Lost Piece - On a Darkling Plain_v2_i2

7/31/2019 Lost Piece - On a Darkling Plain_v2_i2

1/66


2/66

2

LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue IIkg

LOST PIECEan undergraduate journal of letters

VOLUME II, ISSUE IIOn A Darkling Plain


3/66

3

an undergraduate journal of lettersgk

Copyright, Lost Piece; All rights reserved.

No part o this journal may be used or reproduced by any means,

graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, record-

ing, taping or by any inormation storage retrieval system without the

written permission o the EditorInChie except in the case o brie

quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Te works included

in this journal are printed with explicit permission o their authors.

Lost Piece: An Undergraduate Journal o Letters

Te University o Notre Dame

Center or Undergraduate Scholarly Engagement

PRINED IN HE UNIED SAES OF AMERICA


4/66

4




Editor-in-Chie

Stephen Lechner

Editors

Raymond Korson

Jose KuhnConor Rogers


5/66

5


Something of a Mission Statement

From the Editors

Lost Piece exists to acilitate undergraduate reading, discussion,

and writing o an intellectual nature beyond course curriculum

and without distraction rom the grade point average.

Lost Piece seeks to help undergraduates to complement

and even uniy what they learn in their classes withtheir own personally driven intellectual pursuits.

Te goal o Lost Piece is to combat mediocrity in all

things, and particularly in all things intellectual.

Lost Piece holds that the goods proper to intellec-

tual activity are ends in and o themselves and are to

be sought regardless o whatever recognitions may or

may not be extrinsically attached to such activity.


6/66

6


able of Contents

Lost Piece: Volume II, Issue II

Something of a Mission StatementFrom the Editors ..........................................................................4

Meet the WritersLost Piece ......................................................................................7

o an Overwhelming QuestionStephen Lechner ............................................................................9

MatchstickLeah Coming ................................................................................13

Te Abyss of ReasonGabriel MacDonald ......................................................................15

Life Does Lingeraylor Nutter ................................................................................23

God, Evil, and EvolutionDylan Belton .................................................................................25

OpheliaChristina Mastrucci ......................................................................39

Fiction and I

Nicolle Walking .............................................................................41Tat Rare, Random Descent

Brittany Bergeson ..........................................................................45

FaithJames Schmidt ...............................................................................47

Sliced n Diced

Jose Kuhn .....................................................................................55Stern ChaseJohn Ashley ....................................................................................57

SlicedClaire Kiernan .............................................................................61


7/66

7


Contribute to Lost Piece

Please consider writingwhether essay, poem, story, or what-have-

youor the Fall 2011 Semester o Lost Piece. Write what you

think is pertinent to the lie o a student, whatever that might be

Pose a question

Or oer an answer

Write at whatever length you need

But write well.

Submit your work to Steve Lechner

at [email protected] by April 30th.


8/66

8


Meet the Writers

Te Program ofLiberal Studies:

So it turns out that PLSstudents dont only like to talkabout such trivial things asree will or the meaning o

lie as approached throughthe lens o certain GreatBooks, but they also like,even need, to engage ideaswherever they can nd them.Tats why a ew o them got

together to watch movies everyweek, rst as a social eventand later more as a discussiongroup. Tey like to think theyare staying true to the spirito the word seminar (which

literally means seedbed) byholding proound conversa-tions on their own rom whichthey hope to bear the ruits onew ideas, serious dialogue,and lasting riendships.

Istum:(Also called Tat Ting) Treeyears ago, a group o riendsdecided to get together everyweekend to start a literarysociety. Its members include

students rom the Colleges oArts and Letters, Science, andEngineering, but strangelynone rom the college oBusiness. Tey write, simplyput, despite the obvious act

that they are only tyro writ-ers, and they criticize eachothers writing as best theycan. One o their goals is tobring back the essay (whichliterally means an attempt)

as a orm o writing and asa rhetorical work o art. Tegroup takes its name romone o Ciceros orations.

Tese groups have contributed to the writing o the Fall 2010

Edition o Lost Piece. We encourage you, as an undergraduate,

to contribute your writing to uture editions whether individu-

ally or as part o any such intellectual society. You can send

your writing and eedback to the editor at [email protected]


9/66


10/66

10


o an Overwhelming Question

An IntroductionStephen LechnerClass o 2011Editor-in-Chie

Heres a story: tell me i Ive

told it correctly. Once upon

a time, in a world called TeWest there was a vast culture

o people which somehow,

not altogether clear as to how,

ound itsel believing in God.

At some point in time, a lot o

people in the West began to askwhence they got that belie, and

or some reason, not altogether

clear as to what reason, a lot o

those people decided that they

didnt like the answer they got

as to whence they got that beliein God, so they decided to stop

believing in God. Ten a mad-

man with a erocious mustache

ran around the West holding

a lantern looking or God, and

when everyone told him thatthere was none to look or, he

shouted that God is dead, we

have killed him, leaving many

people very conused. Many

people laughed at him and or

a long time nobody made much

o the poor ool, but eventually

people began to realize that i

God is not around, then there

is no obvious moral, political,

or otherwise social authority tothe world that they inhabit, and

no obvious reason to suer the

slings and arrows o outrageous

ortune. Having lost God, they

all went ballisticsome went

into hiding in their upper roomsand waited, perhaps, or the

wind to blow, others built little

castles which they named the

world and proclaimed them-

selves as God o the world,

and some took up lanterns and

ran o to search the highways

and byways to compel God to

come back to the West whether

he liked it or not. And that is

the state o the West today.

Make what you like o

this story, or it is just that, a

story, and stories are by their

nature ction. Sometimes they

attempt to be actualand

actual is a useul description


11/66

11


or certain storiesbut i its

a person whos telling it, then

a story is ction and there is

nothing to be done about that.

Abraham Lincoln was shot in

1865. Tats ctioni or noother reason than that 1865

cannot be anything other than

a subjective evaluation o time.

Somebody once decided that

that should be the year 1865

A.D. and everybody agreedand still does agree with that

person. O course Abraham

Lincoln was shot in 1865 is

true, and anybody who says it

is not true should be told that

they are wrong, but whoever

said that ction should not be

true does not know what ction

is about. No one will deny that

Te Little Princeis ction, but

there is ar more truth to that

story than there is to most any

history book printed today.

My intention in telling

thisstory is to present a

not-unusual account o our

own cultural passage rom

Medievalism to Modernity to

Postmodernity. But what are

Medievalism, Modernity,

and Postmodernity? Like

1865, they are terms o

subjective evaluation, but unlike1865, they are ar less clearly

communicative. Modernity

and Postmodernity are

especially obscure. Teir

meanings change depending on

their contextsa philosopherwill use them in one way but a

political theorist, a sociologist,

and a literary scholar will each

use them in a very dierent

way. And this probably owes

to the terms themselves.

Modern is, properly speaking,

a synonym o contemporary,

though according to this

not-unusual story that I have

tried to present, Modernity

began sometime in the 16th

century and Postmodernity

began in the late 19th. I

Postmodernity started then,

are we living ater what is

post-contemporary? And


12/66

12


what will happen when people

decide to distinguish themselves

rom Postmodern? It seems

we have spent our prexes.

Some readers may protest,

Why does ones belie or disbe-lie in God dene whether one

is modern or postmodern? In

act, ones belie or disbelie in

God does nothing o the kind.

What I suggest denes someone

as either being modern orpostmodern is their responseto

their belie or disbelie in God.

Te people in the West who

decide not to believe in God are

modern not because they deny

Gods existence but because

they are comortablewith a lie

without God;1 the same people

having gone ballistic are post-

modern not because they believein God, but because, whether

they believe in God or not, they

are uncomortablewith a lie

without God. Such a lie leads

them to what . S. Eliots Te

Love Song o J. Alred Prurockcalled an overwhelming ques-

tionwhy? Tey are post-

modern because they have made

Prurocks realization, that...

