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. 

     

     

Against Feeding Our Prejudice

As we are human beings, we are all disposed toward prejudice. Prejudice, as hinted by the construction of its word which combines "pre" and "judice," is an attitude or judgment based on premature judgment, not accounting for every fact. Without us knowing, we tend to actively seek out information to confirm our biases, and, in some cases, we try to manipulate the surrounding around us to fit our purposes. Many of us have habits we consistently use to affirm our prejudice. The aim of this post is to provide a loose profile of certain prejudicial individuals, in legal professions in particular. Hopefully a reader might adjust one's habits to lessen the disposition toward prejudice by taking the cons of just behaviors mentioned.

     I know a law-student would be. She is an aspiring human rights lawyer. She studies ardently the relevant fields such as international politics and also French, probably for the purpose of working in Geneva. She is intelligent and dedicated, and I have no doubt that she will achieve her goal of being a high-ranking human rights lawyer. I have admired her dedication and her passion for her goals. I tend to have respect for people with clear goals they have for their lives. But she suffers from a character flaw: she is deeply prejudicial.

    When we are angry or at least frustrated, we vent to people we know. In many cases, venting is beneficial for our health in that we relieve our stress. But in some cases, we vent to conform our peers' opinion to agree with ours. It is a psychological response which takes root in our pride; we tend to feel more proud as the number of people who agree with us increases. Further, this form of venting would often put ourselves as the good guys of the story, distorting information to our advantage bit by bit every time we tell the story over. It is contrary to talking with a person directly, listening to that person's perspective while telling ours, trying to find a fair ground. This malicious venting, then, would in turn be gossiping and our mode of affirming our prejudice.

    Without me knowing, I found out that I "got to her." She is a hard-left leaning person and I a right-leaning centrist. I suppose some conservative things I said irritated her greatly... Not to mention how I questioned the veracity of her reasoning on Facebook once, a topic I will touch in the next paragraph. I found that she would say negative things to one of my dearest friends, attempting to shape the opinion my friend has toward me, pleasantly disguised as a venting session. She succeeded to a degree. This friend of mine took a joke I told her, and this joke is something she would normally recognize as a joke, as a slight against her. I was of course deeply hurt. And all this nonsense is attributed to a single prejudicial individual manipulating her surrounding to affirm her unjust prejudice against me.

     Let us now talk of this Facebook thing. I have observed her over a long period of time posting prejudicial statements on Facebook and saying such statements in public repeatedly. I'd like to talk of one incident that I faultily engaged by impulse. Not to reveal too much detail, she said something along the lines of "Texas is inherently sexist against women." I suspect that her hard-left leaning attitude made her a zealot of the ideal that the conservative ideals are racist/sexist/bigots. Just so happens, Texas is a red state. I simply questioned her reasoning that the whole state is sexist because of one instance she observed to be sexist. It is a classic "individuals do not equate to the whole" logic, and a mistake people make too many times. Yes, it is true that some Texans are still backwards. But the state, for the most part, respect women. For one, some major cities are liberal. Further, many conservative individuals respect women more than those sexually liberal people who tend to treat individuals as means to their sexual ends. Here, her prejudice against the conservative ideals made her make a logical mistake that should not be made by a good lawyer.

    It is of no small irony how a person willing to fight for justice is herself heavily disposed toward passing unjust judgments through prejudice. Relevant to her dream job, this prejudicial attitude is prevalent among prosecutors. It turns out that many of the people who pursue a career in  civil service against crime pursue the careers with excessive zeal for the just cause well beyond the noble limit. The zeal, however much noble, can become base when the zeal turns to prejudicial disposition. We see many examples of this, how some officers can have biased attitudes against certain people. Like so, many prosecutors tend to have prejudice against the people they prosecute, often being in denial of the fact that an innocent person can be found guilty by the court, that it is a conceivably possible consequence that can be delivered by their own hands.

