I Should Marry a Pretty Woman

So says the Journal of Family Psychology.

Further, in contrast to the importance of matched attractiveness to new relationships, similarity in attractiveness was unrelated to spouses' satisfaction and behavior. Instead, the relative difference between partners' levels of attractiveness appeared to be most important in predicting marital behavior, such that both spouses behaved more positively in relationships in which wives were more attractive than their husbands, but they behaved more negatively in relationships in which husbands were more attractive than their wives. These results highlight the importance of dyadic examinations of the effects of spouses' qualities on their marriages.

And you know what? I'm not about to disagree.

PS
Of course, there is more to marriage than the pretty, which fades with age. But if her being more attractive than me helps, then I'm wholeheartedly for it! Hehehehe....

Of course, the bar's not very high anyway.

Keynes vs. Hayek

In rap!



Of course, thanks to FDR and the New Deal, Keynes became the most influential economist of the 20th century and a practical rock star in a field that was then only beginning to gain recognition. It was Keynes who pioneered the idea that government can spend its way out of a Depression, and this became the standard narrative of how the Great Depression was overcome. (Never mind the fact that FDR's attempt to buy America's way out of Depression only worsened it. It was arguably WWII that brought the US out of Depression.) However, unlike FDR, the current Keynesian-in-chief has no world-spanning war to end his economic woes. (Hey, Obama's from Chicago, and University of Chicago is Keynes' home away from home. Can't blame a corrupt Chicago pol for looking close to home.)

I count myself with Hayek. No economic theory as simplistic as Keynes' could explain everything without factoring in human behavior. We are not perfectly rational, and will not, on command, throw money into an economic cycle to keep the world going 'round. (note Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner stand-ins loading up the drinks to keep Keynes hammered, lol!) In a dash of ironic backlash, the liquidity trap the Keynesians had hoped to avoid came anyway when all those billions of stimulus dollars languished in banks instead of going out to the true motor of the American economy: small to medium businesses.

The Keynes quote from General Theory ("The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.") that so many economists love to throw around (and is featured prominently in the Institute of Political Economy's bulletin board) is best refuted with a little Hayek. "The more civilized we become, the more relatively ignorant must each individual be of the facts on which the working of his civilization depends." (The Constitution of Liberty)

Keynes was like the Comte of economics: the guy who turned what should be a respectable vocation into a deified babble.

Thankfully, as with scientists, so with economists. Not everbody is a jackass.

To Breathe With Both Lungs

After a thousand years of separation, the breach between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy is nearing its end, now that Eastern Patriarchs have asserted that the Pope is First among the Patriarchs. Of course, this is by no means a done deal, and there will be a lot of hard negotiating and defining to follow. But there is that hope now.



What a glorious day it would be, if Christendom both East and West re-unified again. Both fortresses will need each other in the coming assault.

A Country Like Job

Here is an excellent summation of the extremely difficult theodicy when one is cofronted with disasters like the one that befell Haiti.

So what is the meaning of Haiti, then? I am not game to venture an answer as to why the wretched of the earth have been swept away and we, the chardonney and latté set, live on to download our iPhone apps. But it has always struck me that the Christian God does not deal with souls by the gross, but one by one, tenderly, all 200,000 of them. Divine Providence does not mean that we shall never suffer, but that having suffered, we shall be loved.

One More Reason to Never See "Avatar"

I take pride in being the last person on Earth to have never seen Cameron's monstrous "Titanic".

And now, I have one more reason to hold the same record for fucking "Avatar".

EW: “Avatar” is the perfect eco-terrorism recruiting tool.”

JC: Good, good. I like that one. I consider that a positive review. I believe in ecoterrorism.”

Yep, from the auteur's mouth himself, "Dances with Space Smurfs" is an eco-terrorist recruiting tool.

They should release an Avatar RTS game. One where we can play the Marines and totally annihilate the blue cat people. That's probably the only bit of Avatar junk I'd buy. 

Ah, I suppose this dooms me to pop irrelevance. But it's better than becoming this pathetic.