1 I dont suppose, however, that we should just let the theist go on this oneit

may very well have been a wrong kind o theistic comort at lie with God, a

thing very dicult to prove, that inclined the modernist to disbelieve in God.

No! I am no prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;

Am an attendant lord, one that will doo swell a progress, start a scene or two,

Advise the Prince; no doubt, an easy tool,

Deerential, glad to be o use,

Politic, cautious, and meticulous;

Full o high sentence, but a bit obtuse;

At times, indeed, almost ridiculousAlmost, at times, the Fool.i


13/66

13


i Eliot, . S, Te Love Song o J. Alred

Prurock, in Collected Poems 1909-1962;

Harcourt, Inc., New York, 1991, page

7; It isnt air to reduce Prurock s

overwhelming question to why?

Part o what makes it overhwleming

is that it is a dicult question to

ormulate. But why is an approach

to it. Te whole poem, in act, is an

attempt to pose the question, and thus

the poem is a very good exemple o a

postmodern reaction to the world.

Te pieces in this issue are

many and dierent, but they

are linked together by what

Matthew Arnold once described

as a darkling plain. Tese are

pieces that react, in some way oranother, to Modernitya time

where humanity ruled supreme,

unchallenged by mystery, a time

o interesting and important

progress, a time o seeming

order and stability, but a timethat brought what was or

Arnold and Eliot a terriying

emptiness. Tese pieces are

decidedly Postmodern, or

what is ound in them is the

realization that ruling the world

is a big chore, and that who- or

whatever may or may not be

in charge, humanity is not in

charge. Tat, at least, is my

own subjective evaluation.E


14/66

14


Leah ComingClass o 2013Mustard

I will not tell you that my aimless

vigil beore the electric lamp provoked the anxiety

which was determined

by a child picking utilely at leprous sores.

I will tell you that I propped against the pole, a spectatorto the ulllment o

the previous instants portent

and the streetlight nodded awake at

its accustomed time.

Te pregnant certainty circulated

as lymph and humor through

the dirty pipes o a matchstick girl,

on her knees in immigrant streets

even as she whistled her exile

her craterous lips attested that

I d be agonizing over how to say

Matchstick

A Poem


15/66

15


I squeeze the prophesies out o every

patch o ground my eet compress.

I cant reconcile this belie

that whatever happens is determined

with my unwavering investment in lie.E


16/66

16


Gabriel McDonaldClass o 2012Philosophy Club

For the last three or our

hundred years, it has been

ashionable to consider all oones belies the product o

reason. Were it not enough

that we human beings had to

go under the distinction o

rational animals, we now even

live in what Enlightenmentpop culture has dubbed the

Age o Reason. Tough that

title properly only reers to that

period in history, starting some-

time in the 17th century, when

a class o bourgeois intellectualsrst concocted this notion

that no human belie is valid

unless it can be shown to stand

up to this nebulous concept

o rationality, this was really

only the beginning. Te Age oReason has not ended, has in

act only prolierated; what was

once just an upper-class ad has

now grown and inested every

segment o human society all

over the globe, and while many

consider this a great victory or

our species and or the cause o

establishing a utopian society in

which the poverty gap is elimi-

nated and niceness reigns su-preme, the painul truth is that

this triumph o reason is, at

best, nothing new, and at worst,

the greatest disaster in human

history. Allow me to present

my reasons or saying this.First, the obvious question:

What is reason and what

about it inspired our illustrious

Founding Fathers to worship it?

Put simply, reason is the process

by which we determine whether

a given set o statements can

be true. o give the most basic

example imaginable, we know

the statement Dog ulterior

cavort denitely cannot be true

because its not even a coherent

statement. o get slightly more

complex, we can take the two

statements Il Gattopardo was

written by Luchino Visconti,

and Il Gattopardo was not

Te Abyss o Reason

An Essay


17/66

17


written by Luchino Visconti,

and determine that, or all we

know, either statement could be

true, but they cannot both be

true.1 And how did our human

reason allot us such proound

knowledge o the universe? Itsreally quite simple: Tis little

gimmickknown as the Law

o Non-Contradictionis built

into our language system. We

decided, by inventing language,

that we werent going to allowpeople to assert something

and assert its negation at the

same time, because that would

just be conusing. Its not like

we had to go out and hunt

down that knowledge on ourown, we gave ourselves that

knowledge thousands o years

ago, kind o as though we put

it in a time capsule or uture

generations. How clever o us.

Tere are two importantthings to note here. First,

reasonor rationality, i you

willis an inherently linguistic

concept. It is a unction o

language and not o the world

that our language is meant to

describe. Secondand this is

the real atom bombjust as our

language is arbitrary, the laws o

reason are arbitrary too. Just as

we didnt have to use the word

squid to describe an animal inthe genus architeuthisand could

just as easily have called it a

parlor grand piano, the syn-

tactical rules which tell us how

sentences must be set up and

which ones guarantee the truthor alsity o which others, all

these are just as arbitrary. Te

point o these rules is to have a

convenient way to iner a whole

bunch o other true statements

rom just one statement. For ex-ample, when Jacqueline tells us

that her car is red, we know that

it isnt green, that it isnt brown,

that it isnt blue, and a plethora

o other acts about it without

having to do any research atall. We didnt have to allow

1 For those o you who were dy-ing to know, the second is true. IlGattopardo was written by Giuseppedi Lampedusa. Luchino Viscontidirected the 1963 lm version.


18/66

18


ourselves such bold inerences,

but i we hadnt our language

would be pretty pointless.

I all o this sounds to you

like a lot o stupid hogwash

that nobody cares about, youre

probably right, but rememberthat the decision to base human

knowledge on reason is oten

compared to the invention o

the wheel when people discuss

its importance in the develop-

ment o human society. Itsimportant to remember that,

while these principles may seem

so basic and obvious to us that it

eels like we knew them in utero

and didnt need to have them

painstakingly explained to usas I just attempted to do in the

last two paragraphs, they have

not always been unanimously

accepted. In ancient Greece,

it was common practice to

determine truth by nding outwho could shout their opinion

the loudest, or by just accept-

ing whatever the conquerors

claimed to be true, but then

a mischievous neer-do-well

named Socrates came along

and suggested that we all argue

using reason or a change, and

he was executed. But his legacy

lived on, and his commitment

to using reason in human

discourse eventually becamethe norm, totally unthreatened

until Nietzsche showed up

more than two thousand years

later and said that Socrates

was actually a total jerk and we

should all go back to determin-ing truth by seeing who shouts

the loudest. But ortunately

this idea was dismissed as the

ranting o a syphilitic nutjob

and reason has stayed in vogue.

It is important at this pointor me to clariy that, despite

my uncharitable remarks about

the Founding Fathers earlier,

I wholeheartedly agree that

Socrates rationalist project

was a big step orward orhumanity, and I am ully

committed to his goal o using

reason in allargumentation,

no matter what the subject

or who is arguing. But now


19/66

19


it comes time or me to draw

the undamental distinction

between the Socratic rationalist

project and the Enlightenment

rationalist project.

Remember that all therules o logic, championed by

Socrates and later ormalized by

Aristotle, despite their longev-

ity and the act that none o

them have ever been seriously

contested, are undamentallyarbitrary. Tis means that, while

we can use them to compare

statements against one another

and to juice urther statements

out o one statement, it is

impossible to use reason to

conjure a truth right out o

thin airwith the exception

o totally vacuous truths like

the rules themselves. Aristotle

himsel readily acknowledged

this and never claimed that any

o his logical rules or categories

by themselves could give anyone

knowledge, but could get you

o the ground i you start by

accepting some truths as given.

