On February 22, 1946, George Kennan (then Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States to the USSR) sent the Long Telegram, a profoundly significant letter outlining the author’s views of the Soviet enemy and the stakes of the Cold War to come. The telegram helped shape American foreign policy attitudes towards its competing superpower in part because of the force of Kennan’s argumentation. More important, though, was the fact that the foundation of the Long Telegram was unabashedly thrown into the public sphere. The Truman Doctrine was based on it, successive presidents and their administrations embraced it, and the American people were aware of it.
The New York Times has reported that Barack Obama is considering making a major foreign policy address from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office. Surely his aim will be to start the international healing process by articulating a tolerant position on the role of Islam in the numerous threats faced by the Western world. If a modern Long Telegram exists, it would be wise to bet against its appearance in the speech at Cairo, Baghdad or Damascus.
Mr. Obama and his defense team may have already pinpointed the relevant methods, self-perceptions and structures that Islamists possess and must be eliminated through military and diplomatic means. The problem is that, even if this was the case, we don’t really want to hear about it. Countering hateful ideology often requires a step onto an ideological ledge of our own. It requires drawing a line between good and bad beliefs. It is this line that we’ve been told to eliminate.
We’re told to eliminate the line on campus. When a conservative organization at The George Washington University announced its “Islamofascism Awareness Week” last year, student representatives earned a chance to discuss their program on CNN. Except instead of receiving a forum to criticize an ideology that wanted all of them (and everyone in the studio, and everyone at their school) dead, they found themselves on national television backpedaling against criticisms that their project was racist. If only the speed in which multiculturalists eliminated this threat could be replicated by our intelligence services.
When either the back of a Subaru or an actual person tells you to “Coexist,” the message is usually targeted at President Bush and his band of neoconservatives, not the man with the dull razor blade in all those horrible decapitation videos that somehow go ignored. Even if Mr. Obama inherits a nation more acquiescent to his brand of foreign policy, whatever that may be, the fear of ideological confrontation with everything short of a man with a small moustache remains. How could an official serving the Obama administration ever produce an effective Long Telegram when even President Unilateral Aggression didn’t have the heart to call the ‘war on terror’ a ‘war on radical Islam’? Last I checked 9/11 wasn’t caused by a failure of the American government to recognize the Irish Republican Army.
How long before our intellectual cowardice dissipates I don’t know. But until it does, we have about as good a chance of making actual progress against the ideas that form the lifeblood of anti-American terrorism as we have hearing Barack Obama say “Islamofascism” in Damascus.
09 December 2008
08 December 2008
Are We All Immaculately Conceived?
Today, December 8, is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. This Catholic feast day, a Holy Day of Obligation since Pope Pius IX declared it so in 1854, commemorates the Blessed Virgin Mary’s being conceived without the stain of Original Sin present in every other human being since the Fall of Adam. It does not, as many persons both within and outside the Church believe, celebrate Christ’s conception by the Holy Spirit.
This feast is a fascinating one, a fact which is brought home forcefully to those of us at the only true Dominican institution of higher learning in this country. A veritable all-star lineup of Dominican theologians and saints, including Thomas Aquinas himself, were staunchly opposed to the doctrine—a fact which the Dominican homilists did not let their congregations forget today. It was the Franciscans (minus the great St. Bonaventura) whose theology prevailed in this question, and while the other mendicant friars have not forgotten this, they are gracious in acknowledging the error of their predecessors.
It is not only the history of the feast’s commemoration that is fascinating, however. At the very core of this long-standing doctrine is the Catholic belief in Original Sin. The great G.K. Chesterton was once (well, was always) in an argument with the very able playwright George Bernard Shaw, and Chesterton asked this confirmed old agnostic whether he believed in Original Sin.
“Of course not,” said Bernard Shaw. “That’s just a fiction invented by the Catholic Church to keep itself in business.”
“Well,” asked the portly polemicist, “do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?”
“Of course not,” repeated the dramatist. “That’s just an old superstition.”
