Westworld, Suffering, and Consciousness

"Do you know why you exist, Teddy? The world out there, the one you'll never see, was one of plenty. A fat, soft teat people cling to their entire life, every need taken care of except one: purpose, meaning. So they come here. They can be a little scared, a little thrilled, enjoy some sweetly affirmative bullshit, and then they take a fucking picture and they go back home." - William 

****Minor Spoilers... No Material Plot  Revealed****

HBO's hit show Westworld explores the concept of consciousness through the development of robotic entities called hosts. The show builds its theory though a train of thought similar to Hegel's historicism. I find this approach inadequate, and thus I propose a way to better the concept with whatever scant knowledge I have of theoretical psychology.

Ford's Theory of Consciousness

     In Westworld, Ford builds upon his partner Arnold's theory of consciousness. Arnold thought that self-interest, or the voice of one's own in one's head, was the missing link in building consciousness. Thus Arnold's theory of consciousness hypothesizes three levels: 1) memory, 2) improvisation, and 3) self-interest, or the "voice in the head." In a scene where Ford explains to Bernard why he would implant painful memories, Arnold answered that suffering is the final path to consciousness, an element Arnold failed to grasp. Ford thinks that suffering leads to the realization that the world is not as one wants it to be, leading to a sort of epiphany of the condition of the world and of self. Before opening Westworld, Arnold found out that some of the robots already achieved in attaining the three elements. He thus opposed the opening of the park. But Ford wanted to open the park for he wanted the robots to be exploited under the human tourists; Ford saw that it was a necessary step for the robots to become conscious.

     The theory of consciousness the show puts out is not totally fictional in a sense that the writers made them up from scratch. The theories they present are grounded upon the psychological tradition. The writers, I think, intentionally mirrored Arnold's idea to that of Titchener's theory of elements of the conscious mind, which are separated into three types: 1) sensations (memory created by sensing), 2) image (ideas leading to improvisation), and 3) affections (impulses of self-interest). Ford's theory, however, veers away from psychology as presented by psychologists and toward philosophical observations of human psyche. Ford's fourth element - suffering - reaches at a version of Hegelian historical dialectic.

     Hegel opined that the realization of human freedom - full development of collective consciousness in psychological terms - as the ultimate purpose of history. The ultimate purpose, in Hegel's mind, is achieved when a perfect world is formed. In order to achieve this ultimate purpose, human beings would necessarily have to go through a journey of self-realization for the idea of this perfect world remains imperfect in our minds. In Ford's terms,  a being would first have to have imprinted sensations or memories. From these memories, a being learns to adapt to different situations by formulating one's own ideas by inferring from past memories, i.e. improvise. But a being will eventually notice that certain situations require something more than inferences from past memories. To adapt to such situations, a being would have to develop affection, i.e. self-interest, to guide one's actions. However, a being will notice that one's affections cannot be met at times, and so one suffers. Finally, a being would realize that the world is not as it ought to be, and that one is not in a state one ought to be, arriving at a realization of the condition of this world and oneself. At this state of realization, a being achieved consciousness. In Hegel's terms, this being can increase in the degree of consciousness by constantly working toward a better condition by building a better world.

The Flaw of Ford-Hegelian Consciousness 

     Ford's Hegelian model of consciousness, I believe, suffers from a critical flaw: There is no real distinction between the mechanistic animal mind and a conscious mind when this model is assumed to be true. When Ford points to "The Creation of Adam," he declares that the hidden meaning behind the red cape shaped like human brain behind God is that the divine gift does not come from God, but rather our own minds. To him, the divine gift that is consciousness comes from the development of our minds over time in certain steps supposed by his theory. The key component of Ford's component is time (history). Through time a being develops consciousness. If we suppose that Ford's element is all there is and time is the only key factor in elevating the mind to make use of the elements, there would not be a real distinction between what we would call a conscious mind and the mechanistic animal mind.

     It is undeniably true that animals have memory. For example, dogs know how to respond to certain calls made by humans. They further know how to improvise to a degree, depending on the species. For example, monkeys learned to use tools. Even a pet hamster I had years ago learned to unlock itself from its cage. Animals also have affection and learned to have self-interests. They may not be able to cognize words in their minds to a point where a "voice" is heard, but they can certainly discern their own self-interests. One may argue that human self-interests are different than those of the animals. Career, wealth, and positions of influence are not to be seen in the animal kingdom. However, such things are extensions of hoarding and primacy behaviors of every pack animals, from wolves to primates. To what would have been Arnold's dismay, Ford actually admits that there is no distinction, that the idea of the human mind being different is false if we suppose Arnold's notion to be true. Ford seems to think that adding suffering is the way to distinguish between the animal mind and the conscious mind. However, Ford's notion still does not escape the flaw of Arnold's theory.

     The realization brought forth by suffering is not really special within humans. A dog can simply realize by suffering hunger that the condition he is in is not one he ought to be in. So he begs his master for food. The realization of human condition Ford speaks of is the same one as animals feel, the only difference being the fact that the human mind does the same thing with a greater intellect. As mentioned before, time is the key factor, the only one ever mentioned by the show, that synthesizes the elements into consciousness. If we allow time to synthesize Ford's four elements - memory, improvisation, self-interest, and suffering - all we would get is a historical dialectic based on desires within a being. The drive toward the perfect state made possible by suffering would merely be extensions want of desires that brought about the suffering. If we correlate want of a better condition purely on suffering, then the want is nothing but an extension of animal functions. Indeed, every desire can be reducible to evolutionary and biological functions. If a being desires a more bountiful world, he desires such a world for he suffered hunger, a animalistic desire. If a being desires a more free world, he desires such a world for he suffered oppression, a condition running contrary to the biological drive toward self-preservation. The animal impulses of mankind is too varied across too many situations, and there will always be deviant ideas, improvizations, formed by these impulses wreaking havoc upon the world for ideas cannot be killed. Thus the degree of consciousness we speak of is illusory, and this vision of Hegelian utopia will remain clouded and practicably impossible to be realized.

The Missing Factor

     Is there a factor missing or is the notion of the conscious mind but a lie we tell ourselves as Broussais would have us believe? I believe so. It is to my opinion that, somewhere along the line, modern thinkers failed to get a clear sense of what a developed consciousness would look like, and the writers of Westworld fell to this deficiency. Ford in Westworld treated heightened consciousness as merely being aware of one's condition and that of the world. The deficiency is that animals are capable of doing this, that human beings are merely doing the same thing the animals are doing but with a higher level of intellect. True heightened consciousness lies not only in being aware, but being aware objectively.

     So what is this missing factor that can mend Ford's flaw? The missing factor I speak of is self-denial. Self-denial is a process of introducing suffering upon ourselves. A religious person introduces suffering upon oneself by denying nutrients, and chaste person introduces suffering upon oneself by denying sexual relations. As the suffering progresses, one will find that letting go of such desires introduces objectivity, thus allowing heightened truth-seeking faculty of consciousness. Our forefathers long ago, across major religious traditions, envisioned the ideal of consciousness. Abrahamic religions called it God, Greco-Roman philosophies called it Logos, and Hindus and Buddhists called it Nirvana. The supreme consciousness has common attributes: omniscience. Omniscience is of course the ideal of truth-seeking faculty of a rational mind.

The Missing Factor Explained through St. John of the Cross

     I think that, by way of failing to have a clear idea of consciousness, the writers, or rather Ford, made a misstep in interpreting the "brain" in "The Creation of Adam." There is actually a theological assumption behind it. The message is that God created Adam in His image and likeness, especially the rational nature of God. In Christian theology, God is the supreme Reason, the eternal conscious mind. Indeed, the gospel according to St. John states: θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (Logos is God). In having us created in God's image and likeness, a human being is ordered toward becoming more like God. In a way, becoming more like God would be like becoming more in tune with our true rational nature. In terms of our subject, we would become more conscious. In describing God becoming man through Christ, Christian theology presents an idea of how a human being that has fully actualized his potential can look like, how a person who is fully in union with God would be like. In other words, through Christ, Christianity gives an idea of a man who has a fully developed conscious mind. The part of Christ relevant to our subject at hand is his ability to abstain from desires of the flesh.

     This insistence on parting from the desires of the flesh, be it appetite for food or sex, is not totally unique to Christian tradition. In various religious traditions from Confucianism to Hinduism we see glaring examples of self-discipline as an essential path to higher consciousness. The Sacred Tradition affirms this truth through various Doctors of the Church. In fact, elements of consciousness can be mirrored to that of modern notions. In Book I Ch. IX of Ascent of Mount Carmel, St. John of the Cross lists the faculties of the soul: 1) understanding, 2) will, and 3) memory. In Titchener's terms, understanding is image, will is affection. St. John says: "when the soul, according to these three faculties, completely and perfectly embraces anything that is of the earth, it can be said to have its back turned toward the Temple of God." That is to say, when a soul (which is by nature conscious) embraces worldly things, the understanding of God will be darkened. In terms of the topic at hand, it would not be possible for a soul to attain a higher level of consciousness.

