the one divine truth.” But if we speak of truth as it is in things, then all things are true by one primary truth; to which each one is assimilated according to its own entity. And thus, although the essences or forms of things are many, yet the truth of the divine intellect is one, in conformity to which all things are said to be true.

Reply to Objection 1: The soul does not judge of things according to any kind of truth, but according to the primary truth, inasmuch as it is reflected in the soul, as in a mirror, by reason of the first principles of the understanding. It follows, therefore, that the primary truth is greater than the soul. And yet, even created truth, which resides in our intellect, is greater than the soul, not simply, but in a certain degree, in so far as it is its perfection; even as science may be said to be greater than the soul. Yet it is true that nothing subsisting is greater than the rational soul, except God.

Reply to Objection 2: The saying of Anselm is correct in so far as things are said to be true by their relation to the divine intellect.

Catholic doctrine of Justification

One day I’d like to write a book that hashes out Justification for the curious Protestants and Catholics out there. I’ve tried to explore the doctrine as both schools of thought understand it, and let me tell you it is hell trying to sort it out amidst the straw men, emotionally charged op-ed pieces, and consistent misrepresentations on either side. What I really need is an account that doesn’t slant everything towards its conclusion, but a book that could be read by either Catholics or Protestants, after which both would say “yes, that was as strong a case as could be made for my view.” Really, it’s possible to do that – or, at least, I think it is.

Such a book is in the distant future, if it is going to exist at all. For now, though, I’ll post some short statements that I have collected over the past couple of months, made by the Catholic church, which I think are helpful for Protestants who are looking to see what the Catholics believe.

Notice that the Catholics sound a bit like Protestants when dealing with justification qua the initial forensic declaration of righteousness. There are still differences even when the Catholics restrict their terminology in this way, but more commonly I see Protestant critiques of the Catholic doctrine of “justification” because Catholics also use this word to mean “salvation” in the broad sense, i.e., the NT language that speaks of salvation both as a one-time event and as a process that is worked out throughout our lives. So much of the debate revolves around this linguistic difference. While differences would remain even with the terminology hurdle removed, it would make it a lot easier to sort out the ideas if, for example, Protestants weren’t so hell-bent on condemning Catholics for using “salvation” in the way that scripture seems to at times.

Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works. (JD, p. 15)

All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God’s gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers (JD, p. 16)

We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God’s judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God’s grace. (JD, p. 19)

When Catholics say that persons “cooperate” in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities. (JD, p. 20)

When Catholics emphasize the renewal of the interior person through the reception of grace imparted as a gift to the believer13, they wish to insist that God’s forgiving grace always brings with it a gift of new life, which in the Holy Spirit becomes effective in active love. They do not thereby deny that God’s gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation. (JD, p. 24)

[Sinners] place their trust in God’s gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it. (JD, p. 25)

The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him.14 This new personal relation to God is grounded totally on God’s graciousness and remains constantly dependent on the salvific and creative working of this gracious God, who remains true to himself, so that one can rely upon him. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal over against God. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the renewal of life by justifying grace, this renewal in faith, hope, and love is always dependent on God’s unfathomable grace and contributes nothing to justification about which one could boast before God. (JD, p. 27)

When Catholics emphasize that the righteous are bound to observe God’s commandments, they do not thereby deny that through Jesus Christ God has mercifully promised to his children the grace of eternal life … We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God. (JD, p. 33-34)

No one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation. (JD, p. 36)

We confess together that good works – a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love – follow justification and are its fruits. (JD, 37)

When Catholics affirm the “meritorious” character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace. (JD, p. 38)

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. (Council of Trent, 6th Session, ch. Vii)

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace. (Council of Trent, 6th Session, ch. viii)

For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. (Council of Trent, 6th Session, ch. vii)

If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, 6th Session, Canon I)

If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, 6th Session, Canon II)

If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, 6th Session, Canon III)

Of the satisfactory works of penance the Council of Trent makes this explicit declaration: “Thus, man has not wherein to glory, but all our glorying is in Christ, in whom we live, move, and make satisfaction, bringing forth fruits worthy of penance, which from Him have their efficacy, are by Him offered to the Father, and through Him find with the Father acceptance” (Council of Trent, 14th Session, ch. viii)

(‘JD’ stands for the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by the Catholic church and a large number of Lutheran denominations.)

Hazlitt on Inflation

With his usual clarity, rigor, and razor-sharp language:

“Inflation, to sum up, is the increase in the volume of money and bank credit in relation to the volume of goods. It is harmful because it depreciates the value of the monetary unit, raises everybody’s cost of living, imposes what is in effect a tax on the poorest (without exemptions) at as high a rate as the tax on the richest, wipes out the value of past savings, discourages future savings, redistributes wealth and income wantonly, encourages and rewards speculation and gambling at the expense of thrift and work, undermines confidence in the justice of a free enterprise system, and corrupts public and private morals.

