Friday, September 14, 2012

Notes From A Class

I wrote these notes during a "class" I have. Basically it's just a blow off class to get "an appreciation" for research...there's no tests or anything. Due to boredom, I started writing more creatively and adding my own internal comments to the notes. I thought it was funny. 


-Brief history of scribes/scriptoria.
-Fall of Rome yadda yadda
-Scribes had to preserve information
-Translation problems
-Clarity problems
-Forgery

-Talking about lots of things about historical texts. People used to write on cows, not ride, write. Of course the cows were dead and the entire cow wasn't there, rather simply the cow skin. So that's cool.
-Now she's talking about Cicero and St. Augustine, I guess Cicero's writings were written over by St. Augustine, what a jerk right? It's ok though, cause I guess there's a process for getting to the info underneath using chemicals and what not.
-Papyrus lasts a long time when it's dry. Like the Dead Sea Scrolls. Go figure, it was dry where the dead sea is.
-So the big point is that copying has an impact on what we read today...that took 2 seconds out of this first 30 minutes.
-Scriptorium: They used to write by candlelight...that must've been dangerous. Also, that must've sucked.
-Annnnnnnd Legos.
-Apparently St. Thomas had some unintelligible writing...yep, he had bad hand writing.
-I'm supposed to be a serious scholar?
-Then there was a snooty comment by the guy with delicately manicured hair
-Laborious charcoal and lead...cebia? Helps with color. She tried making it with the kids, used flower...no fruit with vinegar...haha kinda worked or something with the inks.
-PURPLE MANUSCRIPTS!...and silver and gold...hella expensive bling. St. Augustine didn't like that
-Some might wonder...why care about critical edition?
-We have critical editions like Kant and De Carte.
-I'm lost...A and B versions of things.
-Our brains are stunted.
-Start writing. "Write something"-St. Louis
-It's like a manuscript...write something….read something...add a little...figure out a synthesis...put it in there.
-So the reflection thing is a joke.
-Side note: she's not serious about things in this class and is OK with not a lot of stuff. Are you bubbling with information?
-If you love philosophy, kids no worky.
-Look at ACPQ online
-Goal of the paper is submit to a journal

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

A Catholic Perspective on Gun Control: Respect and Personal Responsibility


After the Aurora, CO theater shooting gun control has somehow managed to place itself in the center of the current political debate. The debate is heated and doesn't seem to leave room for any middle ground. Here's my take on the whole thing; as with everything else, I see my view as being very Catholic.  

I read a tweet by Fr. Josh Miller (I've never met him or know who he is, just found him on Twitter and started following him), he said this concerning the issue: "One of our fatal flaws: the conclusion that the abuse/misuse of a moral neutral renders it a moral evil. More puritanical than the Puritans" @FrJoshMiller. An inanimate object is amoral, it is neither moral or immoral. Guns are used to commit terrible crimes but this does not make the gun, in and of itself, morally evil. This argument easily refutes those who wish to abolish the 2nd Amendment by claiming high murder rates are the direct cause of the legal circulation of guns and is the basis for the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (or any variation of it) argument that's widely held. Catholics believe that the world in it's entirety has been redeemed through the death and resurrection Jesus. This is why amazing things like alcohol and tobacco are permitted in moderation within The Church, Fr. Miller's point on guns reflects this. It would be wrong to eliminate one's right to possess/do something which is amoral simply on the basis that others have the potential to misuse it.

At the same time, to follow this logic (in terms of gun control) to its end requires the acceptance of some difficult realities. If there's nothing morally wrong with allowing citizens to legally possess high powered rifles intended for military use, then why not allow for the possession of other more lethal weapons? Land mines? Missiles? Nuclear war head? I think defenders of gun rights would be hard-pressed to agree that these types of weapons should be legal for citizens to own, indeed - they shouldn't be. The distinction lies in the purpose for which the weapon was made.

Also on Twitter, I found actor Jason Alexander's "long tweet" about gun control that's gotten quite a bit of attention. I don't agree with the opening portion where he tries to argue the constitution only affords American civilians the right to own a weapon if the individual is part of an "organized militia", I think this is a misreading of the Constitution. But I do like a different point he made further down about the problem with this "guns don't kill people, people kill people" logic. He says this:

"Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars."

I think he makes a valid argument and it speaks for itself. Those individuals lobbying for the rights granted to them by the 2nd Amendment through this absolutist approach are using flawed logic. Furthermore, the self-defense, hobby, and hunting arguments (however justified) do not hold any weight when applied to military grade weapons. I've observed in my own experience that individuals want to purchase a military weapon for two reasons: 1) simply because it's possible to own one and 2) because the gun is impressive - appealing to their pride. There's really no other reason why someone would "need" to own a weapon that could unload a magazine in just a few seconds. Any other attempt a sane person would make to justify owning such a weapon would probably make me nervous and want to re-examine why I thought they were sane to begin with.

Personally, I am a proponent of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and minimizing brutal acts of senseless violence. Both Fr. Miller and Jason Alexander have valid points and represent well the polarized opinions of each side (not to say that either of them are the extreme of either side, but they do represent each side). It seems, as usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

My take on it is simple: People deserve the right to own a gun but not ANY gun. Guns themselves are not morally evil/bad/something to abolish and, in fact, can help prevent heinous crimes from occurring. They are, however, dangerous and require a high level of responsibility and respect for their potential to kill; this should be (and is) reflected in who gets to purchase something of this nature. In the same way that a weapon for self-defense or hobby must be respected for what it is, respect for weapons that are designed to be extraordinarily lethal demand a different level of respect. I would argue highly trained military personnel are the only individuals capable of giving the proper respect due to these types of weapons. No one else within society should be allowed access to such a weapon.