"Ever since I went to see 'Avatar' I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na'vi made me want to be one of them. I can't stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it," Mike posted. "I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in 'Avatar.' "

I wonder why the damn pussy won't make himself a Darwin Award recipient....

France, RIP

Apparently, what is "France" nowadays is simply a dessicated corpse inhabited by a bunch of cultural parasites.

According to the French "Minister of Immigration and National Identity" Eric Besson:

la France n'est ni un peuple, ni une langue, ni un territoire, ni une religion, c'est un conglomérat de peuples qui veulent vivre ensemble. Il n'y a pas de Français de souche, il n'y a qu'une France de métissage

Which translates to:

France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion, it is a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There is no ethnic Frenchman, there is only a France where the blood is mixed.

What this means is that there is already no such thing as the "French People". This is ironic coming from a guy who is supposed to promote a "national identity". No ethnic Frenchman means that there were no Franks. No, it was just a bunch of differing mongrels who decided to live together. No collective heritage, no culture, no people. It is as if France doesn't exist anymore other than on some civic identity card. Poor Charlemagne fought for nothing. Poor Joan of Arc died for nothing. 

As for the "mixed blood", the Filipino people can certainly sympathize. But we would never go so far as to say there is no Filipino people, for we have here the Ilocano, the Tagalog, the Cebuano, etc. The Filipino people, embodied in these tribes, exist. Even if our territory was the product of Spanish unification, we would never say that there is no Philippine territory. And we cling to our religion deeply.

So, give a toast and bid goodbye to France. We hardly knew ye.

PS
French jokes are no longer racist!

Because Scientists Don't Do Philosophy # 2

Highly mis-educated science worshipper (I don't know if he actually practices it) thinks free will is an illusion.

His current hypothesis is that what man thinks is free will is actually determined by his environment, which is an argument as old as philosophy itself. But, he reaches this conclusion by way off the phenomenon of captives cooperating with their captors, the so-called "Stockholm syndrome".

Yet their behaviour is more understandable when you consider that they suffered solitary confinement and the threat of long imprisonment or even execution. What?s clear is that the Iranian authorities knew very well the power of environment over individual behaviour and used it effectively. Armies the world over do the same. So do terrorist groups. So, in a different context, do marketing companies, political parties and religious cults.

How do you think you would behave in such a situation? The truth is, none of us knows. Or do you disagree?

Never mind the flawed concept of causality operating behind his murky assumptions. (More reason to take philosophy classes outside of critical theory....) What I find remarkable is that he ignores basic falsifiability. (As Karl Popper would say, if there is a white swan, then the statement "all swans are black" is false.) Has he never heard of John McCain? Or the French Resistance? Has he even seen Rambo II? We've made icons out of people who have successfully defied the "power of environment over individual behavior". That alone debunks his chain of causation. Free will cannot be an illusion if there are people who do exercise their free will.*

What is frightening is that morons like these will soon be in charge of making laws and policies for us.

As for the cheap rheotrical question in the end, the answer is, no, we cannot tell what we will do in the same situation. But we can choose.

*This is giving consideration to their very limited notion that free will is only evident when exercised against a predictable course of action.

With good teachers, grades are earned. They are not bestowed.

The Humanities and Man’s Purpose

Article 1: The End of the Humanities

Question 1: Whether the Inner Life is the Object of the Humanities.

Objection 1. The purpose of the Humanities is to form future scholars. The Humanities have achieved their proper end once they have prepared a scholar for future scholarly endeavors.

Objection 2. Furthermore, the goal of the Humanities is to know the process of human acts. The Humanities study the deeds and works of man. These are the products of human acts. To know how these human acts are carried out (i.e., How did Duke Wellington win Waterloo?) and the reasoning behind human acts is the end of the humanities.

Objection 3. Furthermore, the end of the Humanities is knowledge of itself. The Humanities have achieved their end if they can provide man with knowledge of its subjects, such as history, literature, etc.