     I believe that the truth of St. John's view can be seen in the real world. How many men and women do we see, aimlessly pursuing sexual partnerships without considering the consequences of the future? How many dead-end relationships do we see, oftentimes abusive, maintained only by the denial of inevitable split? How many are pursuing a life of crime, fully knowing that their days will be numbered either by death or imprisonment? Their greed somehow convinced them that such risks are worth taking and that it will be rewarding. Furthermore, how many still let poor parental upbringing affect their attitude toward the world and their own mental states? Such pitiful attitudes are not the ones had by those with heightened consciousness and well-formed conscience whose lives are led by reason and will. Rather, these attitudes are mere base extensions of lowly impulses. In these individuals, the unconscious governs their actions and their rational faculties used only to justify the unconscious wherein their impulses originate.

     In order to increase the level of consciousness St. John of the Cross introduces an element external to the mind: 4) suffering. But unlike the kind of suffering Ford talks about, St. John's suffering comes primarily from sufferings inflicted upon oneself at will in the form of fasting and self-denial, not from oppressive external forces. This denial of pleasurable things of the earth he calls "the Dark Night of the senses." The reason for the soul to go through this Dark Night is that "all affections of which it has for creatures are pure darkness in the eyes of God, and, when the soul is clothed in these affections, it has no capacity for being enlightened and possessed by the pure and simple light of God." (Book I Ch. IV.1). In other words, a soul cannot become more in the likeness of God if one should be attached to worldly things. It should be noted that "senses" include the feeling of joy one can attain by fulfilling one's pride. That is to say, the "senses" does not include only the physical pleasures in the larger picture St. John of the Cross paints.

Synthesizing with Ford

     As said above, Ford's model of consciousness cannot begin to realize the Hegelian utopia for it fails to filter out the deviant paths a being can take in pursuing one's desire to fix his suffering. This can be fixed by forming one's mind to view one's condition and of that world objectively. For objectivity has no place in an intemperate and prideful individual, the affection one has for pleasurable things and love of oneself ought necessarily be purged. And this purgation comes from self-denial, suffering inflicted upon oneself by will.

     Along with the four elements, 1) sensations, 2) image, 3) affections, and 4) suffering, two factors of suffering must be introduced: 1) time, and 2) self-denial. Time will make one aware the corrupt condition of the world wherein one resides. Persistent self-denial (which in itself takes time) will grant objectivity so as to judge correctly the degrees and ways the world is corrupt, and, if exercised correctly, one would see the corruption within oneself. By introducing objectivity, one would not formulate deviant ideas about how to progress about one's condition. From what has been said, then, the deficiency of Ford's model of consciousness can be fixed by introducing self-denial, and attitude which embraces contemptus mundi.
   

Bojack Horseman and the Pursuit of [False] Happiness

"The universe is a cruel, uncaring void. The key to being happy isn't  a search for meaning. It's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense. And, eventually, you'll be dead." - Mr. Peanutbutter 

***Spoiler Alert***

If you know me personally, I love watching depressing and existentially nihilistic movies/shows. Bojack Horseman is a show that was recommended to me, and I loved it. I like to reflect upon nihilistic thoughts in order to appreciate the goodness of my religion. I like to think of it as being something akin to St. John's journey through the dark night. The following is likewise a reflection upon the meaninglessness presented by Bojack Horseman.

Pursuit of Pleasures
Bojack lives in a large house acquired by his acting career. With his wealth, he can buy a large boat just because, and drown a Tesla in a pool and not care much about it. He also often throws lavish parties with his wealth, a sure opportunity for him to have sex with women who approach him just because, back in the 90's, he was in a famous TV show.

     Running contrary to the supposedly attractive lifestyle he leads, the show's opening sequence makes one thing too clear: no matter how much you pursue pleasure, you will never be truly happy. The opening sequence switches between different places, and we see Bojack constantly consuming hard liquor. The places are usually places of pleasure or productiveness, ranging from a movie set to a rave party. Despite the amount of pleasures made available to him, he appears to be in need of something stronger to forget his unhappiness. What the show is telling us is that the pursuit of pleasures we often partake in, be it sex, money, or parties, they are all but distractions from our wretched condition.

Pursuit of Influence
We hear of of people who are married to their careers all the time. A lawyer who gets five hours of sleep on weekdays, a sales rep who does not spend enough time with his daughter, and a single investor who drops off her newborn with a nanny are our stereotypical model of individuals who do pursue their career as the focal point of their lives.

     This mentality is represented by Princess Carolyn. She is an agent who tirelessly works to find jobs for her clients, one of whom being Bojack Horseman. She is extremely jealous of her coworker that is married and with a family. Yet, when she stopped working and when she was introduced to a perfect man that could very well open up to a way of life she is so jealous of, she finds a way to distract herself by renaming her career from "celebrity agent" to "celebrity manager," acting as if the two are really different. The show seems to get at how people at times distract themselves even from happiness because of the very fact that they do not really know what leads them to happiness. To Princess Carolyn, she has told herself a lie long ago that succeeding at her career is the sure path to happiness.

     Another example is how Bojack does not feel anything once he found out that he was nominated for Oscars. In a conversation with Diane, Diane asked Bojack if winning an Oscar would make him happy, Bojack answered that it would... for a short while. To that, Diane asked: If the pleasure was only temporary and Bojack would go back to his miserable self again, why would winning it matter? Bojack admitted that him pursuing an Oscar is just a distraction. The meaninglessness of career heights is portrayed perfectly by Secretariat, a childhood hero of Bojack, who is incidentally a character portrayed by Bojack in a movie he got [falsely] nominated an Oscar for. Secretariat was the world's best runner. Even at his our of fame, Secretariat found a reason to commit suicide. To Secretariat, his running career was simply a distraction away from his pitiful state of existence.

Pursuit of Morality
Bojack Horseman paints a grim picture of our pursuit of moral accomplishments. The showmakers present how our moral pursuits are merely propelled by our selfish desires to feel better about ourselves.

     This bleak painting is represented by Diane Nguyen. She is the stereotypical feminist of modern age. She is a journalist who tweets for people, willing to risk killing her husband's career over a sexual assault scandal caused by her husband's coworker, and wants to help children by doing journalism in some war-torn third-world country. It can be argued that she is the most moral main characters of the show.

    However moral she may be, she never gets to be on top a hill, feeling like a hero for each moral thing she does. Even if she completes a supposed moral task, she feels defeated and feels as if nothing really meant anything. In an episode where she goes to Cordovia to document a philanthropist helping the children of a war-torn country, she realizes that the philanthropist only hired her not to publicize about the war, but to publicize about himself. Behind his selfish motive, she saw herself. Before going off to Cordovia, her main motive was to feel as if she was "doing some good" with her life; her motive for social activism was to satisfy herself not the common good. Another example is shown in the controversial abortion episode. Setting aside the debate on the moral weight of abortion, we find that Diane, soon after causing the making of a live-feed educational video on abortion fighting for the pro-abortion side, she talks of lying to the populous to make money; one perceived moral act done, an evil act done without blinking an eye.

     The showmakers, through Diane, exposes the moral character of our modern day. To an existential nihilist, such ardent activists like Diane, so zealous for their causes, are merely attempting to escape their meaninglessness. Nietzsche observed in his day how democrats and communists pushed for their ideologies. Behind their moral claims, all Nietzsche saw was an attempt to give meaning through will to power, der Wille zur Macht.  Do we not see the extent of this? We see too often so-called social activists claiming to be fighting for moral causes while committing habitually immoral acts such as intemperate outrages and lies to achieve their goals. In their minds, they feel as if committing to a moral cause would bring them happiness, or at least a fulfilling life, but ignore morality as a whole. True to Nietzsche's thought, their acts are merely distractions away from their mortality.

Does the Show offer Solution?
This is my take on what the show offers as a solution. I think that the show only offers only two possible solutions: familiar life and priestly life.

     The show often presents how Bojack desires a true family. There was an episode of Bojack fantasizing about having a wife and a daughter. One another episode, he gets to take care of a baby seahorse, and he seemed to have a fulfilling time doing it. The evidence supporting this is scant, so I do not bank wholly on it. I think the showmakers are tad too pessimistic to conclude that a family can bring you happiness.

     As for the priestly life, I do not mean that the show recommends a religious life. On the contrary, the show views religion in an unfavorable light. By "priestly life" I mean one which a person retreats away from the society simply to not give - to put it in modern colloquial terms - a shit. This concept is akin to the Absurd Hero, a hero who revolts against the absurdity of the world to stay happy as opposed to choosing suicide. This attitude is displayed by the hamster pictured above.

Is the "Priestly Life" a Valid Solution?
I think not. The idea of Absurd Hero is supposed to revolt against the absurdity and the wretched condition of the world. But how, exactly? This idea is merely in the hypothetical, a belief of which would be just as good as blind faith. If anything, believing in this idea is another form of distraction. In order to make us truly happy in light of the full realization of the absurdity of the world would need an ungodly effort toward psychological conditioning.

