< Back Dr. Stuti Pardhe Contributor Dr. Stuti Pardhe is a dedicated professional with a broad spectrum of experience spanning social work, clinical therapy, and alternative modalities. With a profound commitment to mental and public health, she aspires to be a global Brand Ambassador and Role Model, leaving a positive impact on humanity. The Science Behind the 7-Second Rule

< Back Burying Biscuit (to Cole Porter) -- a Childhood in a Single Tale Annie D. Stutley "...of course it would be the home of a hamster with a preference for a song about a bunch of sinners on a cruise ship begging for a revival." The life and death of Biscuit the Hamster is one of curiosity, tragedy, and ultimately the perfect capture of my childhood. It begins with the hamster of my friend Kelly. I just adored her hamster. I’d ride my bike to her house, which in the 1980s basically meant that she lived within state lines. We’d study the dances in the videos on MTV, have tea parties at the bottom of her above ground pool, and play with her hamster. I was smitten and just had to get one of my own. The story goes that I named mine Biscuit because that was the name of the maltipoo I met during our notorious road trip to California , the vacation when Pop pulled up to the Beverly Hills mansion of his college friend in our rented, banged up RV, knocking down his friend’s fancy mailbox in the process. I just loved that maltipoo and figured if I couldn’t get a maltipoo of my own, I could at least save its name for a rainy day—for the name of a dog in a short story or for a hamster, which I did. Biscuit was a pretty good roommate as far as hamsters go. His bed (or pile of mulched cedar) was in an old terrarium across my room on my desk where he mostly kept to himself. Pop built a screen that latched onto the rim of his glass home, which was a good thing because Biscuit was surprisingly agile for something so small and stubby. I don’t know how that adorable rodent did it, but he ignored his exercise wheel entirely, opting to climb up the outside of the wheel and suspend himself upside down from the screen instead. I figured he was one of the brilliant hamsters; he knew that wheel would never get him anywhere if he used it traditionally, so he’d get to his spot on the screen and crawl across the top of the cage, upside down, eventually turning back to the wheel and back down to the cedar. Unless he fell first, which sometimes happened. Hamsters don’t turn around while plummeting like cats do. They just plop, but he’d always scramble back onto his feet and reward his acrobatics with a cedar nap in the corner. His trapeze act was a bit unnerving. Screens scratch and creak when a hamster uses them as monkey bars. It sounded similar to what I was sure the monster in my closet would sound like if ever got around to really messing with me. But one thing quieted my strange pet and made him, quite remarkably, fixate on me: the soundtrack to “Anything Goes.” To be specific, the revival starring Patti LuPone. To be even more specific, that fuzzy, domesticated circus rat had a favorite song: “Blow, Gabriel, Blow.” At eleven, I already had an eclectic music collection. As the caboose of five, I had an impressive memory of all Michael Jackson, Cyndi Lauper, Madonna, Duran Duran, and even some Rush lyrics. Being the daughter of an opera lover (Pop), I not only knew what “The Magic Flute” was, I could sing “The Queen of the Night” – albeit sharply. Finally, being Mom’s baby after nine years of praying for “just one more,” I was the recipient of everything she never got to do with the first four, which mostly amounted to watching every MGM musical Louis B. Mayer produced. Somehow this led to a love of Cole Porter and “Anything Goes.” My childhood home was a madcap household of dancing and singing and recreating the World’s Fair with Fisher Price toys across the foyer and spilling into the living room. Mom and Pop never stifled creativity; they accomodated it with supplies, suggestions, and a willingness to witness whatever production we had gotten ourselves into that day. It was never quiet and rarely without drama, so of course it would also be the home of a hamster with a preference for a song about a bunch of sinners on a cruise ship begging for a revival. But one day, Biscuit got what was coming to him. I came home from school to see him dragging his stubby little legs across the cedar. Mom had him at the vet within thirty minutes. His diagnosis: a broken back. We would have had to put him down right then and there if Doctor Gibbs hadn’t knelt down at eye level to me and asked, “Do you think you can do something very grown-up?” “Mhmm,” I blubbered. “Anything.” “You’re going to have to help Biscuit pee several times a day,” he said soberly. I’m gonna what??? I honestly thought I had done a lot of interesting things by the time I was eleven. I dove off the high dive at the YMCA and didn’t die trying. I taught myself how to ride a ten-speed. I said goodbye to each one of my siblings as they left for college and raised Mom and Pop on my own, but never did I think I’d learn how to gently massage the belly of a hamster until a bright, yellow droplet of pee popped out of its teeny-tiny urethra. However, not only did I do it, I was Biscuit’s personal catheter for a good few weeks – straight into summer and our annual vacation at Prien Lake in July. Between setting out crab lines and diving to the bottom of the lake for shells and rocks, I’d run up to the old lake house, give Biscuit a good squirt, and run back down the wharf. It was on that vacation that Biscuit died, though. Mom found him in the cedar very still; she knew. I wasn’t surprised, but it still hurt all the same. Biscuit was buried in the shade of a big, sprawling Oak at the base of the bluff overlooking the lake. Pop dug a hole. Mom said a prayer, and my sisters stood in attendance, dutifully, in spite of the fading peak tanning hours. Just before “Amen,” I cried out, “Wait!” I ran back up to the house, tears flying from my cheeks. I grabbed my boom box and a recording of “Anything Goes,” the revival starring Patti LuPone. Biscuit was ushered into Heaven to the sounds of “Blow, Gabriel, Blow” right there on the bluff where West Louisiana sees God’s most magnificent sunsets. As Patti’s vibrato shook, we all bowed our heads. I didn’t think this at the time, but I don’t know how my sisters, Mom, or Pop held it together. How did they not split into hysterical laughter? Not even a chuckle. Not even a raised eyebrow. But that was just the way of things in our glorious chaos. Something was always happening for better or worse, but it was never dull and thrived on wonder, love, and a whole lot of faith. The importance of that one year when I was the owner of a stunt hamster goes beyond learning that I can do hard things (like squeeze the pee out something) and has more to do with just how good I had it. I didn’t grow up with much money, but I lived large. My parents shared their interests with me and fed mine with everything they had, even if it was just their time. My siblings too. We knew there was treasure there within our four walls of suburbia, and we put our whole hearts into its safe keeping. (Matthew 6:21) We played together, dreamed together, prayed together, and made a production out of everything, including the burial of a hamster— especially one with a soft spot for Cole Porter. Annie D. Stutley lives and writes in New Orleans, La. She edits several small publications and contributes to various print and online magazines. Her blog, " That Time You, " was ranked in the Top 100 Blogs by FeedSpot. To read more of her work, go to her website , or follow her at @anniedstutley or Annie D. Stutley-writer on Facebook. Return to our Beach Read 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Gurnmoor Contributor Gurnoor is from India and is a seeker. She is on her journey to discovering herself and her relationship to God. You can connect with her on Instagram, @niftyshadesofnoor. Prayer for Forgive ness of Self in Difficult Times

< Back Transubstantiation for the Rest of Us Nicholas Senz For Aristotle, there is a real distinction between what a thing is and what a thing is like. Recently, we celebrated the great Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, colloquially known as the feast of Corpus Christi (“the body of Christ”). On this day we give special thanks for the great gift we celebrate every Mass: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, one of the most central mysteries of our faith. Of course, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is also one of the most mysterious mysteries of our faith. Our eyes tell us it is bread and wine before us, but our faith tells us it is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Church’s Tradition has handed down to us a word to describe this reality: transubstantiation, which says that the accidents of bread and wine remain while the substance becomes that of Christ Himself. For many, though, this term is no help: the technical philosophical explanations are just as head-scratch-inducing as the claim itself. Yet once some of the finer points are made clearer, this explanation can be quite helpful. First, a bit of background. To borrow a phrase from St. Anselm of Canterbury, our faith is always seeking understanding— fides quarens intellectum —and so we often turn to the tools of understanding, to philosophy, to contemplate the truths of the faith. The Church has found the philosophy of Aristotle in particular to be a fitting partner to the faith, so Aristotelian terms have often been employed in theological investigations. (This can be seen pre-eminently in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.) The concept of transubstantiation is one such instance of the Church making use of Aristotelian terms: substance and