They unwittingly gave me the confidence that I could do what they do, and indeed do it better, but they also deprived me of the intellectual formation that I had to spend years developing on my own. They set me forward, and they set me back.
To cheat students is bad enough; to corrupt them is far worse. The latter is happening now in classrooms at all levels throughout the land. To speak of a decline in standards would be an understatement: perversion of standards.
Substitute "Do not allow us to be led into temptation" for "Lead us not into temptation." For why on earth or in heaven would the Father of Lights want to lead us into the darkness of temptation?
………………
Vito Caiati comments:
With regard to today’s short post, “A Proposed Change to the Pater Noster. I think that you may find Aquinas’ understanding of the petition “Lead us not into temptation” worthy of your consideration. Specifically, in the “Explanation of the Lord’s Prayer” (Expositio in orationem dominicam), he writes:
But does God lead one to evil, that he should pray: "Lead us not into temptation"?
I reply that God is said to lead a person into evil by permitting him to the extent that, because of his many sins, He withdraws His grace from man, and as a result of this withdrawal man does fall into sin. Therefore, we sing in the Psalm: "When my strength shall fail, do not Thou forsake me."[23] God, however, directs man by the fervor of charity that he be not led into temptation. For charity even in its smallest degree is able to resist any kind of sin: "Many waters cannot quench charity."[24] He also guides man by the light of his intellect in which he teaches him what he should do. For as the Philosopher says: "Everyone who sins is ignorant."[25] "I will give thee understanding and I will instruct thee."[26] It was for this last that David prayed, saying: "Enlighten my eyes that I never sleep in death; lest at any time my enemy say: I have prevailed against him."[27] We have this through the gift of understanding. Therefore, when we refuse to consent to temptation, we keep our hearts pure: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God."[28] And it follows from this petition that we are led up to the sight of God, and to it may God lead us all! (https://isidore.co/aquinas/PaterNoster.htm)
This interpretation of the text in question not only avoids the clearly undesirable implication that God would “want to lead us into the darkness of temptation” but it also logically follows from the fifth (“forgive us our trespasses”) and sixth (“deliver us from evil”) petitions, the former asking forgiveness for our sins and the latter protection against all the evils of the world, many of which flow from them. Thus, these concern the effects of past sin, ours or our ancestors, while the seventh implores God not to remove the very grace that protects us from sinning again, given our fallen state.
I thank Vito for his erudite comment and for exposing my ignorance of the fact that the doctor angelicus had addressed my puzzlement long ago. I am having some trouble, though, making sense of Thomas' explanation. He seems to be saying the following.
Man freely sins. God freely responds by withdrawing his grace. This withdrawal of grace either causes or raises the probability that man commit further sins. "Lead us not into temptation" is thus a request that God not withdraw or withhold the grace we need to keep from sinning. Accordingly, God leads us into temptation when he withdraws or withholds the grace we need to keep from sinning. I am sorry but I find this a rather strained attempt at making sense of the petition, "Lead us not into temptation."
How does it go in Greek? Not knowing Greek, I cannot say. In any case, Christ did not speak Greek. So we cannot be sure of the sense of the words Christ used when he taught his disciples the "Our Father."
Aquinas quotes Aristotle in the passage above. But did The Philosopher have the word sin' or the Greek equivalent in his philosophical vocabulary? Was there a Greek equivalent that has the same sense as 'sin' when used by Jews and Christians? Sin is an offense against God. Can one sin against the Unmoved Mover, against Thought thinking itself (noesis noeseos)? Can one sin against any of the Greek gods, Zeus for example? I don't know. Nescio, ergo blogo.
Currently atop the Substack pile. With a little help from Kafka, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, and Einstein.
…………….
Thomas writes (12/29),
A very nice note for the (nearly) new year. It took me decades to realise I am one of those who was nearly socially self-sufficient all his life – no school yard bullying ever touched me, although I was one of the shorter ones until I grew late. And I had no problem concentrating, reading and creating (a few) new ideas in my work for hours on end (indeed, for years on end), whereas I find most people never ever perform such simple feats even once in their lives – concentrating and writing for 4 – 8 hours? How do you do it? How do you not do it, I reply . . .It takes a long time for me to understand the difference because of course we all think we are the same inside until we inspect some bit of human behaviour and find differences. One difference is: socially reliant people have no mental resilience. They can't deal with difficulties on their own. Therefore in crisis situations, which often occur in social groups reacting to wider events, most people determine their responses in a miasma of fear and group-think – a guarantee of poor quality outcomes. So the socially self-sufficient nearly always under-estimate the state of constant frustration (due to non-achievement) and anxiety (when no idle chat or other filler activity is available) of others. So we are amazed when society takes the turns it does. We are exceptionally ignorant, until we study mental lassitude scientifically!Your whisky aphorism has it right. We do need a bit. After all, wit (in the esprit sense) partly comes from talk. And the Kafka quote: responding to corns should just be done, not heard, while one is actually thinking about or discussing things of import, or at least containing some wit.But perhaps there is something to mindless chat? Maybe it serves a purpose such as to limit social violence, in the same way that greeting others (in European culture at least) with a kiss on both cheeks probably (?) limits fist-swinging, at least for that day. I have no idea.
