Repost: "Dogmatism Rightly Understood"

[...] Lewis’s elegant critique of the consequences of what we’ve come to call, somewhat oversimply, “relativism” culminates in this ringing sentence:

“A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not a tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.”

One the surface this statement might seem contradictory, if not in a sense shocking.  Why dogmatic?  If moral truths have an objective basis in reason (that is, natural law), why any need for dogmatism?
To give an answer to that question, let’s turn for a moment to a similar “dogmatic” declaration from the canon: Leo Strauss’s remark in his essay “Liberal Education and Responsibility” that “wisdom requires unhesitating loyalty to a decent constitution and even to the cause of constitutionalism.”  So it’s loyalty oaths and dogmatism?

Explaining the reasons why these two seemingly shocking statements are not shocking at all but highly necessary in our time could require a whole book (or a semester in the classroom), though a short version might be found, oddly enough, in an unlikely place: Federalist Paper #31, which is ostensibly just about the taxing power.  But Number 31 begins with a long preface of moral philosophy that boils down to this central point: the objective basis of moral truth is like proofs in geometry: they are grasped intuitively by “antecedent evidence” in Hamilton’s words, and if someone “doesn’t get it,” no amount of rational argument can establish the existence of moral truths.  “Where it produces not this effect,” Hamilton writes, “it must proceed either from some defect or disorder in the organs of perception, or from the influence of some strong interest, passion, or prejudice.” Today the “strong interest, passion, and prejudice” of the liberal mind is the unlimited autonomy or will of the Self, which cannot abide any constraint rooted in human nature. It is but a step from this unarticulated premise to a philosophy of unlimited government.

The trick of democratic politics, Federalist #51 explained, was enabling the government to be powerful enough to control the governed, but able to control (or limit) itself—that is, not so powerful that it threatens the natural rights of the people.  For liberals, rights today aren’t based in nature, but on will: anything you want becomes a “right” that government must secure by taxing and/or coercing your fellow citizens. It is a formula for tyranny; just ask Christian-owned bakeries right now. This is why Lewis says belief in objective value is necessary; the need for it to be “dogmatic” arises from the corruption of the liberal mind that more and more often today rejects reason and objectivity tout court. Against this highly trained incapacity to think, dogmatism is necessary, lest civilization itself slip inexorably away beneath the waves of nihilism.

Likewise in the second half of Lewis’s sentence, the idea of objective value is the only basis on which to answer the first question of political obligation: why should you obey the law? Post-modern liberals cannot answer the “why” of this question, and openly say that law is based only on force. Most of the time I am tempted to respond by saying: “Fine—how many of you are members of the NRA?” That’s how I let my dogma run over their (smart)-karma.

---

Source: Steven Hayward, "Dogmatism Rightly Understood," Powerline blog, May 1, 2015, accessed May 30, 2015, http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/dogmatism-rightly-understood.php.

Repost: The Trouble with Endless "Discussion"

The trouble with thinking that truth will always win out in open discussion, in my view, is that people in general are not particularly interested in truth. More than that, though, there is no such thing as a universal reason accessible to all human beings. What is rational is so only in a particular time and place and according to criteria that emerge from that context. When modern people fail to be convinced by natural law arguments, this is not because they are irrational or whatever. Rather, it is simply because all of the assumptions that underlie natural law theory make no sense to the modern mind. One might as well argue in favor of some position by referring to the principles of alchemy.

This is part of the reason why the occasional staged argument between Christians and liberals always end with the audience even more firmly on the side of the liberals. Liberals can appeal to the intuitive "common sense" of ordinary people, and they can also appeal to their emotions in ways that Christians cannot. Instead, Christians have to either attempt to justify their positions in liberal terms, which is a pointless endeavor, or waste time describing the alternate paradigm in which their views make sense, but even then, very few Christian apologists are any good at making a case for why this paradigm is superior to the liberal one.

Of course, this is so because, deep down, most Christians don't really believe their own thing anymore. And, even to the extent that they do, most of them still think of their own position in terms completely determined by the modern paradigm. Consider that traditional Catholics now like to pontificate about the naturalness and goodness of homosexuality and the base and disgusting nature of "homophobia." This is a pure transvaluation of values being accepted uncritically by Christianity. However, even Christians who do not go in for this sort of thing are still determined in their beliefs by the modern paradigm, much in the same way that the Romantic revolt against soulless modern technology in the name of pure nature was itself determined completely by modern categories.

So, I do not think open debate will solve much in this situation. As Ernst Juenger says, "A sound opinion finds many advocates, but no martyrs." Or, as Bl. John Henry Newman put it, "Many a man will live and die upon a dogma: no man will be a martyr for a conclusion." The early Church preached Christ crucified, it did not engage in endless, anemic "discussion." We know what the outcome of that strategy was, and we know what the outcome of ours has been.

