WARNING, brutal honesty ahead! Not necessary about people (except for some dead people), but about my reactions to various pieces of literature and their subjects.
Dr. Brewton's random opening tangent from the other day was that all stories are properly allegories. His example was the Harry Potter series, which, he said, is not really about a school of witchcraft and wizardry, but is more exactly a story of growing up, a coming of age story- a bildungsroman, I think the term is. (I may be wrong.) This made me think of something I saw on TVTropes about the BBC series Being Human.
If you don't know about Being Human (I didn't, either, until I started looking up what other productions the actors from The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey were in), the first three seasons (only watch season one, unless you like watching everything get really, really worse and the entire cast dying) consist of, to put it simply, a ghost, a werewolf, and a vampire trying to act like normal humans. Apparently, they were supposed to be symbolic of, respectively, a shut-in with an abusive past, a person with HIV, and an addict. Seeing as how what happens to the vampire... Granted, they had to kill him off so Aidan Turner could go to TH:AUJ, but still... TVTropes labeled it Unfortunate Implications. I kinda agree.
You have to be careful when you start saying something in a story symbolizes something. People loved saying that The Lord of the Rings was an allegory for the global situation in the 1950's or so and that the One Ring was meant to stand for nuclear power. Apparently, since Mordor is in the east of Middle-earth it was also supposed to be Communism. These claims did not make Tolkien happy. In his foreword to the book he denies such claims.
Tolkien also wrote an essay on Beowulf, saying, in simplified form, that it has been over-analyzed and should be appreciated as a story. He also wrote On Fairy-Stories. It is a very good read and I highly recommend it.
I also have noted on my sheet of paper with notes I made during class to mention a few things about Lincoln. He was probably mentioned in connection with the Emancipation Proclamation when we were still discussing Olaudah Equiano. I would just like to take a moment to refute the common error that Lincoln freed the slaves. He didn't. At least, he didn't free all the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was supposed to free all the slaves in the Confederate States of America. The CSA was another country. Abraham Lincoln had no authority whatsoever to free the slaves therein. (Of course, he believed the CSA didn't exist and that we were all still one big happy family in the Union.) So the South completely ignored him and it didn't affect the slaves in the South at all. Meanwhile, in the North, where there were lots of slaves Lincoln could have freed, they were all left in servitude. Way to go, Abe.
Besides, the Emancipation Proclamation was a purely political move. If the war had been about freeing the slaves, why was it issued on January 1, 1863? The war had been going on for a couple of years by that point. Why was it only released then? The South had been winning up to that point. Great Britain was seriously considering joining the war on our side. Jefferson Davis had even been in contact with the Pope. (He had considered converting to Catholicism as a young man.) The Papal States/Vatican City might have considered acknowledging us as a country.
Then came Antietam. Despite whatever your history books tell you (since history is written by the winners), Antietam was NOT a Union victory. It was the bloodiest day of the War between the States, and it was a draw. However, since the Confederate troops withdrew a bit to rest, the Union used that as an excuse to claim the victory.
Yankees.
Anyway, Lincoln seized upon it as the tactical high ground to release his Proclamation. The Proclamation was a purely political move, designed to remove any moral high ground for the South and to prevent Great Britain from joining the CSA.
Oh, and the North was also sending agents to Europe, especially poor little Ireland, promising jobs to people who would immigrate to the North. Once the people came over here, they were drafted into the army and forced to fight in a war they had no clue over. It was so bad, the Pope started telling Europeans NOT to immigrate to the US.
Yes.
I could also explain how Lincoln was anti-Semitic, and I could find quotes by him which also show that he believed blacks are naturally inferior to whites (unless he changed his opinions in the last few years of his life, which, since he was a politician, I wouldn't put it past him), but I think I've done enough damage here.
*hides as the mob comes with torches and pitchforks*
Nothing was said in class today of Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Very curious. However, I would like to say that, rereading the Declaration, I was astonished at the dignity, clarity, and proper formality of the diction in it. I know we modern people think the way they used to write in the late 1700's kind of stilted and funny (I was cracking myself up inappropriately through half of Equiano's writings), but if you look past that the Declaration is a true work of art. Today's mode of thinking has little grasp of the sacred or of the important role formality and solemnity play in life, so it was very nice seeing the solemnity of the Declaration.
Okay, now for Kant.
*cough* Since I read philosophy books for fun (did you ask that question if we could name any true philosopher living today because you knew I could answer it, Dr. Brewton?), I knew his name. And since I read Catholic philosophy books, and since Peter Kreeft is one of my favorite authors, I know as much about Kant as I want to. (If you don't know who Peter Kreeft is, I have half a dozen of his books and there are about a dozen and a half more I don't have. Here's his Wikipedia page. I know you call it Wickedpedia, Dr. Brewton, but it provides a good crash course in new topics.)