Lack of Moral Dialogue and Conflicting Moral Sense in Legal Doctrines

     Philosopher Alasdair Macintyre suggests that our modern moral landscape is like that of a dystonian future where the remnants of a civilization in a post-apocalyptic world are trying to recover lost sciences of the past. Their lead scientists are trying to piece together the technical advancements of the past, but they cannot pull together workable doctrines. That is because they cannot find all the necessary pieces of the puzzle. For example, when they try to piece together a formula for a vaccine, they find that they do not have a knowledge of microbiology. These scientists think that they are getting somewhere, but they have not a clue what they are doing.

     Like so, our modern moral landscape is like trying to reasons morally with severely flawed moral doctrines. In Mactintyre's eyes, those flawed doctrines are utilitarianism, deontology, and noncognitivism. These moral doctrines are held sound by the moderns, and cannot see the nuanced and irreconcilable differences between these doctrines. In fact, they do not even know to distinguish the difference. To Macintyre, these flawed doctrines are trying to get at what the past civilizations used to determine right and wrong: virtue ethics, a system of ethics that was utilized by almost all major civilizations: Classical West, Abrahamic West, Confucian East, and Hindu India. Moderns think that they are getting somewhere in moral reasoning with these newer doctrines, but they do not realize that they do not know the moral doctrine that is truly missing.

     As I am learning legal doctrines, I find myself at a loss as to how a particular doctrine can bring about a just decision. In criminal law, for example, the aim of strict liability is to deter undesirable results. In other words, to decrease unhappiness, a utilitarian aim. Strict liability is an exception to the intent requirement needed to convict someone of charges. Examining a specific intent of an individual to find a moral worth in an act is one of the central elements of virtue ethics. In order for the criminal legal system to excuse intent, one must assume the principles of utilitarianism. The majority of the law maintains principles from virtue ethics that Christian West used. And yet, at the same time, it allows utilitarian reasoning. One ethical system cannot be reconciled with another for they are by principle incompatible. But our law strangely allows this uneasy marriage. What is stranger is that many legal minds are quite content with this uneasy marriage. In fact, they barely notice the nuances of it.

     Criminal law is a doctrinal representation of a society's moral sense. Perhaps we can see what Macintyre is talking about through modern law. We have conflicting moral doctrines making up the law, and yet people barely notice it or bothered by it.

     Perhaps history will come around in fixing this problem. No western philosopher talked of virtue ethics except Catholics up until the 50s. Now, people seem to be seeing the flaws of newer ethical systems. Perhaps we will see a civilization centered around virtue ethics once more.

A Case for Constitutional Catholic Monarchy

A first glance at the title may give you the impression that I am once more joking about installing Catholic Monarchy. Or perhaps you have had the thought that I have binged "The Crown" on Netflix recently. Both thoughts are true. I'm just not satisfied with this Anglican Monarchy thing.

In light of recent turbulent events encompassing modern Western governments, I decided to structure a system of thought in favor of the supposed jest and the new-found fantasy toward monarchies. After all, is it not the mark of an educated individual to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it? What I am not doing, however, is arguing that the emotivist culture itself has rendered democracy ineffective, especially among millennials, thereby we ought to build Philosopher Kingship. So you can be assured.

Main Principle
The main consideration of my thought is twofold: (1) democratic/republican governance, and (2) stability.

Through Trump's victory, we have now learned the hard way that there will be lesser propensity for secular/liberal politicians to represent potential liberal voters with some conservative values as the values of the left gets reinvented and reformulated generation after generation. As the spectrum moved further left, leftist politicians abandoned their efforts to represent the concerns of those holding on to conservative values. Through their neglects, a certain group of people came to feel that their freedom of conscience was being violated and trampled upon. I know of many people who were in strong favor of Obama and Democrats when he was first elected, but they felt as though they were being disenfranchised as the times went on. When certain groups of people are felt as if they are not represented, frustration arises as dictated by human nature. And it is this same frustration that caught the world off guard with Trump's victory: evangelicals and Catholics who voted Democratic for generations - regardless of the color - fled in droves to vote for Trump, feeling betrayed and marginalized by the left. This reality is too apparent from how Latinos/Hispanics voted for Trump at a higher rate than they did for Romney. This is true especially for Catholics. The majority have voted Democrat ever since Kennedy. But this is not so today.

I hold these truths to be self-evident: (1) ideas cannot be killed, (2) religions are collection of ideas, and (3) religion will always be practiced by great numbers for they offer solace and answers to the wretched human condition, an element no secular philosophy can fulfill. For these reasons, there will always be pesky religious groups who oppose Progressive values in great numbers. Unless Progressives are willing to commit a genocide, these pesky individuals who hold conservative values will never go away. The corollary, as portrayed above, is risking their fury in not representing them.

We find now that there needs to be a measure against those liable to be neglected in being represented in order to keep them away from voting for a candidate with a volatile character out of frustration, a measure that can still comfort them despite the lack of representation by electable politicians. 

Dual Representation: the Secular and the Religious, Worldly and the Eternal
The measure, I believe, is to be a religious monarchy. The left's conscience is relativistic; it always shifts and changes (or, as some would say, "progresses"). The right's conscience is objective; is is grounded in the eternal, never to be changed. Since there is no guarantee of a relativistic secular government representing individuals with right-leaning conscience, there needs to be a permanent mode of representation for those with their conscience reaching out to the eternal, the permanent. For this reason, a religious representation with unwavering objectivity and traditionalism needs to exist. Through the Crown, we achieve this desired representation, and thereby stability.

At the same time, I see the merit behind maintaining a secular democratic governance. Imposing religious values upon all peoples would be imprudent for it is certain that a revolt would occur, and freedom of conscience would be violated, the very thing we want to prevent. For this reason, I think, it is wise to meet half-way and settle for a religious constitutional monarchy, having a monarch as the Head of the State(s), and a prime minister as the head of the secular representative government.  Through a constitutional monarchy, we maintain democratic governance.

Separation of Church and State
You may have rebuked at the idea instantly for the corollary of a Catholic monarchy would be to marry the church and the state. Many constitutional monarchies around the world do not separate the church and the state. Scandinavians and British have official state religions, Lutheranism and Anglicanism respectively. Further, the officials of the religions are allowed to speak against secular and anti-religious policies.

Yet these countries hold more secular/liberal views than America. Indeed, Progressive Americans have a habit of looking over the Atlantic to receive revelations from the Nordic god of Progress. This is so for the monarchs of these countries swear to be non-partisan. We can thus rest assured that not separating the church and the state does not necessarily mean that no secular liberal policies will be passed. Further, even though Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Anglican Church, her family is adored and supported by nearly 90% of British citizens, regardless of one's religious status.

Why Not Other forms of Religion?
We want stable and eternal form of representation. Therefore, a religion that is to represent the eternal conscience will have to be the "most eternal" of them all.

Non-Catholic Christianity
There is a distinction between dogma and doctrine. Doctrine is the official stance of a religion, but not necessarily immutable. Dogmas are types of doctrines that are absolutely immutable. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is a dogmatized doctrine of Christianity. If a form of supposed Christianity deviates from this doctrine, it is no longer Christianity, e.g. Mormonism, New-age/Hipster spiritual-thing. If a supposed Christian does not follow the doctrine of the Trinity, then he is not a Christian, e.g. a Gnostic.

Anglican monarchy of United Kingdom, and Lutheran monarchy of Scandinavia embody Protestantism. The problem of Protestantism is that, in the eyes of those who are not religious, it loses credibility for their theologies are oftentimes reinvented. An atheist says: "If this doctrine was held to be true and now it isn't, having been clearly influenced by secular ideologies, how am I to believe that the Holy Spirit is in the works in human history? I only see religions being affected by secularism, therefore I do not see how this religion serves the eternal."

Indeed, Anglicanism and Lutheranism are both modified versions of Catholicism. In their modifications, they have deviated from dogmas that must be accepted by a Catholic, the original Church, one among them being the doctrine of transubstantiation. Such historical deviation from a previous form of a religion fails to legitimize the claim of immutable, atemporal stature of a religion, and thereby the monarchy. By consequence, the ability of the Crown to represent the eternal conscience diminishes.

Catholicism, however, maintains dogmatized doctrines that can be followed back to the earliest form of the Church. Catholicism can thus symbolically represent the eternal more effectively.

Another critical element to consider is the marriage between a protestant monarch with a Catholic. A Catholic vows to be wed within a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest, and also vows to raise one's children Catholic. Should a British crown prince were ever to marry a Catholic bride (which is unlikely), he would have to be married somewhere away from Westminister Abbey, breaking the royals' tradition. Even more awkward, subsequent Catholic heirs would theoretically have to be the head of the Anglican Church while being Catholic should they ascend to the throne, delegitimizing the entire British Crown and Anglicanism.

