Lost Piece Volum II Issue 2 - On A Darkling Plain.pdf

8/14/2019 Lost Piece Volum II Issue 2 - On A Darkling Plain.pdf

1/66


2/66

gk

LOST PIECEan undergraduate journal of letters

VOLUME II, ISSUE IIOn A Darkling Plain


3/66

LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue IIkg

Copyright, Lost Piece; All rights reserved.

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

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

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

written permission of the EditorInChief except in the case of brief

quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Te works included

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

Lost Piece: An Undergraduate Journal of Letters

Te University of Notre Dame

Center for Undergraduate Scholarly Engagement

PRINED IN HE UNIED SAES OF AMERICA


4/66

an undergraduate journal of lettersgk

LOST PIECEan undergraduate journal of letters

VOLUME II, ISSUE IIOn A Darkling Plain

Editor-in-Chief

Stephen Lechner

Editors

Raymond Korson

Josef KuhnConor Rogers


5/66

4


Something of a Mission Statement

From the Editors

Lost Piece exists to facilitate undergraduate reading, discussion,

and writing of an intellectual nature beyond course curriculum

and without distraction from the grade point average.

Lost Piece seeks to help undergraduates to complement

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

Te goal of 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 of themselves and are to

be sought regardless of whatever recognitions may or

may not be extrinsically attached to such activity.


6/66

5


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

Josef Kuhn .....................................................................................55Stern ChaseJohn Ashley ....................................................................................57

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


7/66

6


Contribute to Lost Piece

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

youfor the Fall 2011 Semester of Lost Piece. Write what you

think is pertinent to the life of a student, whatever that might be

Pose a question

Or offer an answer

Write at whatever length you need

But write well.

Submit your work to Steve Lechner

at [email protected] April 30th.


8/66

7


Meet the Writers

Te Program ofLiberal Studies:

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

life as approached throughthe lens of certain GreatBooks, but they also like,even need, to engage ideaswherever they can find them.Tats why a few of them got

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

literally means seedbed) byholding profound conversa-tions on their own from whichthey hope to bear the fruits ofnew ideas, serious dialogue,and lasting friendships.

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

students from the Colleges ofArts and Letters, Science, andEngineering, but strangelynone from the college ofBusiness. Tey write, simplyput, despite the obvious fact

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

as a form of writing and asa rhetorical work of art. Tegroup takes its name fromone of Ciceros orations.

Tese groups have contributed to the writing of the Fall 2010

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

to contribute your writing to future editions whether individu-

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

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


9/66

8


:

is a group of undergradu-ates who meet together todiscuss issues of importance,ranging from theology to

philosophy to current issuesin any and all fields. It is acasually structured, sociallyengaging event that welcomesthe opportunity to find bothcommon ground and a mul-

titude of opinions on topics.And they drink tea, too.

Mustard:

Mustard is Notre Damesundergraudate creative writingclub. Tey share their writingwith each other and offerconstructive and friendly criti-cism of their work at their 9:00PM Wednesday meetings inthe Gold Room of La Fortune.Writing is encouraged, though

not required for participa-tion, and new members arealways welcome. [email protected] information.

Te Philosophy Club:

Te Philosophy Club isa group of a few dozenundergraduates who enjoyarguing, using big words,

attempting to answer lifesgreat questions, asking morequestions, and arguing.

Te Orestes Brownson Council:

As a club, OBC is focused

on better understandingthe Catholic intellectualtradition and its interactionwith philosophy, politics,and culture. It takes itsname from the AmericanCatholic political thinkerwho is buried in the cryptof the Basilica of the SacredHeart, Orestes Brownson.


10/66

9


o an Overwhelming Question

An IntroductionStephen LechnerClass of 2011Editor-in-Chief

Heres a story: tell me if Ive

told it correctly. Once upon

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

of people which somehow,

not altogether clear as to how,

found itself believing in God.

At some point in time, a lot of

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

for some reason, not altogether

clear as to what reason, a lot of

those people decided that they

didnt like the answer they got

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

believing in God. Ten a mad-

man with a ferocious mustache

ran around the West holding

a lantern looking for God, and

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

shouted that God is dead, we

have killed him, leaving many

people very confused. Many

people laughed at him and for

a long time nobody made much

of the poor fool, but eventually

people began to realize that if

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 suffer the

slings and arrows of outrageous

fortune. Having lost God, they

all went ballisticsome went

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

wind to blow, others built little

castles which they named the

world and proclaimed them-

selves as God of the world,

and some took up lanterns and

ran off 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 of the West today.

Make what you like of

this story, for it is just that, a

story, and stories are by their

nature fiction. Sometimes they

attempt to be factualand

factual is a useful description


11/66

10


for certain storiesbut if its

a person whos telling it, then

a story is fiction and there is

nothing to be done about that.

Abraham Lincoln was shot in

1865. Tats fictionif for noother reason than that 1865

cannot be anything other than

a subjective evaluation of time.

Somebody once decided that

that should be the year 1865

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

person. Of 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 fiction should not be

true does not know what fiction

is about. No one will deny that

Te Little Princeis fiction, but

there is far 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 of our

own cultural passage from

Medievalism to Modernity to

Postmodernity. But what are

Medievalism, Modernity,

and Postmodernity? Like

1865, they are terms of

subjective evaluation, but unlike1865, they are far 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 different

way. And this probably owes

to the terms themselves.