Tis sort o modesty was totally

alien to the gentlemen o the

Enlightenment, who were pre-

sumptuous enough to claim that

they could come to indisputable

truth about the universe bymeans o reason alone. Tough

they all inevitably ailed to do

so in spectacular ashion, this

method o thought has inex-

plicably lingered and continues

to corrode society to this day.It bears mentioning why

they thought they could build

this ower o Babel in the rst

place. Te one-word answer:

Science. Advances in science at

the time o the Enlightenment

had done wonders as ar as

giving people knowledge that

they were condent to declare

objective, much more so than

the dominant mode o think-

ing: Just believe whatever the

Church tells you. It is impera-

tive to remember that, contrary

to popular belie, Socratic

rationalism had not in any way

diminished at this time, and


20/66

20


people were still challenged to

employ reason in determining

their belies. For example, one

might argue or the existence o

God by saying that you should

believe in God because i youdont God will damn you to

hell. Tis argument may sound

like crap to us, the enlightened

o the 21st century, but i

you think about it, it is actu-

ally a perectly well-reasonedargument. Te statement You

should believe in God does in

act ollow rom the statement

God will damn you to hell i

you dont believe in Him. Te

only residual problem is where

you got that premise rom. Back

during the times leading up to

the Enlightenment, higher-ups

in the Catholic Church were

more than happy to give the

hoi polloi all the truths they

wanted to use as premises or

their arguments. Tis system

worked splendidly or more

than a millennium and only

broke down because eventually

there came some people who

didnt accept these truths.

Te intelligentsia o the 17th

century, even the churchy ones,

didnt like using the truths

they were given by the Pope andhis minions, because they ound

another source that they liked

more: scientic experimenta-

tion. Rather than just accept

that the moon was perectly

round because the Church hier-archy, who believed everything

that St. Tomas Aquinas told

them, who believed everything

that Aristotle told him, said it

was, they gured it was more

reliable to just look at the

moon and maniestly see that

it is notperectly round. I must

insist, however, that the only

thing making this method a

better source o truth than the

Church method is that people

were more inclined to accept

it. Certainly there were valid

reasons people were more will-

ing to accept itit was based

on repeatable experiments, it


21/66


22/66

22


not upset the Enlightenment

thinkers in the least. Since

they had already made the egre-

gious faw o identiying their

scientism with rationality the

next (il)logical step would beclaiming that alltruths, even

non-scientic ones, could be

derived rom this same rational

process that they had invented.

Te most shining example

o this can be ound in TomasJeersons wildly infuential Te

Declaration o Independence. In

it, he starts o right away by

deeming all the truths he is

about to proclaim sel-evident.

Tis is the staple tactic o the

Enlightenment; since there

is absolutely no scientic

evidence or the existence (or

even coherence) o the concepts

he recklessly puts orward here,

the only possible way he can

make them fy is by declaring

them to be sel-evident. Tat

is, since there is never anything

binding anyone to accept

something as a basic truth,

human beings being mentally

capable o reusing to believe

whatever they want, the only

way he could use these ideas as

the basis or his argument was

to claim that only ninnies rejectthem, just as with the empiri-

cal truths o science. It was a

brilliant move, considering how

his ideas were so sel-evident

that he was the rst person in

history to come up with them,and here, ironically, marks the

rst time in human history that

irrationalism had become the

dominant mode o thinking.

What is the cost o all

this? Te most important

consequence o this or any other

system o thought is its eect

on ethics. As I said rom the

outset, the mildest outcome the

Enlightenment view o ra-

tionalism could possibly have

produced is that nothing im-

portant has changed. One could

argue that the ethical theorists

o the Enlightenment merely

used their new system to justiy


23/66

23


ethical preconceptions and then

tweaked a ew in order to adapt

it to modern conventions. O

course, theres no scientic

basis or any idea o morality

or ethics, so whenever anyonegoes around declaiming that

we all need to believe in science

and rationality and once we do

well all start being nice to each

other, what he means is that we

all need to believe everythinghebelieves, belies which are

o course all sel-evident when

examined under the light o

reason, and then everyone will

be happy. In this view, nothing

has changed, and todays politi-

cal pundits are just carrying on

the old tradition o all societies

who have insisted that everyone

convert to their ethical system

because thats what their God

wants everyone to do.

But perhaps Im being too

nice to the Enlightenmentia.

Perhaps its not so innocuous

to try and base all our belies

about morality and justice

on this ctitious concept o

scientic rationalism. o base

such belies on God is perectly

coherent, since the idea o God

is o a being who is actually

invested in human moralityand social justice. I no God

exists, it might not be in our

best interest to base our morals

on such an idea, but even then

it would be better than trying

to base them on an irrationalview o rationality, one which

not only has nothing to do

with ethics or morality but is

directly in confict with them.

o do that would be to act just

like Wile E. Coyote, walking

out over this empty abyss o

reason, only able to stay in the

air because were all too stupid

to realize that theres nothing

holding us up. I only hope we

can nd a better support or

humanity beore somebody

thinks to look down.E


24/66

24


aylor NutterClass o 2014Philosophy Major

Lie does linger it seems

SometimesUpon the railty o an hour

Upon the creases cut o an old mans ace

Upon the petals allen o a ower

ime does creep it seems

SometimesUpon the patter o a wave at shore

Upon the unseen glance o a strangers stare

Upon what lies behind a solitary door

But passion resounds sometimes

It seemsUpon temerity

Upon the one so meek, so mild

Upon the one who sees

It is the ephemeral

Tat seeps

Into eternity

E

Lie Does Linger

A Poem


25/66

25



26/66


27/66

27


capable o solving them.

Beore getting started, it is

best that I make a ew cones-

sions. I am not a Catholic; I am

not even sure i it is permissible

to call mysel a Christian, orat this point in time I nd

mysel unable to intellectu-

ally surrender to all o what

Aquinas called the Mysteries o

the Faith. I am revealing this

because I believe it to make all

the dierence in the world; it

means that I am not approach-

ing this issue with what St.

Anselm called an experienced

aith, a aith that is lived and

breathed so that it quite literally

animates and shapes the very

manner by which one views the

universe. Tis no doubt serves

as a crucial disadvantage, as

I am indeed tryingto grapplewith the question rom an

inside perspective. I have

read enough theology to realize

that this may by all means be

a utile endeavor. But I will

nevertheless attempt it. I am so

prooundly and deeply moved by

the Christian image o God and

the Christian worldview that it

is in my eyes the onlyalternativeto the deeply and inherently

pessimistic and nihilistic natu-

ralist worldview that currently

holds sway in academia. Tis

essay, then, is not being written

in a tendentious spirit. In act,

I believe the deault position o

someone in my position is to

humbly accept the limitations

o my young and eager mind

and the act that I am by all

means in a state o spiritual

inancy. Te problem may not

be with the Christian response

but simply with my intellectual

and spiritual incapacity.

How Came the Problem?

Now that we have some

preliminaries out o the way,

I would like to begin by


28/66


29/66

29


on my fat door is beautiul; the

suering o innocent children

too. But this, I am sure, is not

what was meant. So perhaps

Korson meant something

more like this: there issucha thing as objective beauty,

but it does not ollow that

everythingis beautiul. How

so? Tink o objective truth.

Te denition o something

being objectively the case is

that it does not depend on our

human perspective or making

it so. For example, propositions

are statements that we arm

as being either true or alse, so,

presumably, propositions are

objectively true or alse. But we

can make a distinction within

the category o objectively true

propositions. Firstly, there are

necessarily true propositions. Forinstance, that2+2= 4, or that

no man is taller than himsel, are

necessarily true: they are true

in all possible worlds. But there

are also propositions regarding

the actual world that we would

lump into the objectively true

category. For instance, that

Mount Everest is the worlds

highest peak, or that dinosaursroamed the earth millions o years

ago. Yet rom the observation

that there are such a things as

objectively true propositions, it

does not ollow that every propo-

sition is objectively true. Some

propositions are just fat out

alse. Te proposition Gandhi

was the cause o World War IIis

certainly not objectively true.