“I’m afraid,” replied GKC, “Mr. Shaw, that you must choose one or the other. If there is no original sin, then we are all immaculately conceived. Surely you are not less moderate than the Church, which holds that only one person was ever born without sin?”
Chesterton’s question is one with which we all must grapple. Surely we don’t believe that humanity was conceived without at least some propensity to sin? And yet, today Original Sin is widely regarded as exactly the sort of old wives’ tale Bernard Shaw believed it to be. It seems that in eliminating the idea of sin from the public consciousness, we have merely excised all guilt (that stereotypically Catholic emotion). Chesterton is quite good on this point in his writings, pointing out that denying the preponderance of sin is denying objective reality, and that a healthy sense of guilt and shame for bad actions is vital to a just and moral society (and Molly O’Donnell goes “erghh!”).
A dispute on this exact matter, in fact, led a woman sitting in front of two authors of this forum at the Independence Day fireworks this summer to wheel about and yell “Do you realize you haven’t shut up this entire time!?” She was right; but her question went unasked until I uttered the word “sin”. We live in a society that wants to act badly and be congratulated for it. Surely these folks are not less moderate than the Church, which is willing to meet sinners halfway—in the Sacrament of Reconcilation?
This feast is a fascinating one, a fact which is brought home forcefully to those of us at the only true Dominican institution of higher learning in this country. A veritable all-star lineup of Dominican theologians and saints, including Thomas Aquinas himself, were staunchly opposed to the doctrine—a fact which the Dominican homilists did not let their congregations forget today. It was the Franciscans (minus the great St. Bonaventura) whose theology prevailed in this question, and while the other mendicant friars have not forgotten this, they are gracious in acknowledging the error of their predecessors.
It is not only the history of the feast’s commemoration that is fascinating, however. At the very core of this long-standing doctrine is the Catholic belief in Original Sin. The great G.K. Chesterton was once (well, was always) in an argument with the very able playwright George Bernard Shaw, and Chesterton asked this confirmed old agnostic whether he believed in Original Sin.
“Of course not,” said Bernard Shaw. “That’s just a fiction invented by the Catholic Church to keep itself in business.”
“Well,” asked the portly polemicist, “do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?”
“Of course not,” repeated the dramatist. “That’s just an old superstition.”
“I’m afraid,” replied GKC, “Mr. Shaw, that you must choose one or the other. If there is no original sin, then we are all immaculately conceived. Surely you are not less moderate than the Church, which holds that only one person was ever born without sin?”
Chesterton’s question is one with which we all must grapple. Surely we don’t believe that humanity was conceived without at least some propensity to sin? And yet, today Original Sin is widely regarded as exactly the sort of old wives’ tale Bernard Shaw believed it to be. It seems that in eliminating the idea of sin from the public consciousness, we have merely excised all guilt (that stereotypically Catholic emotion). Chesterton is quite good on this point in his writings, pointing out that denying the preponderance of sin is denying objective reality, and that a healthy sense of guilt and shame for bad actions is vital to a just and moral society (and Molly O’Donnell goes “erghh!”).
A dispute on this exact matter, in fact, led a woman sitting in front of two authors of this forum at the Independence Day fireworks this summer to wheel about and yell “Do you realize you haven’t shut up this entire time!?” She was right; but her question went unasked until I uttered the word “sin”. We live in a society that wants to act badly and be congratulated for it. Surely these folks are not less moderate than the Church, which is willing to meet sinners halfway—in the Sacrament of Reconcilation?
05 December 2008
Please Drink Responsibly
Today is the 75th anniversary of the ratification of Amendment XXI to the United States Constitution. It's as good a day as any for Jeremiah to read Aethiopis with a glass of Keystone Light, don't you think?
Above: Bloggers Jason Weischedel and Jeremiah Begley enjoy one beer apiece before returning to campus to finish their homework.
Cheers,
The Ennobler
Above: Bloggers Jason Weischedel and Jeremiah Begley enjoy one beer apiece before returning to campus to finish their homework.