Modern is, properly speaking,

a synonym of 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. If

Postmodernity started then,

are we living after what is

post-contemporary? And


12/66

11


what will happen when people

decide to distinguish themselves

from Postmodern? It seems

we have spent our prefixes.

Some readers may protest,

Why does ones belief or disbe-lief in God define whether one

is modern or postmodern? In

fact, ones belief or disbelief in

God does nothing of the kind.

What I suggest defines someone

as either being modern orpostmodern is their responseto

their belief or disbelief 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 comfortablewith a life

without God;1the same people

having gone ballistic are post-

modern not because they believein God, but because, whether

they believe in God or not, they

are uncomfortablewith a life

without God. Such a life leads

them to what . S. Eliots Te

Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrockcalled an overwhelming ques-

tionwhy? Tey are post-

modern because they have made

Prufrocks 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 of theistic comfort at life with God, a

thing very difficult 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,

Deferential, glad to be of use,

Politic, cautious, and meticulous;

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;

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


13/66

12


i Eliot, . S, Te Love Song of J. Alfred

Prufrock, in Collected Poems 1909-1962;

Harcourt, Inc., New York, 1991, page

7; It isnt fair to reduce Prufrock s

overwhelming question to why?

Part of what makes it overhwleming

is that it is a difficult question to

formulate. But why is an approach

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

attempt to pose the question, and thus

the poem is a very good exemple of a

postmodern reaction to the world.

Te pieces in this issue are

many and different, 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

of interesting and important

progress, a time of seeming

order and stability, but a timethat brought what was for

Arnold and Eliot a terrifying

emptiness. Tese pieces are

decidedly Postmodern, for

what is found 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

13


Leah ComingClass of 2013Mustard

I will not tell you that my aimless

vigil before the electric lamp provoked the anxiety

which was determined

by a child picking futilely at leprous sores.

I will tell you that I propped against the pole, a spectatorto the fulfillment of

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 of 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

14


I squeeze the prophesies out of every

patch of ground my feet compress.

I cant reconcile this belief

that whatever happens is determined

with my unwavering investment in life.E


16/66

15


Gabriel McDonaldClass of 2012Philosophy Club

For the last three or four

hundred years, it has been

fashionable to consider all ofones beliefs the product of

reason. Were it not enough

that we human beings had to

go under the distinction of

rational animals, we now even

live in what Enlightenmentpop culture has dubbed the

Age of Reason. Tough that

title properly only refers to that

period in history, starting some-

time in the 17th century, when

a class of bourgeois intellectualsfirst concocted this notion

that no human belief is valid

unless it can be shown to stand

up to this nebulous concept

of rationality, this was really

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

fact only proliferated; what was

once just an upper-class fad has

now grown and infested every

segment of human society all

over the globe, and while many

consider this a great victory for

our species and for the cause of

establishing a utopian society in

which the poverty gap is elimi-

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

this triumph of reason is, at

best, nothing new, and at worst,

the greatest disaster in human

history. Allow me to present

my reasons for 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 of statements can

be true. o give the most basic

example imaginable, we know

the statement Dog ulterior

cavort definitely cannot be true

because its not even a coherent

statement. o get slightly more

complex, we can take the two

statements Il Gattopardowas

written by Luchino Visconti,

and Il Gattopardowas not

Te Abyss of Reason

An Essay


17/66

16


written by Luchino Visconti,

and determine that, for all we

know, either statement could be

true, but they cannot both be

true.1And how did our human

reason allot us such profound

knowledge of the universe? Itsreally quite simple: Tis little

gimmickknown as the Law

of 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 confusing. Its not like

we had to go out and hunt

down that knowledge on ourown, we gave ourselves that

knowledge thousands of years

ago, kind of as though we put

it in a time capsule for future

generations. How clever of us.

Tere are two importantthings to note here. First,

reasonor rationality, if you

willis an inherently linguistic

concept. It is a function of

language and not of the world

that our language is meant to

describe. Secondand this is

the real atom bombjust as our

language is arbitrary, the laws of

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 falsity of which others, all

these are just as arbitrary. Te

point of these rules is to have a

convenient way to infer a whole

bunch of other true statements

from 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

of other facts about it without

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

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


18/66

17


ourselves such bold inferences,

but if we hadnt our language

would be pretty pointless.

If all of this sounds to you

like a lot of stupid hogwash

that nobody cares about, youre

probably right, but rememberthat the decision to base human

knowledge on reason is often

compared to the invention of

the wheel when people discuss

its importance in the develop-

ment of human society. Itsimportant to remember that,

while these principles may seem

so basic and obvious to us that it

feels 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 finding 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 for 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 fortunately

this idea was dismissed as the

ranting of a syphilitic nutjob

and reason has stayed in vogue.

It is important at this pointfor me to clarify that, despite

my uncharitable remarks about

the Founding Fathers earlier,

I wholeheartedly agree that

Socrates rationalist project

was a big step forward forhumanity, and I am fully

committed to his goal of using

reason in allargumentation,

no matter what the subject

or who is arguing. But now


19/66

18


it comes time for me to draw

the fundamental distinction

between the Socratic rationalist

project and the Enlightenment

rationalist project.

