On True Empathy

"In my non-primordial experience I feel, as-it-were, led by a primordial one not experienced by me but still there, manifesting itself in my non-primordial experience." - St. Edith Stein  

In this seemingly chaotic age, perhaps a thought has grazed an individual's mind: 'people are not empathetic nowadays.' One would perceive how those attempting to influence political will upon the other bickering at each other without much dialogue and easily come to the conclusion that people nowadays lack empathy. To explore what it truly means to be empathetic is the aim of this post.

The irony of the current social condition is that those who think that other side of the political power struggle lacks empathy are the very ones lacking empathy. That is to say, all sides lack empathy. Now, when I say that people lack empathy, I do not mean that they are void of empathy, that they are all sociopaths. Rather, I mean that they lac the disposition that gives rise to true empathy to a degree where it cannot give rise to the said true empathy. What is this disposition I speak of? What is true empathy? They are expounded further below.

The first order is to find out what is "true" empathy before discussing which disposition, that is to say human character, gives rise to it. By definition, empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. As the common saying goes, "learning to put oneself in another's shoes." I observe that most people make the critical mistake of thinking that empathy is an emotional trait, and not rational. Although partly true, by its very concept, empathy is a rational act. 

Look to the italicized quote by St. Edith Stein above. By "primordial," she means readily perceived on the spot, i.e. immediate perception. The "non-primordial" experience she speaks of is empathy. In a beautiful way, she describes how an immediate perception of another is perceived through her non-immediate experience. Now, do note that there is no other way to perceive of things in a non-immediate way other than through one's own mind, i.e. through imagination. One has to force one's own mind to picture a situation of another. Thus, empathy is primarily a rational act. Likewise, true empathy is one of rational act.

Next order is to find out which character trait, disposition, supports a rational act. Normally, a person is able to think clearly when thinking about matters that do not have emotional entanglements. However, when dealing with other persons, especially when another person is perceived to be an opponent, emotional entanglements are sure to arise. In order to reason through another's experience and to truly understand the other, it is thus necessarily to get rid of emotional entanglements, both positive and negative, to objectively imagine another's situation without bias. Thus, the disposition that gives rationality is emotional temperance.

As put forth above, true empathy is a rational activity and the disposition required to attain true empathy is emotional temperance. It sounds well and good in the abstract, but how will it look in real life? Perhaps I should start with an example of false empathy since we supposedly lack true examples. 

In our political realm, we are so quick to decry racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, transphobia, and thousands of other labels as a short-cut to decry the other side as irrational and evil. These individuals think that they are being empathetic to care for the sufferings of black Americans, immigrants, women, homosexuals, Muslims, and trans persons. But they are not truly empathetic. They are sympathetic, to be sure. They desire to be good and they are correct to feel pity and sorrow for the sufferings of another. However, they are wrong to think that they are empathetic for their empathy ends where their sympathies run dry. In short, they are incapable of putting oneself in the shoes of those they oppose, unable to imagine objectively why they . This is so for their emotional intemperance leads them to despise their political opponents, thus creating an emotional entanglement that prevents them from objective, rational, true empathy. 

If they were capable of true empathy, they would have been able to understand the other side and rationally discuss their differences. But such a vision is a mere fantasy.

A Halloween Special: The Spirit of Vatican II Doesn't Have to Be Scary

"Is the liturgy being lived as the 'origin and summit' of ecclesial life, in accordance with the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concilium? In the universal Church and in the particular Churches, is the ecclesiology of communion described in Lumen Gentium being strengthened? Does it leave room for charisms, ministries, and different forms of participation by the People of God, without adopting notions borrowed from democracy and sociology which do not reflect the Catholic vision of the Church and the authentic spirit of Vatican II? - Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente 36

Every quotation of the Roman Missal here is from the Third Edition translated in English.

The phrase “Spirit of Vatican II” is perhaps one of the loosest phrases thrown around among Catholic circles. While no unified consensus of what it means is absent, we can be assured that the Church suffered a massive fallout after the Second Vatican Council.

The notion of Spirit of Vatican II is somewhat scary. Progressives often abuse the wordings of council documents, at times to a point of gross liturgical abuse. In reaction, radical traditionalists like SSPX refuse to accept the Second Vatican Council as legitimate. Those in the middle like myself are afraid that a schism might happen as progressives create further reactions from the right. Here, I point out that the Spirit of Vatican II doesn't have to be scary.   

The Catholic Church is growing at a rapid rate. The Church in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, South Korea, and even China are experiencing expansion. Despite the growth in the East, the Catholic Church in the West is categorically failing. It is not the case that modernity and religious life is incompatible. Highly developed countries like Poland still maintain strong Catholic identity and adherence to Catholic teachings. In fact, Poland’s adherence to Catholicism increased over the years.

One societal factor in the West - the Sexual Revolution - contributed to the decline of Western religiosity, to be sure. But it is apparent that there has been misconstrual of the “Spirit of Vatican II” in the West. In order to promote inclusivity, many sacrificed teaching the hard truths. That approach began in the late 60’s. Nowadays, outright heresy is celebrated and encouraged in many parishes. Because of the failures of the mistakes of previous generation, millennial cradle Catholics are, for the most part, incapable of engaging the complex theology of the Church intellectually and have no interest in doing so. What little knowledge of the Faith they have are derived from shallow readings of the scripture, and, further, many itch to weave secular political issues into every word of the gospel during bible studies instead of moral virtues that should be derived from the readings.

The stark difference in the way Catholicism is approached in the West and the East & Africa is ever more visible when we look to the theological and liturgical splits. The proposals of supposed doctrinal developments are always generated by cardinals and bishops from the West. In particular, cardinals and bishops from the United States and Germany (and places like Argentina where Germanic influences run strong). If we look to those who most strongly propose liturgical orthodoxy are not from the West. Cardinal Sarah is one of the Dubia cardinals, and Bishop Schneider of Kazakhstan implores communicants to not touch the Host. Ironically, the supposed strides toward inclusivity by Progressive Westerners are in fact making an elitist Euro-centric Vatican politics. 

Here, though I cannot hope to provide a definite answer to what “Spirit of Vatican II” should be, I can say with certainty that how the adherence to what the Council Fathers intended liturgically and communally is central to fixing the problems. The purpose of the liturgy is to draw the people toward the Eucharist and unity among the peoples. It is entirely reasonable to think, then, that the design of the Council Fathers, supposing that the Second Vatican Council was inspired by the Spirit, should be adhered to. I lay down my opinion what the authentic spirit of Vatican II is through Late Pope St. John Paul II's quote above.

Is the liturgy being lived as the "origin and summit" of ecclesial life?

Many questions can be asked as a sub-heading to this grand question. One question that is absolutely indicative of ecclesial life is: Is the Eucharist at the center of the liturgy in the current form as it is being celebrated? To rephrase the question: If an atheist who knows nothing about Catholicism were to walk into a Catholic church and passively observe the liturgy, what would one think is the center of the liturgy? 

