What is the danger of Love, Eros? I suppose that some would say that the greatest danger is the possibility of heartbreak. This is, no doubt, a reality, but I do not believe that it is the greatest danger. Hearts, with time and focus, are mended and are free to move on and love again. The greatest danger, I believe, is communicated to us in Plato’s Symposium. This danger is the danger of being caught on the particular of beauty.
“A lover who goes about this matter correctly must begin in his youth to devote himself to beautiful bodies” –Symposium 210a
It is here, in this first step that one may stagnate. When beholding what one deems to be beautiful, it is easy to forget that such a thing beheld is not beauty, but contains it, has its essence somehow. You see the particular that seems to possess Beauty, or perhaps, at first sight is thought to be Beauty itself is, in fact, not. To confuse the particular with Beauty, that divine form that is and resides with God, is to fall into sin.
Let’s consider the love of an individual person. There she is before you, a particular of Beauty that is completely enthralling. Even though this individual seems to possess beauty, they simply have Beauty’s essence, but Beauty itself is ineffable, always out of reach. It is Eros that keeps us reaching and clawing for it, to possess it, to make it our own.
When one only sees the beauty of this individual, one fails to understand all the things within that individual that work in concert to reveal beauty at the moment they are beheld. This sin of maintaining a view only of the particular form of Beauty breaks the continued drive of Eros to find and behold Beauty itself. Sadly, being caught on the particular results in a failure to love the person we find beautiful. How then does one turn from this sin?
“After this he must think that the beauty of people’s souls is more valuable than the beauty of their bodies, so that is someone if decent in his soul, even though he is scarcely blooming in his body, our lover must be content to love and care for him . . .” –Symposium 210b-210c
Here one finds the answer to untangle oneself from the sin of being caught in the particular. For the soul is closer to the essence of Beauty itself. If our souls, our essence, our consciousness is in fact God-breathed it is no wonder that Plato, who seems to have thought the same, considers the soul to be more beautiful than the body alone. To know someone’s soul is to know what gives them true beauty, and in loving their souls there is the possibility that one will help give birth to ideas within them that make them better individuals, that make them more beautiful. For those who have some idea of the Divine, the ineffable, being sought by those caught on the form of beauty alone often has the effect of turning them away. Sadly, this turning away, this repulsion, produces ugliness and bitterness, and what might have been a relationship of constantly developing joy and beauty becomes a carcass filled with the stench of unrealized possibilities. In ignoring the souls of humanity, where the more valuable beauty resides, we fail to cultivate all the things that bind us closer as human beings made in the image of God.
What the lover and philosopher seek, in some sense, is to know fully what order, beauty, and goodness are and be known for what makes us the uniquely ordered individuals that we are. Certainly, there is the initial attraction to beauty, but it must not stop there. It must continue. It must continue through the realization that Beauty is ineffable, intangible, a mysterious force that resides in and is God himself. In realizing this, when one encounters a beautiful person or idea, one will seek not just the form, but all that is contained within, i.e. the very soul of the person. One will seek to know it, and to see it fully revealed. Finally, it is in this proper seeking to know Beauty that our souls are cultivated to the glory of God.
“ . . . our lover must be content to love and care for him and to seek to give birth to such ideas as will make young men better. The result is that our lover will be forced to gaze at the beauty of activities and laws and to see that all this is akin to itself, with result that the beauty of bodies is a thing of no importance . . . but the lover is turned to the great sea of beauty, and gazing upon this, he gives birth to many gloriously beautiful ideas and theories, in unstinting love of wisdom, until, having grown and been strengthened there, he catches sight of such knowledge, and it is the knowledge of such beauty . . . You see, the man who has been thus far guided in matters of Love, who has beheld beautiful things in the right order and correctly, is coming now to the goal of Loving . . .”
The Symposium 210c-210e
And so, my question to you all is this. What is this “goal of Loving” in which the great sea of Beauty itself is seen? Surely, it cannot be in the happenstance moments of life where no rhyme or reason exist? Surely it cannot be outside of order, completely and wholly chaotic with no Telos? If Love is from God, if God is Love, than surely the idea that some random person, of who you may have no chance of meeting, is not what God intended? How is love to be cultivated and nurtured in the meantime?
Rather, I chose to cultivate this journey of Love, to find Love’s goal, which is finally found in The Good, The Beautiful, The True (i.e. God) than allow myself to suffer the chance that I will fail to meet some mythical creature called the ‘soulmate.’ Rather, I believe that in being a lover, a true lover, one will seek a beloved, and in doing so hope that they too may become lovers so that all at once the beloved becomes the lover and the lover becomes the beloved, and in doing so form a circle of unending love, an image of the Divine love between the Father and the Son, who is the Holy Spirit.
