Hey Jenn,
Just wanted to see how you were, I don't think I've ever sent you an email.Not to gloat about the small conservative triumph, and I don't even know how interesting you find politics (its usually really boring) I'd like to send you something from Pope John Paul encyclical Centensimus Annus
Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

So you see a society who beliefs are rooted in a correct understanding of the human person, that is, men and women have within them the law of nature and human nature's dignity and with these two qualities comes responsibility and freedom. responsibility to the moral law within us and the freedom stems from our shared and equal diginity that no man is the ruler of another.Our freedom and responsibilty are therefore manifested most highly in the gift of oneself to another, to our fellow human beings and above all to God, whom theologians call "the Wholly Other".
Now the conservatives in Canada do not perfectly understand or defend this vision in their official platform but there are strong dynamic elements within the party which beleive in this philosophy of the person and these men and women are the parlimentarians who will make the difference in the struggle against the culter of death in Canada.
Just some rambling thought of dubious importance but there they are.
Pax Christi
Eric

January 17th 2006

Philosophy Class at Trent (home of mental, moral and architectural rot) is something of a travesty (please remember Canadian conservatives are not given to exaggeration).
Case in point. My text book and prof seem quite convinced that a search for truth is rather futile and proving premises true is too stringent a test for logic. Instead we must be content with mere "acceptability" concerned more with whether our audience will tolerate our syllogism and thus be convinced by the attractive presentation of the argument rather than the truth it (supposedly) contains.
I think this approach to logic specifically and philosophy in general is both misguided and intellectually irresponsible for three basic reasons.
If Aristotle was right (which as long as he wasn't speculating about physics he usually was) that "philosophy is rightly called a knowledge of the Truth". If we aren't prepared to determine the truth of our premises can we hope to understand if our conclusions are true? When philosophy looses its locus of truth then it really degenerates in the word play of the sophists, the "wise-men" of Athens, who would argue any point for the right amount of cash. Plato says these men could make white appear black and black seem white.

Here's another quick thought. When we accept something we accept it as something. We can accept something as just, as beautiful, as funny, as ugly et cetera. But when we judge a premise for acceptability what are we accepting it as? Logical. Therefore Logic which is meant to be the philosophical means of arriving at Truth instead becomes the end to which we accept reality.

Hey,

If your looking brilliant commentary, incisive analysis and dazzling wit, I hate to disappiont but you're probably better off picking up a copy Chesterton than reading this. Still, in the spirit of Christian charity, to those of you who've accidently stumbled across this fledgling blog; welcome.

For many years now the phenomenom John Paul the Great called the "Culture of Death" has held sway over the intellectual establishment in Canada. This culture closes itself to the transcendent in man, denying man is able to participate in beauty, truth and goodness because he is nothing more than mere matter. Because matter changes state throough chemical, physical and nuclear reactions man and his thoughts which are the products of electrical pulses in his brain is not capable of transcending death. Death, because it ends the functions of the body, is the end of man. During his life man is not able to approach Truth because there is no absolute truth, only mists of opinion and debate in which he must forge his own truth out of nothing. Wherever the Zietgeist leads man can follow, different truths for different men, at different time in different places. Though this culture may seek to exult man in perfect liberty and autonomy it only suceeds in subjecting him to the whim of tyrants outside and within himself. For man in the culture of death can appeal to no higher authority than his own belief and if another, stronger or more influential than him, has a conflicting idea what can stop him from forcing his opinion on the weaker. In a culture of death what can stop tyranny?

Nothing.

This, I believe, is what Pope Benedict meant when he refered t0 as the "dictatorship of moral relativism". And this is what his noble predescesor urged the world to confront and challenge with a culture of life, which answers the man search for meaning by opening him up to Truth outside himself. Man can appeal to this truth a standard against injustice in all times in all places and to all men.

This is not merely a philosophical conflict but one that impacts society in relationship to politics, science, law, morality and the arts. In abortion, why should intrisic human dignity trump the idea of choice whatever most closely agrees with the present climate of opinion is accepted. Why would one idea of marriage as unitive, exclusive, total and fruitful be superior to marriage defined as any relationship between two people? The culture of death offers no standard of goodness or truth to measure ideas so one idea can be just as good as another. The only real standard are material and economic benefits man receives for professing a popular idea.

The present situation in Canada where the lights of the culture of life are either extingushed or dimly burning is intolerable. Intolerable because of the millions of humans killed in the womb. Intolerable because of the thousands of marriages and children assualted by divorce and same-sex unions. Intolerable because of the creeping acceptance of euthanasia and assisted suicied and the abandoment of the elderly.

The present culture war is on the side of the culture of life in Canada a war of attrition. If we are able to stop funding for embryonic stem cell research from one organization, discourage a religious institution from honouring a "pro-choice" politician or organise a protest rally we consider this a great victory. While admirable and necessary, this work will be essentially meaningless unless it is supported and strengthened by a real, concrete and convincing philosophy of life. The Church, especially in the writings of the modern Pontiffs and the Vatican Council II (notably Gaudium et Spes), has devoted much effort and thought to a philosophical anthropology in which the truth of man is fully revealed in Christ becoming man and giving human dignity a new meaning. From this we see man is meant to live for something other than himself as Christ did, not to live merely for himself or his passions or his country or his politics, but to give his life as gift for other like Christ on the cross. Men are able to give themselves as persons to each other through marriage, friendships educational relationships all in diffferent ways for the common good because they possess more than electrical currents and revolving atoms, the possess unique personality. When this personality is offered for others it becomes deeper and broader and that is what makes the culture of life.

Therefore the blog for all its faults and mediocrity is meant to serve as a forum to develop a workable communicable philosophy of the culture of life. This philosophy if it can open the horiozons of individual souls and our Canadian society, letting the rays of the transcendent enlighten our laws and public dialogue it will be well worth the effort.