On the contrary, the Humanities are oriented toward the study of the inner life of man. The study of the products, constructs and concerns of man are all done in light of trying to understand the inner life of man.

The inner life of man flows within man. However, man’s inner life is embodied, and this embodied nature leads man to wish to express through the body what is in the inner life. These expressions, be they novels, statues, paintings or historical choices, all reveal aspects of man’s inner life. The inner life is not revealed in a straightforward fashion, like the result of a scientific experiment. Take the painting, for example. When a person looks at a painting, one is struck by the beauty of the expression. When one delves into the techniques used to bring the painting about, it is not an interest in the techniques per se, but to see how the techniques contribute to the expression. In some cases, even the technique itself is part of the expression. Something resonates in the viewer, something that was part of the artist, and in this, the inner life is shared and expressed. It is the imprint of the inner life in all these works and acts that the Humanities is concerned with.

Reply to Objection 1. While the formation of future scholars is certainly a possible consequence of the use of the Humanities, it is not the direct end. Scholars and students may be put in the proper disposition to know when going through the Humanities, but this is an effect of the attempt to study the inner life of man, an inner life that they, too, possess.

Reply to Objection 2. Learning in the Humanities does not stop with the human product or the human act, but with the human being. Knowing the reason behind a historical act, or the meaning and rationale behind a painting, is not enough for the student of the Humanities. What must be sought, in the motivations and expressions of man, is the inner life reaching out beyond itself, resonating with other inner lives through the ages. It is not enough, for example, to learn that it was a threat to his kingdom that prompted Charles Martel to defy the Moors. One must also wonder at what this historical figure so loved and so hated, that he would risk the fate of his entire people on the outcome of one battle. The Humanities require that the scholar dig deeper.

Reply to Objection 3. While knowledge of the products and acts of man are a worthy end in themselves, the Humanities do not dwell on knowing the products and acts as things in themselves. The Humanities see these things as the consequence of man having an inner life. History, for example, has to contend with free will, and not the simple determinism of a chain of causes and effects. Literature has to contend, not just with the words, but with the metaphors. The Humanities seek to see past the appearance, and into the inner structure itself.

Article 2: Whether God is the End of the Humanities.

Objection 1. The Humanities study the things of man, not the things of God. By virtue of the very name “Humanities”, the subject in focus is man, not God. Therefore, the Humanities have nothing to do with God.

Objection 2. Furthermore, Theology is only a part of the Humanities. While some aspect of the Humanities touches on the subject of God, this is not the entirety of the Humanities. Therefore, God is a part, not the end, of the Humanities.

Objection 3. Furthermore, the Humanities is the study of man. Not all men believe in God. Therefore, no study of man can ever have God as its end.

On the contrary, the ultimate end of the Humanities is to seek God. The inner life ultimately seeks God, and can be understood best in that context. Since the Humanities seek to understand the inner life of man, the Humanities must be a seeking of God.

The goal of the inner life is knowledge. To know is to be in union with the inner structure of an object. However, not all inner structures of objects are equally desirable for union. The inner life ultimately seeks union with something greater than itself above union with objects lesser than itself. One need only look at human actions. The knowing of a loved one is more desirable than the knowing of an animal. The knowing of a pet animal is superior to the knowing of a chair. The knowing of God, the highest of beings, is the most desired end of an inner life that seeks union with something greater than itself. As St. Augustine once said, “the heart is restless until it rests in You, O Lord.”

Reply to Objection 1. The Humanities are focused, not on the things of man, on man himself. The things of man are considered as the expressions of his inner life; an inner life that is constantly seeking union with God. To know man is to know that which he seeks, just as to know art is to know the beauty of the expression.

Reply to Objection 2. While Theology is but one part of the Humanities, the seeking of God is not confined to Theology. While Theology deals with doctrines, dogma and revelation about the nature of God, it does not touch upon the ways by which man seeks God, which can say something about God not readily apparent in the study of revelation. Besides, there is a reason why Theology was once called the Queen of the Sciences. It was in Theology that scholars tried to make sense of every other attempt to seek God. However, this cannot be done in Theology alone. The other disciplines of the Humanities are necessary.