accident. What do these mean? To put it simply: for Aristotle, there is a real distinction between what a thing is and what a thing is like . This is a common sense observation, but one that Aristotle builds into his systematic thought about reality. Let’s use for our example a human being. What it is, as we’ve just said, is a human being. The human being will have all kinds of different characteristics—weight, height, hair style—but essentially, before anything else, apart from any other attribute, it is first and foremost a human being. The human being’s weight could fluctuate; his height could increase or decrease with age; his hair style could change from a crewcut to dreadlocks; but those changes do not put that human being out of existence and an entirely new one into being. There is something that endures beyond all these changes: the human being himself, in his essence. We could put it this way: with all the aspects of a human being and all the ways they can change, there is something that stands under those different attributes. “Stands under” in Latin is sub – stans , which gives us the word substance . All of these changeable, secondary aspects of the substance are, you might say, “attached” to the thing, but are not an integral part of the thing itself. “Attached” in Latin is accidens , which gives us the word accidents . Thus, substance refers to what a thing is, and accidents refer to what a thing is like. Thinking of things this way, we could say that there are two kinds of change a thing might normally undergo: substantial change and accidental change. In a substantial change, the thing that was ceases to be and a new thing comes to exist, as when a log burns and becomes ashes, or when a lump of dough bakes and becomes bread. Something new has come into being. Substantial changes are virtually always accompanied by accidental changes, because different kinds of things typically have different attributes. The log that was hard and brown becomes fine and black. The dough that was, well, doughy and white becomes soft and golden. Here both what a thing is and what it’s like change. It can also happen that the thing remains but its characteristics change, as when a log is chopped in half and loses mass, or when a lump of dough is sprinkled with sugar and becomes sweet. This is only accidental change. Once we distinguish the difference between these two, what happens in the mystery of the Eucharist, in transubstantiation, becomes clearer. If it’s possible for the attributes of a thing to change while that thing remains the same, it’s intelligible for the thing itself to change while the attributes remain the same. This is precisely what happens in the Eucharist: the substances of the bread and wine change, but the accidents remain the same. That is, what they are is now different, but what they are like is not. Before the Mass, the bread is small, soft, and white, and the wine is wet, aromatic, and intoxicating. After the words of consecration are prayed, all of these attributes remain, but what is on the altar is no longer bread and wine, but the very substance and presence of Jesus Christ Himself. This explanation by no means exhausts the mystery of the Eucharist. As with all the sacraments, there is something here beyond our comprehension. But while reason cannot completely encapsulate the Eucharist, reason can at least show that what we claim about the Eucharist is not unreasonable. It is mysterious, but it is not absurd. The doctrine of transubstantiation helps us to understand how the eyes of faith can see what the eyes of the body cannot. This was republished with minimal edits and with permission from catholicexchange.com. Nicholas Senz is a husband and father who tries every day to live Galatians 2:20: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." He is Director of Religious Education at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church in Mill Valley, CA, a managing editor at Catholic Stand, and a Master Catechist. A native of Verboort, Oregon, Nicholas holds master's degrees in philosophy and theology from the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley, CA. His work has appeared at Catholic Exchange, Crisis Magazine, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, and his own blog, Two Old Books . Nicholas is a science fiction aficionado, Tolkien devotee, avid Anglophile, and consumer of both police procedurals and popcorn in large quantities, usually together. Twitter at @NickSenz . Previous Next

< Back Tantum Ergo St. Thomas Aquinas Sing, my tongue, the Savior’s glory, Of His cross, the mystery, sing; Lift on high the wondrous trophy, Tell the triumph of the King: He, the world's Redeemer, conquers Death, through death now vanquishing. Born for us, and for us given; Son of man, like us below, He, as Man with men, abiding Dwells, the seed of life to sow: He, our heavy griefs partaking, Thus fulfils His life of woe. Word made flesh! His word life-giving, Gives His flesh our meat to be, Bids us drink His blood, believing, Through His death, we life shall see: Blessed they who thus receiving Are from death and sin set free. Low in adoration bending, Now our hearts our God revere; Faith, her aid to sight is lending, Though unseen the Lord is near; Ancient types and shadows ending, Christ our paschal Lamb is here. Praise for ever, thanks and blessing, Thine, O gracious Father, be: Praise be Thine, O Christ, who bringeth Life and immortality. Praise be Thine, Thou quickening Spirit, Praise through all eternity. (Thomas Aquinas by Sandro Botticelli .) Between antiquity and modernity stands Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274). The greatest figure of thirteenth-century Europe in the two preeminent sciences of the era, philosophy and theology, he epitomizes the scholastic method of the newly founded universities. Like Dante or Michelangelo, Aquinas takes inspiration from antiquity, especially Aristotle , and builds something entirely new. Viewed through a theological lens, Aquinas has often been seen as the summit of the Christian tradition that runs back to Augustine and the early Church. Viewed as a philosopher, he is a foundational figure of modern thought. His efforts at a systematic reworking of Aristotelianism reshaped Western philosophy and provoked countless elaborations and disputations among later medieval and modern philosophers. Return to our Holy Days 2023 Table of Contents, Previous Next

“Your Destiny is the Fate of others; the Destiny of others is your Fate.” < Back Destiny Versus Fate David Cowles Jul 15, 2024 “Your Destiny is the Fate of others; the Destiny of others is your Fate.” Destiny and Fate are two words I hardly ever use. They seem to suggest a passivity that is alien to my philosophy…and perhaps to yours as well. But whenever I have used them, I’ve used them interchangeably…and I was wrong! Far from being interchangeable, Destiny and Fate are antonyms. And for just that reason, they turn out to be very useful concepts after all! Destiny concerns what you make of yourself: “She was destined to do great things.” Fate concerns what the world makes of you: “He was fated to die in battle.” But even that is an oversimplification. Better to say, Destiny is what you can make of yourself; it is the sum of your possibilities while Fate is the sum of your limitations. Every failure can be attributed to the fickle finger of fate; likewise every success is a fulfillment of destiny. Traditional Physics offers a simplified view of the world: the future consists of all the points in your forward light cone. This might work in an empty or solipsistic world, but it won’t work in any universe that includes the category of the other, i.e. something other than the self but sharing some ontological properties in common with that self. Every ‘other’ has its own unique light cone but cones intersect, generating an interference pattern that we know lovingly as this world. Imagine the Universe as a beaker of supercooled water. Drop in a precipitant et voila instant crystallization. The other has just that effect in our universe. Such crystallization destroys the monotonous symmetry of the solipsist’s universe. The array of points in the light cone now manifests as short cuts and obstacles, tools and impediments. I remain 100% free in my actions but those actions now must take into consideration the presence of the other. The insertion of the other modifies the terrain in which I operate. All this has nothing to do with ethics; not yet! Whether or not I engage with the other, I must take it into consideration simply in order to realize my own personal, entirely selfish goals. When the law student asks Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” he is essentially asking who qualifies as an other? Jesus makes it clear that all human beings belong to the category of the other. His made his point. But we are free to ask, “Are human beings the only others?” What about God? According to Martin Buber, God is the ultimate other. What about animals: corvids and parrots, primates, sea mammals, octopus? Trees, forests, and other plants? Fungi (the wood wide web)? Prokaryotes (e.g. bacteria)? What about the individual cells that work together to constitute an organism? We mustn’t forget other ‘life forms’ either, e.g. AI bots, Extraterrestrials. And what about Gaia? Or Kosmos? Clearly, different cosmologies classify different entities differently. Simply put, your Destiny is the Fate of others and the Destiny of others is your Fate. Example: Robert Frost is out on his famous walk in a ‘yellow wood’. Home is his destiny (and destination) but fate decrees that he can only get there via one of two paths. How come? The forest also has a destiny: to regenerate and proliferate. The forest’s destiny becomes Frost’s fate; his choice of routes is limited. But Frost’s