But it is never “inevitable.” We can always stop it overnight, if we have the sincere will to do so.”

From his book What You Should Know About Inflation (pdf file).

Begging the regulation

One readily recognized example of question begging goes thus:

“God must exist.”
“How do you know?”
“Well, the Bible says so.”
“But why should I believe the Bible?”
“Because the Bible was written by God.”

And we all laugh at the dumb theist, who may have other good reasons for his faith, as he clearly doesn’t realize how silly that argument sounds. Now, claiming that God exists is a bold claim; therefore, the evidence needs to be good if we are going to accept it from an intellectual standpoint. In Monday’s Guardian, one author makes another bold claim: “Liberty is not what it once was.” Forgetting for the moment that he holds John Stuart Mill as the philosopher of liberty, I found the argument a little wanting in general, and I couldn’t help but think of the ‘God’ conversation above when I ran into this section of text:

Mill’s libertarian philosophy is based on two precepts … The first principle asserts that “all errors which (a man) is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good”. Only cranks believe that now. If it were a generally held view, we would not prohibit the use of recreational drugs or require passengers in the back seats of motor cars to wear safety belts.

Were the paragraph above simply a description of common public opinion there would be nothing fallacious at play — aside from his unwarranted use of the word crank, that is, which appears to signify “someone not agreeing with the majority” for this author. (You know, like all those “cranks” who voted against Bush in ‘04.) But, alas, description is replaced with prescription when the text above is implicitly used as evidence later:

The philosophy for our time ought to concern a consensus about civilised conduct, not extol irresponsible individualism. And it ought to be based on a definition of liberty that is far more meaningful to the majority of mankind than Mill’s notion that freedom is no more than the absence of restraint.

::

The following conversation then took place in my mind:

Daniel: “This doesn’t seem philosophically sound to me.”
G: “You mean you’d prefer a Mill-style freedom?”
Daniel: “Yes; I think I would.”
G: “But that’s preposterous, for the first thing to go would be seat-belt safety laws and anti-drug laws.”
Daniel: “Great! . . .Oh, there’s a problem?”
G: “Well, it’s obvious that only cranks think that, so you’ll need to get with the times, if you want to propose a serious version of liberty. . .”

O’Rourke on the minimum wage

P.J. O’Rourke is pretty funny no matter what the topic – and is painfully insightful at times – and he had a splendid bit on the minimum wage during a 60 Minutes appearance that economist Stefan Karlsson found on an old VHS tape:

::

“Why is Congress even debating the minimum wage? Where does the constitution say that government sets the price of delivering pizza? And if government knows the best price of everything, then how come the B-1 bomber cost so much? And if minimum wage laws work, why fool around? Why not make it a thousand an hour? Molly, if workers are more expensive fewer workers are hired. I wish this weren’t so. I also wish I could wear the same size jeans I wore in College. Free market value isn’t good or bad, it’s a measurement. Laws won’t fix it. We can pass a law saying a foot has ten inches: then I put a tape around my waist – same size jeans I wore in College! But the gut is still there. Raise the minimum wage, pay goes up a little, prices goes up and poor people are back where they started. If we want to help the working poor, we should cut sales taxes, cut gas taxes, cut farm subsidies that keep food prices high. And get rid of all the nonsense regulations, such as minimum wage laws, that just keeps poor people from starting businesses and getting richer”.

::

Economic sense is in short supply these days; we’re still experiencing the hangover from the first half of this century. The woes created by today’s decisions are yet to come. . .

Dolly the organ machine

The recent scientific achievement of producing a sheep containing about 85% sheep cells and about 15% human cells has, of course, triggered the next round in Christian thought on the subject of ‘playing God’ versus progress. One writer at the Catholic, liberty-friendly Acton Institute blog has written several posts mostly disapproving of the idea of chimeras. His most recent musing critiques the presentation of the breakthrough by the media, and he argues that calling something 15% human is disingenuous, since ‘being human’ is a kind of on-off switch. (I agree with him on this, of course, but he seems to be presenting this criticism as though it’s a part of a larger case against chimeras, which I don’t follow). The author links to his past posts criticizing chimeras, which I’ll have to go through more thoroughly, and he further quotes from the article that ’silent viruses’ are a big concern with the future of animal ogran-growers:

According to reports, Dr Patrick Dixon, an international lecturer on biological trends, warned: “Many silent viruses could create a biological nightmare in humans. Mutant animal viruses are a real threat, as we have seen with HIV.”