     During trials, many prosecutors would gather around the DA office kitchen during lunch break and reinforce to each other the prejudice against people they are trying at the moment. The bias is understandable. Being a prosecutor is a great burden on one's conscience, for the obvious consequences of the prosecution winning a case. Human psyche tends to circumvent the unpleasantness like torn conscience. Like an immature woman who cheated on her boyfriend avoiding him at all costs and making nonsensical excuses for her wrongdoing, they would crawl to the safety of their prejudice birthed by pride rather than to bear the weight of their station. This attitude is of course dangerous. When they go into their cases with their minds already seeing the man on trial as a criminal, they would be liable to interpret evidence in a sly way or try to lead witnesses to fit their theory better. Worse yet, they might try to forge new evidences for they believe that they must at times act outside the law to convict a guilty man. These are habits that can get an innocent man in prison. To be sure, most people who get convicted are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. But many are not.

     Other kinds of lawyers are not immune to this sort of prejudicial display as they are fallen beings like we all are. The above-mentioned behaviors noted are not exclusive to lawyers or people pursuing a legal career, but rather behaviors that are common to all human beings. I hope that I have provided enough of a profile for the reader to comprehend.

   

On the Motherliness of the Church

"Let us rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready" - Rev 19:7

The expression "Holy Mother Church" is a seldom used expression in our modern day. By "mother church," people would understand firstly, Protestants in particular, of which denomination came first, or which ministry gave birth to all the other ministries (the answer is clearly Catholic). The term is understood only secondly to be a spiritual caretaker. As a mother would, the Church as an institution gives birth to, educates, and nourishes the believers of the Christian religion. Whatever calamity should befall, the Church is there to nurture as a mother would. It is of little surprise how this understanding of a Mother Church has come to disappear; we only have to look at how individualistic and non-institutional approach to biblical interpretations of the modern world, birthing new heresies equipped only with their "personal relationship with Christ". I wish to briefly discuss the validity of the latter expression, the Church as a caretaker, in this post. 

    In the quotes verse above, what is meant by "bride" is the whole of the faithful as a community. It therefore connotes the whole of (savable) Christians as congregated in the Christian institution. According to Christian theology, Christ's crucifixion is the redemptive moment of mankind; it is the decisive step toward the New Creation. This moment is rich in metaphorical significance, connecting the events written in the book of Genesis and fulfilling their prophetic truths. There are a couple connections to be made. But one connections relevant to this topic is how the moment created a new "mother of all living" (Gen 3:20). As God opened a wound in Adam to take his rib (Gen 2:21), a wound was made by piercing Christ's side. Christ, then, is the new Adam, and the Church that was birthed from his death and resurrection is the new Eve. 

     I should digress and I should note quickly here that Virgin Mary is also called the new Eve. And this connection strikes true also, though the Church as the new Eve is an older thought. The divine Nature of God's works can permeate to the physical world in multiple facets. To understand the metaphorical significance to be extracted from the Christian narrative ought not to be constrained by worldly conventions.

     Now that the metaphorical significance can be gained from the events written in the Scripture, let us move on to see how the function of the Church can be motherly. First, it provides and nourishes. Like a mother milking her babe the Church feeds the homeless and shelters orphans. Also, thorough the ministering of the Eucharist, the physical form of which is made with "fruit of the earth and work of human hands," the Church nourishes us spiritually. The Church also educates. Through the community members, the Church corrects the wrongdoings we have done. When we run to one of the members of the faith, we are given advice. Sometimes, we are given an advice regardless of whether we are liable to listen, such as in the case of sermons and a true friend telling us just how bad we have been. Thirdly, the Church forgives and offers a shoulder to cry on. Through the sacrament of reconciliation and our friends we find comfort. By supporting one another in actions, and, if too distant, through prayers, we make the Mystical Body of Christ. In this support structure made possible by the Christlike virtues exemplified by its faithful members, the Church maintains its motherly nature. 

     It goes without saying ,then, the motherly imagery of the Church has been accepted by the tradition for a long time. The imagery not only exists in its functions but also in its architecture. Although this piece of architectural design is not seen commonly in our modern day, but it was the dominant on during the Gothic era. When we look at the doors of Gothic churches, we often see them ornamented with an arch shaped like halved almond. This "almond" imagery shaped like pointed oval is called vesica piscis. Perhaps the perverse modern mind would have a difficult time understanding it charitably, but it is an ancient yonic symbol depicting the female womb. The symbol has long been associated by ancients with how they considered the female womb as a mystical portal between life and non-life. Further, we often see Virgin Mary and Jesus within the full-almond outline. There was a conscious choice in Gothics choosing this design. With this architectural design, after the priest says "go forth the mass is ended," and the congregation replies "thanks be to God," the faithful, charged with the Eucharist, would be metaphorically re-birthing themselves, imitating the resurrection of the body. By exiting the archway, the faithful would be exiting the womb of the Mother Church out unto the world, renewed with the spiritual care given by the liturgy.

