La Monarquía

On July 4^th, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed. This heartfelt letter to King George III explained the Colonies were finally separating from British rule, and they would fight for their independence if need be. The colonists would no longer be under a monarchy; instead they would establish a democratic-republic. But are monarchies really so bad? Is there any way to have a good one? 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau attempts to answer this question in a section dedicated solely to monarchy in his book On the Social Contract, a work that attempts to deduce what is the best form of government.

Rousseau begins by saying in contrast with other forms of government such as a democracy or a republic, where a “collective being stands for an individual,” a monarchy has one person standing for a collective being (48). Rousseau writes that “the moral unity which constitutes the prince is at the same time a physical unity, all the qualities, which in the other case are only with difficulty brought together by the law, are found naturally united” (48). This means that the moral will and the physical will of the prince are the same, while in other governments this might not be so. The will of the people, the will of the prince, the public force of the State, and the particular force of the government all answer to a single motive power. Because the will answers to a single motive power, everything moves toward the same end; but this does not mean the end is the public’s happiness (48).

Kings desire to be absolute, and there are those argue that the best way to do is to have the people love them. Rousseau says that this “precept is all very well, and even in some respects very true,” but it will always be ridiculed at court. Yes, the power of the people’s love is by far the greatest, but it is only conditional, and princes will never be content with it. The best kings, Rousseau states, desire to be in a position where they can be wicked without losing their throne. “Their first personal interest is that the people should be weak, wretched, and unable to resist them” (48).

Monarchies are suitable for the large States. The more numerous the public administration, the smaller the relation between the prince and the subjects becomes (49). But if the ratio between the prince and the subjects grows closer to equality then the State becomes a democracy. “Again, as the government is restricted in numbers the ratio increases and reaches its maximum when the government is in the hands of a single person” (49). However, it is hard for a great State to be well governed, and it is harder for it to be so by a single man; but everyone knows what happens when a king substitutes others for himself.

There is an essential and inevitable defect in a monarchy that will always rank it below a republican government according to Rousseau: in a republic the public voice hardly ever raises incompetent men to the highest positions as they wish to fill them with honor. In monarchies, however, those who assume power are often “petty blunderers, petty swindlers, and petty intriguers, whose petty talents cause them to get into the highest positions at court” (49), but as soon as they receive power they showcase their ineptitude to the public. The public is not as often mistaken when choosing the prince; “a man of real worth among the king’s ministers is almost as rare as a fool at the head of a republican government” (49). For a monarchy to be well governed, its population and extent must be proportionate to the abilities of its governor. It is easier to conquer than to rule (50).   

The biggest disadvantage that is most felt in monarchical government is the want of the continuous succession which, in the other government, provides “an unbroken bond of union” (50). When one king dies, another is needed; but elections leave “dangerous intervals and are full of storms,” and they are often prone to corruption. The prince to whom the state has agreed to rule over them cannot help selling it and repaying himself the money the powerful have taken from him. Under this type of administration, bribery sooner or later spreads through every part of the land, and the peace enjoyed under a king is worse than the disorder of a period when the government is suspended between successive reigns or regimes (50). Crowns have become hereditary in certain families, and an order of succession has been set up to avoid the disputes from a normal election after the death of a king. Men have chosen to “risk having children, monstrosities, or imbeciles as rulers” than to have disputes over the choice of good kings (50).

                                                                                         

These difficulties of a monarchy have not escaped writers who, at the same time, are not bothered by them (51). Their remedy is to obey a terrible government without a murmur: “God sends bad kings in His wrath, and they must be borne as the scourges of Heaven” (51). Rousseau says that this kind of talk is no doubt enlightening, but it would be more in place in a pulpit than in a political book. We know for ourselves that we must put up with a bad government when it is there; the question is how to find a good one.

Thus concludes the thoughts of Rousseau on monarchy. He never outright states that a monarchy is a terrible form of government; he just points out the flaws that such an administration would have.