Cheers,
The Ennobler
02 December 2008
Otium Redefined: A Critique of Undergraduate Culture
The following commentary will appear in this week’s issue of The Cowl, the student-run newspaper of Providence College. Once again, The Ennobler scoops the competition.
I used to believe our college to be plagued by a lack of intellectual seriousness. It seemed to me that, in the minds of many on this campus, study was an engagement to be hurried through and avoided if all possible. Intellectual tasks were chores that had to be done before the real fun could begin.
My assessment of the facts has not changed. These pernicious attitudes are still prevalent, but I have begun to question my erstwhile contention that they arise from a lack of seriousness. Indeed, in one sense excessive seriousness about academic work could lead one to equate education with hard labor. Perhaps what is truly lacking at our institution is a healthy measure of intellectual levity, or playfulness.
In the ancient conception of things, life is divided up into two categories: otium, usually rendered as “leisure,” and negotium, the opposite. Significantly, leisure is the primary thing, and “work” is defined as its negation, not as a thing in its own right. One performs the mundane duties of negotium solely for the sake of gaining time and resources for otium, the basis of culture and the true meaning of life.
Although this view is certainly foreign to much of American society, in which people define themselves by their employment to such an extent that they willingly work sixty or more hours per week, it may sound familiar and refreshing to us as youth. If, so to speak, everybody’s working for the weekend, does it not follow that everybody should do only enough to forestall a grade point average disaster?
Actually, it does not. In fact, grades have unquestionably helped bring about the catastrophic redefinition of the life of the mind as negotium. This category mistake is at the very heart of our problem. The otium toward which the Greeks and Romans directed their existence is the very pseudo-negotium which we shunt aside and perform perfunctorily. Intellectual levity, therefore, is the virtue of recognizing the tremendous privilege and blessing of being granted a liberal arts education.
We are given four years of our lives to spend, essentially, however we please. This liberty is intended to afford us the opportunity for intellectual exploration, as we move gradually from a general immersion in Western civilization toward a slightly more specialized area of study to which we become particularly devoted. The theological, philosophical, historical and literary treasures of almost three millennia are laid at our unworthy feet. Here is the best of what has been thought and said, we are told; what would you like to read? And we reply: Thank you, yes. I will have fourteen cans of Natural Ice.
Youthful exuberance and experimentation aside, those who repeatedly and consistently make such a choice declare themselves unworthy of being in college. Those who squander the chance to drink deeply at the bottomless well of truth by habitually drinking deeply at various off-campus establishments are tacitly but unequivocally registering a preference to be in a different environment. They deserve the coal mine. They deserve the steel mill. The treasures of Western culture are wasted on those who wish to dispense with them as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Of course, it is precisely because most of us wish to avoid a career in smelting or coal extraction that we tend to treat our studies solely as a means to another end. It is frequently alleged that the majority of students simply are not here in order to be swept off their feet by Renaissance poetry; they are here because the job market dictates they have a college degree, whether earned or otherwise, and they wish to comply. This fact leads many to major in one of the false disciplines which have crept into our undergraduate catalog and grown, like huge malignant tumors, to a position of dominance. The distinguishing characteristic of these disciplines, most of which have been conveniently consolidated into the new School of Business for easy reference, is that no one could possibly enjoy them on their own merits. Unlike reading Homer, which is an intrinsic good pleasurable to the well-adjusted soul regardless of any additional benefit or outcome, these disciplines are studied only instrumentally, for the purpose of making money.
Preeminent among these are the immensely popular troika of Marketing, Management and Finance, which devour fearful undergraduates like the three heads of Cerberus. These sophistic arts are among the biggest culprits in the destruction of intellectual playfulness. They play upon our fears of rejection in the marketplace, and whisper sweet nothings of financial security in our ears.
I say it's time to end the tyranny of pseudo-practicality. We all need jobs, of course, and it may well be that not everyone will experience a joyful awakening while studying the liberal arts. But there is no better preparation for any job than the skills which attend naturally with the study of a true discipline: reading perceptively, writing well, and having a sense of what life is really about. What need have we for Leadership Studies when Aeneas still leads his men to the Lavinian shore?