     From what has been said, the validity of expression can be seen.  

     

The Conservative Political Commentary of Captain America

"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
- Charter of the United Nations (Article 25)

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression ans shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." 
-  Charter of the United Nations (Article 39) 

Now, it is prudential and charitable on my part to warn you of possible spoilers here.


It is no secret that the last two Captain America movies have political undertones. I argue that the messages are conservative in nature, and they relay the message from the positions Captain America himself takes. I suppose the hero's conservative nature is to be expected, being a soldier from the past and all. With all that's been happening, "people might just need a little old-fashioned."

     The above quotes are from the Charter of the United Nations. The significance of the Articles is that the member nations are required to relinquish their sovereign powers on certain occasions as directed by the Security Council. By allowing the Security Council itself to determine the threat to the peace, the international actors who are actually involved in some incidents lose their voice. When the ones involved in a conflict may see the conflict as something irrelevant to the international peace, the Security Council has the power to render such an opinion pointless by asserting its own. Many think that this provision is prudential. Some think that such a provision may be counteractive to the goal it is trying to achieve. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain America seems to be in the latter camp. This view is exemplified in the latest movie of his Civil War, and a similar one is exemplified in Winter Soldier.

     To relinquish individual agency for the sake of better comfort is a liberal trend of thought. The more control the state has over individual security or welfare, the more liberal the state is. The Communist states of the past are prime examples of extreme, or perhaps deviant, versions of political liberalism. In opposition to this mentality, a political conservatism has to do with relinquishing state powers to either the individuals or the local governments. We see this contrast between liberals and conservatives in American politics: hardcore liberals tend to be socialists favoring radical state control and hardcore conservatives tend to be libertarians favoring radical individual agency. With this perspective, it is clear that the Article 39 from the UN Charter is a liberal one. The Article places superior agency to an international institution as opposed to (relatively) local state institutions.

     In Civil War, Captain America opposes signing the Sokovia Accords on grounds that the Avengers not being under the palms of the UN would keep the world safer. There is wisdom in this. The bureaucratic nature of an international entity would slow down the decision-making process significantly. If the Avengers have its own will to act, the heroes involved would make a decision on the spot. In the same way, the if the Security Council is to determine what is threatening to international peace, then the decision-making process could slow down, leading to inaction when an action is necessary.

     The tragedy of Rwandan Genocide is one such an example. There was a peacekeeping force, UNAMIR, stationed in Rwanda at the time of the conflict. While the Security Council toiled in a river of conversations and investigations and what not, they failed to give an order of action to the peacekeepers. President Bill Clinton went so far as to say that there's no genocide happening in Rwanda. The commander in charge of the peacekeepers, Romeo Dallaire, wanted to intervene. But without the proper order from the UN, he could not. Had he been able to intervene, the situation in Rwanda would probably have been less destructive. To prevent such a disaster by way of giving localized forces more agency is a conservative approach to international politics. Captain America's opinion is thus conservative in favoring the agency of localized or private forces.

     Captain America's conservative approach to security can be seen in the previous movie Winter Soldier. The movie, in relation to the hotly debated topic back in 2014, is a clear stab to the NSA. The message is that the power given to secure ourselves can be abused. In a fear-stricken world full of alien invasions and terrorist groups like Hydra, S.H.I.E.L.D planned to deploy three helicarriers that can shoot thousands of targets in a short period of time with precision. Such a weapon exists only in the wildest fantasies of Hobbes' Leviathan. To allow such a thing is a liberal trend of thought (as Hobbes is one of the fathers of modern liberal thought). The thought is liberal in relinquishing personal privacy and agency to a government agency. Captain America, as a conservative, is disturbed by the invention. Sure enough, the power given to S.H.I.E.L.D was hijacked by others with less than pure intent, leading to disasters.

     From the examples used, then, the conservative nature of Captain America's message can be observed.  

On Humbling as a Maturing Process

Wheat ready for harvest bows its head. 
- Confucian proverb

It is said that maturity and the level of self-knowledge coincide. The more we know of ourselves, the more mature we are. It is then a no surprise that the youth do not know themselves. It is not an uncommon sight to see vainglorious boys thinking that they are more charming than they actually are, and girls over-appreciating  their beauty with an SD card full of perfectly angled selfies.