Usage of Latin

"The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful."

"Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings." §41

Latin is the universal language of the Church. The intent of the Fathers was to maintain a copious usage of Latin all the while reforming the liturgical language to fit the communal need of specific diocese. The reason, as stated above, is to have foreign laity be able to participate in the liturgy. A Korean not fluent in English cannot participate in an all-English liturgy, but he can do so in a liturgy that incorporated Latin. Pope Francis has decentralized translations through his Motu Propio recently, a move envisioned by Council Fathers, but has failed to advocate for a wider usage of Latin, one which Council Fathers also intended. If Latin is used during consecration and the immediate stages of the liturgy surrounding the consecration, the foreign laity gets to participate in the apex of the mass. I have been a foreigner in Catholic masses, and I found it regrettable that I could only passively observe.

So much for increasing the participation of the laity.

Usage of Latin and Gregorian chants can further answer the question posed. If a different language - a very ancient language at that - is used during consecration, it should immediately draw attention to the atheist in the hypothetical that there is something going on that's distinguishable from the other parts of the liturgy. Something special.

Even a charismatic church is able to incorporate Latin. I have seen charismatic masses that have reverently incorporated Latin, through a mode of music that is a type of spin-off of polyphony, to signify that consecration is about to happen. The chorus of the song of their choice was sung in Latin and in return drew attention to the consecration.

Ad Orientem

Another crucial element of the Roman Missal that is of note is that it does not order priests to carry out a mass versus populum. In fact, the language of the Missal is abundantly clear that ad orientem is still presupposed. 

The Missal deliberately orders priests to be "facing the people" on specific instances. §124, 138, 146 154, 157, 165. It furthermore likewise orders priests to be "facing the altar" on specific instances. §158. Note that "facing the altar" comes right after "facing the people" on §157, as if the people and the altar are not toward the same direction.

Consider how mass is celebrated nowadays. The priest is behind the altar and faces versus populum. Clearly, this was never intended by the Council Fathers. Like every form of mass before them, they thought that the masses will be celebrated ad orientem. Novus Ordo was originally intended to be celebrated ad orientem. But, without warning, 99.9% of masses nowadays are being celebrated versus populum. This is most likely due to a misinterpretation of a sentential structure that occurred in §299 in English. The translation of §299 in English can be wholly misleading when having in mind how the rest of the liturgical manual is written (e.g. §§157-158). But, as Brits and Americans started to do it, the rest of the world followed.

Note §299: "(1) The altar should be built separate from the wall, (2) in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, (3) which is desirable whenever possible." An instinctive thought would be that (3) modifies (2). That thought, however, does not make sense as to why §157 orders priests to turn toward the people while having them turn to the altar in §158. (Numbers inserted).

Note the following Latin version of §299 also: "Altare exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit." 

If we look to numerous sentential structures in Church Latin (and at times in Greek) that reflects a similar structure, it is much more likely than not that a dependent clause that comes between  an independent clause and another dependent clause serves as a clarifying clause that is dependent upon the first independent clause, and the third clause being the modifier of the first.

Simply open up a random page of the Summa and you will see what I am talking about.

Look too the three different clauses inserted. (1) is the only independent clause of the sentence. (2) and (3) are dependent clauses. It appears that many are interpreting the quote so as to have (2) modify (1) and (3) modify (2). This interpretation, as noted above, does not make sense in light of §§157-158. However, if we posit that both (2) and (3) modify the subject that is (1), §§157-158 make sense. The sentence makes sense if we take out (2): The altar should be built separate from the wall, which is desirable whenever possible. If we consider further that some churches are built in such a way that an erection of extra altar is impossible, this interpretation is seen to be correct. Further, (1) standing alone can imply (2). If the altar is built separate from the wall, it is commonsensical to think that something can pass between it and the original altar, namely, a person. 

The correct way to read the quote would be like thus: The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, [the architectural advantage] is desirable whenever possible.

The perceived inconsistency between §§157-158 and §299 makes sense, it appears to me, only when we presuppose that §299 merely leaves open the possibility of versus populum service as opposed to mandating the priests to celebrate mass versus populum wherever possible. 

There is wisdom in leaving the possibility for versus populum. In cases of large number of co-celebrants there is practicality in having priests surround the altar. In cases of a church lacking a large, noticeable crucifix, the seventh candle ought to be visible to the people, in which case versus populum would result in a more fruitful reverence toward Christ. Further, a separated altar gives the faithful the option to go behind it and adore the blessed sacrament within the tabernacle in close proximity. 

It is commonsensical to think that everyone should be facing the altar in a uniform direction for the focus should be Christ on the crucifix before consecration and the Eucharist during and after the consecration. But when the priest is facing the people always, the attention is drawn to whatever the priest is doing. Ironically, the the focus on the priest increased as a result of mistaken implementation of Vatican II when the intent was to draw the focus away from the clergy and onto the laity.  

Of course, there are always architectural difficulties of administering the mass ad oritentem always and everywhere. But, in my opinion, mass should be celebrated ad oritentem whenever possible. 

It is further of note that the notion of sacred architecture is all but gone. A multi-million dollar postmodern projects that look more like prisons are being erected while a simplistic church with traditional architecture of the same size can be built with half as much. It is of course impractical to erect a traditional church large enough to contain up to 3,000 people to meet the needs of increasing immigrant Catholics. It is a matter of practicality to build fan-shaped circular mega churches to have more parishioners seated. But these mega churches likewise spend more on a fancy fountain system whereas elegant altarpieces can be installed with the same price. Resources are being spent toward novelties as opposed to making architectural decisions that draw the attention to the tabernacle. A tragedy.

It should be noted here that, numerically, parishes that worship the liturgy ad orientem and with copious usage of Latin have better retention rates especially among the youth and much higher frequency of vocations. As a person who have observed multiple parishes this has been my experience. 

In the universal Church and in the particular Churches, is the ecclesiology of communion...being strengthened?

This question is perhaps more of a question for the Pope himself. In recent years, through the advice of German cardinals who have been flirting with Hegelian heresy, who consequently have better cultural ties with Lutheranism, the Pope has carried out multiple large-scale publicity stunts to connect with Lutherans. However, none of their sacraments are valid.

It will better serve the world at large for the Pope to strengthen connections with the Orthodox Church and SSPX. Considering the geopolitical tension between Russia and the West, a fraternal dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church can have a crucial effect toward world stability.

Despite the order made in Fatima to consecrate Russia, no pope has carried out this task.

Does it leave room for charisms, ministries, and different forms of participation by the People of God, without adopting notions borrowed from democracy and sociology which do not reflect the Catholic vision of the Church?

This particular question should be asked toward everyone. For the laity, are you asking the Church to implement things that are of secular, and possibly heretical, origin which you have grown fond of? For the priests, are you giving the laity what they want instead of administering tried and true methods toward holier community? In other words, the question is: is there a democratic and secular element that is influencing the liturgical and theological stance of a parish (or a diocese)?