destiny requires the forest to accept two roads across it; that is its fate. Consistent with that fate, the forest is free to pursue its own destiny by rejuvenation and reproduction. Map this relationship onto the traditional timeline: destiny is the present exerting influence in the future while fate is the future being felt in the present. And what of this illusive present? The present is a region hypothesized to exist between past and future. Its width is indeterminate: in some models (Laplace) it is zero, in others it is infinite (but bounded by a membrane of infinitesimal width). I am 5’ 4” tall; fate keeps me from realizing my dream of playing for the Boston Celtics. On the other hand, I may be destined to ride a Kentucky Derby winner someday. Fate becomes destiny. At any point I can see myself as the victim of fate or the beneficiary of destiny. A friend’s mother used to say, “Whenever God closes a door he opens a window.” Exactly! In fact, a closed door is an open window. We all seem to have an almost insatiable desire to be ‘someone’, to make a difference, to leave the world a better place, to fulfill our unique destiny. I am the author of my own play, the world is my stage (Shakespeare) and you, dear readers, I might as well just say it, you are my props. So go on, hate me! It’s ok. Of course, you have your own destinies to fulfill, and potentially at least, I am one of your props. So we’re both telling the same story, but in one version, I play the lead and in the other version, you do. Life is a high school director’s dream: every part is the lead! (No more noise from disgruntled helicopter parents or their overachieving progeny.) Your destiny is the self you choose to project (superject) into the world. It’s you as you’d like the world to remember you… a few billion years from now; as if. You control your destiny. If you don’t control it, it’s not your destiny, it’s your fate…over which you have no control. Destiny is what you make of yourself; Fate is what the World makes of you! The Serenity Prayer (AA et al.) says it all: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change (fate), the courage to change the things I can (destiny), and the wisdom to know the difference.” Ah, wisdom! A slippery commodity, that! Trying to alter things that cannot be changed (fate) can lead to depression, resentment, anger, and addiction. Failing to alter things that can be changed (destiny) can be a symptom of apathy, laziness, cowardice, etc. It can lead to anxiety, rage, and self-loathing. Destiny is what you do to the world; Fate is what the world does to you. You are responsible for your destiny. You are what you make yourself to be. But your little skiff is not merely storm tossed on a dark and raging sea. Your boat is equipped with a rudder to help you steer and, through the fog, you can just make out a beacon of light. Value (Good) is the beacon that continually reorients you throughout your journey - it acts as an existential GPS. Of course, nothing makes you sail toward the light; you can get your bearings from a full 360° of possible courses. It’s 100% up to you, it’s your destiny after all, but there is a safe harbor if you choose to take advantage of it. If you arrive safely home, you may say that the harbor was your destiny all along and that the lighthouse (wisdom) showed you the way. And that’s true! But you and only you sailed your vessel safely into port. Ultimately, freedom trumps destiny and fate. Destiny and Fate are often seen to be in conflict. The dichotomy is enshrined in our modern Indo-European languages. When we speak using active voice verbs, we talk about destiny; when we speak in the passive voice, we talk about fate. We know how to struggle, how to fight, how to compete against others. Often, I pursue my destiny by limiting yours. I do for myself by doing to others: it’s the Golden Rule for survival in a bi-polar world. But is it best practices? Is it possible that I might enhance my destiny by helping you advance yours? Could it be that destinies can be mutually reinforcing? If I am your fate, might you harness that fate to help you achieve your destiny? If you are my fate, might I harness that fate? Could fate be a trampoline rather than a tar pit? Consider space travel. The #1 impediment is gravity. The thrust needed to overcome the Earth’s attraction requires an enormous expenditure of energy. But once I have put the blue planet in my rear view mirror, I can use the Sun’s gravity to slingshot my capsule into deep space. What was once an obstacle (Earth’s gravity) has now become a tool (Sun’s gravity). Gravity, my fate, need not just limit my destiny; it can also facilitate it. Jesus final commandment, delivered to his disciples on the eve of his Crucifixion, was just this: “Love one another.” (John 13: 34) When I love an other, I want both of us to transcend our fates and fulfill our destinies. In fact, I come to understand that achieving my destiny includes you achieving yours. Your destiny and mine become entwined. My destiny is your fate just as yours is mine. For the most part, one dampens the other; I limit you, you limit me. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Every so often, our destinies may reinforce each other instead. When that happens fate and destiny (your trajectory and mine) coincide, each amplifying the other. What do Utopia, the Garden of Eden, the Kingdom of Heaven, and Pepperland have in common? They are states of being in which Destiny and Fate are one. Revelation tells us that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Christ is not two persons; he is one person with two aspects. He is the convergence of Destiny and Fate. He is that from which the universe comes to be (“without him nothing came to be” – John 1: 3) and that toward which the universe inexorably tends (“so that God may be all in all” – First Corinthians 15: 28). Like great circles, our event lines diverge at Alpha and reconverge at Omega…but with their ‘orientations’ flipped. The arrows that once pointed up now point down. Event lines are Mobius Strips; we live in an non-orientable universe. Like electrons and other massive quanta, events occur in 720° space (vs. 360° for photons and 180° for gravitons). A key question in cosmology these days is whether ‘information’ per se has mass. Most physicists think it does, but how do you prove it? I would propose that the fact that events behave like massive particles (720° geometry) suggests that events have mass over and above the mass/energy of their components. That ‘mass’ could only be a function of their information content. It could be that content. According to Euclid, no two parallel lines ever intersect. What a lonely world that would be! Talk about ships passing in the night. But 10 th grade geometry notwithstanding, the world is anything but Euclidean. According to the ‘better geometer’, John of Patmos (Revelation), all lines intersect…at the Alpha and at the Omega – one point, two countenances! David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . purpose and devotion. Return to our 2024 Beach Read Share Previous Next Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Click here. Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

“How new wealth is to be distributed is just as important as how old wealth has been distributed.” < Back Utilitarianism David Cowles Dec 1, 2023 “How new wealth is to be distributed is just as important as how old wealth has been distributed.” The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number – who could possibly argue that this is not the proper metric for measuring the ethical value of any act? I mean, what else could it be? Could an act that produces less good for fewer people possibly be preferable to one that produces more good for more people? In practice, when we’re not being totally selfish, most of us are guided by some version of Utilitarianism in our daily lives. It’s not a terrible way to live; it certainly speaks of good intentions (whatever they’re worth). But beyond that, what does it mean ? Like most self-evident memes, when we try to untangle this one, it falls apart in our hands. Take ‘Good’ for instance. I won’t even get into the general problem of defining ‘Good’; that’s not necessary for this purpose. Instead, whatever ‘Good’ is, I’ll just ask: How do we know what’s good for another person or group? Do we assume that what’s good for one is good for all? Is what’s good , good in every circumstance? Or is good ‘context dependent’? Is what’s good today, automatically good tomorrow? Or does that evolve over time? But even if we could know what’s good for every person at every time in every circumstance, how do we quantify various goods so we can compare them? Otherwise, how could we determine ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’? Plus, when we talk about what’s good, are we talking about immediate, short term, or long term good? Do we discount ‘future goods ’ by calculating their ‘present value’ or do we just add them all up? How many ‘ goods in the bush’ does it take to equal one ‘ good in the hand’? Finally and most importantly, are we prepared to reduce ethics to arithmetic? Suppose we have 100 ‘units’ of good ; how do we best spread those 100 units across 20 potential beneficiaries? Of course, it doesn’t matter. Whatever we do, we’ll end up with 20 people sharing 100 units of good ; everyone benefits. We are assuming, of course, that the quantity of good does not change, no matter how we ‘share the wealth’. (Below we’ll consider scenarios in which this may not be the case.) So, what are my options? I could give 1 unit of good to each of 19 beneficiaries and 81 units of good to one beneficiary; or I could give 5 units of good to every beneficiary; or I could do anything in between. The doctrine of Utilitarianism per se does not offer any