---

Source: Crusading Philologist, October 21, 2014 (6:45 p.m.), comment on Vox Clamantis, "The War's Not Over -- Oh Boy!," Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum, October 20, 2014, http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3466336.0.

Judgment Is the Only Sin

I have heard some people claim that their philosophy is that "judgment is the only sin." They proceed to act as they please and allow others to do likewise so long as the twain shall ne'er harm each other or get in each others' way against their wills.

But what is judgment? The person may reply, "It is to condemn another for their beliefs and their way of life." In other words, it is to say that something that a person is doing or the way a person is—that is wrong. It is to declare something wrong. A judgment in its most simple form is an assertion that something is or ought to be this way. But then to say "judgment is the only sin" is itself a judgment against judgment. Furthermore, to say, "People can do as they please" is also a judgment, a judgment of freedom; it is an apparently positive judgment but still a judgment. To qualify a statement that one can do as one pleases so long as it harms no one else is a restriction imposed by judgment: behavior is good insofar as it isn't harmful. And what is harm? It is up to the judgment of the individual (and practically speaking, the law).

Why is judgment the only judgment prohibited? These same people will then also assert, when pressed, that obviously things such as rape, genocide, pedophilia, etc., are wrong. But who are they to pass judgment? Why can a person do anything they please except those things that harm others? And who determines what it means to harm others? The individual?

This is a morality of solipsism, of individualism. It allows the individual to get away with anything he wants without responsibility for consequences and without regard for others.

Remember, Christ never forbade judgments in Matthew 7; He forbade hypocritical judgments. Christ Himself made many condemnations and was fully justified in doing so.

Judgment is fundamental to human action. Every action presupposes a judgment. Even animals make judgments. This morality of solipsism is simply a justification for sin, and it seeks to alleviate guilt by removing the possibility of judgment, of condemnation for bad behavior. That is why judgment is the only sin: because the presence of judgment means the possibility that I have to own up to my sins, that I can't simply do as I please without regard for consequences, that I am not an isolated individual who schizophrenically has no regard for others and regard for others only when I desire, when I determine.

The Morality of Convenience

The song "Live and Let Die" came to my mind and made me start reflecting on how it serves as a contrast to the common phrase "live and let live." The idea of "live and let die" is that one who began as a person who endorsed "live and let live," who went on one's happy way and allowed others to go on theirs without any sort of condemnatory judgment, eventually became hardened by the evils of the world, resulting in an apathetic cynicism, a kind of ennui towards life.

This reflection in turn made me consider that many of my coworkers and those I notice in society, either through media or social media, subscribe at least unconsciously to a "morality of convenience." Pope Benedict in his homily before the conclave upon his election to the Papacy in 2005 said (source: http://www.ewtn.com/pope/words/conclave_homily.asp),

How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true. 

Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

 The Pope emeritus suggests that relativism is the most common go-to attitude among today's pluralistic society. It seems to be the only attitude that allows each viewpoint a "respectful space" to exist, to "COEXIST" rather, among other viewpoints.

I find, then, that working hand-in-hand with this attitude of relativism, and perhaps lending fuel to it, is the morality of convenience, a moral ethos established on, as Benedict said, "one's own ego and desires." A few examples may help draw out this morality of convenience at work in regular conversation:

1. A woman objects, "It's my body. I can do what I want with it!" Others reply, "Let the woman do what she wants!"

2. People retort, "What does the Church have to do with my private sex life?"

3. Others argue, "What's wrong with gay marriage? It won't harm me, and I don't see the harm that will come from it. I think others exaggerate when they say it will lead to the entire collapsing of our society."

4. COEXIST and TOLERANCE bumper stickers.

5. The oft-used dismissal: "Who are you to judge?" This dismissal is closely related to the other exclamation, usually said in a joking way, a phrase which I even used the other day, "Don't judge me!"

6. "Whatever floats your boat"; "Different strokes for different folks"; "That's good for you" (as opposed to, say, "That's good for you").

The examples can be multiplied. An intellectual argument is presented that can roughly be modeled as follows: my actions are as good as any other, so you cannot condemn them. Ultimately there is no "good." Those who are praised or condemned are treated as such either on the basis of what simply pleases or offends me. Desire and aversion become the framework by which moral action is judged.

And in fact, in this framework, moral action is reduced to something accidental to human life, not essential. We are no longer essentially moral beings with free will who work towards our proper flourishing. We are smart animals who try to get our way in a dog-eat-dog world, all the while paradoxically singing, "Live and let live." Yet we eat each other at any chance we get—a honk here, a flip of the bird there, an abortion here, a random stabbing there, etc.

