Headed to California, Kansas, Minnesota, Indiana, and then Iraq this summer.
No time for the contemplative life right now. :-)
I love you Travis, Jon, Nate, Kaylynne, Mom, Jay, Lily, Grace, Nanny, Papaw, and Tommy-Mac!
21.4.09
Headed to the Sandbox
Headed to California, Kansas, Minnesota, Indiana, and then Iraq this summer.
No time for the contemplative life right now. :-)
I love you Travis, Jon, Nate, Kaylynne, Mom, Jay, Lily, Grace, Nanny, Papaw, and Tommy-Mac!
12.10.08
J.R.R. Tolkien's Medieval Critique of Modernity
J.R.R. Tolkien’s life was filled with medieval influences and studies. Tolkien was raised as a Roman Catholic, and he always revered the liturgy in Medieval Latin. He was an avid reader of medieval literature, lover of medieval languages, student of medieval mythology, and even a professor of Old and Middle English Language and Literature at Oxford. He was greatly influenced by medieval philosophy, especially that of Boethius, as well as by his best friend, C.S. Lewis, who was a Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at Oxford.
Tolkien was, in almost every sense, an ancient. He never wanted to live in the present, rather in times of yore—and eternity. He cherished the Western Tradition of the medieval, but saw in modernity a perversion of all that was good and sacred. This preference for the medieval over the modern is apparent in Tolkien’s books, short stories, essays, and personal life. This paper will attempt to contrast the medieval and modern worlds, explain why Tolkien preferred the old to the new, and why we as his modern-day readers should admire and appreciate the middle ages as well.
Arguably, the most distinct difference between medieval man’s understanding of life and that of modern man is their contrasting views on human limitations. “For the medieval, since the world is finite and human desire infinite, logic dictates that human desire must limit itself in order to conform to the natural world” (Grote: C.S. Lewis’ Medieval Critique of Modernity) In contrast, the modern man believes quite the opposite; he attempts to form the natural world to his desires.
Any student of Tolkien understands that it is hard to know Tolkien completely without mentioning C.S. Lewis. Although I believe that Tolkien grasped the errors and dangers of modernity as capably as Lewis. Indeed, Lewis certainly wrote about the subject in a more straightforward manner. In The Abolition of Man, Lewis writes, “For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of human life has been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution has always been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For [the modern mind] the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men and the solution is technique [i.e. technology]” (Lewis: The Abolition of Man)
Like Lewis, Tolkien also “celebrated the arduous human adventure of conforming the soul to reality and feared the moral and environmental consequences of a mindset bent on conforming reality to human desire.” (Grote: C.S. Lewis’ Medieval Critique of Modernity)
As a staunch Roman Catholic, Tolkien understood that a human’s refusal to accept limitation was indicative of the same destructive evil that originally induced the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. In addition to his religious beliefs, many of the medieval stories Tolkien loved so much often concerned the destruction of a man who refused to accept limits.
Yet, modern man deems weak someone who accepts limitation but praises the man who possesses the ambition and so-called “strength” to “have it all.” In his poem, Mythopoeia, Tolkien declares his independence from modernism when he writes:
I will not walk with your progressive grapes
Erect and sapient. Before them gapes
The dark abyss to which their progress tends-
If by God’s mercy their progress ends
And does not ceaselessly revolve
The same unfruitful course with the changing of a name (Lines 117-122).
In other words, Tolkien foresees the emptiness and doom of a man who accepts no limitations; therefore, Tolkien refuses to accept the fruitless mentality of modern man.
Perhaps the most physical, though no less philosophical manifestation of man living with no limits, is the rapid growth of technology over the past century. The modern world’s wealth of technology contrasts starkly with that evident in the medieval world, which lacked almost all material comforts. Unlike most people who view technology and events such as the Industrial Revolution as positive changes, Tolkien believed that these “advancements” would eventually lead to the self-destruction of mankind. Especially as a soldier in WWI, Tolkien witnessed firsthand the evil of mechanized warfare. However, it wasn’t just war technology that Tolkien despised, but automobiles, trains, planes, and even voice recorders.
One of the most amusing Tolkien stories I’ve heard took place in 1952 when a student of Tolkien’s came to him and asked if he could record Tolkien reading some of his poetry. Tolkien had never seen a voice recorder before and because of his medieval hesitation and skepticism of technology, Tolkien refused to allow the recorder in his presence until he had blessed it with the Lord’s Prayer in Old German.
Another great example of Tolkien’s disgust with anything mechanized took place during an interview with Harvey Briet from the New York Times. Briet asked Tolkien, “What makes you tick,” to which Tolkien replied, "I do not tick. I am not a machine. If I did tick, I should have no views on it, and you had better ask the winder.” And that was it; Tolkien ended the interview right there. (Bizer: Lecture: The True King)
Tolkien feared that the ever-increasing glorification of technology would lead to the loss of human value and dignity. Tolkien’s shire from the Lord of The Rings serves as his best representation of an ideal pre-modern, agrarian society; an antipode to modern industrialized society. The Hobbits of the shire simply live the good life, free from the evils of technology. In the prologue to the Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien writes, “Hobbits are unobtrusive but very ancient people…they love peace and quiet and good tilled earth…They do not and did not understand or like machines more complicated than a forge-bellows, a water-mill, or a hand loom…” (Tolkien: Fellowship of the Ring)
In a sense, the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy is an elegy for the past; a longing for a better age in which the world seems to be moving ever further away. Tolkien’s melancholic longing for days gone by can be heard clearly through the Elf, Legolas, when he mourns, “Alas for us all. And for all that walk in the world after these days.” (Tolkien: Fellowship of the Ring)
Tolkien’s view of technology as being evil derived partly because of technology’s dramatic and damaging effect on nature. The medievalist’s view of nature is virtually the opposite of that held by modern man, and Tolkien believed that this shift in views was certainly a shift for the worse. Modern advancements in technology have resulted in the conquest and destruction of many natural things at the hands of men.