Remember that all therules of logic, championed by

Socrates and later formalized by

Aristotle, despite their longev-

ity and the fact that none of

them have ever been seriously

contested, are fundamentallyarbitrary. Tis means that, while

we can use them to compare

statements against one another

and to juice further statements

out of one statement, it is

impossible to use reason to

conjure a truth right out of

thin airwith the exception

of totally vacuous truths like

the rules themselves. Aristotle

himself readily acknowledged

this and never claimed that any

of his logical rules or categories

by themselves could give anyone

knowledge, but could get you

off the ground if you start by

accepting some truths as given.

Tis sort of modesty was totally

alien to the gentlemen of the

Enlightenment, who were pre-

sumptuous enough to claim that

they could come to indisputable

truth about the universe bymeans of reason alone. Tough

they all inevitably failed to do

so in spectacular fashion, this

method of thought has inex-

plicably lingered and continues

to corrode society to this day. It bears mentioning why

they thought they could build

this ower of Babel in the first

place. Te one-word answer:

Science. Advances in science at

the time of the Enlightenment

had done wonders as far as

giving people knowledge that

they were confident to declare

objective, much more so than

the dominant mode of think-

ing: Just believe whatever the

Church tells you. It is impera-

tive to remember that, contrary

to popular belief, Socratic

rationalism had not in any way

diminished at this time, and


20/66

19


people were still challenged to

employ reason in determining

their beliefs. For example, one

might argue for the existence of

God by saying that you should

believe in God because if youdont God will damn you to

hell. Tis argument may sound

like crap to us, the enlightened

of the 21st century, but if

you think about it, it is actu-

ally a perfectly well-reasonedargument. Te statement You

should believe in God does in

fact follow from the statement

God will damn you to hell if

you dont believe in Him. Te

only residual problem is where

you got that premise from. 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 for

their arguments. Tis system

worked splendidly for more

than a millennium and only

broke down because eventually

there came some people who

didnt accept these truths.

Te intelligentsia of the 17th

century, even the churchy ones,

didnt like using the truths

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

another source that they liked

more: scientific experimenta-

tion. Rather than just accept

that the moon was perfectly

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 figured it was more

reliable to just look at the

moon and manifestly see that

it is notperfectly round. I must

insist, however, that the only

thing making this method a

better source of 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

20


matched our sensory experi-

ences, it was more useful for

technological purposes,

etc.but this did not neces-

sarily make it any truer, it only

made it more widely accepted. Again I find nothing to

object to. I too prefer the

scientific method of mapping

the lunar surface to the believe

whatever the 16th century

bishop tells you method. Teproblem comes when these

Enlightenment bastards

decided they could use this

scientific method to learn every

possible conceivable truth about

everything.Tis would be kind

of like if oyota were to find a

hot chick who was so good at

attracting customers to a sports

car exhibition that they decided

to make her CEO of the entire

company. In their irrationality,

they somehow forgot that all

they had actually done was find

a better way to design wind-

mills, and here they thought

they had found the font of all

knowledge and immortality.

Tat was their first mistake. Te

second was confusing science

with rationality, an absur-

dity which persists to this day.

Again, this was all a result oftheir intoxicated overconfidence;

they were so convinced that this

new science thing was such an

incontestable source of truth

that they dubbed any refusal to

accept the truths of sciencesomehow as a logical fallacy.

Te problem with this way

of thinking is that, while this

whole science thing is terrific at

answering questions like Why

does the redAurora Borealis

require colder temperatures

than the green? and What is

the atomic mass of a tungsten

atom? when it comes to ques-

tions that most of us find more

pressing, questions like Why

am I here? What does it mean

to be a good person? and Why

cant you turn right at a red light

in Quebec? science turns out to

be astonishingly inept. Tis did


22/66

21


not upset the Enlightenment

thinkers in the least. Since

they had already made the egre-

gious flaw of identifying their

scientism with rationality the

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

non-scientific ones, could be

derived from this same rational

process that they had invented.

Te most shining example

of this can be found in TomasJeffersons wildly influential Te

Declaration of Independence. In

it, he starts off right away by

deeming all the truths he is

about to proclaim self-evident.

Tis is the staple tactic of the

Enlightenment; since there

is absolutely no scientific

evidence for the existence (or

even coherence) of the concepts

he recklessly puts forward here,

the only possible way he can

make them fly is by declaring

them to be self-evident. Tat

is, since there is never anything

binding anyone to accept

something as a basic truth,

human beings being mentally

capable of refusing to believe

whatever they want, the only

way he could use these ideas as

the basis for his argument was

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

cal truths of science. It was a

brilliant move, considering how

his ideas were so self-evident

that he was the first person in

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

first time in human history that

irrationalismhad become the

dominant mode of thinking.