obvious solution to this dilemma. Are we to conclude then that every distribution model is morally equivalent? Or do we need to start adding conditions to modify our original meme? And if we do, will we end up with something like Ptolemaic cosmology, Rube Goldberg economics, and Justinian law? So the famous meme, for all its high sound, is hollow. It’s denotatively vacuous (that’s ‘meaningless’ for those of you sent down ). But unfortunately, it’s not connotatively vacuous. Since it can be perverted to justify almost any distribution scheme, it effectively blesses our worst instincts. It allows both robber-baron capitalists and Stalinist economic planners to sleep soundly while you and I toss and turn. The Peter and Paul of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, did not fully understand the impact that distribution has on productivity. The store of goods is not only not fixed, it’s highly volatile. It is subject to amazing growth spurts, and contractions, that turn out to be surprisingly sensitive to the way goods are distributed. The distribution of goods fuels demand, which in turn stimulates supply. To the extent that total supply increases the additional goods need to be distributed – but not necessarily according to the same formula as before. In this, economics is a bit like Quantum Mechanics: the future (measurement) influences the past (data). How new wealth is to be distributed is just as important as how old wealth has been distributed. Can we redeem the Utilitarian impulse? Sure, just create a computer model, plug in the various distribution options, press enter and see which strategy produces the most goodies, weighted as you will, over the next 20 years. That’s surely the distribution option that generates the most good for the most people. But are we willing to bless such an outcome? Is it morally acceptable? Worse, is it an ethical imperative? We have unmasked Utilitarianism as the naked Pragmatism it is. Kids, get ready to head back to the sweat shops, J. S. Mill is coming for you! Who’d have thought that a kid who read ancient Greek at the age of 3 would turn into such a bully? The British Utilitarians put lip stick on Machiavelli’s pig…and they did a first rate job of it. How many school kids have been taught that Machiavelli’s ‘ends justify means’ is wrong while Mill’s ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ is right? Even though they mean exactly the same thing! But what’s the alternative? Ethical nihilism ? On the contrary, Utilitarianism is ethical nihilism, all dressed up with nowhere to go. So what’s the solution? We need to reject all ‘results based’ ethics and turn instead to an ‘acts based’ morality. Causality is a useful concept…in engineering, but not in ethics. It’s useful when you’re building a skyscraper or landing an astronaut on Mars because the universe of discourse is rigidly defined. It is useless when you need to measure what’s good over an indefinitely large population, over an indefinitely long period of time, in an indefinite variety of circumstances. In that case, there is no well-defined universe of discourse. So, we need to divorce ethics from pragmatics. In fact, true ethics is often anti-pragmatic: sometimes we have to make hard choices, even die to defend our beliefs or to rescue a child or to save a friend! When we make such a choice, we don’t first calculate the pragmatics. It’s easy to calculate ‘the greatest good’ and then devise and execute a strategy to achieve it. Before ‘ political alienation ’, politicians used to campaign on slogans like “Progress & Prosperity” or “A Chicken in every Pot”. To advocate against such a strategy on ethical grounds is difficult, so it’s no wonder that the corrupt kings of Israel hated the prophets. A successful anti-utilitarian ethics must be based on the act itself, not on its distant consequences. In fact, according to Chaos Theory , the very idea of ‘long term consequences’ is an oxymoron. ‘A then B’. In so far as A and B are poles of a single act, they are properly co-dependent. But once Act A reaches its conclusion (‘satisfaction’), any subsequent B is indeterminable. B may be partially predictable based on the laws of probability, but no B is ever determined by any A. That doesn’t mean ‘everything is permitted’ (Dostoyevsky). Acts-based ethics can be very, very strict. Consider the 10 Commandments, the 611 specific mitzvahs of Torah, or the ‘House Rules’ our moms used to post on the refrigerator door. The history of Western ethics consists of oscillation between nihilism ( aka pragmatism) and legalism: everything is permitted…or nothing is permitted. Neither is correct! Every act begins by executing judgment on the world as it is, guided by divine values such as Beauty, Truth, and Justice. In today’s secular terminology, every act aims to make the world a better place. Emoji! Emoji! Emoji! Every act unfolds as a process of accepting or rejecting, amplifying or dampening, influences from the world it inherits. Guided by its evaluation of its actual world and by its interpretation of the divine values, every act forms a novel ‘subjective aim’. Of course, it never gets where it’s going! Nobody gets to be God expect God. Still, every process reaches an endpoint, having achieved its measure of ‘satisfaction’ which becomes the act’s ‘objective immortality’, projected forward (‘superject’) into the actual world of every subsequent act. Every act is completely responsible for itself. From its initial valuation of its actual world through its satisfaction – it lives in the ‘no excuse zone’. But once that act is complete, ‘satisfied’ and objectively immortal, that responsibility ends; novel acts are responsible for what happens going forward. My act compels nothing; it just gives the future material to work on and, hopefully, redeem. The only ‘effect’ an act should be concerned with is its effect upon itself (and its subject I suppose). I am my own cause and my own effect. But make no mistake: I am totally responsible for both. I’m just not responsible for what the world does with ‘me’ after that. It is no surprise that Utilitarianism became the dominant ethical ideology just as Leibniz and Newton were inventing Calculus. Utilitarianism represents the subcontracting of ethics to mathematics: irreducible qualities are treated as mere quantities. According to Utilitarianism, Pragmatics is now the measure of all things. Unless we intervene! David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Return to Yuletide 2023 Share Previous Next Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Click here. Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back Church and State David Cowles Oct 25, 2022 I will write (my law) upon their hearts… At that time, there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own mind. At a time when our Atlantic culture has shed almost every vestige of common values, one meme remains largely unchallenged: “The separation of church and state.” While even now, the elaboration and application of this principle remains a subject of controversy, the fundamental concept is widely shared: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Separation of Church and State is so thoroughly engrained in our political culture that it is rarely questioned. Yet, our modern Atlantic model is only one possible expression of this relationship. Let’s look at some ways Church and State may (or may not) co-exist: #1 No Church, All State Religion, any religion, is the ‘opiate of the people’. It is objectively wrong and therefore harmful. It thwarts scientific progress, pays only lip service to reason, and threatens to delay the coming of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It cannot be tolerated. #2 Separation of Church and State An impervious firewall must exist between Church and State. Church has no obligation to State, and State has no obligation to Church. In fact, State is to have no truc whatsoever with any religion or church. If Church is to ‘make it,' it must do so entirely on its own. For its part, State must adopt a strictly neutral position regarding religion in general and churches in particular. #3 Co-existence of Church and State States recognize that the voluntary practice of religion in no way undermines, and may even complement, the wellbeing of the realm. The position of Church is secure; churches enjoy all the same rights, privileges, and obligations as other institutions within the state. #4 Hypostatic Church and State Aka, the Carolingian model. Drawing on Christology, which holds Jesus Christ to be “true God and true man”, this view sees society as “true church and true state," Following the theological conclusions of the Councils of Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), Charles the Great (Charlemagne) imagined the relationship between Church and State to be similar to the relationship between Jesus’ Divine and Human Natures. #5 : Constitutional Theocracy Both Church and State are necessary for the proper functioning of society. Church is sovereign in matters of faith. State, though sovereign in secular matters, governs under the umbrella of God’s Law (as interpreted by the Church). State is expected to promote (but not require) the practice of religion; Church is expected to promote loyalty (but not blind) to the State. Logistical and ideological considerations may lead the State to recognize one church as the “official state religion” without prohibiting the expression and practice of other faiths. #6 : Absolute Theocracy The Law of God, as interpreted by the Church, is normative in all things, civil as well as ecclesiastical. It is the entirety of the law. Therefore, the true theocratic state may have no legislative branch at all; or if it does, the legislative function can only apply to matters on which God’s law is silent, i.e., to the gaps between raindrops. #7 : All Church, No State “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” – Jer. 31:33 “In those days, there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his (sic) own eyes.” – Judges 21:25 We seem to be living in a time when the question of church/state relations is once again taking center stage. We will all inevitably be drawn into the conversation. It may be useful to keep in mind that this is not a simple, binary choice between two discrete models. Church/state relations exist along a continuum. They are analog, not digital. Intellectual history is not a jukebox. You don’t just punch two keys together to play a record. A better analogy would be the hand turned dial (no button pushing, please) of an old-fashioned AM/FM radio. We move along the dial slowly but steadily. Along the way will encounter ‘islands of sound in a static sea’; that’s what we call ‘a station.' Like what you hear? Good, let’s hang out there. Feeling the need for something more, or at least something different, no problem. Just make your way up the dial to the next oasis of sweet sound. Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ( ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Greenland, Ho! David Cowles Jan 16, 2025 “From raw materials to missile defenses to climate control to shipping lanes, Greenland is where it’s at!” Let’s get one thing straight from the get-go: I do not support any change in Greenland’s status that involves the use of force by non-Greenlanders. But I do think international discussion about Greenland’s future could be beneficial for all parties concerned. Why? The strategic importance of Greenland cannot be overstated. From raw materials to missile defenses to climate control to shipping lanes, Greenland is where it’s at! Currently a colony of Denmark, Greenland is home to a vibrant and growing Independence movement. In recent decades, nation building has had mixed results. Compare Slovakia with the Catalan Republic. Greenland is a source of pride in Denmark…and rightly so. But Danes are fiercely democratic…and pragmatic, and Greenland is a huge financial drain. My sense is that Greenland will eventually achieve nationhood. That’s ok, so long as it does not fall under the influence of a hostile foreign power. The US and the other NATO countries have an existential security interest in Greenland. I am proposing, reluctantly, a kind of North Atlantic Monroe Doctrine, enforced by NATO, not the US alone. Countries within the Security Zone would be completely free and independent provided they did not act in a way that threatens global security. Gobbledygook, I know. So this is the basic value proposition but, as is often the case, the real action is taking place in the wings. The population of Greenland is just 55,000. Yet it would presumably join the US as an equal partner, a state with 2 senators, one representative, and three electors (electoral votes)…same as Wyoming with a population of 275,000. Under this formula, Greenlanders would have 20 times as much political power, per capita , as, say, residents of Montana (the largest state with just 3 electoral votes). Perhaps my friends who are moving to PA for the 2028 election cycle would be better off exploring Nuuk; I understand midsummer is gorgeous there. As a US state, Greenland would attract enormous investment capital into industries ranging from climate protection to mining to eco-tourism. Labor is in extremely short supply; wages will soar! $50/hr. minimum wage? Plus, as in certain middle eastern countries, citizens of Greenland could be allowed to participate, individually and directly, in revenue derived from the development and commercialization of natural resources. The future of Greenland will ultimately be determined by Greenlanders alone; but the offer of statehood may be too lucrative for anyone to refuse. But so much for the Greelanders; how about me? I’m stuck here in the ‘Lower 50’; what’s in this for me? U 4 real? I’m the biggest winner of all. My country adds a state with a population that is 80% non-white – Native American Inuit to be precise. A majority of the residents speak a primary language that is not even in the Indo-European family. What we could learn about different ways of seeing the world! How much would our political discourse be enriched by such diversity of perspective! Last but perhaps not least, there’s Greenland’s flag, hopefully soon to be its US state flag; it’s a gorgeous work of contemporary art/design. It was intended to capture Greenland’s rugged natural beauty in a design clearly influenced by the island’s Native American (Inuit) culture. It succeeds! Immediately, you have a sense that no nation in the world could sport such a flag…except Greenland! But the focus of this image is not solely on what is or on what has been; it is also a window onto Greenland’s future. A previous contributor to this magazine, John O’Brien, has suggested that the lack of a Viking Cross , the symbol of Scandinavia, on Greenland’s flag suggests a people ready to explore a new historical identity. And now…a step too far? I read the flag’s figure as a Mobius Strip, a 2 dimensional mathematical object embedded in 3 spatial dimensions. A Mobius Strip is a closed loop – with a twist, literally. A normal closed loop is a paradigm of Cartesian dualism. Like a Burger King crown, the two sides of the loop are distinct. Start on one side and go around. 360° later, you’re back where you began. If you choose a lane on the obverse side, you can go around as many times as you wish: you will never touch any point on the reverse side. A similar result if you choose a point on the reverse side to begin your journey. With a Mobius Strip, on the other hand, it makes no difference where you begin or which ‘side’ you choose: in the course of a full circus, you will visit every point on both sides of the loop. However, you will need to traverse 720° (vs. our usual 360°) to get back to “Go”. In a nutshell the Mobius Twist marks the transition from 19th century mechanistic dualism to 21st century organic monism. As such, it adds a third leg to Greenland’s identity – the future is added to its Inuit and Viking heritage. So, Mr. Trump 47, make America ever greater, welcome Greenland 51. Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Magnifica Humanitas David Cowles May 27, 2026 “Pope Leo has squandered an incredible opportunity... to assume a leadership role in shaping a new Ethic of Abundance.” Although I am not a fan of the Chicago White Sox (wrong color hose), I greeted the election of Pope Leo with enthusiasm, especially when he chose the name ‘Leo’ in honor of Leo XIII, one of my intellectual heroes. 150 years ago, Leo cut through the Capitalist vs. Communist rhetoric of his day and put forward an alternative, and compelling, vision of a good society. Importantly, the elder Leo did not fixate on the form of a government but on its actual policies. So I was severely disappointed by Leo XIV’s first Encyclical ( Magnifica Humanitas , 5/15/2026). The text, not yet widely available in print, demands a much more detailed response, but please consider this as a first pass: Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity… Wow! That Leo feels a need to make such a statement near the beginning of his Encyclical is chilling. Technology is a charism, just like preaching, teaching, and speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 12). Among extant terrestrial life forms, this behavior is almost exclusively the franchise of homo sapiens . Other species adapt to environmental change better than we do but we do a much ‘better’ job of modifying that environment. Technology is near the core of what it means to be human. Today, however, we find ourselves facing a new situation. The power and prevalence of emerging technologies are interwoven into the fabric of daily life, shaping decision-making processes and deeply affecting the collective imagination. Every technology is ‘interwoven into the fabric of daily life’… That’s how technology works! That’s what it is! Respectfully, Leo needs to brush up on his Marx, Ellul, McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller, et al. New technologies open up a horizon extending in directions that are imaginable but not yet fully predictable. This complicates the assessment of their potential impact and the long-term effects they may have on both the dignity of individuals and the common good . Leo is fixated on the concepts of human dignity and common good; both are deeply problematic. Re human dignity, we are born naked, helpless, and covered in mucus. We spend the next 18+ years trying to survive the abuse, neglect, miseducation, and regimentation known as a ‘happy childhood’; we follow that with 40+ years of wage slavery known as a ‘career’. Then we grow old, get sick, regress, and die. Some dignity! I’m sorely tempted to leave things here (so that I can enter the academy of 20 th century French intellectuals…and I’m not even French, mes amis )… but I can’t. There is another side of the story: each of us is also the image and likeness of ‘God’, you know, that omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent fellow that we all once believed in. According to Sartre (fellow 20 th century French intellectual), God is the being whose essence (qualities) precedes his existence. And according to Aquinas (not French) et al., that essence is Good; Good manifests in our world as Beauty, Truth, and Justice. So perhaps we do enjoy some dignity after all. One of the ‘avatars’ of this God we emulate is Creator . So we create. Our creative function ( techne ) confers dignity as do our artistic, intellectual ( gnosis ), and legislative ( mishpat ) functions. Lastly, nothing is ever fully predictable, especially potential impacts and long-term effects. That’s why they’re called ‘potential’ and ‘long term’; otherwise they’d be called ‘actual’ and ‘immediate’. In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation. Really, in the entire history of the world, has any State ever really ‘guided and directed innovation’ - though not for lack of trying (USSR et al.)