Would that Tulsi would and could lay bare the brazen bullshit of every single swamp critter in the District of Columbia from the life-long liar Joey B. on down and not leaving out Alejandro Mayorkas, 'Director of Homeland Security' — how is that for an Orwellian title! — and Elizabeth 'Fauxcahontas' Warren, and do it with the style, grace, and integrity she demonstrates in this amazing video.
Please watch it and propagate it.
Weak in leading us to truth, reason is also weak in the correction of bad behavior. Reason in us waxes strong, however, in finding excuses for our weakness. Cigarette smokers, for example, typically claim to be 'addicted' to nicotine. They misuse the word 'addiction' to cover their refusal to exercise their will power. Unexercised, it atrophies. A will atrophied unto extinction then validates the claim of 'addiction.'
Weak in determining behavior, reason is strong in rationalizing its weakness. Why is reason in us so miserably weak? Is this weakness a noetic consequence of the Fall? If it is, then the weakness is not essential to it, but accidental. The Fall, after all, was a contingent event: there was no necessity that it occur. Man might have remained in his prelapsarian state. In that state, man's reason was strong and healthy not like it is now suborned by its lust and greed and envy, and all the rest of the deadly adjuncts of the Initial Moral Collapse.
There is continence sexual and gustatory. Custody of the eyes and of the heart are forms of continence. Continence should also extend to rebuttals, replies, ripostes, rejoinders, responses, and reactions. Deny yourself the desire for vindication, and getting in the last word. Better retraction than self-serving reaction. The self denied is the ego; the self that denies is the soul.
Full self-integration, maximal self-individuation.
Aim high. You won't be able to achieve the goal in this life. So believe beyond the sublunary. Live as if your life does not end at death. What harm could it do? No harm at all, and indeed the opposite. We live better here and now when we believe that life has a meaning that transcends the petty and particular, the vain and the transient; when we believe that we are not just dust in the wind.
Here:
. . . in a turn of fate that is like something out of Greek mythology, the United States is once again fully committed to a war of choice with unpredictable consequences. Except this time, it's a proxy war against a nuclear superpower. As John Mearsheimer has warned, we are playing Russian roulette with nuclear missiles in the chamber. And yet, all of official Washington, as well as the Establishment's media mouthpieces, are cheering on this war, with urgently necessary discussion about the national security interests of the US in this matter, the war's endgame, and suchlike, shoved to the side so Very Important People of the unified War Party can carry on about how Ukraine's fate is the most important issue facing our country — and anybody who raises a peep of protest is plainly simping for Putin. [Hyperlink added.]
Substack latest.
If nothing else, philosophy is prophylaxis against infection by scientistic pseudo-understanding. Take the jab! Boosters to follow.
Here:
In a remarkable television broadcast on December 15, 2022, Tucker Carlson made an explosive charge. He pointed out that, contrary to law, the White House was refusing to release thousands of pages of documents about the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Carlson said that these documents proved CIA involvement in the assassination and that someone within the government who had looked at these documents made a direct statement to this effect.
Here is what Carlson said: “Not long after Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald on camera in the basement of Dallas police headquarters, a lot of Americans started to have some questions about the Kennedy assassination. It was, you’d have to admit, a pretty extraordinary sequence of events. A lone gunman murders the president of the United States. And then, less than 48 hours later, that lone gunman is himself murdered by another lone gunman.
What are the odds of that?
And here is the Tucker Carlson broadcast that RFK, Jr. called "the most courageous newscast in 60 years."
I forgot where I found this diagram. (HT to Dmitri Dain who after my initial posting e-mailed me the reference.) The diagram is pretty good except insofar as it suggests that the divine nature of Christ is a proper part of the divine nature.
Substack upload.