What is the cost of all

this? Te most important

consequence of this or any other

system of thought is its effect

on ethics. As I said from the

outset, the mildest outcome the

Enlightenment view of ra-

tionalism could possibly have

produced is that nothing im-

portant has changed. One could

argue that the ethical theorists

of the Enlightenment merely

used their new system to justify


23/66

22


ethical preconceptions and then

tweaked a few in order to adapt

it to modern conventions. Of

course, theres no scientific

basis for any idea of 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, beliefs which are

of course all self-evident when

examined under the light of

reason, and theneveryone will

be happy. In this view, nothing

has changed, and todays politi-

cal pundits are just carrying on

the old tradition of 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 beliefs

about morality and justice

on this fictitious concept of

scientific rationalism. o base

such beliefs on God is perfectly

coherent, since the idea of God

is of a being who is actually

invested in human moralityand social justice. If 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 of rationality, one which

not only has nothing to do

with ethics or morality but is

directly in conflict with them.

o do that would be to act just

like Wile E. Coyote, walking

out over this empty abyss of

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 find a better support for

humanity before somebody

thinks to look down.E


24/66

23


aylor NutterClass of 2014Philosophy Major

Life does linger it seems

SometimesUpon the frailty of an hour

Upon the creases cut of an old mans face

Upon the petals fallen of a flower

ime does creep it seems

SometimesUpon the patter of a wave at shore

Upon the unseen glance of 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

Life Does Linger

A Poem


25/66

24



26/66

25


Dylan BeltonClass of 2012Philosophy Club

I have been thinking about

evolution. In fact I do quite a

bit of thinking about evolution,

as it is my intention to make a

career writing about its theolog-

ical implications. Te question

I would like to address in this

reflective paper is this: are we

able to harmonize a Christian

view of suffering and beauty

with the evolutionary view of

creation where death and suf-

fering has played such a crucial

and prevalent role? Tere is atension here, and it is one that

cannot be swept under any rug,

for there is no rug big enough to

hide this specific problem. Tis

is, I believe, one of the many is-

sues raised by evolution that hasyet to be adequately addressed

by Christians. Indeed, a harmo-

nizing of the theory of evolution

with orthodox Christian

doctrine is an absolutely crucial

issue facing Christianity in the

21st century, and one that needs

to urgently be addressed by a

new generation of Christians

with the same fervency thatcharacterized the early Church

fathers as they defended the

faith against all odds. Let me

further add that I believe this

harmonization mustbe accom-

plished in order to stem the tide

of an ever-growing secularism

and diluted spiritualism that

is infecting modern Western

society with an astonishing

moral degeneration and general

mediocrity. With that said,

I must forewarn the reader

that this paper is more of a

reflection on the problem than

a systematic analysis, and will,

therefore, not offer a thoroughsolution to the problem

highlighted. Tese are thorny

issues and I would not dare to

suppose that I am intellectually

God, Evil, and Evolution

An Essay


27/66

26


capable of solving them.

Before getting started, it is

best that I make a few confes-

sions. I am not a Catholic; I am

not even sure if it is permissible

to call myself a Christian, forat this point in time I find

myself unable to intellectu-

ally surrender to all of what

Aquinas called the Mysteries of

the Faith. I am revealing this

because I believe it to make all

the difference in the world; it

means that I am not approach-

ing this issue with what St.

Anselm called an experienced

faith, a faith 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 from an

inside perspective. I have

read enough theology to realize

that this may by all means be

a futile endeavor. But I will

nevertheless attempt it. I am so

profoundly and deeply moved by

the Christian image of 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 fact,

I believe the default position of

someone in my position is to

humbly accept the limitations

of my young and eager mind

and the fact that I am by all

means in a state of spiritual

infancy. 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 of the way,

I would like to begin by


28/66

27


addressing a specific claim

made in an article in a previous

edition of this publication.

Indeed, it was this claim that

served as the impetus for the

issue that this paper is an at-tempt to highlight. It may seem

that I am veering a bit off topic,

but bear with me. I think that

by reviewing how it was that I

came to write this paper that

the reader will be able to grasp

more clearly the issue at hand.

In his piece Everything

is Beautiful, Ray Korson

made the following daring

statement: everything is

objectively beautiful.iWhat

could this mean? And whyis it

that someone would hold this

position? Te answer, it seems,

stems from an adherence to a

certain Christian metaphysicalframeworknamely, a Tomist

metaphysical framework.

Korson provided the following

succinct summary of Saint

Tomas Aquinas take on the

abstract notion of beauty:

all of creation shares the

property of beauty because it

shares the same creator, God,

who imparts the attribute ofbeingto all members of reality,

which partakes in the truth,

goodness, and beauty of being

as such.iiTe idea is that simply

by virtue of partakingin the

Being of God, allof creation is

imbued with beauty. Tis is, I

believe, the primary reason for

whyone would make the bold

claim that Korson made and

just what it is meant to mean.

However, I was not satisfied.

My initial reaction to the

claim was this: the claim that

everything is objectively

beautiful can, as far as I can

see, be understood in two ways.First, it could mean just what

it seems to mean at face value.

Te dance of the falling autumn

leaves is beautiful; the doorknob


29/66

28


on my flat door is beautiful; the

suffering of 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 follow that

everythingis beautiful. How

so? Tink of objective truth.

Te definition of something

being objectively the case is

that it does not depend on our

human perspective for making

it so. For example, propositions

are statements that we affirm

as being either true or false, so,

presumably, propositions are

objectively true or false. But we

can make a distinction within

the category of objectively true

propositions. Firstly, there are

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

no man is taller than himself, 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 of years

ago. Yet from the observation

that there are such a things as

objectively true propositions, it

does not follow that every propo-

sitionis objectively true. Some

propositions are just flat out

false. Te proposition Gandhi

was the cause of World War II is

certainly not objectively true.

Korson perhaps, then, has

something similar to that in

mind, although applied to the

concept of beauty. Perhaps we

should rather say that although

absolutely everything is not

objectively beautiful, thereis such a thing as objective

beauty and we simply have

to search deeper to find it.