Nature, in medieval times, was viewed as a sacrament. Nature itself was not viewed as being divine but was a product of divine activity, i.e. creation. Like a sacrament, creation reveals and conceals God. For the modern man, however, nature has no spiritual value but is seen merely as raw material or energy to be used for the “relief of man’s estate.” (Bacon: The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantic)
Tolkien believed that through nature man could experience a relationship with the sacred. However, the modern man’s view of nature, Tolkien feared, would turn man into creatures similar to T.S. Eliot’s “Hollow Men” or Lewis’s “Men Without Chests.” Tolkien believed that as men stray further away from the medieval model—the belief that nature contains the divine—and move towards the modern model in which nature contains no divine, man’s view of human nature will follow the same pattern and humans will no longer see the divine in themselves or in others. Tolkien believed that any attack on nature was an attack on man himself.
In a passage from That Hideous Strength, Lewis writes, “You know as well as I do that Man’s power over Nature means the power of some men over other men with Nature as the instrument.” (Lewis: That Hideous Strength) Tolkien also understood that this modern view of nature would lead to the eventual defeat and enslavement of some men over others, with nature as their means.
Though the Middle Ages certainly had its share of barbaric moments, the medievals did not possess the evils of technology that we have today, including the ability to destroy the world with a single bomb.
This impious, modern view of nature may be partially attributed to modern scientific discoveries. Medieval science was a study which, as Aristotle wrote, “…yielded a contemplative appreciation of nature…everything which is by nature, bears in itself something divine” (Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics).
Tolkien certainly agreed with Aristotle, believing everything natural to be living, animated, and containing some aspect of the divine. I often wonder if when Tolkien and Lewis went out on their frequent walks they saw the same things we see. Where we see bark, leaves, and branches, they seem to have seen the face of the Lord.
Tolkien’s medieval love of nature is evident throughout his books and writings.
To see what Tolkien saw in the trees takes a certain kind of imagination, a more medieval imagination. In the modern world, however, such imagination seems to be rarely encouraged or appreciated. The medieval’s ability to see past the physical has been hindered by modern technology and science. Karl Marx brilliantly explains this dilemma:
“Is the conception of nature and of social relations which underlies [medieval] imagination…possible when there are self-acting mules, railways, locomotives and electric telegraphs? What is a Vulcan compared with Roberts and Co., Jupiter compared with the lightning conductor…? All mythology subdues, controls and fashions the forces of nature in imagination and through imagination, it disappears therefore when real control over these forces is established” (Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy).
To Tolkien, imagination was the most important and valuable human quality. For him, by invoking one’s imagination, he could escape into the world of Faerie. Tolkien describes Faerie like this:
“The realm of the fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords. In that realm a man may, perhaps, count himself fortunate to have wandered, but its very richness and strangeness tie the tongue of a traveler who would report them. And while he is there it is dangerous for him to ask too many questions, lest the gates should shut and the keys be lost.” (Tolkien: On Faerie Stories)
Tolkien believed that Faerie allows one to see things for what they really are and to come close to discovering the true beauty of a thing as God intended it. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and George MacDonald all agreed with Tolkien on the necessity of Faerie stories.
“When properly understood and explored, faerie allows one to escape the drabness of the mechanized world of modernity. It allows one, for example, to see bread and wine as much more than bread and wine.The perilous realm of Faerie reveals truth and beauty beyond normal comprehension; the true and the beautiful lead us to the Good and the One.” (Bizer: J.R.R. Tolkien and the Reclamation)
However, modern society mocks this type of thinking, deeming it primeval or superstitious. Unlike the medieval, modern man has come to equate the word “myth” with the word “false.” Tolkien would disagree vehemently with the modern man in this regard.
This fallacy in modern thinking leads me to what I believe Tolkien considered modernity’s most grave and consequential mistake: separating the cult from the culture; i.e., divorcing religion from culture. Without the cult—the belief in the divine—there is no culture.
Tolkien saw the breakup of religion from society as humanity’s saddest trend; in fact, he longed for the reformation of Christendom. He hoped that his mythology of middle earth would serve as a wakeup call to the West to return to its pre-modern phase. He even wrote in a letter once that the return of King Aragorn to his rightful throne “was far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome.” (Carpenter: Letters of J.R.R. Tolkein)
For me, Tolkien serves as a role model and teacher. In his writings, he has “preserved the best of Western civilization in a century that mocked tradition, desecrated the human person, and ignored the Author of Creation.” (Bizer: J.R.R. Tolkien and the Reclamation) Tolkien longed to return to the traditions of the Medievals. Though he believed it unlikely, he clung somehow to the hope that light will shine through the dark shadow of modernity’s wing. While speaking to a Dutch audience in 1958, Tolkien once said, “I look to the East, West, North, South, and I do not see Sauron. But I see that Sauron has many descendents. We Hobbits have against them no magic weapons. Yet, my gently hobbits, I give you this toast: To the Hobbits. May they outlast the Sarumans and see spring in the trees again.” (Tolkien: Tolkien’s Exceptional Visit to Holland)
Though the Sarumans of the world may outnumber us, we can rest assured that we will outlast them. For those of us who live in the modern world but still follow the One True King, the King whom Tolkien followed, we can be confident that we will also “see spring in the trees again.”