     The core of these childish behaviors is pride. Their pride propels them to think better of themselves than they actually are. Only through humility can one attain self-knowledge. Only by humbling ourselves do we recognize the flaws within us and recognize our strengths with objectivity. For this reason, among many, humility is a virtue. Of course, the more virtuous a person is, the more mature a person is; it is by virtue do we measure the growth of a person. Just pick a random middle-aged celebrity whose social life is like that of a high school student, lacking self-control and riddled with insecurities. Can we say that the celebrity is mature? Surely not.

     Now, I do not mean that immature people are always prideful. On the contrary, excessive submissiveness is a sign of immaturity also. I have seen that some of my peers are full of potential. But they would not put themselves out in the world, justifying inaction with awkwardness or shyness. It is appropriate to have better people stand above those who are lesser than them, but their excessive submissiveness would not have them recognize their true potential. In so many cases we see unqualified people leading due to their ego and qualified people working simple day jobs due to their submissiveness. It is the proper order of human society to have qualified people lead, not the other way around. But our vices do not allow us this ideal.

     Some people measure maturity by the stern character of an authority figure. This is false. It is a mark of a mature man to act like a fool, and convincingly so, to play with his toddler son. It is also the case that a mature man would play ignorant to let his students think on their own for a while. Thus, continuing on from the connection between self-knowledge, maturity, and humility, a mature person knows to be humble in appropriate conditions.

     This sort of maturity is shown by Socrates. He is fabled to be the wisest man in all of Greece, but he plays ignorant with his interlocutors. It may be the case that he really does not know, but it is clear that he can think better than all of his interlocutors. He may as well just shut them all up and lecture, but he does not. He lets them think. A man of clear authority, in this case, is humble.

     Suppose another example. Imagine a boy of 20 years old. He has an IQ of 140, has seen more of the world than most, came across more types of people than an average person, experienced more things than most people would in their lifetimes, and also learned in different fields relevant to human interactions. Through all these, he developed a talent of getting a good read on people quickly and knowing the correct course of action. He knows accurately the kind of people he ought to keep close for mutual benefit and the kind of people that he ought to avoid. This talent proved to be extremely reliable over time. People he gave trust to would flourish into great friendships whereas people he distrusted would lie, boast, manipulate, and even harm others in a criminal fashion. In this example, it is clear that it is only fitting that the boy takes a seat of authority, advising people on life matters as he sees fit. It is more fitting that people listen to him more so than others.

     Let's say that you are either this boy's peer of similar age or an adult of higher age. How seriously would you take his advice? If you are his peer of similar age, you will merely take his advice as a suggestion, not superior to your own opinion. It could also be the case that you take his advice less seriously than your own. If you are an adult of higher age, let's say above 30, you would be liable to dismiss the boy's sayings on the assumption that he is inexperienced, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. By consequence, you would disregard his advisement.

     So what would be the mature response by the boy? Assert himself uncompromisingly? No. He ought to bow his head and be humble. With his prudence he ought to know that nobody will take a 20 year old boy seriously, that nobody will recognize him as an authoritative figure he rightfully should be. He ought to know that he lacks the age and the social status to command people around. He also ought to know that, without the social recognition, people will be unhindered by his advice and be entrenched in their own opinions and the opinions of those they favor out of their stubbornness; people trust PhDs more so than the one who is not, even if the two's abilities are exactly the same. Even when he proves to be right almost all the time, he will go ignored. With this knowledge he would play ignorant and wait in patience, waiting for the day he would be recognized as an authoritative figure. Only then could he begin to see the results in people he advises. For the time being, he would tell noble lies and sugarcoat his words for the sake of others. In this display of humility assisted by patience and prudence would the boy display his maturity.

     But if the boy kicks and screams to get people to recognize him at such an early age, he would be acting immaturely. If you, reader, read yourself into the example I used, it may be the case that you are deceiving yourself out of immature pride. Or perhaps it is not the case. At any rate, the relationship between humility and maturity is explained.

