IT: Contemplating Beauty

Beauty is mentioned alongside goodness and truth as something for which all men yearn; yet of the three, beauty itself is most enigmatic. We want to know the truth—that is, we want what we think of reality to actually correspond to reality—and we want to pursue or acquire the good—our actions should thus be ordered to this end. But what about beauty? We long for it, but not necessarily as guide for thought or action: rather, we only want to contemplate it and appreciate it. There is a certain sense in which beauty is a synthesis of goodness and truth, so that beauty rests upon goodness and truth as a foundation; and at the same time it is bound to love, perhaps more effect to cause than cause to effect.

Seeking Goodness and Understanding Truth

Often discussions of “the true, the good, and the beautiful” tend to focus on the first two and ignore the last of this trio (save perhaps discussions of art, architecture, or music). And why not? It seems to me that there are those who order their lives to the good and the true, and who then get beauty as a part of the bargain; and on the other hand those who go for beauty first to the exclusion (and often the inverse) of these, who then consequently lose all three, or else get a twisted and marred beauty [1].


Read the rest on the IGNITUM TODAY website.

Seven Quick Takes (v 18): Miscellaneous Loose Ends

--1--

Being the pyromaniac that I am, I'm always a little disappointed that the wreath at Mass never burst into flames when the alter server goes to light the advent candles. I mean, I can see the sparks (more like miniature fireballs) falling onto the wreath, but it never lights into a satisfying conflagration. This is, of course, because they don't use live greenery. This morning, Fr. Larry told us exactly why this is: the fireball wreath scenario actually happened once when he was associate pastor at another parish. I wasn't there to see it, but I can at least get a consolation prize:



Of course, there's also the National Lampoons version.

--2--

Now that the last laser week cycle, plus proctoring two exams (one on Saturday Night!!!), I was hit by one last hurdle:

From PhD Comics

Part of the problem is that all of my students want to get A's, but only a handful want to earn them. Thus, I get complaints from quite a few of them, since very few consistently turn in A quality work. I especially despair of the ones who try to bargain for higher grades by asking me to "round" their 89.1 to a 90. Um, no. An A- is not a bad consolation prize.

--3--

I finally finished reading through Saint Augustine's City of God. Unfortunately, most of my study group gave up long since. Maybe we'll go for something a little shorter for the next book. We're kicking some options around for the new year. Aristotle is definitely in the works, but maybe we'll look at Mortimer J Adler's Aristotle for Everybody first as a warm-up.

--4--

 Now that most of the semester-related hectic-ness is over, I can return to pondering more important questions posed by my inner nerd. Who would win in a fight: the parasite, or Amazo (the Tabula Rasa Android)?
Parasite:

Amazo:

--5--

I've been playing around with the idea of a new short feature in which I name a booze which goes with the liturgical calendar. For example, Lepanto brandy goes very nicely with the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary (our Lady of Victory) because this was instituted in honor of the Holy League's victory over the Mohammedan Turks at Lepanto. I guess I could call such posts "Spirits in the Spirit" or possibly "Drinking with the Saints." Not sure if I have the time for it, though, not to mention that I don't intend for this to become the "Disgruntled Catholic Homemakers' and Disaffected Husbands' Club" blog.

--6--

With a tip of the cap to Mr Mark Shea, this video is probably the most entertaining thing I've seen all week:

I want one!

--7--

My wife and I leave for Oregon on Sunday, and although we'll be back just before Christmas, we'll probably be spending most of our time with family for the next few weeks, so I don't think there will be many more posts here for a while. I may try to get back online once or twice in between visiting family and such--but that's about it. More importantly, I can't wait to see my parent and my brother again!


-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.

Quote of the Day: Potency and Potential Energy

"I reply that it must be said that potency as potency is ordered to act so that a potency must be understood in terms of the act to which it is ordered and that there will be a plurality of potencies insofar as there are diverse acts. Acts in turn are distinguished in terms of their object. Every action is of either a passive or active potency and the object of a passive potency relates to its act as an efficient principle or cause: insofar as color moves sight it is the principle of seeing."
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Disputed Question on Truth, Question 2 Article 2
Reprinted in Prof. Ralph McInenry's A first Glance at Thomas Aquinas: A Handbook for Peeping Thomists

We employ similar language--and sometimes similar meanings--in science when discussing such things as energy. An object--let's say it's a ball--of mass m moved to a height of h (h << r_earth) above the surface of the earth is said to have "potential energy," which we express mathematically as V = m g h, g being the gravitational acceleration which object near the earth's surface experience when in free-fall. The object has potential energy: but what is that potential in relationship to? It's tempting to just say that the object has the potential to fall back to the earth, and that is true enough if I am just holding it above the ground: as soon as I release it, it will fall.