Tolkien was, in almost every sense, an ancient. He never wanted to live in the present, rather in times of yore—and eternity. He cherished the Western Tradition of the medieval, but saw in modernity a perversion of all that was good and sacred. This preference for the medieval over the modern is apparent in Tolkien’s books, short stories, essays, and personal life. This paper will attempt to contrast the medieval and modern worlds, explain why Tolkien preferred the old to the new, and why we as his modern-day readers should admire and appreciate the middle ages as well.
Arguably, the most distinct difference between medieval man’s understanding of life and that of modern man is their contrasting views on human limitations. “For the medieval, since the world is finite and human desire infinite, logic dictates that human desire must limit itself in order to conform to the natural world” (Grote: C.S. Lewis’ Medieval Critique of Modernity) In contrast, the modern man believes quite the opposite; he attempts to form the natural world to his desires.
Any student of Tolkien understands that it is hard to know Tolkien completely without mentioning C.S. Lewis. Although I believe that Tolkien grasped the errors and dangers of modernity as capably as Lewis. Indeed, Lewis certainly wrote about the subject in a more straightforward manner. In The Abolition of Man, Lewis writes, “For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of human life has been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution has always been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For [the modern mind] the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men and the solution is technique [i.e. technology]” (Lewis: The Abolition of Man)
Like Lewis, Tolkien also “celebrated the arduous human adventure of conforming the soul to reality and feared the moral and environmental consequences of a mindset bent on conforming reality to human desire.” (Grote: C.S. Lewis’ Medieval Critique of Modernity)
As a staunch Roman Catholic, Tolkien understood that a human’s refusal to accept limitation was indicative of the same destructive evil that originally induced the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. In addition to his religious beliefs, many of the medieval stories Tolkien loved so much often concerned the destruction of a man who refused to accept limits.
Yet, modern man deems weak someone who accepts limitation but praises the man who possesses the ambition and so-called “strength” to “have it all.” In his poem, Mythopoeia, Tolkien declares his independence from modernism when he writes:
I will not walk with your progressive grapes
Erect and sapient. Before them gapes
The dark abyss to which their progress tends-
If by God’s mercy their progress ends
And does not ceaselessly revolve
The same unfruitful course with the changing of a name (Lines 117-122).
In other words, Tolkien foresees the emptiness and doom of a man who accepts no limitations; therefore, Tolkien refuses to accept the fruitless mentality of modern man.
Perhaps the most physical, though no less philosophical manifestation of man living with no limits, is the rapid growth of technology over the past century. The modern world’s wealth of technology contrasts starkly with that evident in the medieval world, which lacked almost all material comforts. Unlike most people who view technology and events such as the Industrial Revolution as positive changes, Tolkien believed that these “advancements” would eventually lead to the self-destruction of mankind. Especially as a soldier in WWI, Tolkien witnessed firsthand the evil of mechanized warfare. However, it wasn’t just war technology that Tolkien despised, but automobiles, trains, planes, and even voice recorders.
One of the most amusing Tolkien stories I’ve heard took place in 1952 when a student of Tolkien’s came to him and asked if he could record Tolkien reading some of his poetry. Tolkien had never seen a voice recorder before and because of his medieval hesitation and skepticism of technology, Tolkien refused to allow the recorder in his presence until he had blessed it with the Lord’s Prayer in Old German.
Another great example of Tolkien’s disgust with anything mechanized took place during an interview with Harvey Briet from the New York Times. Briet asked Tolkien, “What makes you tick,” to which Tolkien replied, "I do not tick. I am not a machine. If I did tick, I should have no views on it, and you had better ask the winder.” And that was it; Tolkien ended the interview right there. (Bizer: Lecture: The True King)
Tolkien feared that the ever-increasing glorification of technology would lead to the loss of human value and dignity. Tolkien’s shire from the Lord of The Rings serves as his best representation of an ideal pre-modern, agrarian society; an antipode to modern industrialized society. The Hobbits of the shire simply live the good life, free from the evils of technology. In the prologue to the Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien writes, “Hobbits are unobtrusive but very ancient people…they love peace and quiet and good tilled earth…They do not and did not understand or like machines more complicated than a forge-bellows, a water-mill, or a hand loom…” (Tolkien: Fellowship of the Ring)
In a sense, the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy is an elegy for the past; a longing for a better age in which the world seems to be moving ever further away. Tolkien’s melancholic longing for days gone by can be heard clearly through the Elf, Legolas, when he mourns, “Alas for us all. And for all that walk in the world after these days.” (Tolkien: Fellowship of the Ring)
Tolkien’s view of technology as being evil derived partly because of technology’s dramatic and damaging effect on nature. The medievalist’s view of nature is virtually the opposite of that held by modern man, and Tolkien believed that this shift in views was certainly a shift for the worse. Modern advancements in technology have resulted in the conquest and destruction of many natural things at the hands of men.
Nature, in medieval times, was viewed as a sacrament. Nature itself was not viewed as being divine but was a product of divine activity, i.e. creation. Like a sacrament, creation reveals and conceals God. For the modern man, however, nature has no spiritual value but is seen merely as raw material or energy to be used for the “relief of man’s estate.” (Bacon: The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantic)
Tolkien believed that through nature man could experience a relationship with the sacred. However, the modern man’s view of nature, Tolkien feared, would turn man into creatures similar to T.S. Eliot’s “Hollow Men” or Lewis’s “Men Without Chests.” Tolkien believed that as men stray further away from the medieval model—the belief that nature contains the divine—and move towards the modern model in which nature contains no divine, man’s view of human nature will follow the same pattern and humans will no longer see the divine in themselves or in others. Tolkien believed that any attack on nature was an attack on man himself.
In a passage from That Hideous Strength, Lewis writes, “You know as well as I do that Man’s power over Nature means the power of some men over other men with Nature as the instrument.” (Lewis: That Hideous Strength) Tolkien also understood that this modern view of nature would lead to the eventual defeat and enslavement of some men over others, with nature as their means.