To Make Swords of Ourselves

"O, me alone! Make you a sword of me?" - Shakespeare in Coriolanus

I recently gave a tiny advice to a bunch of college students. Perhaps my arrogance is blinding me, but I liked what I said, especially the fact that I said it on the spot. So I'm going to expand on it on this post.

     If you have been around me long enough, you have heard me quote the line above from Coriolanus by Shakespeare. Coriolanus has been a favorite Shakespearean play of mine for quite some time, and the line above is one that rings my heart. It is kind of like a motto I live by.

     When Coriolanus says the line above, he is attempting to inspire the fear-stricken Roman army against the Volsces. I've seen a couple of productions and how they have portrayed this scene. I am saddened by how few have portrayed the scene accurately. The movie adaptation with Ralph Fiennes uses an exclamation: "Make you a sword of me!" It is an excellent adaptation, but I believe that the scene is not accurate to Shakespeare's intent.

     The original version written by Shakespeare uses a question mark as quoted above. It is an offering from Coriolanus to be his soldiers' sword. To those who are too cowardly to get the job done, he offers himself as a sword, a source of their courage, a weapon with which they can fight their fears.

     Like Coriolanus offered himself as a sword to his soldiers, I think all of us should be able to offer ourselves to be swords for others who are mired in problems of all sorts. If there is a person too fearful to reach to the heights one ought to reach for, it is admirable to offer oneself as a sword, a source of courage for that person. If there is a person suffering, a person of virtue would reach out to that person, offering oneself as a weapon by which the one suffering can cut down the pains and the demons that haunt. To do these things is to display the virtue of charity.

     If more of us could display charity, wouldn't there be less people trapped in constant sorrow? If there are more swords to be used in battle against the evils and the sufferings of this world, wouldn't this world be a better place? I have seen people toiling in pain with no one to help them. With no one to empathize with them and understand them, they would feel all alone in this world. With no one to fight their battles with, they would tread further into the darkness. Finally, they will say that this world is too cold to live and contemplate suicide. I have seen too many of these people. If someone in their lives had enough charity and courage to reach out to them, their lives would have been much brighter. If someone in their lives had made a sword of themselves, the sufferings would have been less.

     To be charitable or to love in such a way is closely intertwined with courage. In some sense, we see the most of the divine in love and courage. To truly love is to risk immeasurable pain. Only in risking this pain do we truly love. As Christians believe, the foreknowledge of Christ shows just how true his love is. He knew of the immense pain He was to suffer, but He offered Himself up as a sacrifice nonetheless. For God so loved the world he dived into pain and suffering.

     Like how Christ was battered by those he loved, to be charitable is to risk hurt. To offer ourselves as a sword for others to fight with as an act of charity is also risk hurt. Our edges are expected to be dulled, and our shiny gleam is expected to be stolen by dirt and blood.

     When you offer counsel to those who hurt, that person might not be responsive to you; a hand reached out in friendship could be denied. In fact, that person might end up scorning you. That person might even lie to you and betray you. A boy who said that he was not going to smoke again would smoke a week later. Another boy who said that he was going to moderate alcohol would get drunk that very night. A girl who said that she was not ready to date due to her problems would go on a date with a stranger a couple weeks later. Another girl who said that she would not drink to solve her problems would wake up with no memory of the past night three days later.

     Many who have not listened to you would not suffer grave consequences. But some would end up suffering a great deal more from not listening to you. Need I say more? In each of these cases, the one who offered oneself as a sword would feel pain. To see these people the sword has chosen to love fail so miserably would be heartbreaking. If this occurs repeatedly, the sword would feel tired and alone, dulled and battered.

     The tragedy of Coriolanus begins with this sort of tiredness and loneliness. To Romans, Coriolanus' skill as a warrior puts him above all others like god among men. Perhaps he began his career with a charitable mind. But the character presented is a beaten down man who resorted to pride and anger to compensate for the lack of recognition from the Roman people. For this reason, the Roman plebes banish him. He ultimately turns against Rome, invading it by commanding the Volsces, in his vengeance.

     I suppose this is the lesson Shakespeare is trying to tell. The tragic flaw of  Coriolanus is that he was not godly. In offering himself as a sword, he expected others to bow before him, recognizing the fact that he is superior over others and how he alone is the one holding Rome against her enemies. If you offer yourself as a sword, say to yourself: "I shall not want." Love is freely given. Be it recognition of virtue or love, want not in return from those to whom you offered yourself.