All posts by Dominic Agnelli

Happiness and the Good Life

Faith and Reason, Virtue, , , , , ,

Happiness is one of the most enduring ideas in the history of the world. One could go all the way back to the ancient Greeks and their idea of happiness as human flourishing, or eudaimonia. In our time, happiness is still a fundamental idea in the lives of ordinary people. You would be hard pressed to find a person who does not want to be happy. In fact, since the human will is inclined to work towards the good that it perceives, a man cannot help but act towards his own happiness. Or, at the very least, his perceived happiness. Herein lies the issue in many of our modern day conversations about happiness, for as much as it is talked about it is almost never defined. Postmodernists did away with the idea that there was any uniting narrative for humanity, and it seems that as a consequence the idea that happiness had any objective basis was thrown out as well. The prevailing notion in our age is that the question of what makes a person happy is up to each individual to decide for him or herself. So what is happiness? And how should we go about obtaining it?

Happiness as an Activity

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines happiness as an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Thus, happiness is not merely a feeling or something that can be subjectively defined. It is an activity which we participate in. A person is happy insofar as they are virtuous. This view is more robust than our modern conception of happiness. Our modern conception of happiness is based around how a man feels about his life, or the external circumstances of his life, but if we view happiness as an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue then it is not dependent on the external circumstances of one’s life. In his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor, makes the case that meaning and happiness are not found in one’s external circumstances. He observes that those who were able to survive the concentration camps were not necessarily the most physically fit, but the ones who had a strong interior life. This fits with Aristotle’s further commentary on happiness in Book X of Nicomachean Ethics. He writes, “If happiness is activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be that of the best thing in us… That this activity is contemplative we have already said.” So for Aristotle, happiness is a contemplative activity. This does not mean that in order to be happy we need to withdraw from society and go live a life of contemplation in the wilderness. We are social creatures, we need relationships to flourish, and have obligations to our families and society. However, true happiness cannot be found unless we take intentional time to spend in contemplation and reflection. The man who lives only for his shallow external circumstances will find that his happiness is not enduring and can be stripped away in a moment’s notice.

Man’s Final End

Aristotle’s vision of happiness is a natural happiness. It is a happiness that we can achieve by our own nature. However, there is a happiness promised to us as Christians that we cannot achieve by our nature: supernatural happiness. For Aquinas, this supernatural happiness finds its completion in the Beatific Vision which is the vision of God enjoyed by those in Heaven. Christ speaks of this happiness when He says, “If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete” (Jn 15: 10-11). Natural happiness is not a complete picture of human happiness. We were not created for this life alone. The beginning of the Baltimore Catechism sums this up well: “God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.” Supernatural happiness cannot be achieved separate from natural happiness. Grace perfects nature and does not destroy it as Aquinas famously stated. We ought to seek virtue in this life, and by cooperation with God’s grace and the sacraments obtain everlasting happiness in the next. Any other view of happiness will be incomplete.

Aristotle correctly posits that in order for happiness to be our final end it must be self-sufficient and not lacking. However, if we restrict our happiness to things of this life we will run into the problem of desire which C.S. Lewis speaks of in Mere Christianity when he says, “I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy.” Therefore, seek virtue and happiness in this life, but never despair of our ultimate happiness in the next. Let us always keep in mind the closing lines of the serenity prayer: “Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will; that I may be reasonably happy in this life, and supremely happy with Him forever.”

Why Suffer?

God's Will, Redemption, Suffering, , , ,

As discussed in the last post, suffering is a tragic part of the human experience. It is a reality that we all must face. It is uniquely human. All animals can feel pain, but only we can suffer. As John Paul II points out in Salvifici Doloris,

“Nevertheless what we express by the word “suffering” seems to be particularly essential to the nature of man. It is as deep as man himself, precisely because it manifests in its own way that depth which is proper to man, and in its own way surpasses it. Suffering seems to belong to man’s transcendence: it is one of those points in which man is in a certain sense “destined” to go beyond himself, and he is called to this in a mysterious way.”