Though the Middle Ages certainly had its share of barbaric moments, the medievals did not possess the evils of technology that we have today, including the ability to destroy the world with a single bomb.
This impious, modern view of nature may be partially attributed to modern scientific discoveries. Medieval science was a study which, as Aristotle wrote, “…yielded a contemplative appreciation of nature…everything which is by nature, bears in itself something divine” (Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics).
Tolkien certainly agreed with Aristotle, believing everything natural to be living, animated, and containing some aspect of the divine. I often wonder if when Tolkien and Lewis went out on their frequent walks they saw the same things we see. Where we see bark, leaves, and branches, they seem to have seen the face of the Lord.
Tolkien’s medieval love of nature is evident throughout his books and writings.
To see what Tolkien saw in the trees takes a certain kind of imagination, a more medieval imagination. In the modern world, however, such imagination seems to be rarely encouraged or appreciated. The medieval’s ability to see past the physical has been hindered by modern technology and science. Karl Marx brilliantly explains this dilemma:
“Is the conception of nature and of social relations which underlies [medieval] imagination…possible when there are self-acting mules, railways, locomotives and electric telegraphs? What is a Vulcan compared with Roberts and Co., Jupiter compared with the lightning conductor…? All mythology subdues, controls and fashions the forces of nature in imagination and through imagination, it disappears therefore when real control over these forces is established” (Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy).
To Tolkien, imagination was the most important and valuable human quality. For him, by invoking one’s imagination, he could escape into the world of Faerie. Tolkien describes Faerie like this:
“The realm of the fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords. In that realm a man may, perhaps, count himself fortunate to have wandered, but its very richness and strangeness tie the tongue of a traveler who would report them. And while he is there it is dangerous for him to ask too many questions, lest the gates should shut and the keys be lost.” (Tolkien: On Faerie Stories)
Tolkien believed that Faerie allows one to see things for what they really are and to come close to discovering the true beauty of a thing as God intended it. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and George MacDonald all agreed with Tolkien on the necessity of Faerie stories.
“When properly understood and explored, faerie allows one to escape the drabness of the mechanized world of modernity. It allows one, for example, to see bread and wine as much more than bread and wine.The perilous realm of Faerie reveals truth and beauty beyond normal comprehension; the true and the beautiful lead us to the Good and the One.” (Bizer: J.R.R. Tolkien and the Reclamation)
However, modern society mocks this type of thinking, deeming it primeval or superstitious. Unlike the medieval, modern man has come to equate the word “myth” with the word “false.” Tolkien would disagree vehemently with the modern man in this regard.
This fallacy in modern thinking leads me to what I believe Tolkien considered modernity’s most grave and consequential mistake: separating the cult from the culture; i.e., divorcing religion from culture. Without the cult—the belief in the divine—there is no culture.
Tolkien saw the breakup of religion from society as humanity’s saddest trend; in fact, he longed for the reformation of Christendom. He hoped that his mythology of middle earth would serve as a wakeup call to the West to return to its pre-modern phase. He even wrote in a letter once that the return of King Aragorn to his rightful throne “was far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome.” (Carpenter: Letters of J.R.R. Tolkein)
For me, Tolkien serves as a role model and teacher. In his writings, he has “preserved the best of Western civilization in a century that mocked tradition, desecrated the human person, and ignored the Author of Creation.” (Bizer: J.R.R. Tolkien and the Reclamation) Tolkien longed to return to the traditions of the Medievals. Though he believed it unlikely, he clung somehow to the hope that light will shine through the dark shadow of modernity’s wing. While speaking to a Dutch audience in 1958, Tolkien once said, “I look to the East, West, North, South, and I do not see Sauron. But I see that Sauron has many descendents. We Hobbits have against them no magic weapons. Yet, my gently hobbits, I give you this toast: To the Hobbits. May they outlast the Sarumans and see spring in the trees again.” (Tolkien: Tolkien’s Exceptional Visit to Holland)
Though the Sarumans of the world may outnumber us, we can rest assured that we will outlast them. For those of us who live in the modern world but still follow the One True King, the King whom Tolkien followed, we can be confident that we will also “see spring in the trees again.”
4.9.08
Lest We Forget...
In the midst of all the political rhetoric thrown at us each election year, it's easy to forget the most basic principles of American politics.
Namely, the concept of freedom.
You hear that word tossed around, but do you ever stop to think about the notion? Have you ever asked yourself where freedom comes from?
Some politicians would like you to believe that government grants our freedoms. However, our founding fathers believed this couldn't be further from the truth. Though they waged many ideological battles, America's founders agreed: government's job is not to bestow our liberties, but to protect them.
John Adams declared, "Let it be known, that British liberties are not the grants of princes or parliaments; that many of our rights are inherent and essential…We have a right to them derived from our maker."
His statement still reigns true. Our freedoms do not originate in Frankfort or Washington, but are innate. Many politicians claim to believe this, but their actions often say otherwise.
From the British tea tax to the gasoline tax, many politicians usurp freedom rather than protect it. So as we watch the ads and listen to the speeches, let us not forget the principles of our first presidents, and let us never forget that our nation's leader should always serve not as a giver of liberty, but as its guardian.
Namely, the concept of freedom.
You hear that word tossed around, but do you ever stop to think about the notion? Have you ever asked yourself where freedom comes from?
Some politicians would like you to believe that government grants our freedoms. However, our founding fathers believed this couldn't be further from the truth. Though they waged many ideological battles, America's founders agreed: government's job is not to bestow our liberties, but to protect them.
John Adams declared, "Let it be known, that British liberties are not the grants of princes or parliaments; that many of our rights are inherent and essential…We have a right to them derived from our maker."