To lovers, may they love all truly beautiful things and in doing so find Beauty, and thus God,
Ahmaud
a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.
a person who gives assistance; patron; supporter: friends of the Boston Symphony.
a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile: Who goes there? Friend or foe?
My professor recently said something to the class which I found quite interesting and mildly perplexing, especially given my sordid relation with the term. He called those in his class, myself included, friends. I immediately wondered what his definition of friend was for him to be able to refer to us as such. As I’ve come to know him, I realize it is a combination of the definitions above.
Now, I’ve had a serious problem defining the word friend for the better part of my life. This was primarily due to narrow-mindedness on my part. You see, I defined the word friend and friendship based largely in part on my own desires. So, a friend was someone that, mostly for the worst, was someone that gave conditioned responses to my desires. It had nothing to do with, as the definition states above, attachment to another by feelings of affection or personal regard, one I give assistance to, or someone I am on good terms with. As a result, those whom I called friends were very small, and any perceived insult on my part would make that circle even smaller.
After reading the Nicomachean Ethics, I realized that friends are an integral part of living the blessed life. Even the Proverbs, which is a part of the sacred writings of the faith to which I affirm, says that friends are good. No wonder my life seemed little blessed at times. I was so wrapped up what I felt the other person should, or shouldn’t do, that I didn’t even consider whether or not I showed any affection, assisted, or was on good terms with anyone, save a select few. Does this mean I should be, or am friends, with everyone? No way hoe-zay. Proverbs is pretty clear that one should be careful who I associate with. The wrong friends can make it very difficult to live the blessed life, or even lead to disastrous ruin.
What I am convinced of is this, that in service to Christ, I should seek to be a conduit for his working in the lives of others as their friend by showing affection, assisting them when appropriate and in ways that are prudent, and being on good terms with others as best I can. When I cannot, I’ve found it’s best to, at the very least, affirm my affection and love for them, and leave it at that.
In my last note I laid forth the premises that a free market, where Congress showed no favor to large corporate interests, would be the best solution for our economic ills. I will now go on to discuss the virtuous citizen. However, before I do, I’d like to say that my understanding of the problems we face and the appropriate actions are ever changing. Not because the solution is ever changing, but because I am, hopefully, moving toward the correct and proper form of what I should be as a human being, and most especially as a Christian.
The ensuing economic turmoil has brought a great deal to light regarding how we as a society have handled our finances, engaged in government, and run our lives. We have, in increasing numbers and ways, failed to determine what is appropriate for who and what we should be firstly as human beings and secondly as citizens of these United States of America. Consumerism, the blossom of hedonism, has choked out frugality in a race towards pleasure, and we are suffering, in ever increasing ways, as a result.
What I propose is that America will become more stable internally (economically and otherwise), and increase in world standing if its citizens become more virtuous and if we have a government that, as is appropriate for it to do so, facilitate the development of virtuous citizens.
There are two forms of virtue as expressed by Aristotle, intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Intellectual virtue is an active condition of the soul towards good or ill (i.e. the mean) which bears towards the feelings. Moral virtue is that action, as a part of the practical syllogism, which aims at a conclusion, that being telos, the highest aim of man. Now virtue is necessary for human happiness; but what then is happiness? Happiness is a condition of the soul in accordance with virtue, and if there be more than one virtue, in accordance with the best, as the man of practical wisdom would see fit.
The problem with using the term happiness is that it is defined as something very different by contemporary culture. We equate happiness with pleasure, but this is absurd. Consider this. Why do we eat? Well, we eat to satisfy our hunger. Our bodies have a mechanism which informs us that we require sustenance, and so we seek to satiate that hunger by eating. Of course, we may find pleasure in eating, but the appropriateness of eating is not found in its pleasure, as great as that may be, but in its end, which is sustenance of the body. Consequently, happiness works in the same way. Happiness, being a condition of our souls, is the end of the aims for which we seek pleasure. So, unlike my friend who thought that happiness is different for all, it is the same, for it is the end thing that we all seek to satisfy, though we seek that end by employing different means and in varying degrees.
Now, it is the virtue, the best virtues, which will help guide us in obtaining happiness, that blessed condition of the soul. So not all pleasures are proper and right in obtaining happiness.
Having established what happiness and virtue are, let us proceed to discuss how to achieve a state full of virtuous citizens, and what role, if any, the government should have in facilitating this.