We no longer have a direction but are like the crowd of swimmers in the tidal-wave pool, supported simply by our floatation devices, trying to stay above the waves that we create with our own machines.

We want to demand our rights and our absolute autonomy and exist as moral atoms.

There are so many contradictions in this viewpoint. An example that came to my mind is the cry of feminists who rail against patriarchal and sexist forces. These same feminists find nothing objectionable about a woman using her body to get what she wants, but the deliberate reduction of the body to an object is simply the same manipulation of a patriarchy but only in a different social sphere. Manipulation is manipulation, plain and simple. One cannot condemn the use of gender or sex-based power for one sex/gender and turn around and advocate it for the opposite sex/gender.

The morality of convenience is borne simply out of convenience, simply out of the most basic animal cognitive processes: the sorting of objects in an animal's awareness into either something 1) favorable, 2) unfavorable, or 3) neutral. All animals do this to the objects that come into their awareness. A morality of convenience simply is a more sophisticated version of this process, one that often makes use of sophistry to justify itself.

And this is why a morality of convenience goes hand in hand with the reduction of man from a moral being with a free will, the object of which ought to be the moral good, to a "smart animal," not much better than apes, self-determining and often acting like a baby or spoiled child.

The Cross is utterly antithetical to the morality of convenience.

How do we overcome the morality of convenience? It is simply the process of growing in holiness as all the Saints have taught. St. John of the Cross especially showed us its basic psychological element, which every spiritual theologian since then has reconfirmed and systematized:

1) We must detach ourselves from creaturely affections.
2) We must attach ourselves to the Divine.
3) Insofar as we detach ourselves from creaturely affections, we become free to reorient our psychological powers to the Divine and open a space in ourselves to be drawn by the Divine, for only by the grace of God can we desire God.

These three steps are a heuristic cycle; each step reinforces the other, and all lead eventually to that perfection of charity that is possible even here on earth.

In fact, St. John of the Cross's analysis is more relevant than ever, for what St. John of the Cross is telling us is the precise remedy to the morality of convenience. The morality of convenience has us pursue objects that please us and avoid or condemn those objects that repulse us. St. John of the Cross tells us to be indifferent to both—sights, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings, etc. What does it matter?

Obviously, some objects we ought to be attracted to—such as food when hungry or warmth when cold. Some objects we ought to be repelled by—such as behaviors or things that would probably or certainly entail our death or serious injury. Nevertheless, we ought to be indifferent to what Providence disposes for our experience; thus, if we get into a car accident (and weren't TRYING to get into one by some bizarre misapplication of St. John's teaching), we ought to be indifferent about such a matter and simply praise the will of God that has allowed such an event for our good.

How do we know what we are attached to? It is very easy—just look at what draws you. What do you find favorable? There is a psychological test for determining whether one is attached to something—can you live in the absence of that object for at least three months? This may seem rather strange, but consider—if a person gives up eating chocolate to test whether he is attached to it or not and never thinks about chocolate again (at least until it is accidentally brought to his attention by someone or something else), then it's clear that he isn't attached. But if a man gives up chocolate and finds, even if it's only several times a month, that he craves for it or "sneaks" some chocolate, then we know that he is attached. If his mind continuously fixates on chocolate, even to wonder, "Am I attached to it?" then we know that there is something off. After all, continuously pondering, "Am I attached to it," simply keeps it in mind. Well, if you're not attached to it, paradoxically, you just don't think about the object or the attachment.

As an aside, after I told some seminarians about St. John of the Cross's doctrine and this psychological test, one seminarian bitterly remarked, "Oh, so does that mean if I don't eat carrots for three months, then I'll know that I'm not attached to them?" (Subtext: "This is bullsh**"). The reply would be—yes, if you can continue on with your life without any concern for carrots for three months, then you'll know for sure that you have no attachment to carrots.

Now, having identified what you find favorable and unfavorable, remove yourself from favorable objects and accept unfavorable ones indifferently or even as if it were favorable.

But what about objects that are necessary for life that we may be attached to? Then you'll need to modify the behavior and bring it under a control; this is the place of virtue. For example, an attachment to sleeping—then set boundaries for the sleep and follow them strictly until they become easy, and you are indifferent to whether you get a chance to indulge in sleep or not. (This example may not be the best since most people are sleep deprived and to take the time to fix that would require considerable effort and possibly be impossible to coordinate with one's work schedule...) For eating food, one can follow a diet or give up certain foods or eat only certain amounts at certain times, etc.

Through this process, we transcend our most basic cognitive-psychological process of acting on our desires and provide a space to act in moral freedom, in pursuit of the good.