One of the aims of Vatican II was renewal of consecrated life. This has not happened. In fact, the number of brothers, nun, priests, consecrated virgins, widows/widowers, etc. have all declined sharply after Vatican II. It becomes apparent why. All the things that are conducive to such vocational life - contemplation, cultivation of virtue or apotheosis, rigorous intellectual approach to theological understanding - are not being promoted by many parishes. There is a large gap to be filled by Catholic intellectual laity to teach the community on the theological matters. There is a pressing duty for Catholics to seek out theological authorities to be learned in the faith. The works of great Doctors of the Church are available free online; it is only up to the faithful to take advantage. 

Despite the great wealth of knowledge made available by, there is little initiative by the laity to learn of them. It is the job of the lay ministers and other participants to plant a spark of intellectual curiosity among the other laity. This kind of initiative is rare. It is a nigh miracle to hear the word "virtue" among the laity who are not learned theologically. 

Conclusion

I do not promote so-called traditionalism here. If favoring correct implementation of things Second Vatican Council intended is traditional, then so be it. But we must recognize that Western brand of Catholicism is categorically failing and has categorically failed. Mass retention rates are at an all-time low. There are increasing Catholics in the U.S, but they are mostly immigrants from Mexico and South America. German Catholicism is close to being exterminated, despite the monstrous wealth and influence over Vatican politics they possess. The number of priestly ordinations is on the rise despite the pitfall of 70s-90s (they are mostly the so-called traditionalists) but the rate is not high enough. It is abundantly clear: the Church in the West has failed whereas the Church in the East (including Eastern Europe) and Africa has successfully grown the Church, despite the temptations of modernity. Perhaps it's time to listen to what our non-Western friends are saying.

If any change is to be made, the focus needs to be turned back toward the Eucharist. Some are able to orient themselves without the help of the sort of liturgy I described. But they are in the extreme minority. Simply count the number of people lined up at confession and compare the numbers to those lined up for communion. Factor in the likelihood of a person not mortally sinning within a couple months, especially the teens.  

Navigating Through Human Nature in Politics

O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. 
- Julius Caesar, A3S2

It never ceases to amaze me how little people care of human nature when speaking out for or against political issues. I think that the current political culture is not conducive to objective and tempered dialogue, so I aim to share my humble opinion on how to better navigate human nature in politics so as to cultivate a political culture that is conducive to objective and tempered dialogue.

Proving Oneself Right vs. Proving Idea Right
There is a distinct difference in conduct between those trying to prove themselves and those trying to prove their idea right out of genuine care for the common good. The former does not care for human nature, and the latter cares for human nature. The former will be abrasive and prideful, the latter will avoid emotion-charged discussions whenever possible. This is so for those who seek to prove their idea right for the common good seeks first and foremost to prove his idea right. It is therefore commonsensical to avoid situations where people can be overcome with passion and have their reason blinded. It is of paramount priority for individuals to abandon their childish desire to prove themselves right.

Prioritizing Condemnation
When people are consumed with passion and have their reason blinded, they tend to pick a political side as opposed to the side of absolute morality. When there are faults on all sides, the outraged people will not condemn the sides they find to be less morally culpable. Instead, they will condemn only the side that seems to be the greater threat and treat the less culpable as allies. Knowing this fact, one must be careful to call out moral wrongs on multiple sides to prevent oneself from being demonized by the passionate public. Save criticisms of those less morally culpable for later when things are hopefully settled. Instead, speak against those most morally culpable first. It may be frustrating that condemning all acts of immorality can at times be seen as unreasonable. But such are the ways of the people overcome by passion.

Intellectual Charity
You are not the master of another's mind. It is a simple statement, is it not? But many seem to forget. It is a daily occurrence for arrogant men and women in news networks to put words and ideas into another's mouths and mind. Always interpret another's statements in light most favorable to the speaker, not yourself. It is the speaker who is the owner of said statements, not you nor anyone else. It goes without saying that the corollary of intellectual charity is withholding oneself from calling those whom you disagree with "racist," "sexist," or "homophobe." Being quick to paint another as evil is an act of intellectual imbecility wrought on by childish desire to prove oneself right.

Rhetorical Strategy
This is a point that gathers three previous points together. All around me I see poor rhetorical strategies by various groups. Speech is the primary mode of communication, and one wrong move can agitate a crowd, even if the statement is wholly true. Sometimes, truths must be withheld for a while to lessen the effects of passion upon the masses. Sometimes, a noble lie ought to be used in order to be on the good side of those blinded by passion. The end goal of dialogue is to convince. If the other side becomes impermeable to reason through passion, it becomes harder to convince. With that in mind, rhetorical strategies should carefully be planned through prudence.

There are countless smaller points I would like to address, but I reserve them from being stated here in concern for length.

[Re]understanding Rights

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected... Thus we have two great types - the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruin. - G. K. Chesterton

The word "right" has devolved into a a politicized word. What was once a moral word of the highest degree has now become a mere rhetorical device of politicians and political meme makers who do not do justice to its mother word iustitia ("right" is "ius" in Latin, shortened iustitia). As it is with any politicized word, it is emotivized. Of course, when a word is emotivized, people start to use the word because it feels right to them, that is to say they use the word as a method of expressing what they feel about an issue as opposed to a reasoned and tempered rationale.

To briefly [re]introduce reasoned and tempered rationale behind the term "right" is the aim of this post.

Many throw around the word "right" to assert a moral and/or moral basis behind their political belief. A right is a moral and legal concept that ought to be necessarily due to a human being, and thus mandated to all human beings. Right to life is one physical example. By nature human beings have life, and thus all are due life and the taking of which is a grave crime. Right to freedom of thought and action are metaphysical examples. We of the free world assume that a human being cannot live to the fullest if one does not choose one's path of life willingly. So we allow freedom of thought and action even when one's thought can lead to one's own ruin. The only exception would be when a mandated right is taken from another such as life. Here, we assume that freedom of thought is an ontologically binding right, and thus one which ought to be protected and duly given to all human beings.

Metaphysical assumptions are further more authoritative than the physical observation. We by necessity assume that a right exists. But no scientist can point to one object and say, "this is a right." Rather, it is intangible. Therefore, the concept of "right" must have a metaphysical basis.

Moreover, we consider rights to be objects that are subject to enforcement, through monetary coercion or otherwise. Let's say hypothetically that a racist mayor of some town orders the voting centers to not admit blacks. The state or the federal government would send in their troops to enforce the equal protection clause. Indeed, 101st Airborne was deployed to Alabama to ensure the enforcement of Little Rock Nine's rights to equal treatment.

However, recently, there has been a dangerous pattern of thought with regard to rights. This dangerous thought patterns occur mostly among Progressives. The critical flaw in their rhetoric is the fact that a right must exclude any form of object that is necessarily contingent upon another's act: service. For Progressives, healthcare would be one example of service.