Suffering is not merely the experience of pain. It is an awareness of a deficiency. The man who suffers does not suffer merely because of the pain, but because that pain is a reminder of what is lacking in himself and in the world. Suffering arises from the experience we all have of looking at ourselves and the world, and thinking “it should not be this way”.

So, what are we to do with the fact of suffering? Many have tried to run from it in the pleasures and comforts of the world only to find that these things are vanities. Ultimately, we are left with two options to deal with suffering. There is the Way of Mephistopheles, or the Way of the Cross. A middle ground does not exist. Everyone suffers, there is no choice in the matter. However, each person can choose how they will respond to it.

Suffering and Resentment

The Way of Mephistopheles, is named after the demon in Faust, and his line: “for all that comes to be / deserves to perish wretchedly”. This response is characterized by its bitter resentment. This resentment fills a person with rage, and is a quick path to misery. And, as they say, misery loves company. Those who suffer may become envious of those they perceive as suffering less. This envy, prodded by their resentment and misery, forms the basis of the justification to inflict suffering on others. Not so that they may suffer less, but so that all will suffer as they do and “perish wretchedly”. While this is certainly a grim outlook, we would be foolish to deny that our own hearts do not have the capacity for this kind of resentment. We have all seen it in small forms, like losing our cool with a family member because we are having a bad day, or maybe even in larger forms like celebrating murder. This approach to suffering ruins lives and relationships. Despite what our culture says about the compassion behind abortion and euthanasia, it is this view of suffering that drives these things. Abortion pits a mother against her child, and justifies the evil done to the child in light of the suffering or potential suffering of the mother. And with respect to euthanasia, in Canada for example, it did not take long before assisted suicide was offered to those who are suffering and did not ask for it. The contempt for suffering can drive us towards moral abominations. Indeed, in the final analysis, there may be no real difference between resentment towards suffering and resentment towards those who are suffering.

The Death of Suffering

Now that we have seen the bitterness of the Way of Mephistopheles, let’s take a look at the Way of the Cross. The path is characterized by the acceptance of suffering. Rather paradoxically, this is the only path out of suffering. Any athlete or musician knows this. In order to be excellent at something, one must suffer through long and grueling hours of practice. However, once a sort of excellence is achieved, the suffering decreases even if the practice is just as long and grueling. The symbol of the cross itself shows us the truth of this paradox. The cross has gone from a symbol of suffering so severe that it struck fear into the heart of every Roman to a symbol of hope for untold numbers of people throughout history, and all because of Jesus’ willingness to accept suffering. In the end, the problem of suffering cannot be solved without Jesus. Yes, as is laid out in this article, there is good reason to take the Way of the Cross without an explicit appeal to religion, but suffering itself cannot die unless we are willing to unite ourselves with Christ and accept the will of God the way He did in Gethsemane. As St. Paul explains in Philippians 3, by sharing in the sufferings of Christ, we can also share in his resurrection. When we learn to fully accept God’s will, suffering becomes a gift. There is no longer a reason to say, “it should not be this way”. Suffering takes on a whole new character. It becomes redemptive. Perhaps the truth of suffering is that it is destined to become either the means of our salvation or of our eternal ruin.

In Defense of Honor

Culture, Faith, God's Will, Virtue, , , , ,

In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke comments on the loss of honor that came as a result of the French Revolution. Concerning Marie Antoinette, Burke writes,

Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprize is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honour, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.

Honor once lost, like any other virtue, is not easily regained. It is especially hard to regain in a culture that is actively hostile to it.

Honor, as St. Thomas Aquinas defines it, “is the reward of every virtue… it follows that by reason of its matter it regards all of the virtues” (ST II-II Q. 129 Art. 4). Thus, it is clear that honor comes from virtue. In order to be truly honorable, a man must be virtuous. Our culture has, in large part, rejected the traditional idea of virtue. There is much talk about rights and what we are owed, but little discussion about duty. Men are encouraged to extol the virtues of kindness and inclusivity, and women, on the other hand, are told that expressing traits like “nurturance” and “family-oriented values” are just mere preferences and not virtues. As always, the devil is in the details. A man should be loving and caring, but if he places kindness and inclusivity above all other virtues then the family and, by extension, society, will suffer. Certainly, kindness and inclusivity would not have saved Marie Antoinette from the guillotine. And families do not need women who prefer to be nurturing and selfless, but women who are nurturing and selfless. There will be, however, some who will object to this and say that traditional notions of honor and virtue are outdated and bigoted. So, naturally, the question becomes, “Why should we care about honor, aren’t we better off without it?”.