? The Church values democracy insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens, enables them to elect and peacefully replace their leaders and prevents power from being monopolized by small elite groups motivated by particular or ideological interests. Agreed. The church correctly values these things…though they have never existed. “I dream of things that never were and ask ‘Why not?’” (Bobby Kennedy) Human rights are inviolable, since they are “inherent in the human person and in human dignity.” Consequently, they are universal and inalienable. Among the numerous implications of the common good, immediate significance is taken on by the principle of the universal destination of goods . First of all, this principle reminds us that the earth’s goods — soil, water, air and natural resources — are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and that every person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the future. Leo’s notion of common good seems to imply equal access and therefore socialism, which Leo XIII abhorred and which subsequent Church teaching seems to condemn. Certainly there is a right to private property, which has its own specific meaning and purpose, yet it is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods. According to John Paul II , this subordination is the golden rule of social conduct and the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order.” Between Robber Baron Capitalism and Democratic Socialism, there is a vast middle ground. As far back as the 1960’s John Rawls proposed a theory of a just society that was based on three principles: (1) universal civil liberties, (2) a safety net guaranteed to deliver cash and benefits equivalent to a living wage, and (3) otherwise, unrestrained economic activity. No homelessness, no food insecurity, unlimited opportunity. In the Church’s tradition, property has been viewed as a means of protecting and managing goods so that they may better serve the common good. The Church has traditionally valued private property as a way of protecting that property from the rapacious appetite of the State so that it may be deployed by individuals (owners) in ways that ultimately contribute to the common good. Starting with Leo XIII and the beginnings of modern social teaching, the Church has insisted that neither the individual nor the family should be subsumed by the State, but should be allowed to act freely, as far as possible, without harming the common good… The Church’s social teaching emphasizes that solidarity is both a principle and a virtue. As a principle, it expresses the objective order of relationships among individuals, groups and peoples, pointing to an awareness of interdependence whereby the good of each person depends on the good of others. Amen to that! As with every major technological shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise and access to data. Perhaps, but conversely AI, alongside personal computerization and social media, radically democratizes access to data (information) and communication media and places exponentially enhanced agentic power in the hands of the individual. Will you consider me mean spirited if I point out that the Church’s own track record in this area is ‘checkered’? It was not that long ago that the Church actively discouraged laity from reading the Bible. Then Martin Luther dragged the Church kicking and screaming into the 16 th century; 500 years on, will it be Sam Altman who drags the Church into the 21 st ? The search for truth is an essential element of democracy , which is itself a means of contributing to the common good…Democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone, but above all of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole . At its theoretical best, Democracy is a process by which ‘the people’ determine those facts and then, based on those facts, formulate social (political and economic) policy. Pope Leo puts the cart before the horse. He assumes that the result of fact finding and deliberation will always be ‘a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole’. Alas, the history of electoral democracy does not support Leo’s optimism. Above all, however, the Magisterium has recognized in work “the essential key” to understanding the entire social question, since it is through their work that individuals develop many dimensions of their existence. Let’s conduct a survey: how many people feel that their work has helped them ‘develop many dimensions of their existence’ (whatever that means)? Work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition , a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. Ah, a hidden variable is revealed! According to Genesis , one of humanity’s punishments for Adam’s transgression was the need to live by the sweat of one’s brow. Were the necessity of work to be overcome, would we be undermining scripture? While AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines (and)… relegate(s) them to rigid and repetitive tasks. Leo has his Revolutions mixed up. It was the Industrial Revolution (19 th century) that subordinated workers to their machines and condemned them to mind numbing tasks. It is the AI Revolution (21 st century) that will free workers from this drudgery. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work. Au contraire , AI boosts workers’ agentic powers and rewards, often handsomely, innovative thinking…”because it is so rare.” ( Mutiny on the Bounty ) Precisely in order to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the human person and not solely on performance. What could be less dignifying and more dehumanizing that the suggestion that peak performance is incompatible with the human person. Tell that to Bach, or Van Gogh, or James Joyce. Thank God, they didn’t get the memo! It is certainly desirable for technology to relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks… Yet, the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule. So, relieving ‘humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks’ is ‘certainly desirable’…but let’s not do it? Economic freedom is not absolute; it must always be measured against the common good and the dignity of every person. Economic freedom is a cornerstone of human dignity and indispensable to the aggressive pursuit of the common good. A just society requires a vigilant State. This is grotesquely anti-scriptural. The Book of Judges (justice makers) details a glorious 250 year period in Israel’s history: “In those days, Israel had no king, everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (21: 25, et al.) Jesus, handed a Roman coin, did not issue a white paper proposing monetary reform; he just gave it back. (Mt. 22: 21) In continuity with the tradition inaugurated by Leo XIII , the Church renews her firm condemnation of all forms of slavery, trafficking and the commodification of persons. All forms of slavery except, apparently, Wage Slavery. And what is ‘labor’ (vs. work) other than the commodification of the person? That’s precisely what labor is…’value added’! But worst of all, Pope Leo has squandered what an incredible opportunity…for society and for the Church. A new day is dawning, with or without Pope Leo’s blessing, and it begs for inspiration and guidance; both are utterly lacking in Magnifica Humanitas . As for the Church, this was an opportunity to assume a leadership role in shaping a new ‘ethic of abundance’ : How to ensure that newly created wealth works to improve the human condition generally. Instead, Leo responds with the worn out ‘ethic of scarcity’ – quelle domage ! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

“Either death is ultimately subjected to something greater and more general than itself (Being) or death ultimately subjects everything to itself and then nothing else has any meaning or value.” < Back Albert Camus David Cowles Jun 1, 2023 “Either death is ultimately subjected to something greater and more general than itself (Being) or death ultimately subjects everything to itself and then nothing else has any meaning or value.” Albert Camus (1913 – 1960) may rightly be called the philosopher of the Absurd. In his essays, stories and plays, he mercilessly confronts the world on its own terms and finds that he cannot reconcile his human urge to unify and explain all experience with the world’s incurable plurality and lack of coherence. He finds this situation ‘absurd’! Confronting Absurdity, one has, according to Camus, three options: commit physical suicide, commit philosophical suicide or accept the absurd and live the absurd life to the fullest. So Camus begins his master philosophical reflection (1942), The Myth of Sisyphus : “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” (All quotes in this essay are from The Myth of Sisyphus, unless otherwise noted.) If living in this world is incurably absurd, why do it? Why go on? Why not just end it as quickly and as painlessly as possible? “Does the Absurd dictate death?” Ultimately, Camus rejects the option of physical suicide. Like ‘philosophical suicide’ (below), it negates the Absurd; it amounts to running away from what’s real. Camus claims no priority on the recognition of the Absurd. Throughout his essay he acknowledges other philosophers and writers who have confronted the Absurd: Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, Chestov, Husserl, Sartre and Dostoevsky, et al. “… All started out from that indescribable universe where contradiction, antimony, anguish or impotence reigns.” But Camus gently accuses all of them of committing ‘philosophical suicide,’ of “hoping in spite of everything.” To paint with an overly broad brush, Camus suggests that each of these men uses the terror of the Absurd to ‘prove,’ in the end, that there must be some order, some purpose, some meaning capable of overcoming that terror. Camus’ uniqueness rests on his unwillingness to seek relief in some species of phony faith or false hope – relief from the terrifying conclusions forced on us by the Absurd. “A man devoid of hope and conscious of being so has ceased to belong to the future.” What makes Camus’ brand of nihilism particularly heroic is his willingness to maintain his position while freely acknowledging that he does not know whether he is right or wrong. As we will see later, radical skepticism is closely related to nihilism and so precludes any philosophical certainties: “I don’t know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I do not know that meaning, and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms.” Both Camus and Sartre admit that it is possible that God exists but, unlike Pascal (below) , they attach no importance to the matter: “Hence, what he (the absurd man) demands of himself is to live solely with what he knows…and to bring in nothing that is not certain. He is told that nothing is. But this at least is a certainty.” Camus offers a concise exposition of the Existentialist’s dilemma: “Of whom and of what indeed can I say: ‘I know that!’ This heart within me, I can feel, and I judge that it exists… I can sketch all the aspects it is able to assume…but aspects cannot be added up …” “Between the certainty I have of my existence and the content I try to give to that assurance, the gap will never be filled. Forever I shall be a stranger to myself.” In other words, my existence will always surpass my essence: “This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction…” Camus may justly be called the philosopher of the Absurd, but 300 years earlier another Frenchman, Blaise Pascal, focused on a similar problem in his Pensees : “We do not require great education of mind to understand that here there is no real and lasting satisfaction; that our pleasures are only vanity; that our evils are infinite; and, lastly, that death which threatens us every moment…there is nothing more real than this, nothing more terrible… For it is not to be doubted that the duration of this life is but a moment; that the state of death is eternal… When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after… I am frightened…” So am I. Faced with an analysis of the human condition similar to Camus,’ Pascal came to a very different conclusion, known as Pascal’s Wager . From a common starting point, Pascal and Camus end up diametrically opposed. Camus’ absurd man “has ceased to belong to the future” while for Pascal, there is no good other than the future. Of course, Camus and Sartre would both accuse Pascal of ‘bad faith,’ of ‘philosophical suicide’…but I’m not sure Pascal would care. We are trained to think that all action has a motivation, a purpose, a goal; we are told from our earliest childhood that actions have consequences. But if this is not true, if there is no future, no transcendent meaning, no objective values, no hope, then how does one go about living one’s life? If we reject physical suicide and refuse philosophical suicide (hope), then what options are open to us? “No code of ethics and no effort are justifiable a priori in the face of the cruel mathematics that command our condition…All systems of morality are based on the idea that an action has consequences that legitimize it or cancel it. The absurd enlightens me on this point: there is no future.” Contrast Camus’ concept of freedom with that of Pope Leo XIII. Leo, of course, believed in transcendent values, in objective Truth and Justice. Therefore, for Leo, the only real freedom is the freedom to do what is right and profess what is true. To do otherwise is to be enslaved (e.g., by evil) for who would voluntarily profess something she knew to be false or do something she knew to be wrong? For Leo, such a person would be living in ‘bad faith.’ By contrast, Camus’ freedom is unfettered by such concepts as transcendence and objectivity. Camus’ heroes are free to create ex nihilo . In that sense, they are gods: “It was previously a question of finding out whether life had to have a meaning to be lived. It now becomes clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning…That idea that ‘I am,’ my way of acting as if everything has a meaning…all that is given the lie…by the absurdity of a possible death…Death is there as the only reality.” Contrast to St. Paul: In the end, even death is subjected to Christ and Christ to God. For Camus, death subjects everything to itself; that is the essence of the Absurd. Everything hangs on this point! Paul and Camus would agree that death and meaning are utterly incompatible! In fact, they constitute the archetypical incompatibility. Either death is ultimately subjected to something greater and more general than itself (Being) or death ultimately subjects everything to itself and then nothing else has any meaning or value. This is the fundamental divide underlying all human speculation. Camus: “Before encountering the absurd, the everyday man lives with aims, a concern for the future…He still thinks that something in life can be directed. In truth, he acts as if he were free…” “Belief in the meaning of life always implies a scale of values, a choice, our preferences. Belief in the absurd, according to our definitions, teaches the contrary…In an absurd world, there can be no scale of values, no value-driven choices or value-based preferences. Choices, actions, cannot be justified by anything outside themselves.” “Yes, man is his own end. And he is his only end.” So with no objective values and no concern for the future, we are left to live life entirely as we wish. Of course, that does not mean that we must behave as libertines. Each of us is free to fashion a code of ethics, a NFT , for herself. But we must not imagine that these private codes have any objective justification or that they constitute a ‘categorical imperative’ or that they are in any way binding on others…or even on one’s self. That said, Camus devotes most of the rest of his essay to sketching styles of life that might be consistent with living out the implications of the Absurd. Up to this point, I have had little argument with Camus; from here on, however, I think he gets himself into some serious trouble. As we will see, Camus begins to slip objective values into his system, albeit through the back door; for example: “I cannot conceive that a skeptical metaphysics can be joined to an ethics of renunciation… I must say that what counts is not the best living but the most living…value judgments are discarded…A man’s rule of conduct and his scale of values have no meaning except through the quantity and variety of experiences he has been in a position to accumulate…For on the one hand, the absurd teaches that all experiences are unimportant, and on the other it urges toward the greatest quantity of experiences.” First, Camus dismisses the possibility that asceticism and the absurd could be compatible. This seems strange. If there is no objective value in the world, why mightn’t someone renounce that world (short of suicide), relish his solitude, and focus on his ‘inner self’? Practitioners of Taoism and Zen, well acquainted with the Absurd, often follow this practice. Even more disturbingly, Camus substitutes ‘quantity’ of experience for the forbidden ‘quality.’ But isn’t quantity itself a kind of quality? You might successfully invoke mathematics to argue that quantity is essentially different from quality, but if, as Camus asserts, more of some things is better than less, doesn’t quantity then become a value? One recalls a particularly crass expression from the 1980s: “Whoever dies with the most toys wins,” as well as Gatsby’s famous exclamation in the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel: “Living well is the best revenge.” Perhaps not our finest values…but values nonetheless! Camus further explains that the quantity of our experience replaces any consideration of quality…but only so far as we are conscious of those experiences: “For the mistake is thinking that that quantity of experiences depends on the circumstances of our lives…To two men living the same number of years, the world always provides the same sum of experiences. It is up to us to be conscious of them…A sub-clerk in the post office is the equal of a conqueror if consciousness is common to them. All experiences are indifferent in this regard.” Now another value term has been introduced: consciousness! Not the abstract phenomenon of consciousness but the act of being conscious of a particular experience. Conscious experience is certainly different, qualitatively, from unconscious experience. But is this not precisely the goal of Taoists, Zen Buddhists, and cloistered monastic orders? Is it not the case that many have renounced the world precisely in order to become more conscious ? So now we have two new values: quantity of experience and conscious awareness of that experience: “…To the absurd man, a premature death is irreparable. Nothing can make up for the sum of the faces and centuries he would otherwise have traversed.” Where is this sum? (Earlier, Camus referred to experiences as ‘accumulated.’) What suggests to Camus that experience can be totalized in this way? And what about the zero term in the equation? (I mean, of course, death.) Doesn’t death automatically multiply all the terms in any equation by itself, i.e., by zero? Death is not an experience that you ‘add’ to other experiences. In fact, death is not an experience at all. Death is the absence of experience