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.”

Summa of the Summa of the Summa: The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine

In Summa of the Summa, the thoughts of the philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas are edited and explained for beginners. It is a summarized (and then summarized again) debate that begins in God and proceeds onto man and ends with God. It is considered an exitus-redditus, an exit from and return to God (15). It attempts to explain God in His one essence, which is categorized in three ideas: whether He exists, how He exists, and how He operates. Summa of the Summa also explains His three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The debate of God’s creation of man as well as man itself is present within the text. Finally, Summa ends with man’s return to God through Christ. There is a lot of material covered throughout the book, and it would be an ill-conceived idea to write on all of it. So the purpose of this essay is to discuss the first “question” presented: The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine.

Before one can discuss the nature and extent of sacred doctrine, it must be defined. Sacred doctrine is theology according to Aquinas (35). “Scripture is its data, or material cause. God’s act of revealing Himself is the source, or efficient cause, of its data” (35). The final end or cause is ultimately the truth about God and salvation through this truth (35). 

Aquinas states that we “first endeavor to investigate the nature and extent of this sacred doctrine.” There are ten points of inquiry that are discussed: 1) Whether it is necessary? 2) Whether it is a science? 3) Whether it is one or many? 4) Whether it is speculative or practical? 5) How it is compared with other sciences? 6) Whether it is the same as wisdom? 7) Whether God is its subject-matter? 8) Whether it is a matter of argument? 9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes? 10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded in different senses?

In the first article, the question is posed whether any other doctrine is required besides philosophy? The first objection that Aquinas presents to this case states that “besides philosophical science,” there is no need of further knowledge. Seek not the things that are too high for thee (Sir. 3:22). This simply means that we should not seek to know anything that is “above reason” (35). The second objections says that knowledge can only be concerned with things that are in existence; “but everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science - even God Himself” (36). Aquinas includes 2 Tim. 3:16 as part of the debate: All Scripture inspired by God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice. “It is useful that besides philosophical science there should be other knowledge” inspired by God (36). Finally, Aquinas poses his side of the argument. He states that it is necessary for “man’s salvation” that there is knowledge revealed only by God; this is knowledge revealed through revelation, not through philosophical science built up by human reason (36). Therefore, the answer to the first article is that there is doctrine required other than philosophy (37).

The second article asks whether sacred doctrine is a science? Summa of the Summa does not include any objections. He states that sacred doctrine is a science. But, we must “bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences” (37). Aquinas argues that there is a “natural light of intelligence” that includes geometry, arithmetic, and “the like” (38) and there are principles that come from a “higher science” (38). Using the idea of two sciences, Aquinas comes to the conclusion that sacred doctrine is a science because it “proceeds from principles” established by a higher science, namely the science of God (38).

It is in the third article that this question arises: whether sacred doctrine is one science? Just as in the second article in the Summa of the Summa, there are no objections. Aquinas states that sacred doctrine is one science. “Because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science” (38). This allows Aquinas to come to the conclusion that sacred doctrine is one science.

Is sacred doctrine a practical science? This is the question posed in the fourth article. The first objection that Aquinas presents considers sacred doctrine a practical science because sacred doctrine is ordained to action in James 1:22: Be ye  doers of the word, and not hearers only (39). The next objection Aquinas uses simply states that sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law; because law implies a moral science, sacred doctrine is considered a practical science (39). However, according to authority (which can either be from Scripture, Fathers of the Church, or recognized wise men), practical science is concerned with human operations (39). But, since sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with God, it is a speculative science. Aquinas’s argument states sacred doctrine includes both speculative and practical sciences (39). God knows both Himself and His works, and through revelation, man is given the “perfect knowledge of God” (39). This is the answer “sufficient” to the objections.

The fifth article questions whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences? Both objections used in this summary of the summary believe that sacred doctrine is inferior to other sciences. This is because other sciences have principles that cannot be doubted (40) or because sacred doctrine depends upon the philosophical sciences (40). Authority states that other sciences are “called the handmaidens of this one” (41). Proverbs 9:3 is used for reference: Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower (41). Aquinas argues that because other sciences derive their basis from human reason sacred doctrine is actually the more nobler science. Divine knowledge can never be misled while human reason can err. The purpose of sacred doctrine is eternal bliss; “to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed” (41). “This science can in a sense depend upon the philosophical sciences” in order to make its teaching clearer (42). Therefore, sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences.