Now, our own Declaration of Independence states the following:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
I must state that this definition if happiness is not in accordance with Aristotle’s (it is from Locke, who stated “ . . .Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property”) but we shall, for the purpose of this note, assume that it is. Secondly, our Constitution says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now, we know that England was exerting undue control over the colonies that was so egregious to the residents of these colonies found it necessary to declare their independence. The government which they sought to establish was one established to ensure the Liberty that had previously been so egregiously violated as well as promote general welfare for both themselves and their posterity. The operative word in that quote is “We.” Implicit in that We is the necessary condition to ensure that “We” are thus enabled to maintain all the points which our forefathers sought to ensure. This cannot be done if the citizens are ignorant, unjust, and hedonistic. So, a state full of virtuous citizens becomes a necessary condition for ensuring the Justice, Tranquility, common defense, general welfare and liberty are maintained. The question is, how do we go about ensuring the development of virtuous citizens capable of ensuring these are maintained?
Firstly, government must be free, as I stated in my last note, from undue influence of large corporate interests. Corporations are not sentient, rational beings and so they should have no greater say in the affairs of the nation (as is sometimes the case) than actual sentient, rational citizens. This can be achieved through a more true open market.
Secondly, we must engage those spheres of the public commons that have a history and tradition of helping individuals achieve some form of virtue, from the church, to the synagogue, to the mosque; from the small business, to the community center, to the local chamber of commerce. This is why I feel it more appropriate for Obama to seek to better himself and his fellow citizens as a community organizer than by using the machinations of government, which is ill suited to the task of engendering virtue in its’ citizenry.
Thirdly, we must unshackle ourselves from the blinding pursuit of pleasure alone. While pleasure is a component of the human condition, it must be in harmony with reason, so that we can achieve right happiness. Government must then refrain from implementing specific programs aimed at ensuring a comfortable existence in which the pursuit of individual excellence is less likely, much like our French counterparts who have, through years of socialist programs, engendered a culture of economic complacency where hard work is punished and not rewarded.
So, in closing, the virtuous citizen will be better equipped and prepared to engage with their citizens in ways that promote overall well-being economically, socially, and in government. For they will be well informed citizens, having a disposition and action that is directed at those this most appropriate for a happy, industrious, and prosperous state.
This is the first in a series of more philosophic looks at the issues involved in this campaign. In my next note I plan on arguing for a government which helps to facilitate more virtuous citizens, instead of trying to become virtuous itself.
Before I begin, let me define some terms. When I say corporation, I am referring to large corporations, such as a GE or Viacom and not small business corporations. Secondly, when I refer to the military-industrial complex, I am referring to it as defined by Eisenhower and not some pseudo-intellectual conspiracy cooked up by leftist nut jobs.
My roommate and I have rather interesting conversations which often entail discussions of a metaphysical or political nature. We raise our voices, but never because we are angry, it’s just in our nature to be loud when we talk. In our last conversation the issue of the declining middle class came up and how any increasing rift between the poor and rich in a nation was an assurance of its eventual decline. I have struggled with that question since then. How do we insure a stable and increasing middle class without resorting to socialist programs which do more to stifle economic activity, and therefore growth?
First, let us consider Eisenhower’s warning given in his farewell address. In his farewell address he warned America of the dangers of the military-industrial complex saying:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Corporations have increased their influence in congress, so it seems, on an exponential level, and are, in varying degrees, responsible for some of the bills which are passed. It is this that I find most dangerous, and it is this fact that will, and has, been a detriment, again in varying degrees, for the American public. So, what then is the answer? How do we limit the increasing influence these corporations have over our lives? Oddly enough, I believe the answer is reduction in regulation, the very thing that many blame for allowing corporate abuse to persist.
You may now ask, “how can that work?” Let us consider the music industry for a moment. They reigned supreme for decades when suddenly a simple technological innovation endangers their entire distribution system. What was their response? To develop or assimilate the technology thereby increasing the efficacy of their system of distribution? No, the sought to use the long arm of government to do their bidding, to squelch the creative tinkerer in their virtual garages from continuing to develop technologies which would put their model out of business. In other words, they sought to destroy the very system which had allowed grow. Eisenhower’s words, I believe, support my view when he stated:
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
We have forgotten to protect the tinkerer in his garage by refusing to allow more favorable conditions for large corporations. I believe, if we are to ensure the middle class remains stable and sees an increase in its numbers, we must deregulate, we must refrain from the favoritism that has been shown some corporations, we must remember an open market means open competition for all—big and small— for if that competition comes from a man in his garage, who happens to make better widgets, then so be it.
To be sure, the developments born from the military-industrial complex have been a valuable benefit to our way of life. Advancements such as the internet and GPS are the direct result of this complex. But these were for specific areas of industry. We must be careful and avoid opening up the floodgates to every corporation that would knock on Congress door. Let them, unless it be fore issues of national security, compete in the open market. What do they have to fear?