Reply to Objection 3. Even those who profess to believe that God does not exist still seek some vestige of God. Poets and philosophers still speak of the filling of the “God-shaped hole” in the heart of man, just as even atheistic physicists are compelled to seek the “God particle” that makes the existence of matter possible. There is a saying often misattributed to G. K. Chesterton: “When man stops believing in God, he does not believe in nothing. He will believe in anything.” This is borne out by the obsession with ideology, vague spiritualities and dubious science by those who have supposedly weaned themselves off the pursuit of God. Man will always pursue God, even in his godlessness. Where they refuse to seek God, they will seek a simulacrum of Him. After all, nobody in the dark will fail to seek light. Therefore, the pursuit of God is essential in any study of man.

Article 3: Whether the Humanities are a Study of the Inner Life.

Objection 1. The inner life of man is completely within man. There is no way to confirm or replicate an inner life, and therefore no way to study the inner life. The Humanities cannot be the study of the inner life.

Objection 2. Furthermore, the Humanities study the products, constructs and concerns of man. The subjects are all concrete, documented and verifiable. The inner life is not. Therefore, the Humanities cannot be the study of the inner life of man.

Objection 3. Furthermore, the inner life of man, being subjective and varying from person to person, is not worthy of study. One cannot account for taste. Therefore, the inner life cannot be the object of study of the Humanities.

On the contrary, the inner life can, in a sense, be studied through the Humanities. The Humanities examine a range of human expression stemming from the inner life, and these expressions give the Humanities a unique glimpse into the inner life of man.

The Humanities, the study of human products, constructs and concerns, examine the products of the inner life in order to understand the inner life. It is analogous to the medical experiments on human blood and human fecal matter to understand what is going on inside the human body. The old saying that a man can only be judged by his deeds comes to mind. The inner life may be closed off to outside observation, but one can still compare the resulting expressions. Furthermore, these human expressions tell us more about man as a whole than the study of his external parts. Here is where the analogy with human blood and fecal matter end. While one can observe through a variety of instruments what can be confirmed in the blood, the products of man’s inner life offer a look into a place where no instrument can go.

Reply to Objection 1. The inner life cannot be replicated, but it can manifest itself in the works of man. The inner life of man stamps its face in nature, from the use of stone to build cathedrals to the defining of a country’s borders through imaginary lines that run through rivers and mountains. One can study the inner life by engaging its externalized expressions.

Reply to Objection 2. The subjects of the Humanities are concrete, documented and verifiable, but that does not make them any less the work of men and the products of the inner lives of men. If any, the fact that these objects can be documented and verified lends credence to the notion that the inner life, inaccessible to any device made by man, can be studied by virtue of the fact man makes devices.

Reply to Objection 3. The Humanities engage a wide variety of human expression, but underneath the variety lies a degree of consistency. Take for example, the Philippine Revolution. While some factions preferred a violent separation, and others preferred a more orderly, gradual separation, they all wanted the same thing; eventual independence. This consistency and the variety it generates are both possible objects of study, and both reflect on the inner life of the men participating in historical events. This can be seen, not just in history, but in the other disciplines of the Humanities. Literature and Art are rife with different varieties of human expression desiring to express the same thing. It is not taste that is being studied, but the very nature of expression itself.

Article 4: Whether the Inner Life is the Pursuit of God.

Objection 1. The inner life of man manifests itself in beliefs. One possible belief is the belief in the non-existence of God. If belief in the non-existence of God is possible, then the pursuit of God cannot be the goal of the inner life, as the inner life can decidedly move away from God.

Objection 2. Furthermore, man desires to know. Knowing entails a union between the inner life of man and the inner structure of the object of his knowing. God is unknowable, and what is unknowable cannot be the pursuit of the inner life of man, which is oriented toward what can be known.

Objection 3. Furthermore, if the inner life of man resonates best with the inner lives of other men, then it cannot resonate with God, who is beyond man. Therefore, the inner life is not inclined to pursue God.