Healthcare is an object that is partly contingent on another's act by necessity. It is true that we can take care of our own health through taking care of ourselves. However, in cases of debilitating illnesses, we require a specialist's act.

If we go on to say that healthcare is a right, an object that demands enforcement, through monetary or forceful coercion, we would subject certain individuals to servitude, and not a voluntary one. By that I mean the possibility of de facto slavery. Surely, this will not appear so when the times are bright. A government might have enough money to pay to insurance companies and keep the healthcare system going. At that instance, the doctors would not be involuntary servants. But when the times are hard and funds run dry, what will the government do to enforce the right that is healthcare? Either they will ignore it and treat healthcare as a privilege, not as an absolute mandate, or they will enforce it, the only way being forcefully having healthcare providers to work, without the option to quit the profession.

Education is another example. We can teach ourselves many things. But highly specialized fields require us to be taught by a skilled educator. Education thus includes service. When funds are low and emergency occurs, the government will again do either nothing, retreating to treating it as a privilege, or enforce the right of education. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to consider education as a fundamental right.

Moreover, the understanding that enforceable rights ought to include objects that are dependent on others' service has no physically observable or ontologically reducible principle to derive the conclusion from.

Thus, the understanding of "right" that includes service subjects those providing service to de facto slavery. A more humane understanding of any type of service ought to be understood as privileges. For such vital professions, the government could ask persons of those services to sign a binding contract to work even when times are hard.

Professed Libertarians: Actual Libertarians or Communitarians?

This post accounts only my perception.

Supposedly, the generation after mine is set to be the most conservative generation since the Reagan era.  The current conservative generation, though labeled "conservative," I believe that most are leaning more toward the libertarian strain of conservativism. They seem to be focused more on economic liberty than socially conservative issues; many are quite indifferent on issues such as abortion. I have talked to great many of them in my own generation, and indeed they view libertarianism favorably and seem to be fine with calling themselves libertarian.

But I question if libertarianism is an ideology they have made their own or a means to an end. I think that they envision a communitarian world as opposed to the libertarian world. By libertarian world I mean the kind of world and lifestyle envisioned by Ayn Rand. What they truly yearn for, I think, is a world where rich and poor alike can be knit into a community. In order to achieve that end, they seem to think that libertarian or libertarian-leaning economics is necessary.

The following, I presume, is their thought process.

Many dislike large corporations, but note that modern technology-driven industries cannot be run by small start-ups. However, they believe that each individual should be afforded the opportunity to start a business of one's own, cooperatively with a fellow community member if they require additional funds.

If we look to many hipster and country town restaurants and cafes, they are started not by corporations but by cooperation between community members, often of lower-class. Two or more close friends would combine the funds to start a business they envision and share the profits. The boon of a cooperative venture would be that inhumane treatment of workers and partners would be lessened due to the pressure of the community. For instance, owners of small-town BBQ restaurant would dare not mistreat its customers and workers, because they go to the Baptist church everybody in the town attends every Sunday.

This cooperative approach to economics is one of the principles of distributism, a strain of communitarian economics. Also, the emphasis of community is the core of communitarianism, as noted in its name. Yet proponents of views that sound more like communitarianism look to libertarianism. Why?

They think that cooperative ventures among community members need to be made easier in roder to achieve the end. In order to do so, there needs to be less government regulations and burdens on the employers. In the current political climate, they view libertarian approach to economics is the way to achieve the end they desire.

So, I wonder: Are professed libertarians actually communitarians at heart? I am attracted to think so.
I would like to ask whether socialists are actually communitarians at heart but with no economic sense. But I think I won't.

"Faking" as Maturing Process

Fake it until to make it - A common catch phrase associated with Alcoholics Anonymous

It has been a personal routine of mine to write to myself something about maturity through the present medium right around the current time of the year. The point is to organize the thoughts I have gathered throughout a school year and remind myself of shortcomings of either myself or others, or both (which is not explicitly stated), so as to be beneficial toward my hopefully progressing maturity, and, if anyone would even care to pay attention to my amateur writing, to others.

Last post was about humility as a sign of maturity, a character disposition that affect both thoughts and actions. The current post focuses not on personality dispositions that affect both thoughts and actions but on dispositions of actions alone, i.e. behavioral dispositions.

Many suffer from what we would call "immature" dispositions. No, I do not mean a father playing dumb with his toddler child, or a mother playing dolls with her daughter. They are rather mature examples of parenthood, neither would any reader assume such actions to be immature under a commonsensical standard. What I mean is habits that often bring about adverse social conditions as opposed to harmony.

I will use some examples. Hopefully they are based on the most common shortcomings to have everyone reading this see one's own shortcomings in them, be it present or past. Imagine for a moment a girl that broods over tiny things, exploding an issue that is not that big of a deal into larger proportions later on, the kind of behavioral disposition one might see in public high schools. It is quite common to see a "preppy" girl seek after allies to confirm her biases against a person she felt hurt by, gossiping against her perceived adversary. She would not reveal the full truth; her statements would be bloated, censored, and/or filled with lies. Later in the semester, the gossip would explode and many feelings would be hurt and many confusions would arise.

For we expect well-formed adults to quickly get over negative emotions and, as we like to say, "not give a shit," we consider such a brooding immature. Yet we see in many cases this sort of high-school drama queen immaturities carry over well beyond college sorority years into the professional and the married life. Many married women blatantly admitted to me that "girls talk." Indeed they do, often with quite a malicious intent. Women, on the other hand, quoting from a female friend of mine, "would go to sleep after a nice glass of chilled white wine and wake up not giving two shits about the petty dramas of yesterday."

It is now turn to imagine for a moment a boy that habitually seek to prove his masculinity. Imagine further that this boy is quite a nerd (for we have bashed on preppies already). Whenever a social conflict arises, however small it may be, he seeks to domineeringly assert his perceived superior intellect (within the virtual world and/or reality), ranging from pretending to know a subject he barely knows about, thinking that his brain power could deduce correct solutions on the spot with limited information and without properly knowing the subject, accusing someone of ignorance when he himself is the one that is ignorant, to imagining things in favor of his arrogant delusions.

For we expect well-formed adults to recognize one's shortcomings and improve rather than falsely and with toxicity compensate, we call such an exertion of rather toxic masculinity immature. Yet we see in many cases of the said shortcomings carried, like the example above, well beyond high school years into the professional and the married life. A philosopher once warned me that such a behavior, in his experience, is prevalent among professors and philosophers themselves, the "nerds" and supposed masters of logic. Sadly, my experience has been reflective of his. On numerous occasions, I have witnessed intellectuals speak of matters that they clearly do not know about, pretending to be smarter. I heard somewhere that squires like complain about his defeated duel. A true knight, on the other hand, knows when to kneel and bow his head with honor and dignity, even in defeat.