Beauty will differ, of course,


30/66

29


in that beauty is a quality to be

found in a vast array of things.

We describe many objectsin

the external world as being

beautiful (paintings, forests,

statues). We also describecertain eventsas being beautiful.

An event could be anything

from a parents first look at

his or her newborn baby, to a

rousing performance of the first

movement of Beethovens 5th

symphony. Tere is some quality

to these objects or events that

moves us deeply; this quality,

I presume, is beauty. If one

agrees with Korsonand I

agree with him on thisthen

it is not simply that weproject

our own culturally constrained

subjective notions of beauty

onto these objects or events;

rather, it is that beauty is afeature to be found in themthat

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 frame-

work, all of creationis deemed

beautiful merely by virtue of

its participation in the Being

of God. So how is it that one

can make a distinction between

things or events that are beauti-

ful and things or events that are

not? Tey are beautiful simply

by being things or events in the

actual world. So what are we to

do with the suffering of sentient

creatures? Te suffering of a

sentient creature is, I take it, an

event of some sort; but it not an

event we are quick to place inthe category of beautiful. Yet if

everything is beautiful by virtue

of simply being, then the suffer-

ing of a sentient creature, as an


31/66

30


event, must be beautiful. But

we usually take the suffering

of a sentient creature notto

be an event possessing the

quality of beauty. Most of us,

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

beautiful. Tese events strike

us as intrinsically not beauti-

ful. One could, of course,

simply concede that this vast

amount of sentient suffering

was, and is, beautiful. Tis

is perfectly fine, but it is

surely not a conclusion that

spontaneously flows out of

us. Nor, as we shall see, does

this response align with the

traditional Christian response.

So how are we to fit this

specific Christian conception

of beauty and suffering into

the evolutionary frameworkwhere the death and suffering

of sentient creatures has been

so prevalent and essential to

the evolutionary processes?

Christianity has always

had a response to the issue

of suffering and its place in

the universe. Te orthodox

Christian response has been

that death and suffering arean unwelcome consequenceof

sin; they areperversionsof

the natural order that did

not feature in Gods initial

plan for creation. In Aquinas

words: the penalties, such as

hunger, thirst, death, and the

like, which we suffer sensibly

in this life flow from original

sin.iiiTe early Christian

response to death was one of

pure hatred and disdain for

what was considered, through

Christs self-offering sacrifice,

a defeatedfoe. We find this

quite explicitly in the writings

of Athanasius, that championof Christian orthodoxy. In his

On the Incarnation of the Word,

Athanasius writes, by the

Word made Man, death has


32/66

31


been destroyed and life raised

up anew.ivTe general idea is

that death and suffering are a

resultof sin and to be overcome

once and for all when the

process of recreationhas beenfulfilled. 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

follows this pattern: Creation

(perfection)>fall (suffering,

death, etc)>election>Christ

event>renewed creation

(perfection). Imagine this

pattern in a U shape begin-

ning with creation and ending

in renewed creation. Tis is the

orthodox Christian picture of

creation and its explanation of

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

view, then one could respond

that the suffering of sentient

creatures is a perversion of the

natural order and can therefore

not be deemed beautiful by

virtue of its being a perversion.

Tis is where the issue of

evolution becomes particularly

pertinent. Evolution paints aradically different picture to the

U-shaped plot and renders the

notion of suffering and death as

a perversion quite untenable if

we take the Christian message

to be cosmic in scope. Evolution

flattensout the U and leaves

us with a zig-zagging line that

either represents a meaningful

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 perfection. If there is

one thing that evolution has

shown us quite conclusively, it


33/66

32


is that the death and suffering

of sentient creatures has been

occurring for far far longer

than any of 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 for now). Te

suffering of sentient creatures

was in existence far before we

homo-sapiens arrived on the

scene, so it is not possible that

human sin was somehow the

cause of all suffering. Death

and suffering seem to not be a

perversionthat entered creation

due to human sin into a state of

initial perfection. Indeed, the

death of unfit individual crea-

tures and species is what drives

the evolutionary process. Tis

historical prevalence and impor-tance of death and suffering in

the evolutionary history of life

seems to render the traditional

Christian response to suffering

unsatisfactory. If this is correct,

then one cannot maintain that

death and suffering are not

beautiful because of their being

a perversion of the natural

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

velopment and diversity of life.

Response

Now an obvious response

would be to simply note that I

am presently guilty (admittedly

so) of a grossly simplistic and

literal reading of the bible, and

that the ramifications of the

fall are clearly notcosmic in

scope. One could say that the

Christian narrative is one where

the only participants are man

and God, so that the death

and suffering that entered in

with sin clearly pertain strictlyto a unique form of human

suffering and death. One would

simply point out that there is

no tension here at all, for the


34/66

33


biblical narrative has nothing

to say at all about naturalistic

explanations of creation and the

suffering of non-human crea-

tures. Tere can be no conflict

between evolution and traditionor the bible because, while the

former 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 of faith,

i.e. the essential doctrines of the

faith. And if one turns to the

essential doctrines, one will find

nothing regarding the suffering

of all creatures or a detailed

account of creation. Te bible

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

say, they are dealing solely with

the human condition, salvation,

and mankinds relation to God.