Now, I don’t find the critiques of chimera technology that stem from its potentially negative consequences to be compelling. If it is true that human organs harvested from sheep could contain silent viruses, then it follows that scientists (and in addition — or, at least, in a better world — private firms and corporations) will have to be very careful and deliberative in making the technology accessible. This is a narrow critique, however, and only accidentally applies to chimeras in general. Certainly Christians shouldn’t base any substantial objection to chimeras based on silent viruses (or other accidental concerns), because the technology to deal with these problems isn’t far behind the human-organs-in-animals technology itself. The shelf-life on the argument is a good tip that it’s probably not a good one to use in the first place.

The better Christian critique of this genre of science has to do with the following (roughly put, inadequately categorized) concern: What is it that humans, given their nature, ought and ought not to do with creation, given its nature? Nevertheless, I’d bet that there will be more critiques of Dolly the organ sheep based on some abstract claim that science has finally gone too far and is playing God in an inappropriate way.

In my view, any critique claiming that the creation and use of chimeras ‘goes too far’ or is ‘playing God’ with human DNA and animals will have to be firmly rooted in a clear understanding of human nature (and the nature of animals). It is clear that God has given humans stewardship over the use of this world, which I would argue includes (among other concerns) transforming things around us in ways that are beneficial to our life and health. Thus, it seems to me that good stewardship and respect for human nature doesn’t preclude the use of medicines to cure sickness, advanced farming techniques, or air conditioning, for example.

(Additionally, I don’t buy the arguments against birth control that base themselves on an appeal to letting God plan one’s family rather than taking this natural process into our own hands. If I were to take a stand against birth control it would be for the reasons embraced by the Catholic church — namely, that if the proper object of sex is procreation, then it is unethical to strip the activity of its proper end and enjoy the means as an end in themselves, apart from the greater end of reproduction. It’d be the equivalent of chewing up food and simply spitting it out. Since I’m not convinced that procreation is the only proper end of sexual relations, I don’t buy this argument either . . . although I have to admit that I probably would were I Catholic. But enough of this, for now.)

It goes beyond the tinkering with humanity, too. I don’t feel metaphysically threatened by the possibility of creating artificial intelligence, for example — heck, robots doing the grunt work of daily labor for us would be fantastic! Likewise, I don’t see much ethical harm in manipulating the genes of crops to be more productive, disease resistant, etc. As Christians have faced these changes historically, it seems to me that many of the ‘lines drawn in the sand’ have been somewhat arbitrary. However well-intentioned the critiques may be, they generally have sounded to me more like reactions to something new than a principled stance against progress based on a given understanding of human nature.

What might a principled argument against chimeras look like? Well, I suspect that the Acton blog contributor Jordan Ballor is on to something here and here, but I am, of course, not well read enough to engage this debate for now.

I wonder if Mr. Ballor would object to organ-growing technology if it were possible to, say, grow them using animal cells but without using an animal host. It seems to me that, were the technology there, housing a hallway full of kidneys would be far more efficient than taking care of an animal organ-host, which would need far more space — not to mention food, attention, etc. Suppose we take the living animal out of the equation, but keep the gene and cell manipulation — what then?

Book Idea: ‘Streets and roads, community, and liberty’

Yes, that’s a terrible title.

I was listening to the audio book of Murray Rothbard’s great work For a New Liberty this morning, and I worked through most of his chapter entitled ‘The Public Sector: Streets and Roads.‘ In it, Rothbard advocates allowing liberty to see its full manifestation even in the streets and roads, which would make all building, maintaining, and use under the jurisdiction of the free market. It is Rothbard’s contention that only voluntary associations and exchanges can make the roads a moral and efficient system, and that the time to privatize is always (and forever) “as soon as possible.”

I am of the opinion that one of the prevailing difficulties in being a libertarian is that few people understand both libertarian critiques of State-run society and the alternative that is proposed. Most assume that the libertarian’s most sophisticated answer to the question: “Well, how would that work?” is: “The market will take care of it!”

Of course, the short answer to any objection to liberty is, in fact, that the market will take care of it (which is simply short hand for saying ‘yes, it ought to be taken care of, and to do so without using violence is paramount’). However, this answer quickly grows stale to the ears of those seeking real solutions to our society’s problems. Politicians thrive on making promises when they can say that the have detailed, practical, and realistic plans for tackling ‘the issues.’ Such promises are rarely kept, but by observing the public’s general reaction to candidates willing to make such promises we can see how hungry people are for solutions that would work.

The libertarian, while cautious of providing a market blue-print for any given issue, should not shudder or buckle under any demand to produce some account for how a free market might handle a given problem.  A book along these lines could tackle many of the issues involved with public and private streets and roads; community development; economic efficiency; and of course freedom, liberty, and peace.  There is a wealth of research out there that could aid the libertarian in showing that, yes, such social organization is possible without absolute, overriding force.