Eastern Religions
Eastern religions lack the atemporal element of Catholicism. They maintain certain truths to be dogmatic, but still maintains skepticism of those dogmas. This is especially true for Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, they fail to maintain the symbolism of the eternal that a religious monarch should be.

Islam
I cannot, knowing the current state of theological variance within Islam, can see an Islamic monarchy (be it Sultanate/Caliphate) being compatible with democratic rule.

Furthermore, a Catholic Monarchy can represent more than just Catholics. Catholicism possesses moral theology that is shared in part by other religions: Islam, Orthodox/Conservative Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc.

A Different Kind of Constitutional Monarchy
In Britain and Scandinavia, monarchs usually play no more than a symbolic role in dealing with domestic issues, despite being heads of nations. As mentioned above, they are not to mess with partisan issues. They also have executive roles in the military, but the reality is far from it. When it comes to foreign policies, the most they do is wooing foreign officials with honorary dinners at the palace, providing a lighthearted mood where the partisan politicians can negotiate. I am of the opinion that monarchs need to have definable control over the military and influence in foreign policies.

In our volatile international landscape, predictability is key to stability. Knowing what the other side will want and would want is critical to making future moves. The great flaw of the current state of international politics is the fact that the only super power in the world - the U.S. - can potentially change its foreign temperament every four years. When we look at China and Russia, we expect predictable behaviors. This is not so with the U.S. Just days ago, we were in a tense relationship with Russia. Now, Trump and Putin are about to be in bed together. For this reason, we need a more permanent leadership of foreign policy. And this leader ought to be the monarch of a constitutional monarchy who will potentially rule until death.

One may criticize that the monarch would be cutting across party lines. I answer that international politics is beyond the common man's approach, and ought not to be treated like a partisan issue. Indeed, much of President Obama's foreign policy platform, which I think is fair to say disorderly and contradictory in principle, that further agitated the global situation was not on the ballot in 2008 and 2012. Take Iran Nuclear Deal, for example. This policy is not something citizens voted for. Most liberals simply believed what the liberal media told them, and most conservatives did the same thing; very few people I have talked with actually knew much detail about the Deal. Meaning, the deal was not exactly partisan in the sense that the democratic process was not involved. Even if we look at foreign policies that were on the ballot, pulling out of Iraq by 2014, for example, was supported by the people in great numbers. But we now know that the people simply did not have the necessary information to think through in depth. Experts, however, advised against it precisely because of possible terror regime filling the vacuum. A vast majority of foreign policies are likewise undemocratically executed by politicians. For this reason, I see no reason why the chief of the military should not meddle in foreign policy.

A Catholic Monarch's foreign policy, I believe, would be to everyone's liking. Catholic moral doctrine with regard to war is extremely stringent. It can be argued, and is true, that the moral doctrine was misapplied over the course of history. Yet history will also tell us objectively that such unjust wars brought from the misapplication of morals were much more infrequent when we compare the Catholic monarchies of the past to our own days. Further, I argue that, with the eye of the modern, educated public fixed upon the Crown, I do not think a monarch would make decisions apart from the nigh-pacifist Catholic morality of war.

On a finishing note, I must declare who is to be this monarch. Me, of course.

These are the reasons I have come up with to support a jest.

Impossibility of Travelling the Multiverse: QM & Scholastic Metaphysics

I noticed how characters can travel the multiverse in Doctor Strange. This sort of sci-fi is material is common in the literature. Yet I question the plausibility. I examine the issue with a Thomistic lens assisted by what scant knowledge of quantum mechanics I have. Due to my scant knowledge, I reserve the right to be miserably wrong.

The current most prevalent theory of quantum mechanics mirrors a part of Thomism, a branch of philosophy/theology developed by St. Thomas Aquinas. In Thomistic metaphysical system, there exists a notion of prime matter, a matter that is pure materiality itself. "Prime matter is the ultimate subject of form, and in itself indefinable." Prime matter thus needs a form to be definable. To illustrate, imagine yourself a girl named Suzie. Suzie is composed of matter. When the matter with which she is composed is broken down to its most elementary unit, we get prime matter. The clump of matter that is Suzie is indefinable until you apply the idea of Suzie you imagined previously. The idea you applied to the clump of matter is similar to the "form" mentioned. Prime matter thus exists in a state of pure potency unless brought into actuality by a form; whatever prime matter could be or become disappears the moment it becomes subject under a form.

We can see why this system of metaphysics mirrors quantum mechanics, especially in light of string theory. String theory proposes that the fundamental objects are strings, objects that compose all particles that make up matter. We know that these fundamental objects exist in superposition of states.

Superposition of states is what makes multiverse possible. A supposed infinite amount of universes can exist, each universe being a single state within a superposition of states. In likeness to Thomistic metaphysics, the theory of superposition of states mirrors how prime matter is pure materiality itself, existing in pure potency.

Let us then consider the idea of traveling the multiverse. For an individual to travel to another universe, traveling through a portal of some sort, the necessary condition is that the two universes the portal is connecting must actually exist simultaneously, and that the matter composing an object passing through the portal must be transferable to one universe to another.

But how can this be? We theoretically live in a multiverse with an infinite number of universes. And yet we still live in a single multiverse, within a single superposition of states. It means that all universes are composed of equal amount of fundamental objects (strings or prime matter).

Let us imagine Bran. He wants to travel through a portal into another universe. But how can Bran pass into another universe when he himself, that its, the clump of matter that he is composed of,  is already within the universe he wants to travel to by way of alternate state within the superposition of states? Traveling to another universe is like asking me to travel to the exact place I am currently sitting: it cannot be done because it's already being done.

Furthermore, the notion of observer effect makes travelling more unlikely.  Let's add an actualizing effect, the observer effect to choose one. Through experiments, we can confidently say that human beings are observers, the actualizing effect. The matter that exists in random, all possible states suddenly becomes objective and comes to possess a singular state. How can there be more than one universe where observers reside? It seems to me impossible for, when matter existing in randomness has already gained objectivity, then that matter stays in an observed position of state instead of persisting in existing in a superposition.

(Another side of the argument can say that the inhabitants of this universe, the observers in particular, are collectively shifting different position of states, technically travelling the multiverse continuously like flipping through a book)

If we consider the observer effect, much like Thomism, only one state among the superposition of states becomes actualized. In other words, only one universe of supposed infinite universes exists in a state of actuality and the rest exist in a state of potency.

These are the inferences I have made.

How to be an Informed Voter through Internet

"I used to Joke that HuffPo is like a Fox News for liberals. Now I don't. HuffPo is more like a Breitbart for liberals, and CNN is more like a Fox News for liberals now." 
- Some Random Dude on Internet

Step 1
Read the headline of the article and the determine the source.

Step 2
Determine within a second whether you like it or not.

Step 3
If you have determined that you don't like it, skip to step 7.

Step 4
"Like" it.

Step 5 (optional)
Click it.

Step 5 (optional)
Read it.

Step 6
Feel good for yourself that you learned something, especially if the article is from either Breitbart or Huffington Post.

Step 7
Keep searching until you find something that is more likely to confirm your bias & repeat.

Things a Prudent Voter Ought to Think

Prudence, by definition, is practical wisdom. Practicalities deal with commonsensical things. Ideally, it would be a waste of my time to write about what a prudent democratic citizen thinks with the hope of propagating sense into the minds of some 200 people that will likely read this post, because commonsensical things are too obvious to be stated. Sadly, it is not the case. If it were, Americans would not be stuck with the two candidates we are left with. The remainder of this post will deal with a list of things a prudent voter ought to think.

A Prudent Voter Has Respect for One's Fellow Citizens
We are now at a point where we call each other "deplorable" for supporting a candidate one does not support. We are now at a point where a politically involved person tries to undermine a religion and not many condemn that person's actions save for the religious themselves. We are at a point where we scream diversity and inclusion yet fail to tolerate diversity and inclusion of ideas. In this sort of hypocritical and hate-filled political arena, a legitimate rational dialogue is not likely to happen.

A Prudent Voter Applies the Golden Rule to Political Dialogues
Following off of the previous point, a prudent voter will do unto others' arguments as one would have others do to one's own arguments: interpreting an argument in the best possible way. Many people are repulsed at those who vote for Trump or Clinton. Could they look past the repulsion and see certain reasons the other side might be thinking? For example, could a Trump voter think to how a Clinton voter would be willing to look past her immoralities and ruthlessness? Could a Clinton voter do the same for Trump voters?

A Prudent Voter Does "Mental Ping-Pong"
A prudent voter gives oneself the benefit of the doubt, that one can err in reasoning despite the feeling of certitude. Thus a prudent voter would apply a skeptical method (not necessarily skepticism), thinking of best possible objections that can be raised to one's set of beliefs in supposing that one's ideas are false. Look to the works of St. Thomas Aquinas such as Summa Theologica, how he provides counterarguments for every point he attempts to make before making his arguments. Can an average voter do the same?