So, the questions remains: do we truly trust the market to decide?
So about a week ago I hop on Twitter to see this tweet:
The bible is not about knowing stuff, it’s about doing stuff.
I was entirely perplexed when I read this. My mother assured me the author might not have made his point clear. So, I replied by saying:
I’ve always seen the bible as being about knowing and doing stuff. You can’t do if you don’t know. You know?
Now, I half expected him to say something to effect of “Yes, that’s what I mean, but I wanted to stress the action, since people seem to forget that,” or something along those lines. I didn’t get that at all, and what I did get only confused me more.
You see, what our twitter failed to realize is that right action is parasitic to right knowledge. If you just go out there ‘doing stuff’ you’ve missed the point entirely. The Bible is quite clear in saying that one must renew one’s mind, believe, etc. These are all afforded through the acquisition of knowledge. Knowledge, the word (e.g. logos, logic) is of such utmost importance that it became incarnate in human form and proceeded to act in accordance with that nature. So, if Christ himself is the word, logic, wisdom in incarnate form, can we really say the bible is not about knowing stuff but doing stuff? Therefore, we should first gain right knowledge through scripture, and this knowledge will transform our minds and hearts which will compel us to action, and not just any action, but right action.
We have no television or cable/satellite service here at our townhome in Athens, and as a result I had to go watch the Olympic gymnastic events last night at my friends apartment. I share my childhood dream of competing in the Olympic games and wondered out loud what sport I could choose that would present me with the best opportunity to make it into the next Olympic games in London. I was settled on kayaking last night, until a friend told me out about the pentathlon earlier today.
Needless to say, I think the pentathlon, or maybe the triathlon, might be right up my alley. It’s a multidiscipline sport consisting of running, shooting, fencing, swimming and riding. The idea behind the development of this particular sport was that the events mimic what ancient Greek soldiers would have had to be proficient in. It’s a true Olympic sport. Grueling, requiring mastery of mind and body, and glorious when executed well. Forget kayaking, I’m going for Olympic glory.
Last year UGA had a somewhat rocky start, with a loss to the South Carolina Gamecocks. That shouldn’t happen this year, since there are far tougher opponents we’ll be facing in one of the toughest seasons Georgia has had in a while with the inclusion of Arizona State in our schedule.
One thing I’m immensely excited about is our #1 pre-season ranking. Sure, USC and Ohio are still up there, despite the fact that their schedule isn’t nearly as strong as ours, but I’ll let that slide this year. Why no vitriolic response to the continued fawning over teams whose ranking I find rather dubious? We’re number one. The University of Georgia football team has a pre-season ranking of #1. I’m sure you, the reader, have the cognitive wherewithal to understand the simple point I’m trying to make. I’ll leave it at that . . . for now.
Getting Things Done is a system developed by productivity expert David Allen. It takes the convoluted and excessive to-do lists, event planners, and Palm Pilots and reduces, well, getting things done, to a simple fairly elegant system. Instead of focusing on the project, which can seem daunting and entirely unattainable, the system is designed to get you to focus on your next action. Once you’ve completed all next actions in a project, guess what? That’s right, your project will be complete, and all without you sweating about how will I paint the whole house? or how will I cook the entire dinner?
I tried using the GTD Moleskine hack with some success, but it didn’t seem to work right for how I process information, for how I approach a project, or any issue, for that matter. After reading a recent article on 43Folders, I realized I need to employ the same methodology I did that was so successful in helping me achieve a good grade in Physics last summer: turn studying and learning into a story.
By turning it into a story, I was able to put myself into the role of the main character, and discover how the conclusion, which I already know, is best reached. I become the central player in my own book. It allows me to write my own story, using an outline, not so different than one would use to write a novel.
So, here’s how it works. Like Merlin’s system, it requires you to re-articulate your project and action using natural language. For instance: bq. I need to steam the broccoli and steam the corn and fry the chicken in order to prepare dinner tonight.
Here you see that each action is a part of the story, with the conclusion being to prepare dinner. So, instead of seeing a big project that I dread trying to complete, I see next actions that will lead me to the conclusion of the story where, in the case of my example, I get to eat a tasty, filling meal. Use this with a Cahier Pocket Moleskine by writing your name at the top, and then for each project place that at the end or middle of the page (in natural language, which ever works best for how much space you need for all the climaxes of your story. Then fill in the space in between with each next action. That should also be done using natural language. What you will have is an interesting read when going through your next actions for the day. Feel free to be creative, which I definitely plan on being, when you write in your projects and next actions. The key is to make your GTD story uniquely your own.