Tis is a fair answer and

in many ways solves a lot of

problems, and I would take

something of this approach to

the problem myself. But I would

like to point out a few things.First, if creation is imbued

with beauty by virtue of its

participation in the being of

God and only human suffering

is to be deemed a perversion

of the natural order, then we

are still stuck maintaining

that the death and suffering of

all sentient life besidehuman

suffering and death is beautiful.

Again, this is perfectly fine,

but it is not something we seem

willing to affirm . Second,

take this passage from Saint

Paul: we know that the whole

[of] creation has been groaning

in labor pains.v

Althoughhumans were no doubt at the

center of Pauls understanding

of the Christian gospel, he

did understand salvation as


35/66

34


having universalimplications.

Te whole of creationis mov-

ing towards re-creation. Tis

seems to hint that the suffering

and death in all of lifewill be

wiped away. By shrinking theChristian message into a purely

anthropocentric one, we extract

humans from a much larger

universalnarrative drama that

has been, and is still, unfolding.

I am afraid that I cannot as

yet offer 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 few conjectures. Tese

are mere musings that I think

are worth pondering over. I will

be leaving the issue of beauty

aside, as it is beyond my ability

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

on this issue of suffering.

Firstly, I think a point that

is quite easily forgotten in this

sort of discussion is that the

evolutionary history of life on

this planet has been more than

just a bloody and ruthless battle

for survival within, and among

rival, species. Tere has been,and is, plenty of 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 of

consciousness. I am sure that

we have all watched footage

of some mammal taking care

of its newborns, or of dolphins

playfully whisking through the

ocean waves. Tere is a playful

and harmonious element to

life that has arisen through

the evolutionary processes,

which gives us ample reason tosuppose that there is far more

at work than inter- and intra-

species carnage. I mention this

because there is this enormous


36/66

35


unwarranted tendency for us to

focus on the more sinister side

of the evolutionary process.

But back to Christianity.

Tis problem of suffering has

been, and still is, particularlyproblematic for the Christian

who is committed to maintain-

ing that love is the defining

characteristic of God. Tis

brings the obvious and tedious

question of whyit is that a God

of Love could allow such suf-

fering. 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 fact

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 form of man, lived

among us as one who servedothers, and suffereda gruesome

and humiliating death at the

hands of the beings whose very

existence He held in being. Tis

is surely themost scandalous

claim ever to have been uttered

by human lips. For many an

ancient (or modern) pagan,

the extreme and revolutionary

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

After almost 2000 years of

Christianity and 300 years of

Enlightenment intellectual

propaganda, all too many of 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 suffered. God

identified Himself with the

suffering of sentient creatures.

In other words, we are not alone

in our suffering. I cannot say

much more about this, for it is

a mysterium tremendum. I ask

only that the reader reflect onthe claim that God suffered,

and what it could mean in the

context of evolution. I think it

perhaps holds the very key to


37/66

36


harmonizing the vast suffering

of sentient life and the Christian

image of a God of infinite Love.

Te question, of course,

is how would this change

anything given the problemwith the traditional Christian

response to suffering? Did

Christ affirmthe goodness or

beauty of suffering? 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 of the problem of

all of creation being beautiful

by virtue of being. Tese are

questions for another time.

In Closing

o many, the evolutionary

history of life on earth provides

knock-down proof that theuniverse is void of meaning and

purpose, let alone beauty. Tis

is an intellectually bland and

spiritually shallow response.

It is within this evolutionary

framework that we mustfind

purpose. In On Christian

Doctrine, Saint Augustine made

clear that what was worthy in

paganism ought to be adoptedby Christianity in the service

of the faith.viTe wisdom of

the philosophers, for instance,

provided Christian thinkers

with an opportunity to shed

light on the faith. Christianity

cannot lose this mindset. Like

the wisdom of the ancient

philosophers, the findings of

modern science, especially when

it comes to evolution, must be

embraced and incorporated

into the Christian worldview.

Indeed, I would go so far as

to say that unless we manage

to sanctifythis evolutionary

image of life, mankind is sureto sink slowly and nonchalantly

into the swamp of nihilism

and a numb despair whilst this

planet marches forth on its


38/66

37


path toward cold lifelessness

after our sun finally burns out.

It would be a sin to end on

such an ominous tone, so let me

end on this quote taken from

Darwins Origin of Species:

i Korson, Ray. Everythingis Beautiful. 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 of 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 of life, with its several powers,

having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and

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

law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most

beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

But that is not quite

uplifting enough. I think

the next passage from Isaiah

52:7 will do the trick:

How beautiful upon the mountains

Are the feet of the messenger who announces peace,

Who brings good news,

Who announces salvation,

Who says to Zion, Your God reigns!E


39/66

38



40/66

39


Christina MastrucciClass of 2011English Major

Ophelia

A Poem

on a Spartan cot her body breathes

that sleep of death.

on a bed of blood

her mortal coil shuffles, aching

to be healed, or else shed.

she feels 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(from which no traveler returns)

for a spark of understanding.

realist, empiricist,

nihilist: she finds no flame at the summit

(no undiscoverd country)

of 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

40


yet she cannot rise to meet the water,

for her limbs fail her.

still she can see the charming brook

through her prison window.

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

she wants either the fire or the dark.

she must see it to believe it.

she must feel it to perceive it.

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

it does not matter. no difference.

not even thoughts of endless depth

can keep her skin from crumbling.

More water, nurse, more water.

not even water can revive

a heart refusing to live.