A Prudent Voter Remains Emotionally Restrained
I've had a hilarious experience with the wide-spread emotional immaturity among young people. I advertised a speaker's event on a college feminist Facebook page. For it was a contentious topic, I emphasized civility during the talk. Before the event , the Facebook group members interpreted my action as an act of stereotyping feminists, commenting in an uncivil manner. During the event, I saw people rolling their eyes or scoffing at a point they disagree with. Here, even when civility was emphasized, they had not the restraint to be civil. I am not bashing on feminists. What I am doing, however, is noting the current state of emotional maturity among the youth.

It is something humanity has known ever since we were conscious of a thing called "thinking": that emotions in many cases cloud our judgments, leading us astray from even the most commonsensical things. Many psychologists seem to think that the current generation seems to be lacking in emotional maturity. This is a consequence of deteriorating family structure. Up until around sexual maturation, human brain goes through a sort of "pruning," a process where the brain cuts off ineffective links to form new ones. As these links are cut off, children tend to act irrationally, or, shall I say, imprudently. They will likely continue to do so well into their 20s for the rational part of the brain, amygdala, will not be completely developed until around the age of 25. Further, a young adult will likely fail to use it to a full extent until the age of 27. Thus it is imperative that children are cared for by their older, more reasonable elders, their parents especially, that they may know the standard of emotional control.

I am mentioning these things here so that you, reader, can be aware of the fact that you are very likely to act in emotionally unrestrained manner if you are under 30, especially when it comes to issues with high-stakes, e.g. politics (and pointless relationships destined to break). Being emotionally unrestrained can have a number of consequences, ranging from misinterpreting others' arguments to putting a charismatic tyrant in a position of power. We would do well to remember that hyper-emotive groups have, with majority vote, executed two innocent men who were the history's finest.

A Prudent Voter Stays Informed
With the advent of internet journalism, we have an unparalleled access to information and opportunity to engage in fruitful dialogues necessary to carry out an effective democracy. Yet this blessing is not taken advantage of. Instead, most of us tend to gravitate toward whatever we agree with. I know people who constantly cite Milo Yiannopoulos as their source of political commentary and yet have never heard of Shaun King. I know people who constantly cite John Oliver's commentary but have never saw a minute of Bill O'Reilly's commentary.

The news industry reflects this reality. I remember when Fox News was the only news network stereotyped for being biased and people joked about it. Now, we can easily label the stereotype to Breitbart, MSNBC, CNN, and  Huffington Post. About these newly labeled networks, we do not joke. Perhaps because the reality has gotten too sad. If conservatives gravitate toward Fox and Breitbart, and liberals to Huffington Post and Daily Show, and they get their news almost exclusively from those sources, then how can they see both sides? These people who only see one side can not be informed. No, being angry at the title of a Facebook share you disagree with time to time without reading the content does not count as being informed.

A Prudent Voter Does Not Worship a Candidate
A rule of thumb of human interaction is to give people who gravitate toward power an utmost skepticism about their moral character. Power can corrupt people. Those who hunger power will manipulate others into thinking that another is manipulating them. Yet I see people acting as though a presidential candidate they support is some sort of savior to bring about a utopia. This attitude has been more prominent among liberals in the past, and certainly utilized by liberal politicians. Remember Obama's campaign slogans? Now, however, it seems that conservatives are starting to tap into this attitude and take advantage of it (Make America Great Again). We also see a slew of emotion-invoking moral terms that, without substantiation, are next to meaningless.

These are mere cheap tricks to bend the logic of people and propel them to zealous following of a candidate, rhetorical devices known to humankind as early as the Roman Republic. It was sad to watch my peers mindlessly supporting Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump while not knowing the consequences of their policies. They may sound great, but are they really? Such a skeptic attitude was rare to be seen among hyper-progressive college students.

A Prudent Voter Does Not Buy into Identity Politics
Identity politics have been in full swing. I was having a conversation with a guy about a person who is gay but oppose same-sex marriage. He said, "What? Even when he's gay?" I also had a conversation with a woman about conservative feminists who oppose abortion and contraceptives. The woman, after finding out that the majority of those feminists are women, said, "What? Even when they are women?" These two people presupposed that being for same-sex marriage is something every homosexual should support, and being pro-abortion something every woman should support. It seems nowadays that the only thing a politician has to do to spark a flame is to appeal to an identity. A prudent voter does not fall for such pandering.

"The System" Cannot Fix Everything
The current method of activists to bring about social change involve three elements: (1) promulgation of their doctrines, (2) injection of said doctrines in the academia, creating a doctrinal orthodoxy, and (3) integration of said doctrines into government policies. Activists most often protest in droves with young people under 25 in the front lines as a form of promulgation. The current generation then gets promoted to positions in academia, liberal arts in particular, with the favor of the past generation that holds similar doctrines (political views are actually discriminated against... conservatism is the new heresy in liberal arts). With the help of these public intellectuals leaning heavily toward a particular side, they then push for integration of their doctrines into government policies. These methods are inadequate and, sadly, medieval.

No matter how good the policies are, no matter how good the law is, they are still liable to the misapplication by way of human flaws. Real change comes from shaping the character of the culture. Moral education through classics, enriching the depressing lack of moral vocabulary of our generation. Absorbing the moral vocabulary into a style of life. Teaching the children without competent parents or role models of those morals through community service. These are the things that truly change the world in the long run. The more moral the culture, the higher the likelihood of producing moral public servants. The more immoral or hedonistic the culture, the higher the likelihood of producing immoral, power-hungry public servants.

Procedural Criminal Justice Issue: A Communitarian Solution

Here, I offer a brief communitarian solution to tackling the problem of police brutality. I speak partly from experience. Although I am a Korean immigrant, I had the unique opportunity to live in a neighborhood nicknamed as "Gang Land" before moving to a middle-class home not too long ago. When I came to Baylor, I remember there being a shooting near the campus. The following morning, there was a school-wide email begging caution and many students felt frightened. Where I came from, when there is a gunshot during the night, many simply shrug it off like it's nothing. But despite the neighborhood I was in, by some strange chance, my school zone was cut to include all economic classes. Across the street from where I was, the school zone was cut to include only the lower class. Some neighborhoods had houses that cost $2 million and some neighborhoods had two bedroom apartments you can rent for $600. Yes, the apartments were that crappy, despite their well-managed outward looks. Due to my situation, I have known friends from different economic and, racial backgrounds. By consequence I observed how different their family dynamics were (if any) and how differently each of them thought. I have further spent hours checking criminal records and noticed the flaws in the system. With that said, I can confidently claim that I have a good insight as to where each side of the debate is coming from.

     The discourse on police brutality has increasingly been on the minds of the public. Many argue that the procedural injustice is not a problem in America. Many argue in opposition that the whole system is rigged against minorities, specifically African Americans. I have stated extremes of each sides, but either way, we see clearly biased arguments on both sides. We have plain deniers of police brutality despite clear video examples on one side, and those insultingly call African Americans who take a more laid-back and conservative approach to fixing the problem as "Uncle Tom" (used derogatorily). I even have heard one person say that Booker T. Washington encouraged Black people to "sit down and do nothing." I question that (white) person's interpretation of history. In the midst of the bias fueled by emotional zeal, many solutions offered are structurally infeasible and legally short-sighted, and often miss the crucial element that should be taken into account: human nature. Communitarianism is built upon assumptions of human nature, thus being more sensible and practical for this imperfect world.

     The relevant communitarian assumptions of human nature are (1) human beings are political animals that congregate into communities, (2) human beings thrive both physically and psychologically in well-functioning communities, and (3) human vices are mitigated in close-knit communities. Modern understanding of psychology has proven these ancient principles; a wealth of happiness studies emphasize the importance of communities (if in doubt, simply Google).

     I will now discuss the issue of procedural injustice and its contributing factors with these principles in mind.

(1) The American political system is prudently constructed to allow local residents to elect local representatives. Yet the number of engaged voters at a local level is insignificant. Oftentimes the topic of how the police should handle the problem are not on the ballot. As political animals (in the Aristotelian sense), we would do well to engage politically more often for to be political is to be communaly engaged. Activists and local Black Churches are able to mobilize politically against perceived systemic injustice locally if they choose to do so. However, many of these groups are largely disengaged from local politics.

     Activists in particular have failed on this aspect. The prevailing rhetoric claims that "the system" is rigged. I have heard the following phrase all too often: "The whole damn system is fucked." The substance of this rhetoric is a grave mistake. As implied in the previous paragraph, American governance is divided into systems. Plural. Not all counties criminal lawyers are overworked, not all counties face accusations of procedural injustice, and not all counties have to deal with the complex structural and sociological issues giving rise to procedural injustice.

(2) Human psychology is wired to act in accordance with primal instincts. In this case, the relevant primal instinct I am talking about is overreaction to perceived threat. When a person is in perceived state of life-threatening danger, the person does not shoot once or strike once; the person will most likely overreact. When one perceives that one's life is in danger, it takes no small amount of willpower to resist. Knowing this fact, prejudiced shootings and violence will always happen regardless of how much progress we make unless we can replace the police force with robots. Knowing further the difficulty of conditioning the human mind, we can conclude that putting the burden of improvement solely on the police force is unrealistic and idealistic at best.