The sixth article asks whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom? Once again, Summa of the Summa presents no objections but heads straight into Aquinas’s argument. “This doctrine is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely” (43). The architect is thought to be more wise than the laborers. “Again, in the order of all human life, the prudent man is called wise, inasmuch as he directs his acts to a fitting end: Wisdom is prudence to a man (Prov 10:23)” (43). The man who considers God the highest cause of the whole universe is called wise. Because sacred doctrine views God as the highest cause it is “especially called wisdom” (43).

The seventh article asks a simple question: is God the object of this science? There are no objections present, and the text heads straight into Aquinas’s answer. “. . . in sacred science all things are treated of under the aspect of God; either because they are God Himself; or because they refer to God as their beginning and end” (43). Aquinas simply states that God is the object of sacred doctrine.

Is sacred doctrine a matter of argument? This is the question in the eighth article. The objection given states that “if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason” (44). According to this objection, proof from authority is the weakest form of proof; but if it is proof from reason “faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience”(44). This just means that you cannot believe in something by faith if you have proved it by human reasoning. Therefore, according to this objection, sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument. But Aquinas states that there is no science or set of science that can prove everything because every proof has some starting point it presupposes as its data (44). “However, it it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them” (44). Because sacred science does not have a science above itself it can dispute “one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation” (45). But, if one attempts to argue with someone who does not believe in anything of divine revelation, there is no point in “proving the articles of faith by reasoning” (45). Think of this concept in terms of dealing with an atheist. Because atheists do not believe in the Bible or its teaching, one wouldn’t start with the Bible for their argument. Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these probable arguments (47).

The ninth article asks whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors? No objections are given, and Aquinas states that it is “befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things” (47). Because human knowledge comes from sense, it is fitting that spiritual truth is taught under the likeness of material things. This allows even the simplest of minds to be able to grasp the concepts put forward by Scripture (48). Aquinas agrees that Holy Scripture can and should use metaphors.

Finally, the tenth article asks whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses? Can words have both literal and symbolic meanings throughout Scripture? The objection given argues that Holy Writ should be able to state the truth without fallacy; “therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word” (48). Authority simply says Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery (49). Aquinas states that because the author of Scripture is God Himself, He can use a word to convey both a literal and anagogical sense (49). The concept of having more than one sense attached to a word does not take away from the literal sense.“Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the sense are founded on one - the literal - from which alone can any argument be drawn.” Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture will actually perish on account of this.

And thus, the first “question” presented in Summa of the Summa has been tackled. The ten points of inquiry were discussed (hopefully in a way the reader can understand), and Aquinas’s purpose was made clear. The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine has been realized and investigated. There are many other questions that Aquinas answers, but for the sake of simplicity, only the first was dealt with. Any curiosity in the other points he makes should be taken up with Summa of the Summa itself.

Wherefore Art Thou, Dante

Let's make this clear before you read this: I do not like Dante. For some reason he irritates me more than anything, and I feel as though I have to pull my hair as I read Purgatory; because (in my opinion) he does not understand Christ and what He did for us. But it's chill. This is Dante we're talking about. 

Okay, so imagine walking through a forest on the evening of Good Friday because you lost your way. That's where we find our lovely protagonist, Dante Alighieri, at the beginning of Inferno, the first of three books considered as The Divine Comedy. Our buddy is in this wilderness because he "wandered from the straight and true" (Dante 3.3) - he's wandered from the path of Christ.

With nothing but his thoughts to keep him occupied, Dante walks through the forest. Then, he sees it: a hill that "leads all men aright on every road" (Dante 3.18). Dante decides that he's going to leave the forest and climb up that hill.

... Or so he thought.

Dante's brief moment of determination and happiness is crushed by the appearance of a "leopard light of foot and quick to lunge" (Dante 5.32). Dante literally has to step back and turn around because the leopard would not leave (and our protagonist knows he can't fight the feline either). So he walks back the way he came, and he's pretty content with staring at the beauty that is the sun until he runs into another animal that wants to block his path. This time he's face to face with a lion, "his head held high, his hunger hot with wrath" (Dante 5.47). And before our friend has a chance to even blink a she-wolf appears, and not only is this she-wolf scrawny as can be she weighs down Dante's spirit as well (Dante 5.49-52).

If this were anyone but Dante in this situation they would be doomed and/or dead; but Dante's really special and cannot die yet. He actually ends up meeting his favorite poet and heads off on a journey to travel through Hell because Beatrice (by God) wants to bring him back on the path of Christ. This journey through Hell lasts for thirty-three cantos, and Dante gets to travel through Purgatory and Paradise (but these are discussions for a later time). But he gets to watch the people he hates suffer for all eternity - all the while while traveling with his new best friend Virgil.