Its getting dark. but it is day.

the shade falls down around her

as she gazes, one last time,

at the light dancing on painted stars

and the words expire from that tired soul

who only yearns to be born.E1 Bram Stokers

Dracula


42/66

41


Nicolle WalklingClass of 2011Program of Liberal Studies

Te date is December 16, 2010.

Te setting? A poorly lit corner

of an almost empty caf. Te airhangs thick and warm with the

smell of espresso. Nicolle sits down

at the small table, weary. Fiction

looks up from its mochaccino.

Fiction:Whats wrong, Nicolle?

Nicolle:Oh, just finals week.Te biannual barrage of tests

and papers, the endless memori-

zation of facts that I will surely

forget in a month or two, the

pairing of caffeine 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 feeling, oh I

dont know, neglected. By

you. Maybe neglected isnt the

right wordIm just confused

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 fiction

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

of that Lord of the Rings fan

fiction I wrote in high school?

Fiction:How could I forget?

You learned Elvish! Such

dedication. But thats where

my insecurities come in now.

Where is your dedication?

Nicolle:You know Im

afraid of commitment.

Fiction:Oh God, based solely

on the number of phases weve

been through, I know that.

Also, on a somewhat related

note, no more experimental

surrealist phases, okay? Tat

was some freaky shit.

Fiction and I: Coffee and Cigarettes

A Play


43/66

42


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 of this relationship?

Nicolle:Tats a big question.

Fiction:Its an im-

portant question.

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

be there for me

Fiction:I amalways

there for you.

Nicolle:Um, I wasnt finished!

Ive barely begun, really. I want

you to be there for me, to be

the one to whom I can relay

my fears, my doubts, my joys,

and my dilemmas regarding the

shortcomings and strengths of

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 fair enough,

but isnt that what you use

your witter account for?

Nicolle:Oh, shut up. You

know I only use witter tokeep track of whats relevant

in the pop culture world,

which, by the way, is stillpart

of 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 of

Lady Gaga? Oh, great.

Nicolle:Tats not exactly

what I was going for, 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

fairy tales exploring genderroles? Awesome! Postmodern

pastiches depicting loneli-

ness in the suburbs? Sounds

great! Small town mentalities


44/66

43


scrutinized in stream-of-con-

sciousness narratives? Lets

do it. I want us to try it all.

Fiction:Tis seems like

a very lofty goal.

Nicolle:All I want to do inlife 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

yourself and your ideas about

the world around you. And

you intend to do this in any

sort of form that aligns to your

personal whims at the time.

Nicolle:Yeah, basically.

Fiction:I can do that, but I

also have a request of you. If

you want to get something out

of me in this relationship, you

have to give something too.

Nicolle sighs heavily,

looks distressed.

Nicolle:Okay, shoot.

What is it?

Fiction:I want for you to

spend more time on me. You

love writing, I know you do.

Remember all those afternoons

in London when you would

sit in the grass at St. James

Park and write for hours inyour notebook? Tose are

some of your fondest memories

of last year! But think about

how much time youve wasted

lately poking mindlessly around

all corners of the Internet orlistening to om Waits instead

of developing that idea about

the girl cutting her hair in the

mirror. I like that idea. Youre

not going to become a better

writer if you dont dedicate a

significant amount of 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 of a om


45/66

44


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, fine. Music hasa welcome place in our relation-

ship, as do the visual arts.

Nicolle:And pop culture?

Fiction:Only if Im al-

lowed to grumble about

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

had this talk, Fiction.

Fiction:I am too. I feel much

better about the direction in

which were heading. Want

to grab a smoke after 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 caf,pulling cigarettes and lighters from

their coat pockets as they go.E


46/66

45


Brittany BergesonClass of 2011Mustard

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

A Poem


47/66

46



48/66

47


James SchmidtClass of 2013Istum

If you are curious aboutwhat someone is doing

usually a good wayto satisfy that curiosity is tolook at them. So I peer aroundmy desk and find that myroommate has his book openin front of him and his faceis 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 off into space (whatever

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

is gathering his thoughts for apaper or recalling the delightfuldinner 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 off into spaceWhat are you thinking about?After all, the object of whichone is thinking determines thekind of 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. If 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 if wedo not accept that he really istalking to God or that there issuch a thing that someone cantalk to (in the first case we couldmerely think him a hypocrite

or babbler without denyingthe existence of the perceived

Faith

An Essay

1 I find the connection between

the object of our actions and our

actions very interesting. I hope to

pursue the question at some point.


49/66

48


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 if I am conversing with afriend part of what drives me isthe belief 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 diffi-culty because my talking to youdoesnt involve any questioningthat I am indeed talking to you.But talking to God is differentbecause talking to him is notonly something that atheistsdoubt the authenticity of, it isone that seemingly believershave no ostensible way to

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

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

that. I think it is a good

description,2except 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

myself, (which is manifestlynot 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 superficial 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 fromAnscombes Intention, and thespirit of it, namely an action positedunder certain descriptions.


50/66

49


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.4Suppose

you are talking to a friend on

the phone. Te description youwill probably give of what youare doing is just that: talkingto a friend. 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 friend, even though, properlyspeaking, what you are talkingto is hopefully notyour friend.