But what if I release it and it rolls (or slides) down a ramp? Does the potential energy change? Well, no, though the energy of the ball may be different at the bottom than at the top, not only in quality (it's gravitational potential energy will be reduced, and it will probably gain some kinetic energy), but also in quantity (rolling implies some amount of friction, meaning the object will lose some of its energy in this scenario). Whether the ball is dropped in free-fall or allowed to slide/roll down a ramp, we still say that it has the same potential energy, and it is still expressible as V = m g h.

Rather, we might say that potential energy is (in this example) the potential for gravity to work on the ball, which (again in this example) manifests as the ball's moving [1] from a greater height to a lesser height. What "moves" the ball when it is released? Gravity, of course. Why does gravity do this? Because objects tend to seek the lowest potential energy state available--which in this case means "resting" on the earth's surface.

Of course, this state of "rest" from the fall is a state in which the ball most likely has some amount of kinetic energy--T = 0.5 * m * v^2 < m g h--but as far as the motion of falling is concerned, its potential has been actualized, since the ball was acted upon by gravity, resulting in its fall from the lofty heights to the floor below. And in turn, as it rolls across the floor it begins to slow: friction now work upon the ball: it's kinetic energy is equal to the quantity of work the floor must do on the ball before it comes to a stop. Perhaps we might call this kinetic energy the potency in relationship to the act of friction doing work. I'm not sure what Saint Thomas would think about all of this (he may find it an interesting discussion, or a pointless one): but it certainly makes for an interesting mental picture in solving basic "energy conservation" problems.

As for the ball's actual fall, it seems to me we have and object which is translating from  high point to a low point with a motion described in time by h = 0.5 g t^2 + v_i t, whose motion is affected by gravity, in such a way that it reaches the lowest potential energy state. But of course, we don't rely on Aristotle's causes at all in physics: or so a long line of physicists and philosophers of science--stretching back to Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes--would have us believe.


----Footnotes----
[1] Moving--This is also defined by Aristotle and Aquinas, though not necessarily in the same way we would define it. We say "it's moving" if an object has a nonzero speed or rotation. But motion is also the middle state between potency and act: the state between having only potential and having that potential actualized. It is the state of falling, but not because the ball has a nonzero speed, but rather because so long as the object is falling, it is in that middle state between potency (potential energy--gravity might yet do some work on the object) and actuality (gravity has done all the work it can on the ball).

Holy Innocents

A while back I wrote a speculative post for the Nicene Guys about the possibility of infant salvation. The point of the post was that many people--Catholic and Protestant alike, and the detractors of both in common especially--have this idea that all unbaptized infants must be hell-bound. Some have speculated on the existence of Limbo: Dante, for example, placed it as the first circle of Hell, to which went not only unbaptized infants but also all those who lived worthy lives before the time of Christ; and C.S. Lewis alludes to it in his Screwtape Letters as a sort of state below consciousness to which the unbaptized infants slip, experiencing neither happiness nor sorrow. Our Holy Father has long since approved the suggestion that the speculations of Limbo ought to go by the wayside, that there is yet hope for the salvation of the unborn or unbaptized.

So, what of it? It's a question which comes up in the RCIA sessions--we've taken time to discuss this at least twice at some length. What hope is there for those infants who die unbaptized? The feast of the Holy Innocents is three days after Christmas, which seems fitting to me. After all, these were infants who were unbaptized, and yet are venerated by the Church as martyrs, as they have been since the time of the early Church. They were the first Christian martyrs, "witnesses" for Christ; but persecution is not the only form of witness, and God's mercy is wide indeed.

IT: Beauty and Nature

The golden ratio appears all over the place in nature. Source: Naturography.

It is almost inevitably the first question I am asked in any gathering with more than four of my relatives: “So, what is it that you are working on these day?” The second question is often, “So what is this research good for?”, and the third (and most important), is “And when will you finish?” [1] Why do we study science? That may seem an odd question to pose in an essay written for a Catholic website, but it is the question which I am posing today.
Notice, though, that there is an assumption underlying the questions as posed to me by my relatives–and the same assumption is in society as a whole–regarding not only scientific research, but any number of other endeavors of human civilization, from art to music to literature to philosophy. The assumption is that it is only worth doing as a society if it is “useful” somehow.

