Author: Kleiner

Many of you will remember that I held a mustache growing contest in the Kant and His Successors course last year.  It was inspired by this quotation from Nz on staches:

‘The most placid, most reasonable man, so long as he has a big moustache, can sit quietly in its shade — as the accessory of a big moustache he will give most people the impression of being military, irascible and sometimes violent, so they will behave accordingly.’ — The Dawn

Well, I have been made aware of another philosophy quotation on facial hair, this time from St. Anselm in his ‘On the Fall of the Devil’.  It is a dialogue between a Teacher and a Student.

Teacher:  ‘[T]he absence of justice is dishonorable only where there ought to be justice.  For example, not having a beard is not dishonorable for a man who is not yet supposed to have a beard, but once he ought to have a beard, it is unbecoming for him not to have one.  In the same way, not having justice is not a defect in a nature that is not obligated to have justice, but it is disgraceful for a nature that ought to have it.  And to whatever degree his being supposed to have a beard shows his manly nature, to that degree his not having it disfigures his manly appearance.’

Student:  ‘I now understand quite well that injustice is nothing other than the absence of justice where there ought to be justice.’ (Ch. 17, On the Fall of the Devil)

The upshot as regards the important point here (no, not the point about justice but the point about beardedness and manliness):  A clean face on one who ought to have a beard is nothing other than the absence of manliness.

But the passage raises another important question:  at what point ought one have a beard?  A beard seems to be the sort of thing that one must needs grow into, perhaps even earn.  I see a fair number of pretty lame beards, mostly worn by people who have ‘not yet grown into a beard’.  For my own part, I feel that I have only just earned the beard.  Strangely, it never came in quite as full until rather recently as well, as if the beard knew I had not yet achieved the appropriate manliness yet.

John Paul II nails the job market for recent philosophy PhDs in this remark from Laborem exercens (1981 encyclical, ‘On Human Work’):

36. Movements of solidarity in the sphere of work–a solidarity that must never mean being closed to dialogue and collaboration with others–can be necessary also with reference to the condition of social groups that were not previously included in such movements, but which in changing social systems and conditions of living are undergoing what is in effect “proletarianization” or which actually already find themselves in a “proletariat” situation, one which, even if not yet given that name, in fact deserves it. This can be true of certain categories or groups of the working “intelligentsia,” especially when ever wider access to education and an ever increasing number of people with degrees or diplomas in the fields of their cultural preparation are accompanied by a drop in demand for their labor. This unemployment of intellectuals occurs or increases when the education available is not oriented toward the types of employment or service required by the true needs of society, or when there is less demand for work which requires education, at least professional education, than for manual labor, or when it is less well paid. Of course, education in itself is always valuable and an important enrichment of the human person; but in spite of that, “proletarianization” processes remain possible.

Philosophers Professors of the World Unite!!  (We’ll invite English, Classics, and Art History profs as well.  Hell, all the liberal arts and anyone concerned with non-vocational education is welcome to join our solidarity movement.) 

Thoughts?

While most secularists take the establishment clause to mean that religion should not interfere with government, read in the context of the whole amendment it should be read to mean that government should not interfere in the affairs of religion (just as govt should not interfere in the affairs of free spech, the press, the right to assemble or petition).

Well, the buzz in Catholic circles is that the Obama administration is working behind the scenes to quiet Catholic bishops regarding the abortion issue.  In particular, it concerns ArchBishop Burke and others who have commented on whether or not Kathleen Sebelius (Obama nominee for Health and Human Services) is fit to take the Eucharist.  The rumor is that the Obama administration is pressuring the Holy See to silence these outspoken bishops, or at least pressuring the See to distance itself from their remarks.

Now, you might think it is silly for Catholics to argue that some Catholics ought not take the Eucharist because of their political views (support for abortion).  But whether that is silly or not is not the issue.  The Catholic Church is free to be silly if it wants.  The issue is whether or not the federal govt should be meddling in the internal affairs of a religion for political ends (namely, to buttress support for Obama with Catholics by downplaying the pro-abortion stance of his nominees).

My view: The Church has every right to butt its head into government affairs – it is a free marketplace of ideas and any religious or non-religious point of view has an equal claim to participate in that marketplace.  But the govt has absolutely no business (up front or behind the scenes) in trying to quiet certain voices within that public square.  THAT is the real meaning of the First Amendment.

Here is a review of David Hart’s new book: ‘Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies’.  

Hart has another article (cited in this one) in First Things from a few years ago that hammers away at Dennett.

I am increasingly moving in the direction of the First Things editors in not taking New Atheism all that seriously as a philosophical point of view (though it is certainly a cultural phenomenon).  As the article points out, serious atheists like Nz are the ones we theists should be engaging.  So even though I am posting this, I don’t plan on getting sucked into a big debate about New Atheism.  I find it, frankly, utterly uninteresting and completely incapable of taking up in a serious way the lived human question (something Nz really tries to do).

Several of our students will be presenting at the upcoming UVU philosophy conference, and the keynote address for the conference will be given by our Prof. Huenemann (on Nz).  The conference is April 8th (Wed) at UVU and goes from 8am to 6pm.  

I am posting this so that students who are presenting or students that are interested in attending can use this blog to organize carpooling.  As far as I know, the exact location of the conference sessions on UVU’s campus is not yet determined, someone please post that info here once you get it.