Presumably the example ismeant to show the plausibility

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

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

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

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

just deal with the justificationfor the use of intermediary. Fora person who prays, the claimis that God canbe validated byexperience. Now this is awfullypeculiar because it cannot bedone in the same way that Ipull my friend over to you andsay Here he is! But that justmeans that the validation, if it

is anything, is a different kindof validation. For example,

4 I owe the use of this ex-

ample to a friend, though I am

not sure he knew at the time the

significance to be found in it.


51/66

50


you live in Chicago and I sayyou should meet my friend 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 of 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 beaffirmed. It is not that case

with my friend. I say I havea friend 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 Swift! Teonly way you can verify what Isaid is to go there yourself. Butit is midnight and you are tiredso the only reason you wouldgo is if you have a reasonable

amount of 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 of trust in a claimis needed in order to validate it.I say a certain level but I do notknow what that level is. If youasked a praying Christian, Do

you believe that you are really

talking to God? they wouldprobably say yes, but I haveno idea if they would say thatthey knowit. And I agree thatsaying something can be a verydifferent thing from being right

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

involves a bit of pre-knowledgebelief in the thing to be

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


52/66

51


me, this also means that myargument cannot be invalidated(probably because if you failedI could say try harder... I havea feeling something like this

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

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

entirely appropriate to ask whyit should be that way. After

all, if there is an infinitelypowerful being, he could havemade the world in a way suchthat his existence needs noantecedent belief to be known.I dont doubt this for a mo-ment. And I see this as a greatproblem in the philosophy aboutChristianity: if it is true (as Ibelieve it is) then why didnthemake 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 faith issomething worth having. I willtry to approach the problem

from 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, for 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 knowthat youlove me? Perhaps you can tryto prove it5by taking over the

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

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

5 For an interesting reflection on this

idea I encourage my reader to read

or see the play Proof. Some people

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

opinion is that it is actually about

the basis of assent to the truth of a

claim, which in this case, is trust in

a person, and the basis of that


53/66

52


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

be faithful to you for the restof my life, and your fidelityup to this point is offered asevidence for the claim. Maybeit is evidence, but I think a verypoor kind of evidence (thoughI guess better than if you hadcheated already), since the way

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

impossible) by the way you arenow. Tis fact should causepeople to question what level ofknowledge they should have ina person before they get mar-ried. I have heard people justifycohabitation for this reason by

saying that only by it can youhave sufficient knowledge ofthe person you are dedicating

yourself to. It is interesting tonote that the success of mar-riages is found more on the

side of those who dont makeuse of such verification. AndI think the reason is becausesuch verification simply cannotbe found. o think that it canis to deceive oneself about the

basis of human relationships.Te basis of 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 painful thing to deal with

when it is exploited. But it isthe vulnerability that makes theacceptance of their trusting sur-render meansomething. If you

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

giving or receiving love for orfrom another until they havemathematical certitude aboutthe security of that investment(of their self), that person isgoing to live a solitude that

borders the loneliness of hell.6

6 In the Popes book Introduction to

Christianity, he sets up the machinery

to establish this conclusion, that love

is impossible without faith. He does

it much more elegantly and thor-

oughly, but it is also more theological.


54/66

53


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

about. My impression is thereis something like this goingon with divine faith. Te onlyquestionable thing is that myfaith in my friend is faith 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 why existence[ofGod] is one of those thingsabout which we are supposed to

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


55/66

54


a


56/66

55


Josef KuhnClass of 2011Program of Liberal Studies

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

Te state of the Arts

and Sciences today

is sliced updiced up.

Pick your occupation

from the slate

Dr. Chef will prepare it for you

just waitfor 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

56


But

Reality demands it

Practicality demands it

Modernity demands it

University demands it

Economy demands itaxonomy demands it

Te Progress

and Wealth of Nations

brigands it.

Backback in the

age of Man

in shacks, or before shacks

the Noble Savage

dreamt by ceiling painters

back in the day of lionsCuisineArt

chunked chicken

did not exist.

Te flesh was roasted,

the body eaten whole.

(Renaissance Man may be a myth.)

But you could yet exist


58/66

57


John AshleyClass of 2011Philosophy Club

Its a terrifyingly 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 of the night?

I walk, more quickly. Sweat

pops out on my forearms. I stay

out of the shadows. Tats where

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

sewers, places where no sunlight

could be found. Ten the dead

of a new moon night was good

enough for 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 fall to the ground.

I can see them, but just,

in the corners of the corners

of my eyes. So faint, but

just there enough to thrownormality off the rails, like

a long-lasting nausea, a vile

stench for 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 of streets

weirdly empty of cars, taking

the most well-lit if not most

direct way back to my house.

My mind firms in resolve, at

times even daring to suppose

that they couldnt have been

Stern Chase

A Story


59/66

58


following me. After 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 for amoment, though, and Im still

in the middle of the street.

Te forces of my sanity blow

their horns, sounding a regroup,

and then a counter-charge.

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

out. As quickly as I can, and

good luck to Sheriff Fort if she

tries to stop me. If shes in his

pocket. In their pocket. Who

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

something. And Ill be safe, too.

Its bright day, not night. I wont

end up like Rick and Molly, at

the base of the seaside road...

I walk past the church, then,

and look up out ofwhat?

Reflex? Curiosity? But it undoes

me. Te church is bright, empty

except for 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

following me. Following him. Te preacher starts walking,

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	stephen-lechner
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Lost Piece Volum II Issue 2 - On A Darkling Plain.pdf

Documents