On the contrary, the inner life of man is in constant pursuit of God. The inner life of man is constant pursuit of something greater beyond itself, and the greatest of these is God.

The inner life of man is constantly reaching out. As it is embodied, this “reaching out” takes the form of bodily expression, as it is only in physical expression that one inner life can communicate with the other. Sometimes, it is a gesture, or a word, or a great work, but whatever form it takes, the inner life of man is compelled to go beyond itself. One might point to a hermit, whose inner life seems quite content to remain in itself. However, rare is the hermit who does not commune with an Other, be it God, or Nature, or whatever substitute for God he might find compelling. The inner life is a paradox, for it feels itself more fully the more it reaches beyond itself. A creature that is content within itself would not have dominated the world in the way man has for such a creature would have no desire beyond existing and sustaining itself within itself. It takes a restless inner life to reach out and stamp its face in nature.

Reply to Objection 1. The belief in the non-existence of God is not the same as not pursuing God. People who express a disbelief in God are compelled to find something in God’s place, be it ideology, philosophy or even the idealized Self. The inner life of man is never without the pursuit of God; in fact, this is its utmost desire, as evidenced by the great convulsions of faith in abstract things perpetuated by people who supposedly did not believe in God, from Communism to environmental activism. Those who cannot pursue God will pursue a god, further proving that the inner life of man is inherently oriented to seeking God.

Reply to Objection 2. God is not completely unknowable. Revelation and doctrine are evidence that God can be known, though not completely. However, despite the lack of complete “knowability”, the inner life of man is still drawn to God. If one looks at the devout, God is loved not because He is completely known, but because what little is known already compels them to love God. The lack of complete “knowability” has not been a barrier for the inner life’s desire for union with God. Either the desire will satisfy itself on a lesser god, or it will continue gnawing at man to continue striving for greater union, even if it can only be achieved when all of man’s life is spent.

Reply to Objection 3. The inner life of man does prefer union with another inner life generally equal to it over union with something lesser. However, the inner life of man prefers union with something greater. Take for example, how lovers often idealize or “see what is best” in the other who is loved. The inner life of either lover is equal to the other, rife with both the good and the evil. The fact that one inner life, in its union, prefers to know the good in the other inner life signifies that the inner life seeks something ultimately greater than the inner life rife with flaws and failings. And the only inner life that is such is that of God.  

Article 5: Whether the Knowledge of Man is the Knowledge of the Inner Life.

Objection 1. The inner life varies among every individual. Since what flows in the inner life is not constant, it is unnecessary to the existence of man. Therefore, knowledge of the inner life does not lead to knowledge of man.

Objection 2. Furthermore, even if we take the knowledge of the inner life as part of the knowledge of man, it cannot be of greater significance than the knowledge of the outer life of man. The body of man and its natural processes determine much of what goes on in the inner life, and therefore knowledge of it must count as equal to, if not greater than, knowledge of the inner life when it comes to knowing man.

On the contrary, the knowledge of the inner life is the knowledge of man. The knowledge of the inner life tells more about man than knowledge of the outer life.

The inner life of man is where knowing, thinking and other acts that define man apart from the animal occur. It is in the possession of the inner life similar to that of man that we judge the humanity of something. One need only look at the Irish myth of St. Christopher. In the Irish version of his story, St. Christopher began as a “Doghead”, a creature that has the body of a man and the head of a dog. These “alien creatures”, according to the primitive ethnologies written by monks, are considered “human” because they displayed traits that may be ascribed to the possession of an inner life; the mastery over other beasts, the use of clothes, and other marks that show their need to imprint their faces in nature. As proof of this belief, the medieval Church recognized a Doghead named Christopher, who upon conversion gained the “normal” physical features of a man, as a Saint.

Reply to Objection 1. The individuality of man, which is a fact of man’s being human, entails that each man is, as a whole, unique and different from the other. It is in this difference that man’s common humanity is found. Therefore, the occurrence of similar inner lives in every man cannot be the measure of what is necessary in the life of man. In fact, to study what makes man a man is to study how these differences come about. This means that the study must recourse to the inner life.