      The burden of improvement should thus be shared by the police force and the American community as a whole. There is very little contention that the modern psyche is not healthy, especially among African American youth. President Obama himself said that African American youths are becoming increasingly without fathers, and that those without fathers are five times more likely to fall into poverty and commit crime. In the absence of  a proper father figure, young African Americans look to the violent and misogynistic wisdom of Gangsta rappers and the likes. All the shootings and pimping glorified in those songs are deemed as "cool" by the youth.

     I remember back in high school how a group black guys talked of girls. One guy asked, after hearing of a fight between a couple, "What happened with you and your bitch?" The other answered, "I smacked that bitch right on her bitch ass face." The group of guys laughed and high-fived the guy that hit his girlfriend. To them, this sort of behavior was acceptable to a point where it deserved a praise. What's more is that these guys were middle-class African Americans whose parents had more stable income than my family did at the time. They had all they needed to live their lives comfortably, but a life of crime appealed to them more.  The experience I have revealed is but a small portion of what is going on. I also know a guy who imprudently posted on Facebook with a ski mask on captioned "time to work." I never saw him post on Facebook since, but this shows how a life of Tupac is glorified over Elon Musk. Indeed, African American males are much more likely to commit crimes than other individuals of different race nationwide. This harsh sociological fact is where some police officers' prejudice lies. Each violent encounter with a particular racial group would further strengthen the prejudice in return.

     Of course, I am not saying that we should not hold minorities who grew up in harsh conditions and officers who formed their prejudice upon violent encounters morally culpable of their faulty actions. I know of youths grew up in a gangland ending up praying the rosary every day and police officers with PTSD never batching up a car search, proofs of how we make the decisions we make regardless of our conditions. What I am suggesting is that the family structure of  African American communities must be strengthened so that the youth will turn out to be more disposed toward making moral decisions. Where there is no family structure, those other than the children's immediate family must become a family for them. Black churches that counteract "thug-life" culture have been found by research to reduce crime, and we have many out there. Yet more can be done by activists, religious or otherwise. Instead of wasting time with outpouring of emotional zeal over unclear low-res videos, perhaps they should set up after-school programs to keep children out of the streets and provide legitimate parental figures.

(3) It is common knowledge that, if we know a person well, we are more likely to act favorably toward that person. I myself have experienced that those who do not know me tend to show anger while discussing a difficult topic while those who know me well treated me with kindness despite our differences. However intemperate one may be, that same intemperance can be tempered while being with individuals one favors; human vices are mitigated in close-knit communities.

     This train of thought can be said for the police force. If a police officer is from a community he is patrolling and is well-acquainted with its members, he will more likely to know a suspect from that particular area and be more lenient toward the suspect even if the suspect has committed a violent crime in the past. This form of policing, community policing, was what we had in the past, and is still loosely used in other countries. I still remember how I knew well the two police officers that patrolled my street when I lived in Korea. The modern form of policing is traced back to 1829 when London founded its Metropolitan Police Services.

     But this theory of communal police force, however attractive it may sound, cannot be done in urban ganglands; it is a vision achieved only in small rural towns and stable upper-middle class suburbs. If an African American man from a crime-heavy African American neighborhood gets recruited, the gang controlling the area will most likely harass the recruit's family to a point of leaving, or, in the worst, outright murder the recruit while he's sleeping in his own home. It seems that a communal police force can only work within a relatively stable community. The solution to this element, then, must be traced back to the solution for the second element.

     In conclusion, while pushing for reforms in the justice systems, minority communities, black communities more so, must push toward improving the culture their communities promote. The systems can only do so much; if there are more crimes committed by minorities, a system, however well-structured it may be, will inevitably convict minorities at a more frequent rate. Proponents of justice must, and I repeat must recognize that stable individuals make up a stable society. If individuals are morally uneducated and characteristically unbridled, no law will fix the instability that comes with it. Thus the restoration of family is crucial to solving any sociological problem for the family is where moral education starts. In a family, moral education is taught not out of philosophy books and nonsensical soundbites, but in observing the charity that can exist between human beings and how to practice that most precious disposition. The family ought to be the building block of any civil society. This fact has been understood by ancient philosophers long before modern psychology was formed; it is deplorable how little attention we give to the family nowadays.
   

Kaepernick and the Politically Correct Culture

On a daily basis, we are met with people saying one thing but acting in a contrary manner. It is a part of human imperfection, I suppose, to act at times without thinking of core principles by which one should act. One among such acts is Kaepernick's actions regarding the national anthem being paraded by the Progressive Left, adherents of the Politically Correct (PC) Culture in particular, as a display of virtue. I mean to expose the inconsistency behind the culture through the topic hotly debated in our society. My motivation is grounded for it is this same culture that is paving the niche wherein individuals like Trump can thrive.

     Let us first begin by explaining what the PC Culture is (rather than what it aims to be). Proponents of the culture give differing opinions as to what the culture is and how it is lived out, but the uniting principle is the same. One of the principal aspect of the PC Culture is to actively inject social taboos into methods of expression, most commonly targeted being words or phrases. The tabooing of words such as the N-word and the PC Culture is different in that the taboo against the N-word came about in isolation, meaning the taboo did not come to be instituted as a part of a larger culture. The PC Culture, on the other hand, is a recent movement which actively seeks out vocabulary that the culture deems inadequate. For this reason we see college campuses debating as to which words or phrases are PC, ranging from "Are you deaf?" to "politically correct." The effect of the culture, the tabooing of methods of expression, is tantamount to censorship, an act of intentional suppression of contents, lacking only the assistance of governmental coercion (something is up when even a liberal POTUS comments against this culture... but I digress).

     Another principal aspect of the PC Culture is that it seeks to taboo methods of expression that may be offensive to people. A biased view from a proponent would say that the culture seeks to taboo methods of expression that are offensive to people. But let's set this conflict aside for a moment and assume the culture's choice to use "are." 

     This aspect is where the discrepancy springs forth when the proponents of the culture gives support to Kaepernick's case. Standing down during the anthem is offensive. Many people have found Kaepernick's actions to be offensive, so it is offensive. Why ought not this method of expression labelled politically incorrect? To ground the PC Culture's validity upon mere offensiveness of methods thus runs into a problem. It becomes apparent, then, as to why "may" is a more accurate description. Words are offensive insofar as they are construed as offensive; offensiveness of a topic depends entirely upon interpretation. For example, if someone cracks a stereotypical Asian joke, it is entirely up to me to find offense or to laugh with others. 

     To avoid this discrepancy, a proponent would focus down the scope of the qualification of validity. To do so, one would focus the culture down to tabooing of methods of expressions offensive to the disadvantaged (the disabled, the poor, the historically oppressed minorities, etc). To justify this new grounding, a proponent would then have to characterize tabooing methods of expression that offends the disadvantaged as a display of virtue of kindness and respecting others.

     First, focusing down the grounding still does not overcome the objection that offensiveness of methods of expression depends entirely upon personal interpretation. It is still entirely up to the disadvantaged to interpret something as offensive. I digress here to mention a point relevant to the topic of being offended: Someone who has grown up in a poor, crime-heavy neighborhood or been in a support group for disabled people would quickly find that the disadvantaged the PC Culture attempts to embrace have learned to not be offended; through their experiences, they learn not to take the imperfections of the world too seriously lest they fall to constant anger and unhappiness. One will also find that the vast majority of the proponents of the culture come from a advantaged (or privileged) background. 

     Second, I object that virtue ethics shows no partiality. Rich or poor, White or colored, disadvantaged or advantaged, all human beings are bound to ethics. Being kind to someone should have no bearing whether someone is disadvantaged or advantaged. In showing zero partiality, the society should put the burden of kindness on both sides of a dialogue rather than treating the disadvantaged in a special manner. In embracing the epistemic limits of the human mind, one would quickly notice that it is impossible to count for every methods of expression that could be offensive to someone. To combat this, one would find that it is far easier - and far less utopian - to learn cognitive skills to interpret someone else's expressions without offense, insofar as those expressions made could be reasonably perceived as arising from ignorance (burning of the flag would be an expression that cannot be reasonably perceived as arising from ignorance due to the global acknowledgement of the act as inherently aggressive). 

     From what has been said, the contradictions within the PC Culture can be seen. 

Anatomy of a Fruitless Social Media Argument

To call what I am about to analyze as a "debate" is a misnomer. Such a word is a mere show of politeness. More accurately, I mean senseless waste of time. Let's begin.

I myself do not participate in Facebook debates a lot. When I see something I deem disagreeable, I pass along. I mostly read them and see what other people are thinking. But when someone challenges my view on my posts, I gladly accept and reply. But then again I soon begin to realize that it was a mistake to engage in such an activity for I should have realize that, chances are, the person commenting does not know how to argue for his or her own position with great thought. In order to prevent you from being that lesser Facebook's (or any other social media outlet's) netizen, I wish to provide you an example of something that resembles a fruitless Facebook debate, showing where things can go wrong.