Korson perhaps, then, has

something similar to that in

mind, although applied to the

concept o beauty. Perhaps we

should rather say that although

absolutely everything is not

objectively beautiul, thereis such a thing as objective

beauty and we simply have

to search deeper to nd it.

Beauty will dier, o course,


30/66

30


in that beauty is a quality to be

ound in a vast array o things.

We describe manyobjectsin

the external world as being

beautiul (paintings, orests,

statues). We also describecertain eventsas being beautiul.

An event could be anything

rom a parents rst look at

his or her newborn baby, to a

rousing perormance o the rst

movement o Beethovens 5th

symphony. Tere is some quality

to these objects or events that

moves us deeply; this quality,

I presume, is beauty. I one

agrees with Korsonand I

agree with him on thisthen

it is not simply that weproject

our own culturally constrained

subjective notions o beauty

onto these objects or events;

rather, it is that beauty is aeature to be ound in them that

we perceive. Or to put it in a

more Platonic tone, theseobjects

and eventsparticipatein Beauty.

Te Problem

Tat was, then, my initial re-

sponse upon reading the paper.

It dawned on me, however, that

my response was inadequate

and that there is a deeper issueat hand here. Recall that within

Aquinas metaphysical rame-

work, all o creation is deemed

beautiul merely by virtue o

its participation in the Being

o God. So how is it that one

can make a distinction between

things or events that are beauti-

ul and things or events that are

not? Tey are beautiul simply

by being things or events in the

actual world. So what are we to

do with the suering o sentient

creatures? Te suering o a

sentient creature is, I take it, an

event o some sort; but it not an

event we are quick to place inthe category o beautiul. Yet i

everything is beautiul by virtue

o simply being, then the suer-

ing o a sentient creature, as an


31/66

31


event, must be beautiul. But

we usually take the suering

o a sentient creature notto

be an event possessing the

quality o beauty. Most o us,

I hope, are reluctant to watcha suering creature and call it

beautiul. Tese events strike

us as intrinsicallynot beauti-

ul. One could, o course,

simply concede that this vast

amount o sentient suering

was, and is, beautiul. Tis

is perectly ne, but it is

surely not a conclusion that

spontaneously fows out o

us. Nor, as we shall see, does

this response align with the

traditional Christian response.

So how are we to t this

specic Christian conception

o beauty and suering into

the evolutionary rameworkwhere the death and suering

o sentient creatures has been

so prevalent and essential to

the evolutionary processes?

Christianity has always

had a response to the issue

o suering and its place in

the universe. Te orthodox

Christian response has been

that death and suering arean unwelcome consequenceo

sin; they areperversionso

the natural order that did

not eature in Gods initial

plan or creation. In Aquinas

words: the penalties, such as

hunger, thirst, death, and the

like, which we suer sensibly

in this lie fow rom original

sin.iii Te early Christian

response to death was one o

pure hatred and disdain or

what was considered, through

Christs sel-oering sacrice,

a deeatedoe. We nd this

quite explicitly in the writings

o Athanasius, that championo Christian orthodoxy. In his

On the Incarnation o the Word,

Athanasius writes, by the

Word made Man, death has


32/66

32


been destroyed and lie raised

up anew.ivTe general idea is

that death and suering are a

resulto sin and to be overcome

once and or all when the

process orecreation has beenullled. Te biblical narrative

represents what in literature is

called a U-shaped-comedy

plot (comedy in the technical

sense, not the common usage

indicating humor). Te plot

ollows this pattern: Creation

(perection)>all (suering,

death, etc)>election>Christ

event>renewed creation

(perection). Imagine this

pattern in a U shape begin-

ning with creation and ending

in renewed creation. Tis is the

orthodox Christian picture o

creation and its explanation o

suering, as I presently un-derstand it. I one accepts this

view, then one could respond

that the suering o sentient

creatures is a perversion o the

natural order and can thereore

not be deemed beautiul by

virtue o its being a perversion.

Tis is where the issue o

evolution becomes particularly

pertinent. Evolution paints aradically dierent picture to the

U-shaped plot and renders the

notion o suering and death as

a perversion quite untenable i

we take the Christian message

to be cosmic in scope. Evolution

attensout the U and leaves

us with a zig-zagging line that

either represents a meaningul

desperate, dramatic striving and

struggling ascent towardgreater

meaning and beauty as creation

draws ever nearer to a Divine

Omega-point, or it represents

a meaningless scribble moving

towards utter nothingness.

Creation certainly did not startout with what we usually take

to be perection. I there is

one thing that evolution has

shown us quite conclusively, it


33/66

33


is that the death and suering

o sentient creatures has been

occurring or ar ar longer

than any o our pre-Darwinian

ancestors could have possibly

imagined (I am dulled by theusual pessimistic tone that this

tale is usually recounted in,

but bare with me or now). Te

suering o sentient creatures

was in existence ar beore we

homo-sapiens arrived on the

scene, so it is not possible that

human sin was somehow the

cause o all suering. Death

and suering seem to not be a

perversion that entered creation

due to human sin into a state o

initial perection. Indeed, the

death o unt individual crea-

tures and species is what drives

the evolutionary process. Tis

historical prevalence and impor-tance o death and suering in

the evolutionary history o lie

seems to render the traditional

Christian response to suering

unsatisactory. I this is correct,

then one cannot maintain that

death and suering are not

beautiul because o their being

a perversion o the natural

order, or they appear to haveplayed a critical rolein the de-

velopment and diversity o lie.

Response

Now an obvious response

would be to simply note that I

am presently guilty (admittedly

so) o a grossly simplistic and

literal reading o the bible, and

that the ramications o the

all are clearlynotcosmic in

scope. One could say that the

Christian narrative is one where

the only participants are man

and God, so that the death

and suering that entered in

with sin clearly pertain strictlyto a unique orm o human

suering and death. One would

simply point out that there is

no tension here at all, or the


34/66

34


biblical narrative has nothing

to say at all about naturalistic

explanations o creation and the

suering o non-human crea-

tures. Tere can be no confict

between evolution and traditionor the bible because, while the

ormer deals with the natural

world, the latter deals with the

human condition and salvation

as it pertains to mankind. I

would add (acting as my own

opponent here) that I have

neglected mentioning the great

apostles creed, or what is some-

times called the rule o aith,

i.e. the essential doctrines o the

aith. And i one turns to the

essential doctrines, one will nd

nothing regarding the suering

o all creatures or a detailed

account o creation. Te bible

and the creeds are simply silenton the matter, or, you might

say, they are dealing solely with

the human condition, salvation,

and mankinds relation to God.

Tis is a air answer and

in many ways solves a lot o

problems, and I would take

something o this approach to

the problem mysel. But I would

like to point out a ew things.First, i creation is imbued

with beauty by virtue o its

participation in the being o

God and only human suering

is to be deemed a perversion

o the natural order, then we

are still stuck maintaining

that the death and suering o

all sentient lie besidehuman

suering and death is beautiul.

Again, this is perectly ne,

but it is not something we seem

willing to arm . Second,

take this passage rom Saint

Paul: we know that the whole

[o] creation has been groaning

in labor pains.v

Althoughhumans were no doubt at the

center o Pauls understanding

o the Christian gospel, he

did understand salvation as


35/66

35


having universalimplications.

Te whole o creation is mov-

ing towards re-creation. Tis

seems to hint that the suering

and death in all o liewill be

wiped away. By shrinking theChristian message into a purely

anthropocentric one, we extract

humans rom a much larger

universalnarrative drama that

has been, and is still, unolding.

I am araid that I cannot as

yet oer any systematicpositive

contributions to this discussion,

as these are issues I am grap-

pling to come to terms with.