Reply to Objection 2. The outer life is significant for an embodied inner life. However, while knowing proceeds from the outer life (senses) to the inner life, it is in the inner life of man that the possession of knowing makes a difference. While the outer life intrudes upon the inner life, it is the inner life that compels man to express himself as a human being. Therefore, that which makes man human can be found in the inner life.

Article 6: Whether the Knowledge of Man is the Knowledge of God.

Objection 1. God is not man. Therefore, the knowledge of men cannot lead to the knowledge of God. One cannot derive knowledge of the complex from the simple. Man does not have the traits of God, and therefore the knowledge of God cannot be derived from knowing man.

Objection 2. Furthermore, knowledge of God is knowledge of something beyond man, and therefore when one knows God, it will be beyond anything that can be said about man. Therefore, the knowledge of man cannot be derived from the knowledge of God.

Objection 3. Furthermore, the knowledge of man is knowledge about a multitude, while knowledge of God is knowledge about the most unitary of beings. The knowledge of the multitude is not knowledge of the one. Therefore, the knowledge of man cannot be the knowledge of God.

On the contrary, the knowledge of Man is not removed from the knowledge of God. To know Man, one must know God and vice versa.

According to Matthew 7: 16, “you will know them by their fruit”. As man is in the image of God, and the image of God known through the image of man, one must know God in order to know Man, and one must know Man in order to know God.

Reply to Objection 1. Knowledge of the complex can be derived from knowledge of the simple. Single cell organisms, the simplest of organisms, provided man with knowledge on the workings of more complex multi-cellular organisms. Man does not have the traits of God, but the traits of man give us a clue as to the nature of God. After all, one can say much about an inventor, for example, by the nature of his inventions.

Reply to Objection 2. Knowledge of God reveals something of God’s creation. To know that God is Love, for example, must imply something of the importance of love for human beings. Even where lesser gods are the norm, does not Odin say much about the Nordics, or Athena about the Greeks? The results of their pursuit of God say much about these peoples, just as knowledge of God says much about knowledge of Man. The knowledge of God, or knowing what one knows about God, can say much about man.

Reply to Objection 3. Knowledge of man is not just the knowledge of a multitude, but the knowledge of the common within the variety of that multitude. This common humanity, expressed in the common pursuit of the inner life of man for God, is a unitary that can be compared the ultimate unitary being in God.    

Modern Secular Islam...

...in a snapshot.

Because Scientists Don't Do Philosophy

The problem with the modern scientist, I think, is the same problem that plagued the 19th century scientist: by the authority they believe is vested in them by the explanatory power of science, they believe they can shape the world at the snap of a peer-reviewed paper.

The modern scientist is far worse, however, because he is more philosophically deficient than his 19th century counterpart. Thank you, Ford, Dewey, and modern education!

Case in point:

Dolphins have been declared the world’s second most intelligent creatures after humans, with scientists suggesting they are so bright that they should be treated as “non-human persons”.

"So long! And thanks for all the fish!"

Do they even know the implications of "personhood"? Do these fools basking in their PhD's even realize the extent of their overreach? Only the most intelligent kind of moron can indulge is such grandiloquent stupidity.

Is intelligence the only criteria for "personhood"? My laptop can kick my ass in math and chess, but never in a million years will it be a person. The world's most highly advanced super-computer can fool a scientist by passing the Turing test, but a simple child can tell that the super-computer is but a machine, never a person.

This is the problem of the modern hubristic scientist: he has foolishly set aside the soul and metaphysics, so the only word he can ascribe to "rationality" is "intelligence". There is a severe defect in his education (just listen to Dr. Richard Dawkins prognosticate), and for the most part, his pride and the sanctimonious crown the gullible public has placed on his head has prevented him from seeing it.

Only a highly educated moron can conclude that personhood can be measured by the contours of a brain.