and, even more viciously, the negation of all experience: “…There is no experience of death…it is barely possible to speak of the experience of others’ deaths…and it never quite convinces us.” So how are we to live in an absurd world? Camus details several options, but he makes it clear that this does not constitute an exhaustive catalog of possibilities. First, Don Juan. “Don Juan” is a collector of experiences. He seeks a long, varied and intense life: “Don Juan has chosen to be nothing,” i.e., to lose himself in himself. In fact, as we shall see, all of Camus’ absurd heroes choose to be nothing. This seems odd. What is choosing to be nothing but suicide…or at least renunciation, two lifestyle choices rejected by Camus (above)? Second, the Actor: “The actor has three hours to be Iago…Never has the absurd been so well illustrated…There is no frontier between being and appearing… In those three hours, he travels the whole course of the dead-end path that the man in the audience takes a lifetime to cover.” Third, the Conqueror. This is the man of action, but Camus acknowledges that the project of the conqueror is ultimately futile: “Nothing of the conqueror lasts, not even his doctrines.” (Ozymandias?) As Camus has repeatedly pointed out throughout The Myth of Sisyphus , death is inconsistent with objective values. If death is the final reality, then values are meaningless. On the other hand, if meaningful values are a reality, then death is the odd man out. Camus suggests that death is not merely the absence of value but the ‘exaltation of injustice.’ Of course, it is! But this observation from Camus’ pen is vital because injustice implies justice. By acknowledging injustice, Camus has once again let the camel’s nose of objective value into the tent of the Absurd. And what is ‘beloved justice,’ after all, if not a transcendent value that gives meaning to existence? Finally, Camus turns to art and the creative artist. He proposes an ‘absurd aesthetic’: “Absurd work requires…an art in which the concrete signifies nothing more than itself… The absurd creator…must give the void its colors.” Camus is to be praised for his analysis of the Absurd. His description of the human condition takes a back seat to no one’s. Yet his project, in the end, fails. Try as he might, he cannot escape the need to let valuation and gradation into his scheme. This raises a question: Is it possible to talk about the world in any non-trivial way without making reference to value? And if not, does that mean that values are indeed real or is it merely an invitation to total silence? In the course of our lives, we are confronted with facts we think we know, people we think we meet and judgments we think we make. From these nearly universal experiences, three great philosophical questions organically arise: What is the nature of ‘knowledge’? What is the nature of ‘the other’? What is the nature of ‘value’? These questions form the basis of Philosophy’s Big Three : epistemology, ontology and ethics/aesthetics. They also give rise to the three great ‘null hypotheses’: skepticism, solipsism, nihilism. These null hypotheses can neither be defended nor disproven logically. Skepticism can only be thought of in contrast to knowledge, solipsism in contrast to ‘the other,’ and nihilism in contrast to value. Each assumes, at least provisionally, the existence of the very thing it ultimately comes to deny. Further, if the null hypotheses do hold, then the questions they purport to answer have no meaning: the nature of ‘knowledge’ implies at least the possibility of knowing; the nature of ‘the other’ implies the existence of another; the nature of ‘value’ implies real values. Camus understands that these questions are related, and in each case his philosophy of L’Absurde incorporates the null hypothesis: “The method defined here acknowledges the feeling that all true knowledge is impossible. Solely appearances can be enumerated…In one of its aspects, eternal nothingness is made up precisely of the sum of lives to come, which will not be ours…In an absurd world, there can be no scale of values, no value-driven choices or value-based preferences.” St. Paul also understood the fundamental and interconnected nature of these questions. In his famous meditation on love in his First Letter to the Corinthians, he wrote: “Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, it is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests…but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophesies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing…At present, I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. So faith, hope and love remain, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” (I Cor. 13: 4 – 13) Paul’s mediation on love is a passionate affirmation of the world. It belongs alongside two other great affirmations, Mary’s in the Gospel of Luke and Molly Bloom’s in Joyce’s Ulysses : “…But the greatest of these is love.” How so? Love involves reciprocity, even ‘co-penetration,’ between self and other. It is through that co-penetration that I am known by the other (faith) and that I know the other (hope). The experience of love proves the reality, the truth, of faith and hope. So we applaud Camus for his penetrating analysis of the human condition and for his refusal to escape the lived reality of that experience by suicide, physical or philosophical. However, we find Camus’ prescriptions for living the absurd severely lacking. At the end of the day, they simply constitute another value system among value systems and, frankly, not a particularly attractive one at that. In Blaise Pascal, we encounter a more rigorously logical response to L’Absurde; but in St. Paul, we encounter a convincing refutation of Absurdism. According to Paul, the reality of love, something we should be able to experience according to Camus’s epistemology, undermines skepticism, solipsism and nihilism. Love (‘the other’) proves the reality of Truth (knowledge/faith) and Right (value/hope). Therefore, death is undone! Absurdity is overcome…according to Paul…not Albert. Image: Portrait from New York World-Telegram and Sun Photograph Collection , 1957. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Return to our Summer 2023 Table of Contents Share Previous Next Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Click here. Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back The Sultan and the Sea Challenge First, read The Sultan and the Sea in this issue of Aletheia Today magazine. Next, take the challenge below: Challenge Answer the five questions below and be entered in a drawing for a $100 gift card. ( Hint : there are no right or wrong answers.) We will report the results in Issue #3 of AT Magazine (9/1/2022). The gift card drawing will occur on Labor Day 2022. 1. The Sultan disappeared from his Palace on the morning of his 25th birthday; he returned on his 75th. How old do you think the Sultan was when he got back to his Palace? (Choose one answer only.) He was 25 when he put his face into the basin of water, so he must still be 25 when he lifts his face back out. _____ He lived on the island for 50 years. He was 75 when he dived into the waves, so he must still be 75 when he picks his head back out. _____ Other (please comment): ________________________________ 2. How do you think the Sultan feels about what’s happened to him? (Check all the answers that you think are true.) He’s happy to be home in his palace at long last. _____ He’s angry that his life was turned upside down like this. _____ He misses his wife and kids and his life on the island. _____ He is grateful for this chance to live two full lives. _____ 3. What do you make of the Sultan’s Trusted Assistant? (Check all the answers that you think are true.) He had nothing to do with the Sultan’s disappearance from the Palace. _____ He is responsible for the Sultan’s disappearance? _____ He did it because he was angry with the Sultan. _____ He did it to teach the Sultan a lesson. _____ It was his 25th birthday gift to the Sultan. _____ When the Sultan returns to the Palace after 50 years, how old in the Trusted Assistant? He’s the same age he was when the Sultan was 25. _____ He’s 50 years older now than he was on the Sultan’s 25th birthday. _____ 4. Now that the Sultan is back in his Palace, will his life be different from it was before his great adventure ? (Check all the answers that you think are true.) No, nothing will change; things will go back to being just as boring as they were before the Sultan disappeared. ____ Yes, he will leave his Palace every day to look for the family he left behind on the island. ____ Yes, he will leave his Palace every day, looking for new romance, hoping to start a new family? _____ Yes, will adopt orphans to live with him in the Palace. ____ Yes, he will learn a useful and productive trade. ____ Yes, he will move out of the Palace entirely and turn it into public housing for the homeless citizens of his realm. ____ Yes, he will turn the Palace into a $1,000/night luxury resort. ____ 5. Our story occurs in two places: in the Sultan’s Palace and on the Island. Which is real and which isn’t? (Check one answer only) Only the Sultan’s palace is real; the island is not: _____ Only the island is real; the Sultan’s Palace is not: _____ Both the island and the palace are real: ____ Neither the island nor the palace is real: _____ Please feel free to elaborate on any of your answers (optional). Please submit your answers to editor@aletheiatoday.com. Be sure to put "Sultan & Sea" in the subject line and tell us who you are and how we can reach you (name, email address, and phone number) so that your name can be entered into the $100 gift card drawing to take place on Labor Day. Previous Share Return to the Table of Contents, Beach Issue Next Return to the Table of Contents, June Issue