With that said, I would like to

present a ew conjectures. Tese

are mere musings that I think

are worth pondering over. I will

be leaving the issue o beauty

aside, as it is beyond my ability

to even begin to deal with; Iwill only oer some thoughts

on this issue o suering.

Firstly, I think a point that

is quite easily orgotten in this

sort o discussion is that the

evolutionary history o lie on

this planet has been more than

just a bloody and ruthless battle

or survival within, and among

rival, species. Tere has been,and is, plenty o harmony and

cooperation within and between

species, especially as one

ascends the evolutionary tree

to the more complex creatures

that have reached what may

be called a higher level o

consciousness. I am sure that

we have all watched ootage

o some mammal taking care

o its newborns, or o dolphins

playully whisking through the

ocean waves. Tere is a playul

and harmonious element to

lie that has arisen through

the evolutionary processes,

which gives us ample reason tosuppose that there is ar more

at work than inter- and intra-

species carnage. I mention this

because there is this enormous


36/66

36


unwarranted tendency or us to

ocus on the more sinister side

o the evolutionary process.

But back to Christianity.

Tis problem o suering has

been, and still is, particularlyproblematic or the Christian

who is committed to maintain-

ing that love is the dening

characteristic o God. Tis

brings the obvious and tedious

question owhyit is that a God

o Love could allow such su-

ering. I do not wish to address

this issue. It is a mystery we

simply have to live with. What

I want to highlight is the act

that the Christian claim that

God is Love was, and remains,

not nearly as scandalous as the

Christian claim that God has

taken on the orm o man, lived

among us as one who servedothers, and suereda gruesome

and humiliating death at the

hands o the beings whose very

existence He held in being. Tis

is surelythemost scandalous

claim ever to have been uttered

by human lips. For many an

ancient (or modern) pagan,

the extreme and revolutionary

nature o this claim was and isenough to render it laughable.

Ater almost 2000 years o

Christianity and 300 years o

Enlightenment intellectual

propaganda, all too many o us

moderns have lost all touch with

the scandal that isChristianity.

So what does this have to do

with evolution? Well, let me put

it like this: God suered. God

identied Himsel with the

suering o sentient creatures.

In other words, we are not alone

in our suering. I cannot say

much more about this, or it is

a mysterium tremendum. I ask

only that the reader refect onthe claim that God suered,

and what it could mean in the

context o evolution. I think it

perhaps holds the very key to


37/66

37


harmonizing the vast suering

o sentient lie and the Christian

image o a God o innite Love.

Te question, o course,

is how would this change

anything given the problemwith the traditional Christian

response to suering? Did

Christ arm the goodness or

beauty o suering? Surely not.

Or is it simply a way to provide

humans with hope? Perhaps.

But this seems a little vapid.

It certainly does not appear to

get us out o the problem o

all o creation being beautiul

by virtue o being. Tese are

questions or another time.

In Closing

o many, the evolutionary

history o lie on earth provides

knock-down proo that theuniverse is void o meaning and

purpose, let alone beauty. Tis

is an intellectually bland and

spiritually shallow response.

It is within this evolutionary

ramework that we mustnd

purpose. In On Christian

Doctrine, Saint Augustine made

clear that what was worthy in

paganism ought to be adoptedby Christianity in the service

o the aith.vi Te wisdom o

the philosophers, or instance,

provided Christian thinkers

with an opportunity to shed

light on the aith. Christianity

cannot lose this mindset. Like

the wisdom o the ancient

philosophers, the ndings o

modern science, especially when

it comes to evolution, must be

embraced and incorporated

into the Christian worldview.

Indeed, I would go so ar as

to say that unless we manage

to sanctiythis evolutionary

image o lie, mankind is sureto sink slowly and nonchalantly

into the swamp o nihilism

and a numb despair whilst this

planet marches orth on its


38/66

38


path toward cold lielessness

ater our sun nally burns out.

It would be a sin to end on

such an ominous tone, so let me

end on this quote taken rom

Darwins Origin o Species:

i Korson, Ray. Everythingis Beautiul. Lost Piece1.II

(Oct 2010). Print. Page 26

ii Korson, Page 27

iii Aquinas, Tomas. Summa

Teologica, III q. 1 a. 4 ad. 2

iv Athanasius. On the Incarnation.

rans. A Religious o C.S.M.V.New York: St. Vladimirs Seminary

Press, 1944. Print, Page 37

v Romans 8:22, emphasis added

vi Augustine. On Christian

Doctrine. Book II, xl-xlii

Tere is grandeur in this view o lie, with its several powers,

having been originally breathed into a ew orms or into one; and

that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the xed

law o gravity, rom so simple a beginning endless orms most

beautiul and wonderul have been, and are being, evolved.

But that is not quite

upliting enough. I think

the next passage rom Isaiah

52:7 will do the trick:

How beautiul upon the mountains

Are the eet o the messenger who announces peace,

Who brings good news,

Who announces salvation,

Who says to Zion, Your God reigns!E


39/66

39



40/66

40


Christina MastrucciClass o 2011English Major

Ophelia

A Poem

on a Spartan cot her body breathes

that sleep o death.

on a bed o blood

her mortal coil shufes, aching

to be healed, or else shed.

she eels simply too old to die.

though some say too young is the crime,a greater age yields a greater grasp

on that unspoken, blacked out sky

we call dying.

humanist, existentialist,

idealist: her mind is climbing that mountain(rom which no traveler returns)

or a spark o understanding.

realist, empiricist,

nihilist: she nds no ame at the summit

(no undiscoverd country)

o something to call home.

ergo, to her, that home cannot exist.

what then is the brook by the willow

but a sirens kiss?


41/66

41


yet she cannot rise to meet the water,

or her limbs ail her.

still she can see the charming brook

through her prison window.

i she does not see the ame, is there not a spark?dualist: her doubt cannot persist;

she wants either the re or the dark.

she must see it to believe it.

she must eel it to perceive it.

her mind, i it explain not,it says there is nothing to explain.1

it does not matter. no dierence.

not even thoughts o endless depth

can keep her skin rom crumbling.

More water, nurse, more water.

not even water can revive

a heart reusing to live.

Its getting dark. but it is day.

the shade alls down around her

as she gazes, one last time,

at the light dancing on painted stars

and the words expire rom that tired soul

who only yearns to be born.E1 Bram Stokers

Dracula


42/66

42


Nicolle WalklingClass o 2011Program o Liberal Studies

Te date is December 16, 2010.

Te setting? A poorly lit corner

o an almost empty ca. Te airhangs thick and warm with the

smell o espresso. Nicolle sits down

at the small table, weary. Fiction

looks up rom its mochaccino.

Fiction: Whats wrong, Nicolle?

Nicolle: Oh, just nals week.Te biannual barrage o tests

and papers, the endless memori-

zation o acts that I will surely

orget in a month or two, the

pairing o caeine binges and

sleep deprivation driving me

surely ever closer to madness

Fiction: You know you

dont really talk like that.

Nicolle: I know. How

have you been?

Fiction: Tats what I wanted

to talk to you about today.Ive just been eeling, oh I

dont know, neglected. By

you. Maybe neglected isnt the

right wordIm just conused

about our relationship.

Nicolle:What do you mean?

You know I like you. Adore

you even! I mean, just look

at how long weve been

together! Te Boxcar Kidsback in elementary school

Fiction: Boxcar Children.

Nicolle:Whatever. Boxcar

Children. But do you re-

member that historical ction

period that I went throughin junior high? Oh, and all

o that Lord o the Rings an

ction I wrote in high school?

Fiction: How could I orget?

You learned Elvish! Such

dedication. But thats where

my insecurities come in now.

Where is your dedication?

Nicolle: You know Im

araid o commitment.