The New Dante

Ladies and gentleman, it is actually possible for me to dislike someone more than I dislike Dante. David Hume is the author of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, and the book, along with the title not being properly capitalized, really bothers me in a way I haven’t felt since Inferno. It’s a biased, one-sided piece that contains all of Hume’s thoughts about understanding humans. It’s really complicated to read because he doesn’t believe in simple terminology, and so I have tasked myself with attempting to explain what he thought was a good read. However, I am focusing on one section (Section VII: Of the Idea of Necessary Connexion) due to the fact my brain will explode if I try to decipher the whole book

Let’s begin!

Hume actually begins section seven by stating that mathematics is not as useless and dead as we had originally thought; oh, and the moral sciences (i.e. philosophy) are pretty lame. He basically argues for an entire page about how useful and wonderful mathematics actually are. They’re always legit, and we can totally see whenever something isn’t correct. Additionally, (haha, get it, additionally) the terms we use in math do not change; an oval is not a circle, and two plus two will always equal four (44). But the inner workings of the mind and our ability to understand things are totally beyond us; ambiguity creeps into our reasoning (44), and we’re pretty much left with more questions than answers.

However, Hume does say that when we think about both sciences in a proper light, we find out that they actually go together (kind of). They are equal in their own ways. He states that if our minds are able to remember what we learned in geometry clearly then we have the ability to reason in some pretty intricate ways, and we can compare ideas in a broader way to reach the truth. But if our moral ideas fall into confusion then the conclusions we come to (and the ways we reach those conclusions) are few compared to the answers we find in numbers (44). Therefore, if we can trace the principles of the human mind through a few steps we are more likely to be pleased with our progress. But nature likes to be a troll; after you think you have come up with some great idea something happens, and you’re left thinking just how ignorant you really are. Hume suggests that our biggest obstacle dealing with the moral sciences is the obscurity of our ideas and terms, and the biggest issue with math is how long it takes to actually form a conclusion (45).

Now, if you thought that things couldn’t get any more complicated to understand I have some bad news for you. Hume states that there are no ideas that are harder to wrap our minds around the ideas of power, force, energy, or necessary connection. So we need to be extra careful when talking about them in our investigations of the world.

But where in the world does the idea of necessary connection come from? Hume proposes that all of our ideas are actually just “copies of our impressions” (45); this literally means that everything we think about is based on things we have experienced. Those big complex ideas you think of are really just smaller ideas added together. But the idea of necessary connection is not an observation of something external (46). When we look at external objects we do not see an “operation of causes” or in simple terms, we do not see the thing making the cause be a cause; we only see that one object follows another (46). We cannot predict what cause an object will have from its first appearance because we cannot see the power operating it.

Confusing, right? Well it gets a little more complex. Hume begins explaining that we are conscious of an internal power, and no, it is not the Force from Star Wars. This power within us allows us to move parts of our bodies or think freely. We call this power the will . So our good buddy Hume questions whether or not it is the will that caused the idea of necessary connection, and then he goes, “No.” It can’t be the will that this idea comes from because the will is a mysterious thing that we know nothing about. We cannot control some things such as our liver or heart, and we cannot explain why we cannot (that’s a mouthful). So it’s not the will that is the cause.

With another possible explanation debunked, Hume goes on to question if we got the idea of necessary connection from our minds. And, just like before, he goes, “No.” We do not understand the will’s power over the body, and we do not understand the will’s power over the mind. Hume says that we do not have complete control over our own thoughts; this means we do not understand completely the power it has. Also, our self-command of our minds actually changes over time; “we are more master of our thoughts in the morning than in the evening” (50). Just like we do not understand the will’s power over the body, the will’s power over the mind is pretty shady and not the cause of the idea of necessary connection.

Lastly Hume talks about God being the cause. He states that there are people who believe that a deity is the cause of everything in the world – i.e. you ate an apple because the Lord told you to. However, Hume argues that if there is a God whose will is beyond us than we must have had an experience somewhere that let us come to that conclusion; “we have no idea of the Supreme Being but what we learn from reflection on our own faculties” (53). So if there is a God who wills everything His will is just as uncertain as ours.