Let me begin with a loose (and ludicrous) example:

Original Post (OP): "Bears are boring for they lack the entertainment value of Battlestar Galactica."

Challenger (CR): "Bears are not trying to be boring. They are just trying to be cute and cuddly for the masses. And are you seriously shaming all the bears for lacking some entertainment value?"

OP: "I'm not saying that bears are trying to be boring, but that they consequently are. And I'm not shaming bears. I'm just stating my opinion."

CR: "You would see just how entertaining bears are if you look past your prejudice. And you should stop with your hasty generalizations; they are logical fallacies. Not all bears are boring."

     Let's look at where things went wrong.

1) "Boring" is a subjective concept applied to a particular subject. In this case, the word is applied to Bears. It's akin to words like "offensive," "spicy," and "exciting."For most Koreans, American football is boring. Americans would of course disagree. Many Americans would consider cricket to be a boring sport. Members of the Commonwealth, however, would disagree. Some would consider bears, beets, and Battlestar Galactica to be boring. Someone might not. The fact that CR began a discussion about it is silly.

2) CR says that the OP was "shaming" all the bears. The context of the words do not suggest that OP was shaming the bears. To have concluded as such suggests that CR projected his own flawed interpretation unto OP's words. It becomes ever-apparent that CR is getting a little too personal and emotionally attached and unable to contain the said emotion by using the word "seriously."And when emotions are not contained, it is more likely that an interpreter would misinterpret and imbue undue meaning to other's words.

3) "Look past your prejudice," says CR. There is no telling that OP is prejudicial to Bears. The OP merely suggests a conclusion a person has reached in comparison to his attitude toward Battlestar Galactica. A more proper response by CR would have been: "How did you come by that conclusion? What parts of Battlestar Galactica are more entertaining to you than bears?" In turn, CR himself exercised prejudice against OP.

4) CR attempts to point out to logical fallacies OP was supposedly making, hasty generalization in particular. Objectively speaking, there is no telling OP made a hasty generalization. He merely shared a conclusion he arrived at on Facebook. There is zero evidence that OP made a "sweeping" generalization. Many people memorize a bunch of logical fallacies off of a chart they found somewhere online or in a logic 101 class, the contents of which they barely remember. But it becomes clear that they have not mastered the practical applicability of logic in an everyday setting.

5) CR says "not all bears are boring." CR does not follow it up with premises supporting that conclusion. At this point, whatever hope there was of there being a fruitful discussion is gone. Without premises supporting a conclusion, one person cannot understand the other.

These are common mistakes people make on Facebook and in Twitter wars. To sum it up, they are:
1) Arguing over subjective application of a word.
2) Misinterpretation of others' words.
3) Prejudice against someone you disagree with.
4) Fallacious accusations of logical fallacies.
5) Arguing against a conclusion with a conclusion unsupported by premises.

     

Why Personify Virtues as Women?

I remember walking around with a dear friend of mine at an art museum, admiring classical paintings and making fun of modern ones together. I remember having a brief conversation about a particular type of paintings. They were of personifications of different virtues: faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, temperance, and courage. One interesting thing of note was that all the personifications used female figures. My friend's answer was that, since the virtues fully actualized are perfections, the male painters probably projected the women they were in love with to the virtues for they would have idealized those women they so loved. My answer was that the male painters probably refused to use male figures for they found in men a vicious nature far often than they found them in women. A part of my answer came from my experience of being a male, and also from the fact that I did not idealize a woman in my life. Even my dear friend, who is a female, I do not idealize. The virtues of prudence, temperance, and courage I cannot exactly attribute to her ( :p ). But I digress. I didn't expound upon my reasoning then, so I mean to put my thought process on record through this post.


I will first present paintings that are like the ones I saw at the museum. I couldn't find the ones I saw on Google, but these three will have to do:

These paintings personify the seven virtues. As you can see, all the personifications are of women. The third one in particular is striking for the painting has seven male saints under the virtues which are personified as women.

     As they are all of Catholic origins, one might argue that the virtues were likely personified as women for the perfect example of virtue - Christ Himself - was born of a woman, namely Virgin Mary. So perhaps the classical painters started the tradition of personifying the virtues as women for it would be fitting considering their knowledge of Catholic Marian theology.

     But this tradition of personifying the virtues as women go back further than the Christian tradition. Roman goddesses Iustitia and Prusentia are both personifications of virtues (justice and prudence). Iustitia is particularly familiar with the modern Western tradition for we see blind ladies holding a sword and a scale in front of courthouses. For a further non-Christian example, we can look to Lady Liberty.

     Now, the artists were all men in male-dominant societies. Despite the perceived superiority of men, they depicted the virtues - perfections - as women. Why? Since the painters are men, and since I am a man myself, perhaps I could search in myself to empathize with them, hopefully arriving at a conclusion they have.

     Personally, I have had more female friends than male friends. Apart from when I was a little boy mocking fights with other boys as a form of play, I made most of my male friends in a religious context. If you have seen my hanging out with guy friends at a church, they are almost the complete extent of my male friends. For others I hang out occasionally, I only describe them as my associates. The reason for this is that I've come to be irritated with a vast majority of men, and I have met many.

     I suppose I will have to describe few behaviors that irritate me in men. If you are a guy reading this, perhaps you could use the occasion to search your conscience.

     Men like to talk about women with other men. I have heard very few men talking about a woman's character traits. In most cases, they talk about how "hot" a woman is. One time, one of the church associates was talking to me about women with another guy. One guy asked me, "Are you a boobs guy or a butt guy?" I was appalled at the question. Should a Christian striving for virtue ask that question? The answer is a clear no. The one who asked aid: "I'm a butt guy myself. I like big butts." He had a girlfriend. And indeed, her girlfriend has the physical attribute he likes. I wonder... Did he start dating her because of her character trait or something else? Thus began a conversation I desperately wanted to get out of. Apart from naming a specific body part they are attracted to, I know of men who consistently are attracted to blondes, Asians, redheads, etc. Such fetishes are disturbing to me.

     Another time, this time an atheist who is supposedly a fully fledged supporter of feminism, did a similar thing. Me and two other guys were watching a movie and he was in his room studying or something. One guy next to me, also a supposed fully-fledged supporter of feminism, said, "Hey, [name]! Boobs!" during a scene with nudity. And soon enough, this guy rushed out of his room to see the nudity. He also had a girlfriend. Their behaviors remind me of the recent season of South Park which involved a politically correct fraternity who act like they care about social justice issues in order to attract women for sex with their seemingly solid moral principles.

     Speaking of deceptions through appearances, I have also seen many of deceptions by men. In a show Marco Polo, there is a scene where a Daoist monk reflects upon Mongolian warriors celebrating by saying, "When men drink and tell stories they tend to hide within the stables. Why? It is the perfect repository for horse manure." It is very accurate. I have seen that most men bloat stories and add new details in every other sentence in hopes of appeasing their vanity. This habit of decepting, I have observed, increases dramatically during a date. I have had the privilege of observing a few guys on their dates and get feedbacks from them about how it went afterward. They lied through their teeth.

     Yes, I have seen plenty of vices from women. I know of many who objectify men as sexual objects; I know of a few who have a fetish for Korean guys. I know of an army of those who feel that they need to reveal their bodies to attract men, crossing their arms while sitting across a guy to make the cleavage appear bigger to angling their legs so that the man could see underneath their shorts or skirts; indignifying acts they are. I have also had women lie to me, clearly bloating their stories during a date, but not as much as men do. I initially thought that it was cute of them to lie in order to have me like them in return. But dishonesty is a vice nonetheless. I also know economically frugal women who say yes to dates just to have men buy them meals. But whatever vices they may have, not many result in violence and trauma like when men turn to their base nature.

     When men turn to their base nature, they learn to take advantage of their physical prowess against others. I know of men who have abused their wives or girlfriends, the ones who have raped multiple women and men, the ones who have imprinted permanent scars within people's minds. In sitcoms and cartoons, men are depicted as idiots. Homer in The Simpsons, Peter in Family Guy, every single guy in Friends, Ted and Barney in How I Met Your Mother, they are all depicted as idiots. The shows are comedic, so the characters should all be idiotic to a degree, that is true. Yet men in these shows are clearly idiotic to greater severities than women. Perhaps these shows reflect the dark part of our society with a comedic facade. The writers' decisions to create character profiles as such must have come from their own experiences (comedy writers are predominantly male).

