Dante's in Heaven?!?

Disclaimer: If you have never read my blog post from February 2016, you might want to check it out before continuing as I will be building off from that.

Man, this really pains me. I actually have to talk about Dante Alighieri once again, and I am not sure if I am happy that I have the chance to roast him one more time or if I am sad because I have to pretend that he is not chilling in the seventh circle of Hell to place him somewhere in Heaven. We shall find out.

We need to talk about Heaven really quickly before we assign our best friend Dante a sphere to reside in for eternity – theoretically, of course, since he is in a river of boiling blood. Paradise portrays Heaven as ten spheres that correspond to the celestial beings known in Dante’s time. The ten spheres along with what they represent are as follows: The Moon (faith – imperfect), Mercury (hope – imperfect), Venus (love – imperfect), the Sun (prudence), Mars (fortitude), Jupiter (justice), Saturn (temperance), the Fixed Stars, the Primum Mobile, and the Empyrean. Each sphere houses different beings in accordance to their life on earth.

So where would Dante Alighieri be placed if he was placed in heaven? Before I designate a sphere for him, I want to make it clear that I am not God, and it will be Him who determines our place in Heaven. I am just guessing where he would be designated if he wasn’t boiling. Okay? Let’s go.

Right off of the bat we can eliminate the ninth sphere of Heaven: Primum Mobile. This is the sphere that moves other eight (27.115-117) and houses the angels (28.97-105). Dante is not an angel – far from it – and I cannot justify placing him here. That’s it, really.

The Moon is terminated as well. This sphere hosts the souls of those who neglected their vows (3.55-57). Some of those who broke their vows did so willingly while others were forced to. Dante is not a nun who broke a vow to God by being forcefully married to someone against their will. He will not be sharing a sphere with Piccarda, Constance of Sicily, or the other nuns who apparently did not put up much of a fight. 

The next sphere we are going to eliminate is the fourth circle. The Sun is the dwelling place of the wise (10.109-114). In my opinion, Dante was not the wisest man during his lifetime. He obsessed over a woman he had met when he was a child, played the politics game with a bad hand, was exiled from Florence, and wrote the Divine Comedy instead of doing something productive. I am going to spare Thomas Aquinas from having to reside in the same sphere as Dante.

Another sphere we will cross off of the list is the fifth sphere known as Mars. This is the circle where those who gave up their lives for Christ chill (14.97-129). If you did not know this about our new best friend, Dante was exiled from his native city of Florence. He stayed with several different patrons in various Italian courts. He did not die a martyr’s death, and I feel that it would be unfair to allow him to spend eternity in this sphere – even if his ancestor Cacciaguida is there (15.133-135).

Jupiter, the sixth sphere, is the next to be eliminated. This circle plays host to the kings and figures of authority that ruled justly during their lifetime (18.115-117). Dante was not one who really had much power, and it would seem strange to place him here. He held various offices but he did not accomplish much as a politician. It is because of this that Dante will not hang out with the pagans Trajan (20.43-45) and Ripheus the Trojan (20.67-69).

The next two spheres we are going to remove are the seventh and eighth spheres, Saturn and the Fixed Stars, respectively. Saturn is the sphere of the contemplatives (21.106-119), and since Dante was not a monk who devoted his life primarily to prayer he will not be placed here. The sphere of the Fixed Stars houses the saints and the Virgin Mary (23.124-139). Dante is not a saint nor is he a virgin woman which excludes him from this sphere.

I was tempted to place Dante in the second sphere of Heaven: Mercury. Here reside the brave spirits “who live their lives that fame/ and honor might succeed them when they die” (6.113-114). These people cared more about their desire for fame than the glory of God. When I first read Paradise I made a mental note that Dante could fit in the sphere nicely. His actions throughout his life could be portrayed as seeking glory, but I ultimately decided against putting Dante here. There is a sphere that is even more perfect for him.

The sphere I have chosen for Dante is the third sphere Venus. This is the sphere where those who were too ardent in their fleshly love reside (8.122-148). The reason I decided to put our friend here is because of Beatrice herself. The smoking hot babe who guides our hero through Heaven is Dante’s obsession. He barely knew Beatrice and was in love with her – even obsessing over her whilst married to someone else. Honestly, I think it is fitting that this would be the sphere Dante would chill in if he was not already hanging out in the seventh circle of Hell.

The second sphere we are also going to place our buddy in is the tenth sphere: Empyrean. This is the abode of God. It is here that all of Heaven revealed to be a river of flashing light (30.61) as well as a celestial rose that encompasses all of the souls of the faithful (30.112-117). Dante would be in this sphere along with every other soul who was granted entrance into Heaven.