So how, then, can we fix such immaturities at older ages? We could first talk about psychotherapeutic methods. Therapists seem to be the go-to solutions people (who are not mentally ill) think about nowadays, and many have been putting faith in psychotherapy in fixing behaviors. Indeed, prominent psychologists Ross and Nisbett noted in their book The Person and the Situation that, in our society, "psychotherapists fill the functions. . . that kin, kith, and coworkers fill" (183). In other words, people nowadays rely on psychotherapists to cure them of their problems as opposed to close relations like our ancestors have. The said problems are derived from stunted emotional growth, i.e. qualities our society commonly characterize as "immature." (It should be noted that I am speaking of this matter completely apart from mental illnesses; they are of quite different species to tame.) So, in a sense, psychotherapy serves in part as a parental substitution.

I myself think that psychotherapy can be a valuable companion to growth (the value of which is determined purely by how willing the patient is and how competent the therapist is). I subscribe to a sort of "fused" method that combines aspects of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and psychoanalysis (psychodynamics/PD). But I found myself not putting as much faith in therapy as many of my peers do. Each therapeutic method suffers from shortcomings. CBT alone may often not be sufficient, because the unconscious may not be healed. PD may often result in protracted search for the inner scars and the process of "coming to terms with them." The two methods has the potential to compliment each other, but they do not address physical actions in themselves.

Enter alcoholics anonymous. They are not a therapeutic organization specializing in psychology. Rather, they are a support group that focuses on the action of drinking excessively first and foremost through fraternal bonding. They are more in line with how people of traditional societies relied on close relations. They now have a catchphrase associated with them: "Fake it until you make it." The gist of the phrase does not mean that one should lie constantly. Rather, it means not doing something you want to. In other words, act contrary to your desires. In moral philosophical terms, such "fakeness" is called continence. Virtue ethics classify four stages of virtue in the following descending order: virtue, continence, incontinence, and vice. Virtue is of perfection where goods acts are accompanied by good beliefs and the pleasure of carrying out the said good acts. Continence does have the like belief and the acts, but it lacks the pleasure. In the instance of a recovering alcoholic, abstaining from alcohol would not be so pleasurable to him. Thus his abstinence is continence, falling short of true virtue, a "faking." But this "faking" is better than incontinence where only the good belief exists. Without saying much, it is better than pure vice also.

Let us now apply to the examples to hopefully paint how my thoughts will pan out in practice. The exampled girl lacked proper parental supervision growing up, so she lacks the visual memory of how to deal with conflicts. The limitations of pure CBT would not be touching on the potential loneliness she feels due to her lack of parental supervision, fueling her desire to gossip and feel accepted. The limitations of pure PD would be not touching on improving the cognitive habit of brooding that leads to the toxic gossiping. But neither really touches on the action of gossiping as an independent issue to address; it is approached in light of other factors.

The exampled boy grew up feeling weak, fatter, and less athletic compared to other boys, so he attempts to unconsciously compensate for his inferiority complex. CBT would not be touching on the underlying causes deep within his unconscious that give rise to his compensatory exhibition of superiority. PD would not address adequately the numerous ways the compensation can happen (false reliance on his intellect, toxic arguments filled with ad hominem, manipulation of perspectives of others, objectifying girls through habitual masturbation and pornography, etc.), and the equally numerous thought patterns that give rise to compensatory acts.

Valuable the methods surely can be. However, the shortcomings of the methods may not fully help the growth, the negation of immature behavioral dispositions. While the psyche is being formed, the actions should be guided, even when the thoughts and the unconscious brings about the desire to do the contrary. No, the continence we seek would not be the full virtue we ought to be attaining. But it is a step closer to being a mature, well-formed adult. Never have I heard, "pleasure of being mannered maketh man." But I have heard the old English proverb, "manners maketh man."

So be mannered and focus on your actions. If you feel the urge to gossip, hold it back first. You will have a chance to deal with inner-workings of your unconscious later. If you feel the urge to exhibit superiority, hold it back first. You will have a chance to deal with your childhood insecurities in your private meditations.

There are psychological concepts that I could write pages about, extrapolating further into the possible objections. But I shall not use up the time here to do so. The gist of this post is this: Try your utmost best to first detect the desires that run contrary to your conscience. Then, try as equally as hard to act contrary to the wrongful desires. This is nothing new. In teaching us to grow, educational sources ranging from our parents to Sesame Street have always focused on how to act first, not how to feel or desire. The focus ought simply to be focused throughout our adult years.

Brooding Can Crucify an Innocent

As I say through a Tenebrae service on Monday, I wondered, as I often do in that service, what drove the people to crucify an innocent man that is Christ, whose innocence was recognized even by Pontius Pilate and his wife. Each time I think of it, I get the same answer. Here, I merely commit to organizing my thoughts around it.

I do not think that one needs to be religious to see the evil side of humanity shown in the crucifixion narrative. Indeed, similar stories are told in numerous traditions. Christ's crucifixion narrative is compared to Socrates's drinking of hemlock often by scholars.

In the crucifixion narrative, Christ is innocent. He heals the sick, criticizes the sinner so that they may become better, and teaches others to love one another and live in harmony. And yet, the elders, the pharisees, the scribes, and all their followers plotted to kill Jesus. What drove them to such an unjust conclusion?

What drove them is rumination. In other words, brooding. Every word Christ spoke to them was done in good will. Instead of considering Christ's words as constructive criticism, a juncture for them to become better, they interpreted his words as offending them. The misstep they made was brooding over the perceived offense instead of confronting themselves. Through brooding without end, they have imagined an offense to be taken when there is none.

What brooding does to one's mind is that it prohibits objectivity the longer it goes on. The more we think of a negative perception of the past, the more things we think of to justify ourselves as the protagonist of the narrative, even when we are the clear villain. This was true of the Pharisees, the Sadducee, the elders, and the chief priests who drove the people to crucify Christ. Christ often criticized others of their wrongdoings. The difference between the disciples and those who accused him is that the disciples said, "How, then, can I be better, LORD?" while the accusers retreated to plot against Christ.

The chief difference, then, is that the disciples confronted the criticism by seeking a dialogue. The accusers retreated to their confines, talked among their allies, and brooded over the criticism. When the accusers would meet Christ, they asked sophistic questions designed to trap Christ and made snide comments to Christ in order to bring him down.

Dialogue can come to mutual understanding and create bonds. Brooding, however, creates distance. In brooding, the accusers interpreted criticisms made in good will as offense. A moral appeal made to convince the reason, to the accusers, were manipulations. A spiritual appeal made to move the spirit, to the accusers, were spiritual abuse. The brooding went so far as to seek allies that will affirm the accusers' unjust viewpoint, riling up the Jews against Christ, leading to his crucifixion.