Music is “useful” because it helps us to relax at the end of a long day so that we can be more productive tomorrow; or because it can–in its “classical” form–stimulate the brain, thus strengthening memory (for example). Art is “useful” because it can help us to visualize something which is not present–as in a police sketch, and architectural rendering, or for that matter a billboard advertisement. And science is “useful” because, well, it “works” [2].

This last attitude concerning science–it works! and that is why it is good!–can be traced back to the early stages of the scientific revolution

Read the rest on the Ignitum Today site.

Nicene Guys: RCIA Question Box on the Immaculate Conception (pt 3)

I'm still having troubles with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Why does the Church insist on this dogma, and doesn't it contradict the Bible?

Recall that there are three common objections to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which are made by modern Protestants in general and Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in particular:

• Only God is sinless. So if Catholics believe that Mary is sinless too, does that not mean that Catholics make Mary into God (or a god)? Jesus was sinless because He Is God.
• Isn't sin a part of human nature? Then how can Catholics believe that Mary was conceived without sin?
• Doesn't the Bible itself tell us that all of us are sinners—and so doesn't this belief necessarily contradict the Bible?

There may be a number of other less-frequent objections, but, as I have mentioned before, to treat every objection would require too much time for even a short series of posts (or RCIA sessions). In the previous installments of this short series, I considered in turn the doctrine of original sin and what the Church teaches concerning the Immaculate Conception, and then I replied to the first two objections. Today, I would like to wrap-up by considering a few of the Biblical verses concerning this doctrine.

There are some passages which are often cited as "proof" texts against this doctrine: most especially Saint Paul's letter to the Romans. In this epistle, we read that "None is righteous, no not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong. No one does good, not even one" (Romans 3:10-12, citing Psalm 14). We'll begin with this passage. It's worth asking just what it is that St Paul is trying to address when he wrote these verses. He is in the middle of considering a question about Jews and Gentiles: namely, is one group to be favored over the other amongst Christians?


Read the rest on the Nicene Guys site.

Nicene Guys: RCIA Question Box on the Immaculate Conception (pt 2)

I'm having troubles with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Why does the Church insist on this dogma, and doesn't it contradict the Bible? Also, if Mary is sinless, then how is she not God (or at least a god)?

In talking a number of my friends who have converted from Protestantism—in particular, Baptist, Evangelical, or Fundamentalist forms of Protestantism—to Catholicism, I've found that there are certain doctrines or dogmas which are always last to be accepted. The Marian doctrines are always among these, and I suspect that if they had to name one doctrine which was hardest of those, it would be the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The objections aren't always the same, but many are similar:

• Only God is sinless. So if Catholics believe that Mary is sinless too, does that not mean that Catholics make Mary into God (or a god)? Jesus was sinless because He Is God.
• Isn't sin a part of human nature? Then how can Catholics believe that Mary was conceived without sin?
• Doesn't the Bible itself tell us that all of us are sinners—and so doesn't this belief necessarily contradict the Bible?

These are the main objections, though there are also a number of questions which get associated with these, and there are a number of "minor" objections held by different individuals which are no less potent (for those individuals) for not being widespread. Actually to deal extensively with these three "major" objections (let alone the "minor" ones) and to explain the meaning the of dogma, etc would be more than could be dealt with by one post or one RCIA session (etc.) [1].

Read the rest on the Nicene Guys site.

TMM: Proofs Scientific and Philosophical

A recent post by Dr Stacy Trasancos--and the inevitable discussion which ensued from it--has caught to attention of my muse.The question which immediately arises is one of proofs (not evidence, mind you, but proofs). As in, the predictably anonymous interloper demands a proof--and without stating what he expects as a proof--"that divine revelation is actually divine revelation."

I won't rehash that conversation here: for that, you'll just have to go read the back-and-forth comments between the anonymous interloper and the folks responding to him (e.g. my friend Mr Colin Gormley, and Dr Trasancos herself). No, I am brought back to the idea of proofs, and what constitutes a proof anyway. Does a proof need to be made via experiment (physical demonstration), or scientific reasoning (induction and deduction), or logic (deduction and syllogism)?

I suppose this depends on the person. an "experiment" or "physical demonstration" might be what is needed to convince a person operating strictly scientifically. You want to convince a scientist that your theory is correct? Then show the experimental data which "proves" it. This is more-or-less the attitude taken in scientific circles--though they often don't accord this the status of a "proof" so much as mere "evidence;" and for the most part, I agree that experiments generally do not "prove" things in a positive sense, but only in a negative sense; they can only "prove" by counter-example, e.g. if a statement begins with "X will never be observed under these conditions..." and X is observed, or "Y will always be observed under these conditions..." and Y is not observed. The recent experiments involving faster-than-light neutrinos proves that c is not the universal speed limit--assuming of course that the data turns out to be correct [1].