Fiction: Oh God, based solely

on the number o phases weve

been through, I know that.

Also, on a somewhat related

note, no more experimental

surrealist phases, okay? Tat

was some reaky shit.

Fiction and I: Cofee and Cigarettes

A Play


43/66

43


Nicolle: You know I cant

promise that. And you

were totally into it.

Fiction sighs heavily,

looks distressed.

Fiction: Basically, what Imasking is this: what do you

want out o this relationship?

Nicolle: Tats a big question.

Fiction: Its an im-

portant question.

Nicolle: Okay, okay. Iguess I want you to always

be there or me

Fiction: I am always

there or you.

Nicolle: Um, I wasnt nished!

Ive barely begun, really. I want

you to be there or me, to be

the one to whom I can relay

my ears, my doubts, my joys,

and my dilemmas regarding the

shortcomings and strengths o

humanity. I want you to help

me work out these ideas, to helpme present them to the world

in hopes that others might

also recognize and celebrate

our inextricably intertwined,

shared human experience.

Fiction: Well thats air enough,

but isnt that what you use

your witter account or?

Nicolle: Oh, shut up. You

know I only use witter tokeep track o whats relevant

in the pop culture world,

which, by the way, is stillpart

o that shared human experi-

ence I was talking about.

Fiction: Pop culture? Sonow youre going to use me

to make others understand

the joys and tribulations o

Lady Gaga? Oh, great.

Nicolle: Tats not exactly

what I was going or, but thats

not a bad idea. No, but to get

back to what I was saying, I

want you to explore the human

experience with me, the world

with me. And I dont care

how we do it. Modernized

airy tales exploring genderroles? Awesome! Postmodern

pastiches depicting loneli-

ness in the suburbs? Sounds

great! Small town mentalities


44/66

44


scrutinized in stream-o-con-

sciousness narratives? Lets

do it. I want us to try it all.

Fiction: Tis seems like

a very loty goal.

Nicolle: All I want to do inlie is make good things and

love everyone. Easy-peasy.

Fiction: Um, okay?

Nicolle: Never mind.

Fiction: No no, I think I under-

stand what youre saying. I needto be there to help you express

yoursel and your ideas about

the world around you. And

you intend to do this in any

sort o orm that aligns to your

personal whims at the time.

Nicolle: Yeah, basically.

Fiction: I can do that, but I

also have a request o you. I

you want to get something out

o me in this relationship, you

have to give something too.

Nicolle sighs heavily,

looks distressed.

Nicolle: Okay, shoot.

What is it?

Fiction: I want or you to

spend more time on me. You

love writing, I know you do.

Remember all those aternoons

in London when you would

sit in the grass at St. James

Park and write or hours inyour notebook? Tose are

some o your ondest memories

o last year! But think about

how much time youve wasted

lately poking mindlessly around

all corners o the Internet orlistening to om Waits instead

o developing that idea about

the girl cutting her hair in the

mirror. I like that idea. Youre

not going to become a better

writer i you dont dedicate a

signicant amount o time to

me. You know Im right.

Nicolle: You are right, but

you know I love om Waits.

Cant I listen to him and

write at the same time?

Fiction: Tis isnt an

open relationship.

Nicolle: WaitIve got a great

idea: the girl in the mirror

idea butin the style o a om


45/66

45


Waits spoken word piece: bleak,

disturbing imagery paired

with colloquial phrasing and

rhythmic sentence structure.

Fiction: Oh, I like it.

Nicolle: I knew you would.

Fiction: Okay, ne. Music hasa welcome place in our relation-

ship, as do the visual arts.

Nicolle: And pop culture?

Fiction: Only i Im al-

lowed to grumble about

it rom time to time.Nicolle: Deal. Im glad we

had this talk, Fiction.

Fiction: I am too. I eel much

better about the direction in

which were heading. Want

to grab a smoke ater this?Nicolle: You know

I dont smoke.

Fiction: In this story you do.

Nicolle: I love you, Fiction.

Fiction: I like you too, Nicolle.

Nicolle and Fiction exit the ca,pulling cigarettes and lighters rom

their coat pockets as they go.E


46/66

46


Brittany BergesonClass o 2011Mustard

Tat Rare, Random Descent(I think I made you up inside my head)

A Poem


47/66

47



48/66

48


James SchmidtClass o 2013Istum

I you are curious aboutwhat someone is doing

usually a good wayto satisy that curiosity is tolook at them. So I peer aroundmy desk and nd that myroommate has his book openin ront o him and his aceis oriented toward it. I say,

without much thinking aboutit at all, that he is reading. But

what about actions that areprimarily or essentially mentalphenomena? He may be look-ing o into space (whatever

that means, since what he islooking at is obviously notspace), but I would not say heis looking o into space. Atleast i I did, it would not bean accurate account o whathe is doing. What he is doing

is gathering his thoughts or apaper or recalling the delightuldinner he had with that girllast evening. In those casesperhaps the best thing to dois ask: what are you doing?

Tinking. Well obviously, Ididnt really think you were

just staring o into spaceWhat are you thinking about?Ater all, the object o whichone is thinking determines thekind o thinking he is doing.1

So lets say the mental actionin question is prayer. I wantto look at it in a manner that isaccessible to people who do notthink prayer is what pray-ers

think it is. I we ask someonewhat he is doing he may sayI am praying, but the veryquestion I am calling to mindis What is that? o whichhe will probably say talking toGod and this answer is the oneI want to examine, even i wedo not accept that he really istalking to God or that there issuch a thing that someone cantalk to (in the rst case we couldmerely think him a hypocrite

or babbler without denyingthe existence o the perceived

Faith

An Essay

1 I nd the connection between

the object o our actions and our

actions very interesting. I hope to

pursue the question at some point.


49/66

49


object). In that case, we wouldnot describe what he is doing astalking to God but as talkingtogether with thinking that

what he is talking to is God.So i I am conversing with ariend part o what drives me isthe belie that he is here. But

you is here, and so that ques-tion doesnt play a role in myinquiry. But when someone istalking, it is usually directed at

someone and the person talkingshould be able to say somethingabout who it is directed to.

No doubt we see a di-culty because my talking to youdoesnt involve any questioningthat I am indeed talking to you.But talking to God is dierentbecause talking to him is notonly something that atheistsdoubt the authenticity o, it isone that seemingly believershave no ostensible way to

validate. So i someone asks,Who are you talking to? I willpull my riends arm and sayLook here. Te same cannotbe done with God. I supposepart o the reason is because

o the way one talks to him. Iasked a riend what prayer isand he told me that we set upa projection o what we believeto be God in our mind andtalk to

that. I think it is a good

description,2 except that thosewho believe in God would notsay they are talking to a projec-tion but that we are talking toGod. So how can we reconcilethe statement, I am talking to

mysel, (which is maniestlynot God) with the statement,I am talking to God? Teyseem to utterly contradict. Tisis an interesting problem, but Ithink the apparent contradic-tion is a supercial one and onethat is practically unavoidablein common language. Say aperson is sawing a plank andalso making a squeaky noise

with the saw.3 He is not doing

2 It is the one I want to use to

bridge the gap between an atheistand someone who thinks he is reallytalking to God, because I think it is adescription that both can agree with.3 I take this example romAnscombes Intention, and thespirit o it, namely an action positedunder certain descriptions.


50/66

50


these two things separately,but we need not describe bothtogether in order to describe

what he is doing. He is sawinga plank. Whatever else hemay be doing in sawing theplank is not the critical issueat hand when we ask Whatis he doing? Let me returnto the original question withanother an example.4 Suppose

you are talking to a riend on

the phone. Te description youwill probably give o what youare doing is just that: talkingto a riend. But I say that isnot all you are doing: you areholding something in your handand you are speaking wordsinto some inanimate object- aphone- which receives your

words, transmits them, and spitsthem out somewhere else. Butit happens in such a way thatI dont really quibble with you

when you say you are talking toa riend, even though, properlyspeaking, what you are talkingto is hopeullynotyour riend.