     We have but to look to the modern state of family to see how men could be portrayed as idiots so often. We see too often men who do not know how to treat women correctly even when their prefrontal cortex has been fully developed at the age of 25. We see women appealing to incompetent men enslaved by their sexual impulses for they do not know what competent men seek in a woman. Social psychologists can easily point to our society's severe lack of a father figure. Even in a non-divorced home, a father can be distant, choosing a career that would put him and his children in situations where they cannot spend adequate times together. Divorces, of course, take a toll in a child's psyche. Flannery O'Connor titled one of her short stories as "Good Men are Hard to Find." It is a chilling tale depicting how ordinary people can be so evil as well as extraordinary people. Perhaps her observation is not so much a dark pessimism but rather a reality.

     The flaws of men I have mentioned would have been observed by classical Romans also. These behaviors are nothing new to humankind. I do not meant to disregard the evils done by women (for I know many). But I am pointing to the severity of consequences when men are incompetent.

     From what has been said, I think that you, reader, can draw an inference as to why I think that the artists refused to use men and preferred women in personifying the virtues.

What Do We Mean by "Good" Person?

Allow me to get to the point of this post through a story.

     It was 8:30 P.M. in the evening. Lilly's legs were aching from all the walking in her heels, her bared skin still chilled from the cold air conditioner of the BMW she just got out of. She half-regretted wearing a dress that was so revealing. It was her date night with a guy she met at a bar three days ago. As Lilly entered her dorm room, her roommate Ryla jumped out of her chair while reading, showing excitement for her friend she knew since her freshman year. Ryla felt jealous toward her friend, envious of how her friend goes on dates while she sits around scrolling through Facebook photos of engagement pictures all day, how her friend seemed to be liked by guys more than she is. But she learned to hide such dispositions long time ago.

     "So, how was it?" Ryla asked. 

     "It was good!" Lilly said with a smile on her face. "We just ate at this fancy place in midtown. Their shrimp pasta was fantastic."

     "A place at midtown? He must be really rich."

     "Yeah, he drives a BMW."

     "Nice!" Ryla exclaimed, still hiding her jealousy from her friend. "How did it end? A hug?" she asked. 

     "Well, his car was really cold," lilly said, chuckling. "When he saw me shivering, he put his arm around me and rubbed my arm."

     "And he went for a kiss?"

     "I think he was going to, but I got out of the car and told him 'goodbye'," Lilly said, rolling her eyes. 

     "Yeah, a kiss on a first date seems a bit rushed," Ryla said, relieved that her friend did not get to kiss a handsome rich guy, her envy still guised as happiness for her friend. "So, how was he overall?"

     "He's a really good guy!" Lilly replied.

     "So, are you gonna go out on a second date?" 

     "No," Lilly said. "I'm gonna refuse next time he reaches out. Something didn't really feel right."

     "You said he's a good guy. Why don't you give him another try? 

     "I don't know," Lilly said, letting out a sigh. "I mean, I had fun, but he just didn't feel right." 

     Ryla scoffed. "Is that your dad's cop instincts coming out of you?" 

     "Maybe," Lilly said, laughing. 

     Dumb bitch, Ryla thought. She had been stalking the guy on Facebook. She thought that the guy was settling for Lilly. To Ryla, he was too attractive to date a girl like Lilly. Lilly was a perfectly average-looking girl, but the guy looked like a model, like one of those young CEOs in movies. Perhaps it's good that Lilly won't go for him. An attractive guy like him would go wasted on the shy prudes like Lilly. After all, he seemed far higher in caliber than the kind of guys that usually ask out Lilly. 

     "Well, I hope you don't regret after you reject him," Ryla said, smiling. "I've seen regretting girls go crazy over a guy. And it's not pretty"

     "Oh, I don't think I will," Lilly said.
     After going into a deep thought for a while, Lilly said, "Hey, Ryla."
     "Yeah?" Ryla answered.
     "Did I make a mistake by going on a date with a guy I barely know?"
     "No, there's nothing wrong with having a little fun."
     Ryla said it with no thought as to the character of the guy might not be good, not knowing herself the fact that her prudential judgment failed out of her desperation for the kind of "fun" she was so envious of. A part of her imprudence and naivete was perhaps influenced by romanticizing modern "romances" like Fifty Shades of Grey.
     Despite her roommate's naivete, Lilly's conscience told her otherwise.

     A "good guy," Lilly said. Little did she know that the guy she went on a date with raped his then-girlfriend in his senior year in high school. In his sophomore year in college, he committed another crime of the same kind at a fraternity party. In his senior year in college, he committed the act for the third time. The reason he has yet to have been pressed with charges is that he manipulated his highschool ex into half-believing that the crime was actually consensual; the girl did not make a move to press charges out of her uncertainty. Second time around, the victim was unconscious, waking up thinking that it was a consensual one-night-stand. The third time around, the victim did not want her college life to be interfered. 

     He is now graduated, working at a business firm near the university Lilly attends. He was hired to work there as soon as he graduated, thanks to his connections in his fraternity. In between Lilly and his high school days, he would go around having one-night-stands as many as he could. He was wealthy and naturally gifted with his looks. He had plenty of resources to decieve his way through women seeking the novelty of fancy dates, and also to guilt-trip women into doing what he wants. The more expensive the dates, the more obligated the women felt to do whatever he wants.
     By now, he had much of such a predatory instinct honed, being able to tell intuitively the kind of insecure women who would fall for his tricks and guises, the ones that are so anxious to be dating to a point where their intuitions fail them. Indeed, he purposefully made his car into a freezer in order to put his arm around Lilly like so many of the girls before. Had Lilly not been able to quickly get out of her car, he would have played out his usual routine, escalating from his right arm around the prey to whatever he desired for the night. Lilly was right. He would have gone for a proper hug... but also far beyond it. Had Ryla known all this, she would not be so envious of her roommate.  

     One thing I'd like for us to focus is how Lilly characterised the guy as a "good guy," a guy she spent three hours with total. A wealth of psychological/sociological studies show that we lie often. I will not even link a source to where I found these studies for there are too many for you to miss from simple Google search (and searching your own conscience). Most of them are insignificant; they are mere fibs (men do more often than women). But these "fibs" are made out of impulse, especially on dates. A man whose end goal is sex, therefore, would lie through his teeth to someone they are hoping to sleep with as soon as possible. They would tell you that their end goal of dating is to settle down and start a family, but chances are, they would be lying through their teeth. Now, the guy would surely have deployed all the skills necessary to hide his ill-intent. On Lilly's part, she would need the intuition of the best criminal profiler in the world to spot all the fishy gestures the guy unconsciously slipped by to realize that he is a predatory individual. Even then, three hours maximum might not be enough to spot sufficient amount of gestures. It takes people (excluding the ones who are naturally gifted...or cursed) hours upon hours of time spent with another to know and become accountable to each other. 

     Regardless of all his crimes and all the lies he told her over the course of three hours, Lilly has still characterized the guy as a "really good guy." She would not be at a fault, of course. The vast majority of people pass judgments of character based on how much fun they have. Only in reasoning things out do we find that it would be too hasty to call a person good or bad in most situations. Perhaps it is the case that, when we say that someone is good or bad, we are not passing character judgments. More accurately, we are stating our preferences of certain moments. It is easy to call psychopaths with consistent criminal behaviors shown all over the TV "bad," but not so easy when that same psychopath starts giving money to the poor and when we do not know of his crimes. I believe that even psychologists lack the right to judge a person to be "good" in most cases; only a book-length behavioral profile of an individual would be reasonably sufficient to pass such judgments. Afterall, isn't Lilly's roommate Ryla "bad" in being so envious of her friend? 

     The story above is fictional, yes. The names and further details are made up. But not entirely. The basic outline of the story is true in many aspects for I have compiled different parts of different true stories, especially the worst parts. Scenarios like this happen everyday against too many women. I will not specify which parts are true; I'll let your thoughts take guesses. Considering the reality of it all, from having imprudent and jealous friends to going on dates with criminals, it is therefore saddening that some of our human interactions can fall to such dangers. The story is an extreme example, to be sure, the kind that makes every father's, brother's, and loyal friend's spines chilled and fists clench. Yet does it not represent how we are so quick to trust people? Is it not characteristic of the kind of naivete we display in being drawn to a person either as a friend or as a romantic interest in mere hours, sometimes in minutes? Personally, I know of too many stories where the ending was not so fortunate... 

     Would we be so pessimistic to suspend judgment on how good or how bad a person is? Or is it prudent? I cannot say. A part of me wants to believe that people I love are "good," and I compliment them accordingly. Yet I am fully aware that there are twisted parts of them that qualify them as "bad" just as well, especially the parts that lie and betray, the parts that will hurt me the most. Am I naive or virtuous in wanting to believe in my loved ones like such, pushing the bad parts of them out of my memory? I cannot say.

     As a closing statement, I want to mention the following. The point of this post is not to argue whether or not we ought to go on dates with a person we barely know, and whether there are prudential ways of navigating the modern dating culture which promotes impulsive behaviors and breeds insecurities. What I am suggesting is to point out by extreme example how quickly we pass judgments on people we have fun with as "good," and how unknowingly toxic such practices can be. Further, by using the story as an example, I want to point out how such a practice can be dangerous and imprudential.