As human beings, we brood over things often, do we not? Perhaps you, reader, have been in an argument with friends. You may also have distanced away from those friends and brooded over the argument instead of initiating a dialogue. In your brooding, you would have interpreted the narrative in your favor, making you the protagonist. Like the accusers of Christ, perhaps you interpreted the friends' good will as manipulations and abuse. Like the accusers of Christ, you may also have sought allies that will affirm your injustices against your former friends. And with their help, perhaps you spread false narratives about the former friends through gossip, without really knowing that such an evil has a compounding effect. And much like the accusers of Christ, perhaps you believed yourself the protagonist of the narrative.

Brooding may at first be only a venial sin. But at one point, it becomes mortal. We may not lead others to be crucified in this day and age. However, we are certainly able to lead the victim into deep depression and suffering. We hear of teenage suicides made by adverse social conditions time to time, do we not? False accusations is like a projectile of a rail gun; the lethality increases each time it passes through a rail.  We should take care, then, in interpreting others' motivations. If there is a doubt, start a dialogue. If there is hard feelings, talk about it with the other party until the problem is resolved.

Resolving Conflict vs. Pursuing the Truth: A Moral Dilemma?

Perhaps you have been in a situation I am about to describe before at one point in your life. It is one of a dilemma between resolving conflict as quickly as possible by lying to the wrongdoer who inflected injustice upon you, the injustice of which the wrongdoer is wholly responsible of causing, and pursuing the truth by having the wrongdoer recognize the fact that he is wholly responsible for the wrong and correct the situation through proper remedy. Here, I do not include situations where the injustices arise through faulty actions of both.

     Perhaps the situation arose in conflicts between your spouse or other type of intimate partner, your friends, your family members, or other sort of loved ones. The benefit of lying when the conflict is wholly the other's fault is that you do not risk for the time being deteriorating the relationship, creating further conflict. In many cases, demanding the wrongdoer to recognize one's own wrongs will often sprout dormant arrogance out of the wrongdoer. The arrogance then would turn into anger toward you and distance oneself from you. The con, however, is that you are lying, a principally wrongful act. Another con is that you are enabling the wrongful acts of your loved one by not sifting through the warped perceptions and the sophistic arguments of the wrongdoer. If you truly care about the loved one at hand, it should displease you that the moral character of the wrongdoer will not be fixed for that person will not properly repent.

     Pursuing the truth, on the other hand, is one of the moral imperatives as human beings. Further, pursuing the truth in conflicts will help the wrongdoer recognize the wrongs, repent, and fix the wrongful disposition. In turn, you can grant sincere forgiveness. However, the result is uncertain for there is a risk of losing the relationship by triggering prideful actions, refusing to admit the wrongs.

     In between risking losing a valuable relationship and pursuing the inherent good that is the truth, there is thus a moral dilemma. Which of the two should one choose? I personally cannot balance the two through arithmetic means. Thus I, from a personal perspective, decided in recent years to pursue the truth in all cases and put my faith that a moral resolution will occur. So far, my faith in it has yet to be proven to be misplaced, all the ones involved in conflicts with me ultimately being resolved with me. In such cases, I strike two birds with one stone in that I do the principally correct act and the conflict becomes resolved. I do hope that my faith will never be proven to be displaced.

The Need to Find a Virtuous Community

Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals." - 1 Cor. 15:33

I think there are only a handful of more heartbreaking instances than when one can do nothing while his loved ones get washed away amongst bad influences. In some cases, a father watches his daughter give her dignity away for attention, too stubborn to listen to his advice. In other cases, a girlfriend watches her high school sweetheart of a boyfriend plunge into a culture of objectification and barbaric hedonism amongst his "brothers." In some other cases, a friend would watch one of his best friends swept away by her new set of friends, being turned into one of the most judgmental and spiteful person he knows, the kind the public would love to hate.

     In all these cases, the ones watching their loved ones corrupted by bad influences would be powerless in that they cannot hope to break the stubbornness of those being corrupted. The efforts to convince those who are being morally corrupted increases as they further plunge into the abyss. The more morally corrupt one gets, the more does one deprived of good conscience. How can a person judge one's own actions to be bad when one is deprived of correct conscience? In all these cases I have mentioned, the root cause is a vicious community.

     Through a vicious community, a daughter becomes rebellious to a point where she distances herself from one who gave her flesh and blood. Through a vicious community, a thought-to-be-soulmate turns into a deadend heartbreak. Through a vicious community, a friend who was one of the kindest person on earth turns into a spirit of hate. However, the biggest tragedy in these cases is perhaps the fact that, through deprived conscience, these individuals being corrupted cannot determine what is giving cause to their corruption.

     To avoid such tragedy, therefore, it is critical to have a knowledge of certain situations. To be situationally aware, one must let go of individualistic desires and start seeing the relationships one has as a whole. A daughter ought to see herself in relation to her father, a boyfriend to his girlfriend, and a friend to one's own closest friends. When one can do so, one will see just how much certain communities bring higher fulfilment than others, thus creating a heightened motivation to resist the temptations of other less adequate communities.

     In recognizing such superior  - virtuous - communities, a person is able to seek after better situations.

Fallacy of Disqualifying Another's Argument on Lack of Credentials

Imagine the following scenario:

Four people were talking about the economic consequences of a Congressional bill: A, B, C, and D. B said that the bill does X. C, however, challenged that the bill is only a smoke screen, that it achieves Y instead of the promised X. A, quite mad about how the conversation is going, texts privately to D about how C is acting knowledgeably on economic matters. D replies not to consider C's arguments because C does not have a degree in economics.

What D said to A is a fallacy. Just because someone does not have a degree does not necessarily mean that the other is incapable of talking about a subject at hand. For all D knows, C had a private economics tutor. Heck, for all D knows, C had the privilege of having a free private tutor for history, philosophy, psychology, and mathematics while pursuing his literature major. After all, there's only so much a university allows you to learn.

Even if it were not the case, anyone with resources can subscribe to scholarly journals and keep up with the scholarly world of any type. We also have a beautiful gift of internet also. There are many gratuitous health-tip websites where we can learn about various health issues, both physical and mental. There is a wealth of videos where top scholars give succinct lectures on how certain things work.

Perhaps in the middle ages it was true that a person without a particular certification lacked credibility. Not in our day and age, however. People are equipped with eyes to read, ears to comprehend, brains to comprehend, and thinking skills to absorb a variety of information.

So before you are tempted to attack your opponent's intellectual authority on a contended matter, remember that an argument is won through sound reasoning, not credibility. Even Supreme Court justices make the simplest logical fallacies in their opinions. To do otherwise and shut down conversations with accusations of lack of understanding would be unduly prejudicial.

Politics of Empty Charity

We have but to open our CNN or Facebook app to see an opinion piece filled with emotional epithets accusing a political faction of idiocy. Such articles would be filled with ideology-specific jargon that is meant to rally those who already agree, and rhetoric with unsubstantiated and unreasoned thoughts. When shared on Facebook, the one sharing the opinion piece would double-up on ideology-specific jargon and her friends would wrap her in a narcissistic, self-affirmative bubble made of 'likes.' On the comment section, some one would comment, "A well thought-out article!" when there is no cohesive thought to extract from; only emotional babble. The one who shared such an article, after seeing what she considers to be positive reactions, would feel politically aware and "smart." When the article takes a moral position, she would feel morally superior too. And when there are people opposing her, she would consider the opposition anathema, being liable to have negative labels hurled at them.