His statement still reigns true. Our freedoms do not originate in Frankfort or Washington, but are innate. Many politicians claim to believe this, but their actions often say otherwise.
From the British tea tax to the gasoline tax, many politicians usurp freedom rather than protect it. So as we watch the ads and listen to the speeches, let us not forget the principles of our first presidents, and let us never forget that our nation's leader should always serve not as a giver of liberty, but as its guardian.
9.8.08
A Conservative's Call for Universal Health Care
The longer I stay in politics the less I am concerned about how conservative or how liberal a particular candidate is and the less willing I am to accept conventional wisdom about what constitutes a “conservative” or “liberal” policy. Instead, I have begun to care more about whether a candidate has proven to be an effective leader and whether a policy is practical. This isn’t the only way in which my political views have been shifting.
Universal health care is an idea that I have, for many years, abhorred, because I believed it to be so unmistakably “liberal.”
Recently, however, I have come to the view that universal healthcare is neither a despicable idea nor, surprisingly, an inherently liberal policy.
Universal Health Care is not only a practical solution to our health care struggles in the United States, but I contend that it is a conservative solution as well. In 1883, German archconservative Otto Von Bismarck was the first leader to implement a universal health care plan. Bismarck saw, as Americans should today, that access to healthcare, regardless of income, was an important factor in a healthy society.
In an October 2007 Courier Journal (C-J) article I myself lashed out against universal health care, deeming it, “One mile on the road to socialism.” Looking back, I see that this was an exaggeration and a misunderstanding on my part. I mention my previous C-J article to illustrate that I can certainly identify with conservatives’ fear of the potential negative effects that could result from universal access to health care. I appreciate that conservatives are afraid that universal health care will result in more citizens becoming dependent on government handouts; they’re afraid of increasing government regulation and limitation of individual choice. These are all understandable concerns.
Yet an unprejudiced second look at universal health care will reveal that this policy promotes many values that conservatives hold dear: the ability to take care of one’s self and family, the prevention of free-riding, the alleviation of waste and more freedom to pursue entrepreneurial actions. These are all conservative goals which universal access to health care will help to further.
When conservatives shun the idea of universal health care, they are simply overlooking the basic role that health care plays in self-responsibility and individual opportunity. As a conservative myself, I believe that people should, as the cliché goes, “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” In other words, people should be able to take care of themselves. Rather than entrenching my position against universal health care, as one might expect, this is actually one of the principle reasons I am now in favor of a universal health insurance plan.
Universal access to basic health care is necessary in order to maximize one’s ability to take care of oneself. Without good health, your ability to exercise individual liberty and personal responsibility are compromised; you become dependent on others both physically and financially. In fact, nearly half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are attributed to citizens’ inability to pay their medical bills. As a single mother, I especially know how daunting medical bills can be.
It should be clear to any thoughtful conservative that basic protection services, such as public police and fire departments are necessary in a society that strives to provide its citizens with equal opportunity to better their lives. Universal access to health care is no exception.
Universal health care is not only a good idea from a philosophical standpoint but from a practical and economic perspective as well. If your goal is to alleviate waste and prevent free-riding, then the current voluntary health insurance system is an unqualified disaster.
Our current health care system requires that anyone who walks into a hospital must be treated, regardless of their ability to pay the bill. Because of this, we have opened the door to massive free-riding and economic waste. Many people never pay their medicals bills and simply dump their debts onto the public system, forcing physicians and hospitals to decide how to work without pay. This is the epitome of free-riding.
Put simply, because hospitals in the U.S. cannot refuse any person care, we are consequently paying more for health care in taxes than any other country – even more than those that do provide universal health insurance. Furthermore, many Americans are paying for private health insurance on top of taxes. In other words, we are paying for universal health care but not getting it. Talk about inefficiency and waste!
Universal access to health care would not only increase individual liberty and alleviate wasteful spending, but would also increase entrepreneurial activity – another value central to conservative thinking. Many entrepreneurs are discouraged from embarking on their new business venture by fears about the high cost of providing employers with health insurance. Small business employers are then forced to make tough decisions about whether to absorb the high costs, pass them on to employees, or not offer benefits at all. A universal health care system would eliminate these concerns and encourage hesitant entrepreneurs to test their innovations and ideas.
Edmund Burke, one is the fathers of conservatism, stated wisely, “A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”
It is time for conservatives to adopt this change. Universal health care should become a basic tenet in the conservative platform. It enhances individual liberty by increasing one’s ability to care for oneself and one’s family. It significantly decreases the current financial waste and inefficiency of the U.S. present voluntary health care system. It also encourages small business and entrepreneurship.
The conservative case for universal health care is much more compelling than for other public services such as roads, schools, libraries, and parks. For me, the question used to be: how can any conservative support a universal health care system? Now, the question has become: how can any true conservative, with a true appreciation of conservative values, not support universal access to health care?
Conservatives should be ready with an answer.
Universal health care is an idea that I have, for many years, abhorred, because I believed it to be so unmistakably “liberal.”
Recently, however, I have come to the view that universal healthcare is neither a despicable idea nor, surprisingly, an inherently liberal policy.
Universal Health Care is not only a practical solution to our health care struggles in the United States, but I contend that it is a conservative solution as well. In 1883, German archconservative Otto Von Bismarck was the first leader to implement a universal health care plan. Bismarck saw, as Americans should today, that access to healthcare, regardless of income, was an important factor in a healthy society.
In an October 2007 Courier Journal (C-J) article I myself lashed out against universal health care, deeming it, “One mile on the road to socialism.” Looking back, I see that this was an exaggeration and a misunderstanding on my part. I mention my previous C-J article to illustrate that I can certainly identify with conservatives’ fear of the potential negative effects that could result from universal access to health care. I appreciate that conservatives are afraid that universal health care will result in more citizens becoming dependent on government handouts; they’re afraid of increasing government regulation and limitation of individual choice. These are all understandable concerns.