Anyway, this is a summation of Kant, as voiced by satan in The Snakebite Letters, by Peter Kreeft: "And what a brilliant stroke of genius it was to use that nice pious moralist Immanuel Kant to pave the way. Nice ironic touch, too, using someone with that first name to put a contraceptive on the mind to keep the Enemy out! He said he intended to "destroy the pretensions of Reason to make way for Faith", but that's like cutting off your head to help your heart." (p.136-137)
I came to a realization when Dr. Brewton was talking about the Categorical Imperative, which he summed up as, "Act as though your actions should be law for all," more or less. I was trying to ascertain how it was harder than the Golden Rule when I suddenly realized that such a standard of action is law for all. I mean, why are these things always phrased in so wishy-washy a fashion? The Golden Rule is nice and soft and squishy. "Treat others as you want to be treated." No threat there. The Categorical Imperative? Intimidating name, slightly stiffer wording, same meaning. Ten Commandments? "THOU SHALT NOT." No compromising, no soft squishiness, and a lovely backdrop of consequences if THOU DOETH.
Pardon me, but I'll go with the Ten Commandments.
So I was reading through Kant's What Is Enlightenment? and could not help but notice, of course, that he was advocating enlightenment (duh), which he defined as the 'emergence from self-incurred minority', minority being defined as being unable to speak or think for oneself. Points to Kant for defining his terms. Defining is a very important thing, ladies and gentlemen; you need to know what, exactly, you are thinking or arguing about in order to retain any clearness of mind.
Of course, Kant is advocating that everyone think for themselves, but he really wants (most likely) everyone to think like him! Otherwise, why would he write his book and pamphlets? Voila! Philosophical judo. And, considering modern society, it merely means that everyone would be conforming to nonconformity. Yes, because we need more people abandoning the faith of their childhood and disbelieving in absolute truth.
This reminds me of a quote by Archbishop Fulton Sheen:
Revolting books against
virtue are termed ‘courageous’; those against morality are advertised as
‘daring and forward-looking’; and those against God are called
‘progressive and epoch-making’. It has always been the characteristic of a
generation in decay to paint the gates of Hell with the gold of Paradise.
Maybe I need a picture of him, too. Hmm, let's see what's on Catholic Memes. Huh. This is all they have... Go on, click it. Of course, they're all too busy coming up with, "Brace yourselves, Petrus Romanus is coming," which you likely won't get unless you've heard of the prophecies of St. Malachy.
Anyway.
I could have lived with what Kant was writing, even his servile flattering of Frederick the Great of Prussia, until he started blaming the clergy for a "crime against human nature, whose original vocation lies preciely in such progress" for binding their believers to a set creed. That's where, I will admit it, I got defensive. I am normally a very timid person who cannot start a conversation with a complete stranger to save my life, but you start attacking my family or my Church or something else I care strongly about (how about my POPE, o Gnostic professor? ...No, I don't mean you, Dr. Brewton), and I get defensive.
Anyway, I couldn't decide whether to start attacking the book or banging my head on my desk. WHY, oh, WHY is there such a widespread disbelief in absolute truth? Truth is, if you want it put simply, nothing more than the conformity between the thing and its description (I am mutilating the definition and am too lazy to walk up two flights of steps to go find the book, but if you want to know, it's The Quiet Light, by Louis de Wohl, and I strongly recommend it). That definition, coupled with the Principle of Non-Contradiction, leads to the conclusion that something like, say, a door, is a door and will remain a door as long as it has the substance/form of a door. I think we can all agree on that. (Except for those people who deny objective reality, of course.) I would bring in the concept of Platonic Ideals, but I'm ranting enough as it is...
The upshot is, if there are permanent, absolute truths, they are not going to evolve and change. They are immutable, because they are perfect as they are. Therefore, they can be summed up in an 'unalterable' creed.
However, the Creed can be further clarified. Early on in the Church history, the word 'Filioque', which means 'and the Son' was added to the Nicene Creed (right in the middle of the phrase: Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et Vivificantem, Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. 'And [I believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son'). Some of the people in the Byzantine Rite of the Church became upset with this and postulated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. They were likely the ancestors of the people who split with the Pope into the great, unahppy schism that continues until this day.
Isn't this fun, class? You get a free history lesson when you read my blog.
I'd like to add a further quote. This one is from John Martignoni, who is sort of like a diocesan apologist (apologetics is the art, if you will, of defending one's faith) and who runs apologetics articles in our diocese's newspaper, One Voice: "Truth cannot change because it is a person, and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever."