What about scientific reasoning? Proofs carried out via induction are even weaker. After all, the assumption of inductive reasoning is that a phenomenon which has occurred under certain conditions will reliably occur under those same conditions. As someone--I think it was Mr John C Wright--has noted before, this is a formal logical fallacy. An apple falls off of a tree and hits Sir Isaac Newton on the head; he moves to another tree, an apple fall from this tree too, again hitting him in the head, and again and again: this may be a good cautionary reason to not sit under apple trees, but it does not follow that every time he sits under an apple tree, he will be hit by an apple. Rather, he induces this principle from the pattern of his observations, and then deduces that the pattern will continue based on his principle: but at no point has he actually "proved" that his principle holds for all time and all apple trees. Instead, this is an assumption which he makes--and justifiably so--based on his experiences.

Nor all all such theories so reliable as this one. Want to make an experimental physicist rant? Ask him what he thinks about String Theory as science. He'll likely tell you that he will believe it to be scientific when it makes an observable (and hence testable) prediction. Even then, we have scientific reasoning working alongside scientific experimentation--which we've already determined can only "prove" something within the limits of its assumptions. So science itself can't do a good job of "proving" much of anything.

This leaves us with logic or "reason" in general--perhaps the province of the philosopher? "I posit the following premises, and now allow the rules of logic to work on these premises, here are my conclusions." That is a sort of proof, but again it must rely on the correctness of any premises, and especially of any axioms which are themselves unproven. He, too, must make some assumptions, some "leaps of faith."

However, not all leaps are equal; not all proofs begin with a "brute fact." Some assumptions really are reasonable, in that they make sense out of the world around us. Some are ultimately necessary, if we are to live in the world (regardless of whether or not we want to be "of" it). Even Descartes could not doubt his own existence (nor, ultimately, could he doubt God's); and, more fundamentally, it becomes impossible to doubt existence as such, since if something exists, then there is such a thing as existence.

Anything (or anyone) which (who) exists whose essence is not also its (his) existence needs a cause to lend its existence to its (his) essence.


----Footnotes----
[1] There are, of course, a number of other assumptions or at least assessments here. One is that Rene Descartes was wrong when he formulated a philosophy which begins by rejecting the reliability of the senses, and (for that matter) of mathematics. I agree with this assessment.

Nicene Guys: RCIA Question Box on Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception

What is "original sin," and what do Catholics mean by saying that Saint Mary was preserved from the stains of original sin?

There are two kinds of sin: original and actual [1]. Original sin is the direct effect of the fall—we are all "born this way"--and it is normally remitted through the waters of baptism. Actual sins are any sins which we ourselves commit [2]. Anything which you have done which is evil, or anything which you should have done which was good and chose not to do is an actual sin. These sins are normally remitted through confession. It is ultimately Christ's suffering and death which atone for both kinds of sin, and through His resurrection that we are able to be reconciled with God; thanks to these things we may be justified before God (BC2 Q102; see [0]).

So what is original sin, and what are its effects? Original sin is the state into which we come into being at our conception as a result of the fall. It basically means that we have fallen from the state of preternatural grace into which our first parents were created. It is not something which we acquire directly through our own personal fault, but rather is something which is transmitted to us though our parents (and to them though their parents, and so on). The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains original sin thus:

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle" (CCC 405).

Read the rest at the Nicene Guys site.

Seven Quick Takes (v 17): It's Over!

--1--

The title is to mark that yesterday was the last day of the last class I ever have to take en route to my Ph.D. From now on, it's all research and writing. That will probably take 2-3 more years. But at least I won't be weighed down by what passes for classes at the graduate level. I think I've taken maybe 4 good classes as a graduate student--and two of those ultimately didn't count toward completing my degree. I'll be glad to get that 10-20 hours/week back to put into research, time with family, well, anything which is not just a required class.

--2--

 This is not to say that I will never again enroll in a course. There are a few courses I would like to take for fun and/or self-betterment which have nothing whatsoever to do with my degree. And years from now I may yet attempt to get that master's degree in either philosophy or theology. But for now, it's nice to know that I've cleared one more hurdle.