While it did pain me to write a paper where Dante receives a place in Heaven, I can at least be at peace knowing that all of this was speculative for the sake of receiving a grade and that Dante is actually in the seventh circle of Hell. He is in a river of boiling blood, and if he tries to lessen his punishment by rising out of the river, he will be shot with an arrow by a centaur (Inferno 121.73-75).

Just Monk'n Around

“All must endure great travail and conflict when they are first converted to the Lord but later they have unspeakable joy”

It has been an extremely long time since I have read a book that has caused me to stop and question my relationship with Jesus Christ. The Desert Fathers is an interesting read in regards to how some of the early Christians lived their lives during the first centuries. From insane stories about demons to blatant sexism against women to relatable grievances, this book offers an array of reflections that cause Christians to think about how exactly they model their lives for God.

Honestly, I do not think enough about God and His will for me as I live out my day. I might say a short prayer to Him as I drive to classes or I might talk about Jesus to my friends, but my life does not reflect the words I say. I do not spend enough time just praising God and recognizing Him as the Creator of the universe, the Author of salvation, the One who gave me everything I have and will ever receive. I just do what I want to do without really thinking about how I need to be living for Him.

The men and women in The Desert Fathers, however, actually do whatever is necessary to live a holy life for Christ. They take their sin very seriously and spend every waking moment trying to better themselves and put God first. As Evagrius said, to “go against self is the beginning of salvation” (153). It was not their will they wanted to follow, but the Father’s. As one of the hermits said, “A monk ought to examine himself every day, morning and evening to check how far he has kept the Lord’s will” (126).

One of the ways the monks attempted to purify themselves was through self-control. This included fasting, watching your tongue, and restraining anger. Hyperichius stated that fasting is the monk’s “control over sin. The man who stops fasting is like a stallion who lusts the moment he sees a mare” (27). He also said that the monks “who cannot control his tongue when he is angry will not control his passions at others times” (28). Marcarius said that if you are “stirred to anger when you want to reprove someone, you are gratifying your own passions. Do not lose yourself in order to save another” (24).

Another way the monks practiced their faith was by watching who they were friends with. A hermit said that you should not “make friends with a woman, a boy, or a heretic” (7). This seems strange, but the monks were careful to not be tempted by anyone or anything. Women were seen as tools of the devil. An archbishop even said to a woman, “Do you not realize that you are a woman, and the enemy uses women to attack holy men” (10). Paesius also said, “Do not stay with anyone who is always scornful when they speak” (123). Constant negativity can adversely affect even the most devout Christian.

“A brother said to Antony, ‘Pray for me.’ He answered, ‘Neither I nor God will have mercy on you unless you do something about it yourself and ask God’s help’” (89). This is very powerful. Many times we ask others to pray for us whenever a situation arises, but we do nothing to fix it ourselves. Instead of going directly to God and asking for wisdom, we go to others to intercede on our behalf. As Christians, we are to be constantly taking charge in improving ourselves and removing sin from our lives with assistance from the Lord. We cannot ask others to help us if we are not ready to help ourselves.

It really is a tough pill to swallow when you think about how far from God we can be – especially when we think we are so close to Him. It’s hard to imagine that there are sins you are committing and you don’t even know it. The monks realized this and chose solitude to be able to recognize those grievances. That’s why it is important that we stop what we are doing and spend some time in quietness so we can see the hidden faults within ourselves. We have to be able to see the issues in our lives before we can address them. Mathois said, “The nearer a man comes to God, the more he seems himself to be a sinner. Isaiah the prophet saw the Lord and knew himself to be wretched and unclean (Is. 6:5)” (157).

I think that we as Christians are called to practice some form of monasticism. I don’t mean that we need to live in a monastery only speaking after dinner or giving up everything we have. No, I mean that we need to remove ourselves from the distractions of the world and just reflect about our lives in relation to Jesus Christ. How can we see our sins and repent from them if we are too distracted by the different things the world offers to us? How can I claim to solely love Jesus if I refuse to put down the remote and spend time with Him in prayer? Antony summed up this idea best when he said, “Fish die if they stay on dry land, and in the same way monks who stay outside their cell or remain with secular people fall away from their vow of quiet. As a fish must return to the sea, so must we to our cell, in case by staying outside, we forget to watch inside” (8).

The monks were definitely insane sometimes, but I think that we can all learn a lesson from them. We need to take our sin seriously, and we need to remove ourselves from the picture and focus only on God. The Christian life is not an easy one, but the reward of being a child of God makes it all worth it. We need to remember that.

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.