I truly believe David Hume had one goal in mind when writing this section: to troll us. He writes an entire piece on the idea of necessary connection just to say it is not something we can understand and we’re basically wasting our time trying to figure it out. Nevertheless I hope that this was helpful to understand at least one part of what has to be the worst book I have ever read.

Plot Twist: I'm Actually the Real Pascal

DISCLAIMER: These were my thoughts throughout the last two weeks with occasional input from some friends; please remember I am still a sophomore in college. My line of thinking is more than likely wrong. Sorry!

Stress. I can’t do this assignment. Josh Fullman.

Ignorance. "God doubts" – Israel. Israel is often wrong.

How can God, who is perfect and without sin, doubt? James 1:6-8 states: “The one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man expect he will receive anything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”

Pokémon. Is it wrong to take an idea so far from reality and turn it into a metaphor about life? Pokémon portrays creatures who are “captured” by humans called trainers and used for various purposes such as battling or performing. Pokémon trust that their trainer knows what is best for them and submit unto their will.

This resembles the Christian faith. Humans are to submit unto God, their Creator, with the mindset He knows what is best for them. God does not lead them astray nor will He deviate from His plan. This is true a lot in the Pokémon world.

  

Science and Faith. To say that the sciences and Christianity do not go together is like saying the hand does not go with the foot because they are separate organs. They come together to form the body; science and Christianity come together to form the beauty of God.

One can have faith in Christianity, not science, and still be saved for they know of Christ and His Word. But one cannot have faith in science but not Christianity and be saved; for without the faith of Jesus there is no salvation.

Happiness. Every single person wants to be happy, to lead a happy life. Many people believe that in order to be happy they must have a lot of money; others think that following the law and being a good citizen are key. College students think they will be happy once they graduate and can pay off the thousands of dollars they owe (insert a picture of me).

In order to be happy, however, one needs to know God and worship Him. They need to follow His will and remove carnal desires.

Music. Beauty in the form of sound.

Education. I believe in the idea of educating students for life in the real world. Each child should learn the basics in all subjects (mathematics, science, language, etc.) at a young age. As the student matures and begins to recognize what it is he/she want to do in the future, the types of classes should be narrowed down until he/she is being taught only things that pertain to the field he/she wants to work in. College.

Sleep. I need more.

Free Will. If the Lord is omniscient, then He must know what actions we will take in the future; if He does know everything we are going to do before we do it, do we truly have free will?

            Think about your favorite movie. You know the actions each character is going to take. You know the outcome of the film. Did your knowing of everything that would happen in the movie change anything at all? No, it does not. That is how it is with an omniscient God. Just because He has already seen the movie of your life does not mean the gift of free will has been removed. You still make the decisions; He just happens to know ahead of time.

Hard Times. God is in His heaven, and all is well.

God. The genealogies in the Bible are our connection to God. James Gee.

God. In a discussion with an old friend the idea of God was brought up. He claimed that there was no proof that God existed and everything could be explained through science. When asked where did the laws of physics come from he said that they have always been there. I told him that God has always been there as well and it takes just as much faith to believe that.

Propaganda. The Scriptures are propaganda for God. James Gee.

Miracles. Miracles were used to prove Jesus was the Son of God. They were not just to heal the sick or to raise someone from the dead. If that were the case, then why did Paul leave Trophimus sick? Why are the hospitals not empty? Why are there dead bodies in graves?

            If there are miracles today, then it means there is still a revelation to be taught. James Gee.

Working Out. If I’m going to work out it’s because I’m stressed, not because it’s class. Rebecca Smith.

Biology. The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. Uduak Afandigeh.

Harry Potter. “I’ve never read a library book before.” Kailee Peterson.