--3--

Unfortunately, I am not done with all of the administrative work for the semester--I still have to administer (and worse, grade) the final exams for my own classes. Speaking of which, I want to know the name of the idiot who thought that it would be a good idea to schedule exams for a Saturday, and who thought that it would be swell to schedule exam time as if each block of time needs to be treated the same as every other block of time. Since starting grad school 5.5 years ago, I have managed to have at least one of either a 7-10 PM final, or a Saturday (afternoon/evening) final. This semester, I have to give the final from 7-10 PM ON A SATURDAY. There is not a good reason for this. Whatever is the excuse for this kind of moronic scheduling, it's not acceptable. Classes with exams meet for at least 3 hours per week, and the exams are for three hours; all of the classes fit between 8AM-10PM (ending) between Monday and Friday. Not all courses have exams. Therefore, there is no reason to need 6 days' worth of exams, with the 9AM-Noon, Noon-3PM times being given no more preference than the 4-7PM and 7-10PM time slots. Even assuming that we were going to need the extra day--WHY USE A SATURDAY? We end on a Tuesday during the following week. Why not use the Wednesday and Thursday of that week?

--4--

 On to other topics. I was trying to understand the OWS movement. What are their goals, what is the point of the protest (besides that corporations are evil, and that the rich are getting richer, and so on)? Are they just a liberal version of the Tea Party, but without manner, common decency, a sense of pride, or at least of cleanliness, and with more crimes committed (though often unreported), not to mention sexual assaults? In the end, it was Tim Robbins of the Film Actors' Guild who was able to explain their views best:

--5--

In sports: I still say "no rematch." Houston (if undefeated), Standford, Oklahoma State (if they win tomorrow), Boise State, and probably Virginia Tech (assuming that they avenge their only loss this weekend) are all arguably at least as deserving as Alabama (and just for fun before you read the rest of this post, go here). In fact, the SEC west this year reminds me of nothing so much as the Big 12 South from 2008 (Texas-TT-OU each had 1 loss), save that instead of a 3-way tie there is and undefeated LSU who played a tough out of conference schedule, an Alabama team who lost in overtime to LSU and who has beat all of two ranked teams, and an Arkansas team who got blown out by Ablabama, then blown out by LSU, has beat one good team (South Carolina) and one other foe with a winning record (Auburn), scraped by a terrible 2-10 Ole Miss team (29-24), and for all of this is somehow ranked in the top 10 (8th by BCS, 6th by AP). This is, incidentally, two AP places (and 1 BCS place) above a 10-2 Oregon team which destroyed 11-1 Stanford on the road and played LSU closer (actually outgaining them) in a de-facto road game, and whose only other loss is by 3 points to a very hot 10-2 USC team.

--6--

 This Arkansas team is, incidentally, Alabama's best win (9-3 Penn State, Arkansas, and LSU are the only ranked foes they've even played, and Arkansas, Penn State, and 7-5 Auburn are the only teams with winning records who Alabama has beat); for comparison, if Oklahoma State beats OU (a big "if", to be fair), they will have defeated 5 teams in the top-25. Stanford has beat only 1 top 10 foe (USC), but also beat Notre Dame (now an 8-4 team hovering near the top 25), plus 7-5 Cal and 7-5 Washington (four team with winning records). If we see a title game rematch, it will be either because Alabama had the least bad loss (a factor which didn't help Texas in 2008), or because of the reputation of the SEC as a "tough conference," which is largely a reputation built upon winning the national championship every year*. That streak of 5 national championships will be tarnished by adding a sixth featuring two SEC teams squaring off against each other.

--
*And I'm not convinced that the foe picked as BCS #2 has always actually been the best non-SEC team each year, as in 2008 when USC, Texas, and Utah were all arguably better than OU, or in 2007 when there were several 11-1 or 10-2 teams "cut" from the BCS title game in favor of 10-2 LSU.

--7--

Last Saturday I went deer-hunting with my brother-in-law. I actually saw two does from my car, and though I got out of my car, grabbed my gun, loaded, and got into position to shoot at them quietly enough that they didn't notice me, I wasn't able to get a good shot off. They had already been meandering our of the clearing which I was overlooks, and by the time I got into position, they were already entering the brush. I did see another deer, which I did take a shot at form ~80 yards. Unfortunately for me (and perhaps fortunately for it), the deer sort of flinched or spooked at something just before i could get the shot off, so I missed. Oddly enough, it paused for a few moments and looked around--I supposed it didn't know which direction the gunshot had come from, and thus must have spooked at not me--but it took off before I could get a second shot at it. Doe! I mean, doh!

Probably 30 minutes later, the logging/construction/mining/whatever operation on the land nearby started up. Needless to say, I didn't see any more wildlife after that, unless you count the young kestrel--he also flew away before I could get a (snap)shot off. Maybe I'll get another chance for the deer before the New Year.


-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.