I used to believe our college to be plagued by a lack of intellectual seriousness. It seemed to me that, in the minds of many on this campus, study was an engagement to be hurried through and avoided if all possible. Intellectual tasks were chores that had to be done before the real fun could begin.
My assessment of the facts has not changed. These pernicious attitudes are still prevalent, but I have begun to question my erstwhile contention that they arise from a lack of seriousness. Indeed, in one sense excessive seriousness about academic work could lead one to equate education with hard labor. Perhaps what is truly lacking at our institution is a healthy measure of intellectual levity, or playfulness.
In the ancient conception of things, life is divided up into two categories: otium, usually rendered as “leisure,” and negotium, the opposite. Significantly, leisure is the primary thing, and “work” is defined as its negation, not as a thing in its own right. One performs the mundane duties of negotium solely for the sake of gaining time and resources for otium, the basis of culture and the true meaning of life.
Although this view is certainly foreign to much of American society, in which people define themselves by their employment to such an extent that they willingly work sixty or more hours per week, it may sound familiar and refreshing to us as youth. If, so to speak, everybody’s working for the weekend, does it not follow that everybody should do only enough to forestall a grade point average disaster?
Actually, it does not. In fact, grades have unquestionably helped bring about the catastrophic redefinition of the life of the mind as negotium. This category mistake is at the very heart of our problem. The otium toward which the Greeks and Romans directed their existence is the very pseudo-negotium which we shunt aside and perform perfunctorily. Intellectual levity, therefore, is the virtue of recognizing the tremendous privilege and blessing of being granted a liberal arts education.
We are given four years of our lives to spend, essentially, however we please. This liberty is intended to afford us the opportunity for intellectual exploration, as we move gradually from a general immersion in Western civilization toward a slightly more specialized area of study to which we become particularly devoted. The theological, philosophical, historical and literary treasures of almost three millennia are laid at our unworthy feet. Here is the best of what has been thought and said, we are told; what would you like to read? And we reply: Thank you, yes. I will have fourteen cans of Natural Ice.
Youthful exuberance and experimentation aside, those who repeatedly and consistently make such a choice declare themselves unworthy of being in college. Those who squander the chance to drink deeply at the bottomless well of truth by habitually drinking deeply at various off-campus establishments are tacitly but unequivocally registering a preference to be in a different environment. They deserve the coal mine. They deserve the steel mill. The treasures of Western culture are wasted on those who wish to dispense with them as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Of course, it is precisely because most of us wish to avoid a career in smelting or coal extraction that we tend to treat our studies solely as a means to another end. It is frequently alleged that the majority of students simply are not here in order to be swept off their feet by Renaissance poetry; they are here because the job market dictates they have a college degree, whether earned or otherwise, and they wish to comply. This fact leads many to major in one of the false disciplines which have crept into our undergraduate catalog and grown, like huge malignant tumors, to a position of dominance. The distinguishing characteristic of these disciplines, most of which have been conveniently consolidated into the new School of Business for easy reference, is that no one could possibly enjoy them on their own merits. Unlike reading Homer, which is an intrinsic good pleasurable to the well-adjusted soul regardless of any additional benefit or outcome, these disciplines are studied only instrumentally, for the purpose of making money.
Preeminent among these are the immensely popular troika of Marketing, Management and Finance, which devour fearful undergraduates like the three heads of Cerberus. These sophistic arts are among the biggest culprits in the destruction of intellectual playfulness. They play upon our fears of rejection in the marketplace, and whisper sweet nothings of financial security in our ears.
I say it's time to end the tyranny of pseudo-practicality. We all need jobs, of course, and it may well be that not everyone will experience a joyful awakening while studying the liberal arts. But there is no better preparation for any job than the skills which attend naturally with the study of a true discipline: reading perceptively, writing well, and having a sense of what life is really about. What need have we for Leadership Studies when Aeneas still leads his men to the Lavinian shore?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)