Presumably the example ismeant to show the plausibility

that a projection in our mindcan serve- in the way a phonecan- as an intermediary orour communication with God.Now the important questionbecomes how I can justiy thatsuch an intermediarymustbeused in order to communicate

with God. With a riend overthe phone, you can in theory,

validate his existence by e.g.going over to his house. In ad-

dition you probably didnt beginyour riendship by calling himup; you met him. For now I will

just deal with the justicationor the use o intermediary. Fora person who prays, the claimis that God can be validated byexperience. Now this is awullypeculiar because it cannot bedone in the same way that Ipull my riend over to you andsay Here he is! But that justmeans that the validation, i it

is anything, is a dierent kindo validation. For example,

4 I owe the use o this ex-

ample to a riend, though I am

not sure he knew at the time the

signicance to be ound in it.


51/66

51


you live in Chicago and I sayyou should meet my riend Joe(I do not live in Chicago). Icannot pull him over and showhim to you. Te best I can

do is tell you where to go andwhether you do that or not isyour prerogative. Since talkingto God takes place withyourprojection o him inyourmind,the best I can do is tell you howto get to it. What happens, in

theory, is that that projectionis validated in the prayer.

Tis too is strange sincethe thing to be validated mustto some degree already bearmed. It is not that case

with my riend. I say I havea riend and you say I do notbelieve you. Ten I say Fuck

you, here he is. But say it ismidnight and I come to you in

your room and say, Youll neverbelieve who I saw just now at

the library: aylor Swit! Teonly way you can veriy what Isaid is to go there yoursel. Butit is midnight and you are tiredso the only reason you wouldgo is i you have a reasonable

amount o certainty that I amnot messing around with you.

Tat certainty (in what I say)is really a certainly that shereally is at the library. So it

is not always ridiculous that acertain level o trust in a claimis needed in order to validate it.I say a certain level but I do notknow what that level is. I youasked a praying Christian, Do

you believe that you are really

talking to God? they wouldprobably say yes, but I haveno idea i they would say thattheyknow it. And I agree thatsaying something can be a verydierent thing rom being right

while saying it; I know plenty opeople who make claims that Ithink are straight up stupid. Butthat is irrelevant: I am sayingthat iit can be known, thenthe way it is to be known is bytrying it out, which admittedly

involves a bit o pre-knowledgebelie in the thing to be

validated, and the only way myclaim can be validated (i it canbe) is by doing what I say, notthinking about it. Luckily or


52/66

52


me, this also means that myargument cannot be invalidated(probably because i you ailedI could say try harder... I havea eeling something like this

was going on in Platos caveanalogy: You couldnt seethe Good? Tat must mean

you arent a philosopher!)Even i this is true, it is

entirely appropriate to ask whyit should be that way. Ater

all, i there is an innitelypowerul being, he could havemade the world in a way suchthat his existence needs noantecedent belie to be known.I dont doubt this or a mo-ment. And I see this as a greatproblem in the philosophy aboutChristianity: i it is true (as Ibelieve it is) then whydidnthemake it in that way. It seemsthere is an impasse at thispoint, because I certainly do

not have the answer, though ananswer to this question probably

would be the very thing thatwould convince people aith issomething worth having. I willtry to approach the problem

rom a human perspective.Say that you have grown tolove someone (so not e.g. yourparents or siblings) and at somepoint in your relationship you

express this love, or exampleby saying I love you. We couldcall this a critical point: theresponse to that expressiondetermines everything. It couldbe something like, I love youtoo or I, on the other hand,

do not love you or, perhaps,But how do I know that youlove me? Perhaps you can tryto prove it5 by taking over the

world or that person, but it ispretty easy to see the dicultyo proving such a claim in the

way that you would e.g. prove amathematical proposition. Tebest you can do is oer evidence

5 For an interesting refection on this

idea I encourage my reader to read

or see the play Proo. Some people

think it is about a crazy mathemati-cian or a mathematical proo. My

opinion is that it is actually about

the basis o assent to the truth o a

claim, which in this case, is trust in

a person, and the basis o that


53/66

53


or the claim but even thenFor example you say, I will

be aithul to you or the resto my lie, and your delityup to this point is oered asevidence or the claim. Maybeit is evidence, but I think a verypoor kind o evidence (thoughI guess better than i you hadcheated already), since the way

you will be in ten years is verydicult to determine (I mean

impossible) by the way you arenow. Tis act should causepeople to question what level oknowledge they should have ina person beore they get mar-ried. I have heard people justiycohabitation or this reason by

saying that only by it can youhave sucient knowledge othe person you are dedicating

yoursel to. It is interesting tonote that the success o mar-riages is ound more on the

side o those who dont makeuse o such verication. AndI think the reason is becausesuch verication simply cannotbe ound. o think that it canis to deceive onesel about the

basis o human relationships.Te basis o them is trust in aperson; trust, not knowledge,that that person will notbetray you. But they very wellcould, and that is the thingthat makes vulnerability sucha painul thing to deal with

when it is exploited. But it isthe vulnerability that makes theacceptance o their trusting sur-render mean something. I you

say I love you and I say Ah yes,o course you do. I know thisbecause x. Tereore, I love youtoo my response to you is not aresponse toyou, it is a responseto my mathematical deliberationover x. I a person withholds

giving or receiving love or orrom another until they havemathematical certitude aboutthe security o that investment(o their sel), that person isgoing to live a solitude that

borders the loneliness o hell.6

6 In the Popes book Introduction to

Christianity, he sets up the machinery

to establish this conclusion, that love

is impossible without aith. He does

it much more elegantly and thor-

oughly, but it is also more theological.


54/66

54


Mathematicians are crazypeople and it would do wellor humanity to keep mathcaged up in its box (perhapsmathematicians too!), andlimit the expectations or thatlevel o certitude only to thosethings rom which we canreasonably expect it. o ailin this with respect to humanrelationships would be to misssight o what they are ultimately

about. My impression is thereis something like this goingon with divine aith. Te onlyquestionable thing is that myaith in my riend is aith abouthis character, which is based- asleast in its early stages- uponmy history with him, a historythat has no doubt about hisexistence. Te question I havenot covered is whyexistence[oGod] is one o those thingsabout which we are supposed to

also have aith. On this pointI have nothing to say now.E


55/66

55


a


56/66

56


Jose KuhnClass o 2011Program o Liberal Studies

Sliced n Diced(dont we love our salads and plastic surgery)

A Poem

Te state o the Arts

and Sciences today

is sliced updiced up.

Pick your occupation

rom the slate

Dr. Che will prepare it or you

just waitor your weekend

vacation on a plate

prescribed vocation

spread-eagled Man

in a circle

laid out on a dissection table.

No, I

dont want to be sliced up

diced up.

Mix

your colors.

Emancipate

your palate!


57/66

57


But

Reality demands it

Practicality demands it

Modernity demands it

University demands it

Economy demands itaxonomy demands it

Te Progress

and Wealth o Nations

brigands it.

Backback in the

age o Man

in shacks, or beore shacks

the Noble Savage

dreamt by ceiling painters

back in the day o lionsCuisineArt

chunked chicken

did not exist.

Te esh was roasted,

the body eaten whole.

(Renaissance Man may be a myth.)

But you could yet exist


58/66

58


John AshleyClass o 2011Philosophy Club

Its a terriyingly bright day.

Te sun blazes like a white-hotquarter. And theyre coming.

But they shouldnt be. Tey

dont come out during the day.

Tey dont come out during

the day! Teyre supposed to

stay under the ground. Whycant they behave, like good

little terrors o the night?