Yet an unprejudiced second look at universal health care will reveal that this policy promotes many values that conservatives hold dear: the ability to take care of one’s self and family, the prevention of free-riding, the alleviation of waste and more freedom to pursue entrepreneurial actions. These are all conservative goals which universal access to health care will help to further.
When conservatives shun the idea of universal health care, they are simply overlooking the basic role that health care plays in self-responsibility and individual opportunity. As a conservative myself, I believe that people should, as the cliché goes, “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” In other words, people should be able to take care of themselves. Rather than entrenching my position against universal health care, as one might expect, this is actually one of the principle reasons I am now in favor of a universal health insurance plan.
Universal access to basic health care is necessary in order to maximize one’s ability to take care of oneself. Without good health, your ability to exercise individual liberty and personal responsibility are compromised; you become dependent on others both physically and financially. In fact, nearly half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are attributed to citizens’ inability to pay their medical bills. As a single mother, I especially know how daunting medical bills can be.
It should be clear to any thoughtful conservative that basic protection services, such as public police and fire departments are necessary in a society that strives to provide its citizens with equal opportunity to better their lives. Universal access to health care is no exception.
Universal health care is not only a good idea from a philosophical standpoint but from a practical and economic perspective as well. If your goal is to alleviate waste and prevent free-riding, then the current voluntary health insurance system is an unqualified disaster.
Our current health care system requires that anyone who walks into a hospital must be treated, regardless of their ability to pay the bill. Because of this, we have opened the door to massive free-riding and economic waste. Many people never pay their medicals bills and simply dump their debts onto the public system, forcing physicians and hospitals to decide how to work without pay. This is the epitome of free-riding.
Put simply, because hospitals in the U.S. cannot refuse any person care, we are consequently paying more for health care in taxes than any other country – even more than those that do provide universal health insurance. Furthermore, many Americans are paying for private health insurance on top of taxes. In other words, we are paying for universal health care but not getting it. Talk about inefficiency and waste!
Universal access to health care would not only increase individual liberty and alleviate wasteful spending, but would also increase entrepreneurial activity – another value central to conservative thinking. Many entrepreneurs are discouraged from embarking on their new business venture by fears about the high cost of providing employers with health insurance. Small business employers are then forced to make tough decisions about whether to absorb the high costs, pass them on to employees, or not offer benefits at all. A universal health care system would eliminate these concerns and encourage hesitant entrepreneurs to test their innovations and ideas.
Edmund Burke, one is the fathers of conservatism, stated wisely, “A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”
It is time for conservatives to adopt this change. Universal health care should become a basic tenet in the conservative platform. It enhances individual liberty by increasing one’s ability to care for oneself and one’s family. It significantly decreases the current financial waste and inefficiency of the U.S. present voluntary health care system. It also encourages small business and entrepreneurship.
The conservative case for universal health care is much more compelling than for other public services such as roads, schools, libraries, and parks. For me, the question used to be: how can any conservative support a universal health care system? Now, the question has become: how can any true conservative, with a true appreciation of conservative values, not support universal access to health care?
Conservatives should be ready with an answer.
3.8.08
The Injustice of Sex Laws
Same sex relationships are illegal in more than 70 countries. In nine the penalty for engaging in such relationships is death. Here in the
I believe that homosexuality is immoral. However, my private religious beliefs are irrelevant to the larger question that these statistics raise: Should any government have the right to punish its citizens for having consensual sex?
The obvious answer should be no.
Laws prohibiting same sex couples or any consenting adult from engaging in sexual activity should be repealed with one exception — incest — which I will discuss later.
Nothing is more personal than the way people choose to shape their sexual relationships. Government has no business intruding into people’s bedrooms or private intimate relationships.
This doesn’t mean everyone must consider all sexual acts acceptable. It simply means that as long as the participants are consenting adults, then the government has no right to use force to try to prevent such behavior or punish people for engaging in certain acts. There is no justification for executing, or imprisoning, peaceful citizens because of their sexual choices.
For sex to truly be considered “consensual,” two conditions must exist. First, everyone involved must willingly agree to participate in the sexual acts. Second, those who agree must understand what they are agreeing to participate in.
The second requirement — that they understand the nature of the act or acts — is why a legal age of consent is necessary. I would propose 16 as a proper legal age of consent, but that is a debate for another time.
Though incest may be consensual sex between two adults, there is the risk that a third party who did not consent to the act will be negatively affected. I am talking, of course, about the child that may be created as a result of the act. The child is highly likely to be born with significant mental disorders, physical defects, or both. Because the non-consenting child is at such a high risk for experiencing such harmful effects as a result of the adults’ actions, incest is an exception to my thesis that all laws regulating sex between consenting adults should be repealed.
In short, as long as the sexual acts between adults are consensual, and do not place a non-consenting third party at a high risk, then the government has no right to regulate or prohibit the actions.
The most common cases of non-traditional (i.e. not between one man and one woman) sexual relationships are homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships. Both types of relationships are punishable by law in many countries, including the
This is an abuse of government power in any society, and particularly in one such as the
When a government imprisons or in any way punishes peaceful consenting adults for having sex, that government has stepped outside of its proper boundaries and is acting unjustly.
The debate over government’s proper role in its citizens’ sex lives prompts us to consider what the government’s role is in any private relationship, such as marriage or friendship. I would argue that the government has no role in any peaceful, private relationships, regardless of whether those relationships involve sex, friendship, or marriage.