     We see what has been mentioned too often, do we not? Perhaps you are guilty of it. Perhaps you're the one going around affirming people by "liking" others' statuses and comments based solely on your impulse as opposed to meditated thoughts.  Perhaps you are guilty of hurling negative labels at others for supporting a politician or that politician's policies. Perhaps you justify doing all these things with a moral cause, that you are doing such things out of charity. If you are are guilty of the assumptions I've made, and if you have not caught on to my cynical tone yet, I am highly doubtful that you are actually driven by charity.

     In a society requiring us to be politically engaged, the whole point of sharing our thoughts is to convince people. The primary motive for trying to convince others that a particular policy is better should be for the betterment of our society. In wishing the betterment of our society, we exercise charity. But I have found that some people are not sharing their thoughts to convince others. Rather, they do so to prove themselves.

     It is a dogmatic psychological principle that human reactions often reveal wherein their affections lie. Where there is a calm and civil discourse, we know that there is charity and respect for others involved. For the love of others, they desire the best idea - the truth - to come out on top regardless of who is right. Where there is anger and obscenity, however, we know that the primary motive is not charity but rather pride. For the love of self, they desire their own idea to come out on top, regardless of the truth. The expressed charity would then be empty like a shell without its meat.

     Allow me to use real life examples. I am against travel ban President Trump has, and is continuing to, support. But this will not blind me from realizing some sense in the other side's argument. It is statistically proven, from what has been gathered from Europe, that letting in refugees en masse from the seven war-torn areas is a big risk to take. Crime rate, especially rape, has skyrocketed in countries that allowed a mass of immigrants in from those countries. Further, the frequency of terror attacks have risen also. Considering all this, I do not think it's "Islamophobic," "bigoted," or "irrational" to support temporary travel ban. It's a legitimate moral dilemma: Should we take no risk for the love of our own or should we take the risk for the love of others?

     In light of this, hurling negative labels and resorting to angry protesting with ludicrous signs like "White KKKonservatives are More Violent than Muslims" is not indicative of charity at all. Instead, it becomes apparent to others that such a protesting method is more indicative of the fact that the protester is out to prove oneself as opposed to prove one's opinion on the matter. No sensible person thinks that "White KKKonservatives are More Violent than Muslims" will convince the other side, neither will they see love in such a sign. Instead, they will see hate. They would not be wrong.

     Another example is the Women's March. I am supportive of women's dignity. However, let me assure you that, allowing obscenities such as a parade of nude women and vagina costumes do more harm for the cause and will convince no one. In fact, such obscenities will draw people away from whatever Women's March stood for. No rational person will think that such obscenities will convince the other side. What a rational person will think is that those who acted with obscenity are out to prove themselves as opposed to prove their cause to others.

     The challenge I make to you is thus: When you are expressing your opinions, are you fueled by your own vainglory or are you doing so for the sake of charity? And if you think that you are doing so for the sake of charity, ask another question: Are you fooling yourself that you are?

   

Can We Settle on a Legal Definition of "Life" in the Post-truth World?

Amendment XIV. §1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws. 

What I have typed above is the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the amendment from which so many of our civil rights derive from. What I want to focus here is the assertion that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Constitutional cases regarding abortion has veered away from solidly proclaiming legally the definition of life. Al the time of Roe v. Wade, the judges focused on the privacy right on the woman as opposed to the defining the basis of their usage of the word "life." Instead of defining it, they went with what their institutions told them was life. 

I thus propose an amendment to define what the hell the Constitution means when it says "life" in Amendment XIV. What better way is there to define what life is than through science? 

Sadly, even the scientific fields have been corrupted by political feelings. They have all the elemental requirements necessary to define what life actually is, but many shy away from defining life in a way that would justify the claim that life begins at conception. Despite a myriad textbooks and professional articles insuring that life begins at conception (fertilization), regardless of the authors' religion, there are still conflicts within the biological community... A sad consequence of politicized science.

I will thus see if life begins at conception.

The following are the elements of life.

1) Metabolic

2) Growing

3) Reproductive

4) Responds to Stimuli

5) Biochemical

6) Genetic

Metabolic

The moment a sperm is fertilized, it begins to siphon nutrients from the mother's body. In the case of reptiles, they siphon nutrients from the egg itself.

Growing

As the fetus, however small, siphons nutrients, it grows and will continue to grow after birth.

Reproductive

Potential to reproduce as being part of a species is the more accurate description. It would be silly to say that an infertile woman is void of life. A human fetus, as being part of the human species, has a high chance of being able to reproduce. Thus it is reproductive.

Responds to Stimuli

The response does not necessarily have to be spontaneous. If an axe strikes a tree and left alone with a scar, the scar will heal over a long period of time. It would be proposterous to say that trees are not alive by the fact that the response to the stimulus of hitting the tree with an axe was not immediate. If a fetus was conceived in a toxic womb, say, a womb of a drug addict, it will likely respond to the environment eventually. Thus a fetus, however young, responds to stimuli. 

Biochemical

A machine can be metabolic and can respond to stimuli. Certain chemical compounds can grow itself also. Thus there necessarily have to be a biochemical requirement to call something as having life. From the moment of conception a fetus is a combination of a sperm cell and an egg. Thus it is biochemical.

Genetic

Certain machines can replicate itself. If a coded computer has a free reign to replicate itself, it can. So we need genes, a biochemical compound that can be passed down. A fetus at conception carries the genes of his father and his mother. Thus it has life. 

Here, we definitively see that life begins at conception. How enlightened are we that our laws do not define life in accordance to immutable scientific laws? We have rulings already dealing with immutable characteristics, do we not?

Fascism and Progressivism: Learning from History

***Note: I do not think that Trump and his supporters are fascists. But there is certainly a danger of true fascism being formed in nigh future.***

When there is an action, there is a reaction. This is true of laws of physics, and this is true of laws governing the human psyche also.

One might counter by saying that the two are not comparable for one cannot predict what reaction, if at all, an individual will produce. True. However, when looked upon at a macro scale, we can certainly predict what kind of reaction a group of people will produce. 

An astute student of economics will see this truth easily. An individual's spending pattern is erratic. However, at a macro scale, the spending patterns of certain demographics become predictable. An astute student of history can see also that growth of political ideologies follow a similar pattern. The current topic looms around fascism, a topic talked of in virtually every Westernized political systems. I thus talk about how we can prevent fascism, presupposing the ideology to be evil, by observing facts of history. I argue that Progressivism is causing reactions that give rise to fascism. 