Salvation. Every single person on this earth has the ability to be saved through Jesus Christ. It is not simply for men, the Jews, or Jewish men. Galatians 3:28 states “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The Office. Me think, why waste time say lot word, when few word do trick. Todd.

Science. The idea of a multiverse takes away the value of our own existence. The multiverse theory states that there is an infinite amount of universes with different consequences to the actions we take. In one universe you did not eat the last piece of cake; in another universe you did eat the cake.

           If we make a decision in this universe but in another we made the opposite choice, do we truly have free will? Do you really make a choice? If there are other universes that are affected by an alternate decision you made, then the value of your choice in this timeline is meaningless.

Stoopid Hoomans

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! HUMANS ARE DECLARED TO BE THE MOST UNINTELLIGENT SPECIES!

“In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, humans are no longer considered to be at the top of the pyramid in terms of intellect. As the new President makes his speech on the dangers . . .” 

I’m not going to lie. If I was reading a newspaper (yes, there are folks who still read those) and I saw that article, I would totally raise my eyebrows and think, “What idiot wrote this garbage?” Because it’s absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt absurd to believe that humans aren’t the most intelligent species on the planet. We have logic and reason and wisdom, right? We’re smart. That’s what my mother always told me. “You’re smart, Mallory Hope. Don’t you ever doubt that.”

But, let’s be real here, are humans really that intelligent?

According to science, we are intellectually advanced in comparison to dogs, cats, fish, etc. Philosophy claims that because humans have reason, we are automatically superior to other species in terms of intellect. Religion states that we are made in the likeness of God, and I’m preeetttyyyyyy sure that God is really stinkin’ smart.

But if we’re supposed to be so intelligent, why are humans so backwards? Why are we so prone to folly? Why do we say one thing but mean another. Why do we claim to value life, but we go out and we murder. We boast about love but the divorce rate is over fifty percent. We praise God in church on Sunday, but we disregard Him the other six days of the week.

In Great Books, we’ve been reading some of Ficino’s letters. In letters 20 and 21, Ficino writes to two of his buddies about the folly and misery of men. He starts off letter 20 with this: “You have seen painted in my academy a sphere of the world; on one side Democritus laughing, and other other Heraclitus weeping. Why is Democritus laughing? Why does Heraclitus weep? Because the mass of mankind is a monstrous, mad, and miserable animal.”

And Ficino ain’t wrong.

We’re kind of a pathetic bunch, if you think about it. We pray to God for good things, but we never pray to make good use of what He does give us (32). I remember when I was younger that I used to pray to God that He would grant me the ability to sing well because I honestly sound like a dying whale. But I never gave thought to the things that He did bless me with. I always wanted more and more, and that’s true of all of humanity.

One of my favorite lines from letter 20 is this: “What more, my friends? The magistrates forbid murder, and allow instruments for killing men to be made everywhere. They desire an excellent crop of men, yet they do not take sufficient care of the seedling, that is the child” (33). We want so many things in life, but we don’t take the necessary actions to achieve those things. “The man who believes he will find one thing in its opposite is mad and miserable” (34).

It’s like we’re in a constant battle between body and soul, between the sense and reason (Ficino 33). We know that something is wrong. We know that procrastinating writing a paper until the last minute is idiotic. We know that lack of sleep is terrible for the body. But we ignore our reason and screw ourselves in the process. At least I know I do …

“Why is it that we strive to be masters of others, when we are not masters of ourselves? Why in our zeal for mastery do we fall daily into slavery” (34)? Ficino poses these questions in letter 21. We try so hard to put ourselves above each other. We believe that we can control another person when we don’t even have control of ourselves, of our temptations, of our desires. It’s madness, and we don’t even see it.

Humans are pretty dumb, if you think about it. So what do we have to do to save ourselves from sinking deeper and deeper into the lake of folly? Ficino says the answer is this one page 35: “Oh what a miserable creature is man, except he sometime rise up above the man, I mean commit himself to God, and love God for the sake of God and everything else for His sake. That is the sole answer to these problems and the end of all ills.”