Any government that presumes it has the power to deem which peaceful human relationships are good and which are bad is acting outside of its proper limits. All people deserve equal treatment under the law, and the easiest way to ensure that this occurs is not to grant marriage licenses to homosexuals or polygamists, but to remove government altogether from marriage and private sexual relationships. Consensual sex, marriage, and friendships are private affairs. The government should have no righ
t to regulate such matters.
Some claim that the government should have the right to deem some consensual sex acceptable and some consensual sex unacceptable, and should also have the power to punish anyone who engages in the “unacceptable” kind of consensual sex. If this were the case, it’s difficult to imagine what the government wouldn’t have the power to regulate and, thus, punish.
The government should not have the right to tell its citizens how to have sex. Nor should the government have the right to decide which sexual positions are legal, or when sex can legally occur. Punishment should not be imposed for engaging in consensual sexual acts.
Everyone has a different concept of morality, and the government should not have the right to impose on its citizens its version of morality. The poet T.S. Eliot once wrote:
They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
However, no government system can make someone good, and legislating morality doesn’t make a society moral. An act can only be truly moral when someone has the freedom to act immorally, but chooses otherwise.
As stated earlier, same sex relationships are illegal in more than 70 countries and are punishable by death in nine of those countries. This is clearly an injustice and an abuse of government power. Any law regulating sex between consensual adults is wrong and should be repealed.
30.7.08
Discovering Truth through Reading Fiction
…great literature searches the human heart to find in it the laws of moral existence, distinguishing man from beast.
--Russell Kirk,“The Moral Imagination.”
Humanism is an ethical discipline, intended to develop the truly human person, the qualities of manliness, through the study of great books.
-- Irving Babbitt, “Literature and the American College”
--Russell Kirk,“The Moral Imagination.”
Humanism is an ethical discipline, intended to develop the truly human person, the qualities of manliness, through the study of great books.
-- Irving Babbitt, “Literature and the American College”
Great literature captures the essence of morality and teaches us what it means to be genuinely human. It places its’ characters at the crossroads of right and wrong, and visually depicts their struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil. As readers, we find ourselves transported into the story, challenged to make sense of the strange new world and the emphatic moral choices presented to its characters. These characters cause us to face truths about ourselves, both ugly and beautiful, and compel us to consider what decisions we would make if confronted with the same situations.
A wonderful example is the Divine Comedy, an epic poem written at the beginning of the 14th century by the exiled Florentine poet, Dante Alighieri, and is considered by most to be a cornerstone of the Western didactic imagination. The epic poem is the story of Dante’s journey through the three realms of the afterlife, each depicted in a separate cantica: Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso.
In the first Canto of the Inferno, Dante establishes the archetypal allegorical situation of the erring pilgrim in a metaphor that resonates throughout Western literature. The poet, now middle-aged, finds himself in a dark forest, where the way ahead is unclear. Pursued by the beast of sin, Dante is rescued by Virgil, the epic poet of imperial Rome. So begins his journey through the underworld.
Dante’s pilgrimage compels us to face the many different kinds of evil within ourselves and the sinister reality of dreadful punishment consequent of our sins. Through his remarkable ability to create clear visual images in the reader’s mind, Dante paints a picture that enables us to see in our mind the punishment of Hell. The reader of Inferno can almost feel the heavy weight of his -- or her -- own sins and the dark reality of their consequences as Virgil leads Dante through the gates of Hell, where he sees the entrance marked with the haunting inscription: “Abandon all hope, you who enter here.” Thereafter, Dante descends through nine concentric circles, each representing an increase in evilness, culminating at the center of the earth, where Satan is frozen in ice. However, Dante’s dark trek through Hell ends with a glimpse of the Paradiso to come. Dante writes:
“We climbed, [Virgil] first and I behind, until,
Through a small round
opening ahead of us
I saw the lovely things the heavens hold
And we came
out to see the stars once more.”(Inferno 136-139)
After surviving the depths of Hell, Dante and Virgil ascend out of the Inferno and into Purgatorio, the second realm of the Catholic afterlife. Once Dante has been completely purged of his sins in Purgatorio, he makes his final accession into Paradiso, now guided by Beatrice, the ideal woman first described by Dante in La Vita Nuova, and who, it is revealed, has interceded, with vigilant prayer, to save Dante; setting him on his corrective path through the afterlife.
From beginning to end, the Divine Comedy symbolizes the spiritual quest of human life, a quest rendered necessary by most all human beings. As with all great literature, any reader of Dante will discover more of what it means to be human.
Over 300 years after Dante wrote the Divine Comedy, a Puritan English poet named John Milton wrote a theologically-themed and vastly influential poem titled Paradise Lost. Paradise Lost is the story of the Fall of Man from Eden. The poem tells the drama of Adam and Eve’s decline from dignity and happiness to shame and selfishness. Milton teaches his readers, “the central drama of human life is temptation, and the best kind of heroism is patient resistance to it.” (Kantor 93) Milton also teaches his readers, as did Dante, that there is forgiveness and redemption for those who have gone astray. This is clear in the last lines of “Paradise Lost” when Milton writes:
“By name to come called Charity, the soul
Of all the rest: then will you not
be loath
To leave this Paradise, but shall possess
A Paradise within
you, happier far” (12.584-87)
Adam and Eve can still lead a fruitful life, though fallen from grace and cast out of Paradise. Exercise of the basic Christian tenets, and ultimately Charity, will allow them to create an inner Paradise.
The themes expressed in Paradise Lost, i.e., temptation, obedience, and forgiveness, still have implications for all who read this epic poem today. Milton, like Dante and all of the greatest literary authors, have much to teach us about the complexity of humanity.