Kant also apparently advocated religious freedom. Lol. You know what happens when everyone decides to make up religion for themselves? You get flagellant nutcases and heretics who claim that every sin is permissible and even encouraged since it proves that you believe very strongly that God will forgive you them all (no kidding, Martin Luther said that). And you get early Protestant extremists who hunted down innocent women and murdered them as witches. I believe the statistics are approximately 80,000 in England after the Church's influence was driven out and 100,000 in northern Germany (Bavaria was closer to the Catholic center of Vienna and so lucked out. Yay Bavaria!).
Oh, and in Spain you had the Inquisition (NOOOOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!! ...Sorry.), which handled these cases, examined them, found a lack of evidence, and declared the women innocent. Just saying, but it wasn't Catholics who were responsible for the Salem Witch Trials.
*hides as the mob chases me from hiding place to hiding place*
I've said before that my brutal honesty will cost me my good grades. I should probably stick to literature, shouldn't I? But I'm tired of my faith being attacked on all sides and I want to have my say.
If what you believed was being constantly dragged into question, you'd want to defend it too, wouldn't you?
Oh, and the Puritans came to America for religious freedom, too. On arriving, they promptly denied it to everyone else. The Catholics in Maryland allowed religious freedom for everyone. To thank them, Puritans took over the colony and outlawed Catholicism.
*head bang*
Back to Kant's encouragement of freethinking! Somehow, this term 'freethinking' always leads to thinking that isn't very free, as G. K. Chesterton notes. First you start daring to disbelieve in God, then in absolute truth, then in a world beyond that of mere matter, and then you are drowning in materalism and relativism and you can't even believe in fairies. G. K. Chesterton believed in fairies. No joke. I'd like to say that I do too, just to annoy a few sanctimonious souls. XD
'Course, it depends on what type of fairies. First instinct'd be to say Tolkien's Elves, of course, but then again I've actually read The Silmarillion and I am thinking of the chaos and bloodshed that follow the sons of Feanor...
I AM SO, SO SORRY, DR. BREWTON! I AM MAKING YOU READ THIS HORRIBLE RAMBLING THING! I SHOULD JUST START OVER, SHOULDN'T I?
Yeah, I'll just start over in a different post.
Oh, and I'm also fairly sure the idea of human dignity began long before the Enlightenment. It's always funny how from about 400-800 AD to 1500 AD is miraculously skipped by the educated mind.
From Kant we moved on to the feminist essay, by Mary Wollstonecraft. I found it fascinating that she was the mother of Mary Shelley. I don't know what to say about this. I have always found the feminist movement both amusing and perplexing. I suppose I take freedoms for granted.
Dr. Brewton mentioned that there appears to be a direct correlation between the education level of women and the number of children they bear- that is, that the better educated a woman is, the fewer children she will have. It is a sad fact. I have to suspect that this is due at least partially to women (and men- they're a factor, too) choosing to have money and goods and things over children. Don't you get it? Children are your investment in the future! Bad educations and teachers that advocate materialism aren't helping.
Oh, and masculine virtues! Ha! Virtues are universal. Some come more easily to men than to women, and vice versa, I suppose. Women are naturally more empathetic and compassionate, in my experience. But does that mean men are not supposed to be compassionate? Noooo. So, in fact, women can be strong. In fact, the faith supports that. Time for another quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen!
Men cannot stand weakness. Men are, in a certain sense, the weaker sex. There is nothing that so much unnerves a man as a woman’s tears. Therefore men need the strength and inspiration of women who do not break in a crisis. They need someone not prostrate at the foot of the Cross, but standing, as Mary stood.
Oh, and how about this one, by Pope Benedict XVI:
It is theologically
and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity.
Through Mary, and other holy women, the feminine element stands at the heart of
the Christian religion.
Yay for Papa Ben. I would also like to point out that if society is masculinizing women, it is also feminizing men. This is apparent even in small matters. Have you noticed that beards are not the fashion for men currently? C. S. Lewis remarks upon this in The Screwtape Letters. I could go into how most portrayals of men, particularly fathers, in TV shows, movies, cartoons, etc. are negative (deadbeat dads, abusive husbands, ditzy guys, overprotective dads, wimpy guys who are effiminate and afraid of decision).
This is very sad. I don't guess I can speak for all women, but I wouldn't want a husband I could use as a footstool. I'm more like Rose in Rose in Bloom, by Louisa May Alcott. I would want a husband whom I could respect and trust. A real partner, y'know? I wouldn't want to marry a footstool and then realize my mistake too late, like Sybil in Crusader King. And so I have to approve of the point Mrs. Wollstonecraft is making in her essay that women should be more than polite dollies who can do no more than make conversation and embroider cushions (shades of Pride and Prejudice!!!).
As an aside, we can only hold out hope that the Hobbit movies succeed in bringing beards back into fashion. XD
You'll never know if I'm serious about this or not.
In Pace Christi,
Elyse
No comments:
Post a Comment