There are a couple of approaches one could take towards answering this question. The first would be to ask what will replace the role that honor had in society? What is beyond honor and virtue? Alasdair MacIntyre explores this question in his book After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Of a society that has lost its vision of honor and virtue he writes,

In a society where there is no longer a shared conception of the community’s good as specified by the good for man, there can no longer either be any very substantial concept of what it is to contribute more or less to the achievement of that good. Hence notions of desert and of honor become detached from the context in which they were originally at home. Honor becomes nothing more than a badge of aristocratic status, and status itself, tied as it is now so securely to property, has very little to do with desert.

A society that abandons honor does not get egalitarianism. Instead, it gets aristocracy and credentialism.

For the second approach, one might ask if tearing down virtue and honor would also threaten other societal goods. Failing to examine this question would be like removing a wall in a house without first determining if it is load-bearing. Unfortunately, leaving honor in the past has not been without consequence. Honor is the basis for magnanimity. Aquinas identifies this connection: “Now a man is said to be magnanimous in respect of things that are great absolutely and simply, just as a man is said to be brave in respect of things that are difficult simply. It follows therefore that magnanimity is about honors” (ST II-II Q. 129 Art. 1). In 2020, Ross Douthat wrote a book called The Decadent Society: How We Became the Victims of Our Own Success about how and why our society has, in many ways, stopped advancing. While his hypothesis is beyond the scope of this article, the phenomenon he is discussing is germane to the point. There has been a societal decline in the desire to do great things. This stems directly from a change in societal value. As MacIntyre pointed out, society values the vain status associated with honor rather than the virtue from which honor is derived. Not only is magnanimity a virtue and therefore necessary for human flourishing, but society needs it. Magnanimity landed on the moon, it sailed to new worlds, it wrote poems and epics, it built planes, and made countless discoveries and inventions. So rather than resent success and laugh at honor, we should have the courage to ask ourselves if we are here on this earth for something great. Perhaps there really is something great in store for each and every one of us if we would but have the courage and magnanimity to pursue it. And even more terrifying is the possibility that part of the greatness God wishes to bring to the world can only be brought through you. Sure, God can bring goodness out of anything, but there may be good that never comes if you abandon honor and magnanimity. In closing, I would like to turn to Pope Benedict XVI who so eloquently reminds us of this truth: “The ways of the Lord are not easy, but we were not created for an easy life, but for great things, for goodness”.

Bias: A Progressivist Slur

Culture, History, Politics, , ,

Many of us have been subjected to implicit bias trainings that have become part in parcel of the human resources department of corporations and academic institutions throughout the country. While many of the ideas behind these trainings seem absurd, they have inflicted grave harm on society nonetheless. Take for example the idea that institutions must embrace equity in order to “correct” for these biases. Evidence suggests that Asians applying to Harvard needed to score 270 points higher on the SAT than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than African Americans to have the same chance of admission: bitter fruit indeed. It was statistics like this that, in part, led to the 2023 SFFA v Harvard Supreme Court case. Though it would be an interesting article to cover the topic of implicit bias trainings and their connection to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) ideology, that will have to be an article for another day.

What will be dealt with here is the larger issue of bias. Bias is a term frequently thrown around by both sides of a debate, but rarely defined. At one point or another we have all probably received the retort “Well you just think that because…” or “You are just biased”. In many cases this is just a simple ad hominem or genetic fallacy and nothing more. However, there is a particularly pernicious use of this attack that is worth examining in-depth. This is the progressivist accusation that the ideas of the past are no longer valid because they are biased, either by their bigotry, racism, sexism, or whatever other pejorative one can think of. This attack is at best ignorant and at worst hypocritical. Bias, per se, is not a reason to discount any argument or idea. In fact, it is unavoidable.