It is sometimes said that there are only two kinds of philosophers, Platonists and Aristotelians. What follows is a quotation from Heinrich Heine which expresses one version of this useful simplification. Carl Gustav Jung places it at the very beginning of his Psychological Types (Princeton UP, 1971, p. 2. Jung does not properly source the Heine quotation.)
Dylan Thomas, A Child's Christmas in Wales
The following selections and commentary courtesy of Edward Buckner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LndB94i2F_0
“Dieux Parmi Nous” (God among us) by the French composer Olivier Messiaen. The glorious final movement from Messiaen's nine-part La Nativité is performed by Richard Gowers on the organ of King's College Chapel, Cambridge. It is a tradition in England for the family to listen to the carols from King’s on Christmas Eve, and for the women to talk over it. [Ed's remark cannot be sexist if it is true.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YamipW44v4c
“Toccata on 'Veni Emmanuel'” by the English composer Andrew Carter. The origin of the melody was a mystery for some time but it was recently found in a 15th-century manuscript in the National Library of France. Keep an eye out for the organist’s socks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SixnHKwyrjI
“Jesus Christ the Apple Tree" by English composer Elizabeth Poston. During World War II Poston is supposed to have worked as a secret agent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq8mgyBUJgk
“Nativity Carol” by English composer John Rutter. Rutter is hated by many as verging on kitsch, but “Christmas wouldn’t be Christmas without this magnificent carol”. Judge for yourself. [A little kitsch never hurt anybody.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXOaTOylx0c
“This Christmas Night” by Australian composer Malcolm Williamson. Williamson worked as a nightclub pianist when he moved to London, but soon converted to Roman Catholicism. He became the Master of the Queen's Music in 1975.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQwLp9d5eg
“A Babe is Born” by Welsh composer William Mathias. His anthem “Let the people praise Thee, O God” was written for the July 1981 royal wedding of the Prince and Princess of Wales, and thus heard by 1 billion people. The tenor part is difficult for us tenors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1wHyMR_SCA
“O Come, All Ye Faithful” (Adeste Fideles) from our wonderful Westminster Abbey. The origin of the melody is unknown, but was first published by John Francis Wade in his collection Cantus Diversi. Watch out for the lovely descant at ‘Sing choirs of angels’.
The maverick takes issue with both modern liberals and modern conservatives because he alone refuses to abandon two key pillars of our classical liberal constitutional theory: limited government and strong property rights. The modern maverick thus works in the Lockean tradition that was ascendant during the founding period. This classical liberal approach should not be misconstrued to hold that all forms of legislation and taxation are illegitimate. The classical liberal is no hard-line libertarian, for she accepts the legitimacy of state power, even if she thinks that it is always an uphill battle to justify government limits on individual freedom. Stated otherwise, the classical liberal does not ask, as do modern liberals and conservatives, why any assertion of individual rights poses a challenge to democratic institutions. Rather, he insistently questions the extent to which democratic institutions may misuse political power to limit individual rights. The position is not geared solely to economic issues of private property and contractual freedom; it also extends to such key areas of human interaction as political speech and religious conscience.
Whether or not it is true, the following has a clear sense:
1. The Hatfields outnumber the McCoys.
(1) says that the number of Hatfields is strictly greater than the number of McCoys. It obviously does not say, of each Hatfield, that he outnumbers some McCoy. If Gomer is a Hatfield and Goober a McCoy, it is nonsense to say of Gomer that he outnumbers Goober. The Hatfields 'collectively' outnumber the McCoys.
It therefore seems that there must be something in addition to the individual Hatfields (Gomer, Jethro, Jed, et al.) and something in addition to the individual McCoys (Goober, Phineas, Prudence, et al.) that serve as logical subjects of number predicates. In
2. The Hatfields are 100 strong
it cannot be any individual Hatfield that is 100 strong. This suggests that there must be some one single entity, distinct but not wholly distinct from the individual Hatfields, and having them as members, that is the logical subject or bearer of the predicate '100 strong.'
So here is a challenge to Ed Buckner the nominalist. Provide truth-preserving analyses of (1) and (2) that make it unnecessary to posit a collective entity (whether set, mereological sum, or whatever) in addition to individual Hatfields and McCoys.
Nominalists and realists alike agree that one must not "multiply entities beyond necessity." Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem! The question, of course, hinges on what's necessary for explanatory purposes. So the challenge for Buckner the nominalist is to provide analyses of (1) and (2) that capture the sense and preserve the truth of the analysanda and yet obviate the felt need to posit entities in addition to concrete particulars.
Now if such analyses could be provided, it would not follow that there are no 'collective entities.' But a reason for positing them would have been removed.