After Dante and before Milton, there was William Shakespeare, an English poet and playwright, who is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language. Shakespeare’s universal appeal stems from the manner in which his writing reflects human nature in a way unique to all other literature. Most importantly, Shakespeare teaches us, his readers, that there is in fact such a thing as human nature. “Shakespeare’s characters don’t just talk about things, they define them.” (Kantor 64) Whether it is spite, envy, revenge, generosity, greed, humility, love, or death, there is a Shakespearean character that incarnates that human quality. From his tragedies, such as Hamlet and King Lear, to his comedies such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Much Ado About Nothing, and onto his sonnets, Shakespeare depicts the immense variety and complexity of human nature and the human experience.
Alexander Pope, considered the greatest English poet of the eighteenth century, contended that, Shakespeare’s “…characters are so much of nature herself…every single character in Shakespeare is as much an individual as those in life itself…” Through his complex characters we reach the heights and depths of the human soul. Shakespeare, more than any other author of notable literature, has a great deal to teach his readers about what it means to be genuinely human.
Whereas Dante, Milton, and Shakespeare’s characters teach their readers lessons about humanity, in Miguel de Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote, it is an excessive imaginative investment in literature that leads the principal character astray. The novel is the story of an old country man living in the town of La Mancha. He becomes obsessed with the books about chivalry, believing every word of them to be true. Quixote eventually appears to have lost his mind when he decides to go out as a knight-errant in search of adventure. He creates makeshift armor, changes his name to Don Quixote de la Mancha, and transforms a peasant girl, Dulcinea del Toboso, into his ideal woman. He calls her his ladylove and claims his adventures are in her honor. Throughout his escapades, Quixote’s delusions become stronger. He believes a run-down inn is a castle, and he even attacks windmills, which he believes to be ferocious giants. The townspeople begin to poke fun at Quixote and take advantage of his delusional state of mind. The novel ends with Don Quixote's complete disillusionment, and his melancholic return to sanity and renunciation of chivalry, and finally, his death.
Don Quixote depicts an exaggerated example of how literature can be a powerful force in guiding its readers’ lives. Books and manuscripts appear everywhere in Don Quixote, symbolizing the importance and influence of fiction and literature in everyday life. By reading Don Quixote, we see that literature can provide an imaginative outlet for characters with otherwise dull lives. On a deeper level, all readers can sympathize with Don Quixote, even in his delusional state. Quixote symbolizes the human being’s longing for that unique, creative, noble kind of human freedom that the world regards as foolishness. Not only was Don Quixote greatly influenced by reading literature, but we, too, can be greatly influenced by the deeper meanings found in reading Don Quixote. Miguel de Cervantes’ novel is another great piece of literary art that teaches us so much about the nature of the human being.
While Don Quixote is a fictional account, C.S. Lewis is a real life example of how reading great literature, more than any other discipline, can teach you about the human experience. C.S. Lewis, the most influential Christian author of modern times, claims that reading fiction was the primary force behind his conversion to Christianity. In reading poets and novelists, Lewis found meaning, dignity, morality, and immortality. Lewis loved to read about other worlds. He once wrote: “In reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself.” After some time, through his imagination, Lewis found his key to reality: Christianity.
Literature teaches us, through stories, those things that every human ought to know. It teaches us that there is virtue and vice, and that they are opposites. Literature teaches us, through imagination and written words, everything about what it means to be genuinely human. From the most primitive prehistoric ages, to today’s world of technology, the art of story telling will not go away. From Gilgamesh to Flannery O’ Connor, humans have been learning about life through literature. We, the readers, should allow these stories to search our hearts and find the laws of moral existence written within us. In doing so, we will discover what it means to be truly human; and we will find that the reading of great literature prompt us, as it did G.K. Chesterton, to consider that the most remarkable story of all, the story of humanity itself, must also have a Story-teller.
22.7.08
Q:) What makes human material a person?
This post's title was a question I had on my recent exam in ethics class. I received an F for my response. I don't think it was deserving of such a grade. I'll let you be the judge. This was my answer:
A:)When determining what qualifies human material as a person, I think a logical place to begin is by considering what makes human material different from all othe
r materials.
From what our human minds can perceive, it appears that humans are the only species that possess the ability to reason, to wonder, and to aspire. Humans are the only species to have such a vast vocabulary, such complex grammar, and the ability to have deep and meaningful conversations about topics, such as their origin and their destiny. Humans are the only creatures to establish religions, have a refined aesthetic sense, and a vivid imagination.
Although it cannot be proven that these qualities are exclusive to the human species, it can be confidently assumed, based on simple observation and scientific studies dating as far back as humans can account. Every influential philosopher has asserted or assumed that the human species' ability to reason does, in some regard, set it above all others. Furthermore, this ability to reason is often the element claimed to give the human species its personhood.
It should be noted that nothing I have written thus far about human values is based on any religious belief; rather, I have assumed no creator. However, when examining what makes human material a person, you will find yourself in quite a pickle if you try to dig too deep into the question without attributing some sort of creator to the human species. Let me explain.
If a human, whether because of old age or mental retardation, loses or does not possess the traits I described earlier as being exclusive to the human species, you must then explain why—or why not—that human is a person. If they cannot reason, cannot communicate in any meaningful way and/or have no ability to imagine or wonder, then are they still considered as being a person? Unless one ascribes a creator to the human species, a creator who places within each human an intrinsic value, then you are going to experience quite some difficulty making a case for why a mentally retarded paraplegic is indeed a person. Of course, it is possible that such an individual is not a person, and such an assumption might make sense. However, if you do believe that a mentally retarded paraplegic, who is in no other way discernable from an animal by way of intellect or physical capabilities, is still a person, then you must believe that humans have an intrinsic value that transcends any detectable trait or quality. It follows that one must believe that humans are endowed by a creator with an inherent value, and this is what qualifies human material as a person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