The Progressive View

Before discussing the absurdity of the progressivist charge of bias, it is necessary to talk about the philosophy behind this attack. When I speak of progressivism I am not merely speaking of a political movement, but of a philosophy. It is a philosophy rooted in the belief in inevitable progress towards a more fair, more just, and more enlightened society. Rarely do the proponents of this philosophy argue explicitly that society is inevitably progressing in a positive direction, rather it is assumed. With each advancement in society, progressivists are usually quick to point out that it is a sign of progress, but what is rarely asked is “Progress towards what?”. If the progress is inevitable then the question would not even be worth asking. In an 1853 sermon called “Of Justice and Conscience” Unitarian minister Theodore Parker said, “Look at the facts of the world. You see a continual and progressive triumph of the right. I do not pretend to understand the moral universe, the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. But from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice”. This statement has been famously quoted by Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama. While there is truth in this quote, after all we do and should long for justice: “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” (Mt 5:6), it is just too simple. Simple narratives of history should be treated with extreme skepticism. An honest reading of history reveals anything but a simple narrative. History is filled with successes and failures, suffering and triumph, heroes and villains. It is not one long “progressive triumph of the right”, but rather a struggle in which there is both progress and regress.

On a societal level, progressivism leads to the view that tradition is foolish or even a burden as a recent presidential candidate frequently pointed out. On a personal level, this can lead to a deep resentment of one’s ancestors. Progressivism is implicitly opposed to the fourth commandment, “honor and obey your father and mother”. If the progressivist reading of history is correct then what is there to honor in your parents? After all, they are less enlightened than you. Sure, there is a certain degree of gratitude one still owes to their parents for taking care of them and giving them life. But at the end of the day, society has moved on from their honor. What was honorable in their day has been replaced by the “continual and progressive triumph of the right”. There are sobering examples of how resentful progressivism can make people towards their ancestors, including their parents. Take this woman for example. Further, there is research showing that an increasing number of children are cutting their parents off. While there are certainly other factors at play, progressivism has not helped this problem.

I Think Therefore I Am Biased

What the progressivist fails to see is that bias is a necessity. No person can avoid it. Bias is the set of assumptions that we bring with us into the world. It is the narrative by which we see reality. I affirm that each of us should examine this narrative, but I do not advocate for getting rid of it. There is no human being who can rid themselves of all assumptions. As G.K. Chesteron points out in his essay “Philosophy for the Schoolroom” all argumentation, and thus all thought, is built on assumptions and dogmas. No one can be a completely objective observer of the facts of this world. For every person there is a value or set of values by which the facts are interpreted. Therefore, the progressivist is no less biased than anyone else. The concern should not be whether or not a person has bias, but whether that bias disposes a person towards the truth. The goal should not be to rid ourselves of assumptions, but to hold true assumptions. So, yes, we should examine our biases to see if they are in accord with reality and truth. The man who wishes to discard all of his bias must reconstruct his entire system of thought every time he has a new thought, lest he be biased by what he thought before. And even that would not remove all of his bias as Chesterton points out. Ultimately, the great irony for progressivism is that in order for society to progress at all we must be biased towards our ancestors. For it is as Edmund Burke said in “Reflections on the Revolution in France”, “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors”.

Pornography as Self-Worship

beauty, Sexual Ethics, Theology of the Body, ,

It tends to be that when a society gets their view of God wrong they also get their view of sex wrong. These two things are intrinsically linked. Our worship is closely connected to our view of sexuality. We can see many examples of this throughout Pagan cultures, and even throughout the Old Testament, most notably in the Exodus story of the golden calf. It then should not come as a surprise at all that a culture which is dominated by pornography, contraception, and so called “casual sex” is also a culture that profoundly misunderstands God and worship. Could it be that these deviant sexual behaviors are themselves a form of worship? That would certainly explain why we have lost our ability to understand true worship. In this article, I want to explore just one of those forms of worship: pornography. Further, we will examine the idol behind the worship.