Here, by "Progressive," I intentionally label it with a capital letter in hopes of distinguishing between "progressive." Progressive approaches change by overthrowing the whole of tradition. The other type, the progressive approach, seeks to change by improving upon the tradition, a position even the most conservative individual can take, e.g. figuring out how capitalism can better benefit the poor.

French Revolution

The French Revolution is unlike the American Revolution in that it was Progressive. Americans were progressive in that they built their society upon their English heritage, keeping the laws and parts of governmental customs. The French, however, sought to abolish the entirety of what was institutionally French. From the French monarchy to the Catholic Church, they sought to abolish all the traditional notion of French identity and start anew. They even went so far as to create a new cult.

After their disastrous failure, an emperor came into power: Napoelon Bonaparte. He was a militaristic nationalist who galvanized his nation into a perpetual strife toward dominance. He inspired the people who were tired of Progressivism by converting them to his nationalistic cause. 

The words "fascism" and "Progressivism" have not been in use in this instance of history, but we can see the just how close revolutionaries and the imperialists were to Progressivism and fascism respectively. 

Early 20th Century

Not many have read Mein Kampf. Reading such a document will surely put a target on one's back and veered at. But peering in to the mind of one of the most evil men existed in 20th century gives much benefit in psychoanalyzing a nation. In his book, Hitler mentions the rise of Communism, the ideology that gave birth to modern Progressivism. He viewed the violent zeal of Communists as being toxic. Sadly, behind the Communist movement in Europe were ethnic Jews (they were not religious Jews). It was Hitler's much flawed logic that, if he could eradicate a race, he can eradicate an ideology. 

Hitler was not the only one being infuriated by Communism. The German people, already exhausted through poverty and defeat, were further agitated by Communist revolutionary activities. Thus Hitler began his own brand of fascism, propelled further by the shared hatred of Communism by the German people. This appeal to hyper-nationalism and ethnocentrism appealed partly to the percieved traditional German character: Imperialistic and warlike. Indeed, Nazis went so far as to be interested in the occult and the Nordic religion. 

Notice the pattern here: Progressivism + Exhausted populous => Fascism

Current Day

In our days, fascism does not exist. Many nations have taken a nationalistic turn, but they are not close to being fascist as liberals would paint them to be. But we cannot deny the potential for true fascism from resurfacing. 

We have Progressivism, a militant one at that. There are brands of Progressiveism who are advancing Communism without calling their movement Communism. There are also brands of Progressivism who are deliberately starting metaphorical fire between party lines, making inflammatory and emotive statements, mostly through social media.

We have an exhausted populous. We may not notice for effects are subtle, but we have been dealing with terrorism and renewed outlook of nuclear hellfire. It is not unforeseeable to see Iran, who have been waging proxy-war with the U.S. throughout their occupation of Iraq by supplying terrorist factions, making closed deals with terrorists with nuclear weaponry. We further have the volatility North Korea. The world may not be perceived as being in a dire situation when looked upon individually. But when looked upon at a maco-scale, the world is in a fragile state. Being sprinkled with bad news on a weekly basis thus creates an exhausted populous. 

It seems that Progressives as we know now are not willing to start a literal fire, and that nationalists we know now are not willing to submit to an authoritarian figure. But if the Progressives were to escalate their militancy, there will be an escalated militancy from nationalists, veering ever closer to true fascism.

There are many examples I can give, the ones that are not so well-known such as Yugoslavian Crisis, early days of South Korean "Republic," etc. But for the sake of length, I omit them.

Solution?

It is a well-known fact that, when a human being is tired, one wants to stay in their niche for a while. However, it is also a well-known fact that human beings should strive to progress their state. The solution, I believe, is to switch our stance from Progressivism to progressivism. Instead of overthrowing the traditional notions and banking left so as to be out of the ballpark, we ought to improve step by step what is wrong with traditional notions. In marrying the desire to progress and the desire to stay the same we will find stability and reasoned populous.

Let's not make this happen again.

The Path to Moral Decay is Paved with Partial Truths

As I begin another new year, I thought that it would be a good idea to remind myself (and whoever would choose to read this amateur post) that the path to moral decay is paved with partial truths. After all, a person ought to strive to become a living saint during one's lifetime.

Consider the following statements individually apart from each other:

1) "I ought to nourish and preserve myself."
2) "I ought to value another human being's life."
3) "I ought to care for the environment."

Considered individually, all three statements are valid moral statements.

As persons, we have a moral duty to ourselves to cherish our own lives. We ought to nourish our bodies with adequate amount of food lest we die of either obesity or malnutrition. We also ought to nourish our minds with both intellectual and recreational activities lest we suffer mental illness.

As communal beings, we have a responsibility to take care of other human beings. When we see a person of lower moral quality, we ought to correct them. When we see a person in a decadent situation, we ought to help in proportion to our own respective abilities. Further, we never ought to expend an innocent's life.

As beings that are quite outside the food chain due to superior rational faculties, we have in our interest, and that of all of the Earth, to take care of the environment. We ought to reduce our waste and refrain from destroying ecosystems.

Valid as they may be individually, common sense morality demands us to take priority in certain precepts. in a descending order, when situation gives no other alternatives. When a situation arises where only one of the two can live, a person with active agency is in a morally excusable position to disfavoring another's life (while maintaining respect for the other).  When a situation arises where a group of people can be saved only by means of war, one would be in a morally excusable position to use explosive weaponry necessary to bring about a swift result, disfavoring the environment.

It can be seen that there are morally excusable instances where one precept can take priority over another. However, immorality often occurs when we use certain precepts to justify our wrongdoings outside the justifiable particularities.

For instance, consider a man hiring a prostitute to please himself. Sex, when done correctly and with pure intent, can qualify as a recreational act where a bond between spouses can grow further. However, it can be abused in countless many ways, and using another human being as a means to an end is among them. The man would say to himself: "I am using this to blow off some steam." He would be using the first precept in this case. However, he is violating the second for a prostitute is in a decadent situation; the very profession is riddled with mental health issues. Here, the man is not in a position where the situation offers him no alternatives. To blow off some steam, he could easily hit the gym. In this case, the man used a partial truth to justify his deed, one which the truth forbids him to do.

A proponent of prostitution might come to the man's rescue and say that the woman is being paid for her "work," and that the mutual exchange makes the act morally neutral. Respect for mutual exchanges, situations where two wills are exercised, is an element of the second precept. But the existence of this element does not mean that the disregard for the prostitute's wellbeing by the man and disregard for her own mental health by the prostitute any less morally culpable. This hypothetical proponent likewise attempted to used partial truth to get around the truth.

I can throw out many hypotheticals showing just how partial truths are used to justify immoral acts. They range from petty things like ordering nonsense from Amazon to great things like instituting Communism. I shall not list them here, for I think I made my case in the above example.

4) "I ought not to justify my wrongdoings with partial truths lest I fall down the slippery slope of moral decay all the way down to the pits of hell."

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.