The premise of my view in finding this middle ground is rooted in the notion of personal responsibility. This, I think, is what makes it Catholic (since this is fundamental principle in Catholic morality). Some may argue that the gun control debate shouldn't involve concepts of morality. I find this to be 1) an oversight to the potential damage a gun can cause and 2) a misunderstanding and ignorance of morality.

If there's any unifying theme on the two sides of this issue it's the desire for freedom, specifically freedom from fear. To simplify the story, one side proposes the solution to be no guns at all, the other, guns for everyone. Freedom does not eliminate choice. Rather, authentic freedom embraces the responsibility of choice by pursuing that which is good in order to promote the greatest freedom.

With this understanding, I contend the position that civilians have no access to guns because I acknowledge the value that can result in civilians owning a weapon and that gun owners have the ability and duty to take full responsibility for the weapon. I also contend the position that civilians have access to high-powered, military grade weapons because I acknowledge that these weapons serve no purpose within civilian life and, therefore, cannot be a justifiable option.  

Monday, April 23, 2012

Lame

“You can close your eyes to the things you do not want to see, but you cannot close your heart to the things you do not want to feel.”

“Have you ever been in love? Horrible isn't it? It makes you so vulnerable. It opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means that someone can get inside you and mess you up. You build up all these defenses, you build up a whole suit of armor, so that nothing can hurt you, then one stupid person, no different from any other stupid person, wanders into your stupid life...You give them a piece of you. They didn't ask for it. They did something dumb one day, like kiss you or smile at you, and then your life isn't your own anymore. Love takes hostages. It gets inside you. It eats you out and leaves you crying in the darkness, so simple a phrase like 'maybe we should be just friends' turns into a glass splinter working its way into your heart. It hurts. Not just in the imagination. Not just in the mind. It's a soul-hurt, a real gets-inside-you-and-rips-you-apart pain. I hate love.”

“Meeting you was fate, becoming your friend was a choice, but falling in love with you I had no control over.”

“I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies.”

Being open, vulnerable, and honest is the quickest way to both love and heartbreak. 

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Seditious?

Recently President Obama did not allow chaplain's in the military to read Archbishop Broglio's statement on the recent HHS mandate because it was deemed seditious. Here's Obama's seditious roots in Chicago.



No wonder he had to publicly cut ties with him.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

New Toy



I bought a beat making program and this is the first thing I came up with. Kinda cool, I've got some other ideas and will post them as I go along.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Do we live in a "post-truth" era?

I saw The Ides of March last night and would recommend you seeing it if you feel like having all the bitterness you've ever felt towards politics being affirmed (and no I didn't see it just because it feels like I'm seeing myself on the big screen when Philip Seymour Hoffman is acting). The plot moves around the theme of betrayal and deceit and whether an ends justifies a means. It's about a young campaign co-manager, named Steven, that has a strong belief in the ideals of the candidate he's working for and as a result will do anything to get him elected. I won't spoil it, but Steven ends up in a predicament where he's forced to choose between being loyal to the campaign and the ideals the candidate stands for or risking his own career. The movie got me thinking about how pervasive deception and lying is in our culture.

When I got home from the movie I watched this TED talk by Pamela Meyer about how to spot a liar. I thought the talk was pretty interesting though I won't buy or read her book because of her main premise about lies only existing when we agree to them. The ease with which she makes this outrageously morally relativistic claim makes me wonder why she wrote an entire book about how to determine if someone isn't telling the truth. What's it matter if someone is or isn't telling the truth if what's true is only an abstract concept that a majority of people come to agreement on? Regardless, I thought the statistics she sited about how frequently people lie and how from a very early age humans have a tendency to be deceptive were quite eye-opening. She references "one author" who calls the current time we live in as a "post-truth world". I'm assuming she means Ralph Keyes and I will be buying and reading his book.

My first thought after walking out of The Ides of March was: should I really believe people/politics/the world are like this? After watching the TED talk my first thought was: why shouldn't I believe the world/people are like this?

This notion that we live in post-truth world where deception is so common-place that people barely feel guilt about lying seems frighteningly realistic and devastatingly hopeless. Aside from my close friends and family, at some level I expect deceit fueled by selfishness from most people. I realize this is not a very good way to go about being charitable or seeing the world optimistically. But it seems approaching life any other way would be naive and irresponsible just in terms of being able to stand up for oneself. It seems trying to always tell the truth (even with tact), will inevitably lead to being screwed-over, to put it politely. This seems true because if a group of people are placing trust in or building themselves up on lies, one person exposing the truth will be at best ostracized and at worst made so the their voice no longer exists. There's a quote in the movie that loyalty is the only reliable currency. But that begs the question, what's loyalty and does it require deceit? Or is loyalty just a commitment to lie for the sake of someone or something?

Do I value (or even care) what the truth is if a lie creates a perception that is more easily controlled and accepted than truth? Do I really believe that a good intention doesn't justify a lie?

Obviously this a pretty gloomy post. I guess maybe I'm understanding more practically what Benedict XVI meant when he said that, ultimately, suffering is the only weapon love has against hate and that through suffering hope is found.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Weirdest/Creepiest/Funniest Demonstration Ever



The look on the Congressmen's face is hilarious. Then they vote to not even let him speak! I also love how frustrated the guy in red gets when he starts yelling "mic check" at the end.



This stuff is pretty ridiculous and kind of scary that people are actually taking it seriously. I've never seen the call and response like this before and it kind of makes me uncomfortable.