Worship

One might be willing to agree that pornography interferes with our true worship of God, as all sin does, but isn’t it a little bit far to say that it creates an idol? Every year the world’s largest pornography site releases usage statistics for their platform. One chart they release describes the usage for each day of the week.  In three of the last four years in which data was released the most popular day is Sunday.

source: pornhub.com/insights

The fact that the most visited day of the week is the day which is culturally set aside for worship is uncanny to say the least. In fact, as will be argued later in this article, given the worship like nature of pornography there is good reason to believe that we are dealing with an idol here. Furthermore, users of pornography must often make sacrifices to continue their use. To name a few users must often sacrifice their marriages, jobs, and, ironically, even their normal sexual function. Since idols always demand something from their worshippers, it would seem that there is indeed an idol behind pornography.

Idols as Charms

Before the word “fetish” was widely used in a sexual context, it was a term that meant a charm viewed as having a captivating spiritual power. The word has roots in the Portugese word feitico meaning charm or sorcery. One widely discussed effect is that the longer a person engages with pornography the more fetishized the types of pornography that they use needs to be. As Dr. Norman Doidge points out in his book The Brain that Changes Itself, pornography has become increasingly more hardcore and fetishized. Additionally, Mary Harrington describes the law of “erotic entropy” as the tendency for a user to turn to more extreme forms of pornography over time in order to achieve the same arousal. The neuroscience behind this matches up with this law. Pornography stimulates the release of dopamine in the brain, and as the brain adapts to the levels of dopamine more extreme content is required to give the user the same “high”. To bring us back to the point, pornography has moved increasingly in the direction of fetishes which serve as charms and idols. 

Further, engaging with pornography itself is a parody of the center of Christian worship. While I am certainly not the first to point this out, the act of engaging with pornography itself is an inversion of the central words of the Mass: “This is my body given up for you.” Instead, the viewer of pornography says, “This is your body taken by me.” The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is total and selfless act of life giving love, but pornography is the offering of another’s body to the idol of one’s desires. Pornography is the worship of an idol.

Making the Connection Clearer

It has already been alluded to, but it is worth making the connection between idolatry and pornography clearer. It is certainly tempting to conclude that pornography itself is an idol, however, pornography is not an end in itself. Just as the Mass is not what we are worship, but the means by which we worship, likewise pornography is not the true end which the user is seeking but a means to an end. So naturally, the question is what is the end? 

To answer this question I think we must first ask what pornography is. The root of the word comes from the Greek, pornographos, meaning something like “depicting prostitutes”. Interestingly enough, it was also a word used to describe sexually graphic paintings that were put in temples of Bacchus. This brings us to an important connection between pornography and art. Oftentimes, when one walks into a church, especially older churches, he is struck by all the artwork in the church. The artwork is there not because we are worshipping the art itself, but because the holy images elevate our mind to the contemplation of God and His mysteries. On the other hand, pornography is a kind of anti-art. It was not put into temples because they worshipped the paintings, but because it led their minds to the indulgence and elevation of their base desires and fantasies. Thus, while holy artwork is used in the worshipping of God, pornography is used in the worshipping of the self. 

What should be done?

In closing, there are two things that I think are important to point out. First, I would like to make clear why I have written this article. I have written this not to shame those who struggle with this issue. In fact if you do struggle there is a certain sense in which that is a good thing, so do not stop struggling. However, there are many people and even many Christians who sadly have given up on fighting this issue. These people foolishly believe that pornography is not that serious. It is for these people that I have written. Second, we must remember how idols need to be dealt with. As the story of King Josiah from 2 Kings reminds us, idols must be destroyed. They cannot coexist with true worship. We ought to seek to make pornography both legally and culturally unthinkable for the good of both the producers and consumers, but as is argued in this article pornography is not an idol, but the means by which we worship an idol: the self. Ultimately, the idol needs to be destroyed in our own hearts or it will destroy us. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his book The Gulag Archipelago reminds us of this truth: “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”