I walk, more quickly. Sweat

pops out on my orearms. I stay

out o the shadows. Tats where

they hide, now. First, theylurked in the tunnels, in the

sewers, places where no sunlight

could be ound. Ten the dead

o a new moon night was good

enough or them. Ten any

night, dark, stormy, or clear.

Now the shadows cast at noon.

I turn the corner, onto the

square. Its desolate. Everyones

elsewhere. Somewhere. Not

here, where they should be.

My mind trips, stumbles.

I all to the ground.

I can see them, but just,

in the corners o the corners

o my eyes. So aint, but

just there enough to thrownormality o the rails, like

a long-lasting nausea, a vile

stench or the minds nose.

I get up, recover. Deep

breaths. Balance returns. I

dont move and screw myeyes shut. I open them again.

Teyre gone. Gone! I want to

shout and scream, but dont.

Tat might bring them back.

I realize, then, that I will not

survive till tomorrow, unless

I take action. I have to run.

And more than run. Flee.

Escape this town-gone-mad.

I start walking again, stick-

ing to the middle o streets

weirdly empty o cars, taking

the most well-lit i not most

direct way back to my house.

My mind rms in resolve, at

times even daring to suppose

that they couldnt have been

Stern Chase

A Story


59/66

59


ollowing me. Ater all, they

dont come out during the day.

Tey just dont. And the one

time that they did...my mind

retches at the memory, and

I think I pass out. Just or amoment, though, and Im still

in the middle o the street.

Te orces o my sanity blow

their horns, sounding a regroup,

and then a counter-charge.

Plans start to orm. Ill packquickly, get in the car, and drive

out. As quickly as I can, and

good luck to Sheri Fort i she

tries to stop me. I shes in his

pocket. In their pocket. Who

knows? But she did stop David,took his license and keys or...

something. And Ill be sae, too.

Its bright day, not night. I wont

end up like Rick and Molly, at

the base o the seaside road...

I walk past the church, then,

and look up out owhat?

Refex? Curiosity? But it undoes

me. Te church is bright, empty

except or the preacher leaning

on the wall. He looks at me and

smiles, like a hound. He raises

a hand in greeting. It seems like

the gesture that ends the world.

I run.

And I see them. Teyre

ollowing me. Following him.Te preacher starts walking,

still smiling his demons smile.

I despair. I nearly stop.

Te temptation that oblivion,

though inevitable, might

be painless, is strong.Overwhelming. I want to end it.

Resolve, a candle against

the dark, propels me. Not

by his hand. Not on their

terms. I will not go will-

ingly to their torments.I run aster.

Te houses o Lymans

Crossing blur past me. Im

running so ast; I shouldnt

be able to run this ast. No

one should. Logic: my mind

is trying to block them out.

Suddenly, my house.

Sanctuary. I bolt inside, close

the ront door, then close all the

doors and windows. Tey cant


60/66

60


get past without breaking in.

And Ill be prepared or that.

I collapse in a huddle on

the kitchen foor. I still have

time. I run to my room, grab

a pack, and start throwingstu into it. My lie, in its

most precious and memorable

parts, goes into the bag. My

lie cannot hold any longer.

It is alling in around me.

Te knock is a cannon blast.It shell-shocks me, and I cower

against the wall. It comes again,

and I hear a distant sound, like

keening speech. Doom knocks

thrice, and I see the end beore

me; not in glory or in glorious

sacrice, but in dismal deeat.

I stagger to the kitchen and

take a knie rom a drawer. It is

time to stand. I go to the ront

door. Trough a window, I see

that clouds have come suddenly,

overcasting the day. I see the

preacher at my doorstep, and

them, behind him, ading into

discernibility. I cannot make

sense o them. Only a mad

poet could do so. Teir sight is

a blast o disgust, and I duck

out o sight o the window.

Te preacher knocks

or a ourth time as I

come to the door.I open it. He stands

there, still smiling that

wolhound smile o his.

Are you alright, Rob? He

starts to extend his hand.

I snarl and slash at himwith the knie. A thick

line o red drips across his

ace. Te smile is gone.

Shock and ury replace it.

I stab him ull in the chest,

and he totters backward. Tey

shriek and barrel orward, just

as I slam the door and all back

against it. Outside, the sky

purples and blacks. Te door

bucks as they slam into it. I

run back, into the kitchen.

Te ront o my house

explodes away, the pieces

alling up into the sky. Tey

begin their attack, growling in

a tongue that burns my mind


61/66

61


to hear it. But it is too late

or such things. My end has

come. As I steel mysel or it, I

remember, oddly, an aternoon

rom my days at the college in

the green wood. A ragment o

poetry comes with it, wating

words to soothe my wounds.

Te best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are ull o passionate intensity.

Te jaws o death snap,

scant eet rom my reuge.

Tey slouch toward me, now

things grown to unnatural size,

things which should not be.

I bolt up rom my hidingplace, and gaze upon them in

their insanity. My mind begins

to shred, and I see the preacher,

standing, smiling, blood on his

ace and darkening his shirt.

I shout my war cry, andcharge. Oblivion comes,

spreading through my limbs

and chest and head, numbing.

Darkness, then, and nothing. A

last thought:I have triumphed.

Ten a shriek in the shadows.E


62/66

62


Claire KiernanClass o 2011English Major

Sliced

A Poem

Whether the Grecians took a slice Four times a-day,

or only twice,

We know not;

we do know, however, that oneworthy Prince James the seconde,

a ancy man o ancier speeches,

was slayne by the slice o a great peece o artillerie,

which by ouercharging chanced to breake

A Slice o the Alps,which came

down

upon him,

and buried him quite.

ell me:What happens when you make

a substitution o a homogeneous slice o lie or the old theatrical sandwich

o sentiment and comic

relie?

You get this

a costume picture, not a slice-o-lie drama,

but here is how you can mend it:

You must haue also a brasen slice

to scrape away the sugar rom the hanging bason,

that unnecessary masquerade o ornate diction.


63/66

63


Here you can succeed where good Prince James ailed:

With this fat slice o iron,

A long piece o Wood

(cut ater the manner o a Slice which Deary-women use about their Butter)

loosen the skin o these excessive words

rom within the fesh.Yourslice (a let-handers) will move to a right-handers backhand,

and thats convenient

or slitting open your sentences

and trimming away the at.

Te Pellican hath a beake broade and fat,

much like the slice o Apothecaries and Surgions with which they spread

their plaisters.

Boats do slice,

where Ploughes did slide o late.

And look at that man yonder,

He stands.snipping and slicing at thesheepskin in his mouth.

All have discovered the secret to the

sleek shape o a silver tongue.

Be that man,

Te one o whom people say,

He would haue sliced his bodyo words

into as many parts as there be dayes in a year.

It is onlythrough their skin

With scourges slycet,

must thebare bones o wordsbe seen.E


64/66

64





65/66

65


Colophon:

Tis journal is compiled entirely rom the

works o undergraduate scholars atTe University o Notre Dame.

Te editors oLost Piece: An Undergraduate Journal of Lettersare indebted to Dr. Cecilia Lucero or her invaluable assistance onbehal o Te Center or Undergraduate Scholarly Engagement.

Te editors also extend thanks to theDeans Fellows, directed by Assistant Dean Joseph StanelAnd the Keough-Naughton Institute or Irish Studies,directed by Dr. Christopher Fox.

Stephen Lechner, Editor-in-ChieRaymond Korson, Jose Kuhn, and Conor Rogers, Editors

Lost Piece was designed in Adobe InDesign, CS5;

its body copy is set in 12 pt Adobe Caslon Pro.

Tis publication was compiled by Stephen Lechner, 11, [email protected]

Te Cover, front and back, was designed by

Nathalia Silvestre, 14, [email protected]


66/66

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	stephenlechner
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Lost Piece - On a Darkling Plain_v2_i2

Documents