But as he travels through Hell, it makes me start to think: what Circle of Hell would Dante himself end up in? He's not exactly the nicest person, considering he created an entire trilogy to throw all the people he hates into endless damnation. Dante is also sassy throughout all of Inferno, and he has a bit of a mean streak. While he does believe in Christ and has repented - which automatically puts him somewhere in Purgatory - he's going to suffer punishment just this once because I really want him to.

Right off the bat we can eliminate the Sixth Circle of Hell (Heresy); our protagonist doesn't really stray from the religion nor does he believe in anything that can be considered heretic. So he does not have to suffer staying in an open grave until Judgement Day (Dante 98.10). The next we can cross off the list is the First Circle of Hell (Limbo). While he's considered to be a great poet, he did not live a virtuous life. He idealized Beatrice Portinari and not higher wisdom, and he spent a portion of his life dealing with politics - nothing good ever comes from politics.

The next circle to go is the Third Circle: Gluttony. Throughout Inferno and Purgatory, Dante never really expresses gluttonous desires. He hardly talks about his desires, and it would be unfair to torment him with storms of cold rain (Dante 55.7-12). Our buddy also escapes the Fourth Circle of Hell (Avarice). Dante isn't exactly the greediest fellow I've read about. He doesn't have much when he enters Hell and he probably has less when he actually manages to escape. He's also a poet, and I don't recall him having a bunch of money.

If you didn't know this about our new best friend, Dante was exiled from his native city of Florence. He was playing the politics game and he was ultimately given a bad hand. But he wasn't treacherous which why we are going to eliminate the Ninth Circle of Hell (Treachery) from his final resting place. He will not spend an eternity with the crybaby Satan (Dante 355.53). We are not going to condemn our Italian to the Second Circle (Lust) either. While he is semi-obsessed with Beatrice, he isn't exactly lustful; she's dead anyways so it would be pointless if he was lustful.

We're getting closer to the end now. The Eighth Circle of Hell (Fraud) is the next Circle to be crossed off the list. As much as I see Dante as a hypocrite myself, he's not a flatterer nor is he a pimp. He's not a seducer, and he doesn't practice simony. In his real life, Dante was accused of political corruption. While he swore up and down that he didn't do it, I find the evidence to be pretty convincing. But, alas, Dante escapes the Circle and we must continue to find the most proper punishment.

Our remaining two Circles of Hell are the Fifth (Wrath) and the Seventh (Violence). Now, Dante's more than likely a skinny, little man. He exercised his brain and not his body. So it's probable to believe that he would lose a fist fight. But the biggest reason he is a prime candidate for the Seventh Circle of Hell is that he literally wrote a book to throw everyone he hates into Hell. He writes horrific scenes and creates terrible punishments. His may not be violent with his fists but he is violent with his mind. And that's not chill. This reasoning is also why the Fifth Circle of Hell is a prominent candidate. He harbors so much anger against the ones who wronged him in life that he writes Inferno. Again, it's not chill Dante.

So, in the end, the most suitable level of Hell for our buddy Dante is ultimately the Seventh Circle of Hell. Dante gets to be immersed in a river of boiling blood (Dante 119.47-48). And, if he tries to lessen his punishment by rising out of the water, he's going to get shot with an arrow by a centaur (Dante 121.73-75). 

This shall be his punishment for all eternity, and, to me, it's quite fitting. You will reap what you sow Dante Alighieri.

 

Consolation of Unity

When I was younger, the thought of racism had never really crossed my mind. I had been friends with everyone - no matter their race, culture, or beliefs. I was a child and my love knew no bounds. But as I grew older, I had begun to notice the different cliques that would form; one skin color would generally stick to hanging out with that specific color, and while I didn't know why this was happening, I had learned to accept it.

The first time I had truly recognized racism as a real problem was in the seventh grade. As I was riding the bus home, I had noticed a few of my peers of Caucasian descent bullying another boy who was in my science class. They were making fun of the fact that he was an African-American and happened to be darker than them. I could only watch as they ruthlessly tore into the boy until he was finally able to get off the bus and escape the torment. I hadn't told anybody what I had witnessed.

Then, in the ninth grade, I had experienced my first taste of racism toward people of Caucasian descent. I was rushing to my biology class when I had accidentally ran into a black girl as I turned around the corner. She had been extremely angry and called me a "privileged white cracker" who needed to understand where I stood with her; according to her, I was the dirt beneath her feet along with a slew of vulgar words.

As the years passed, I had witnessed more cases of racism, experienced more racism, and more importantly, learned of racism throughout history. It was sometimes heart-wrenching to hear of how there were mass genocides of people who had been deemed "unworthy" in the eyes of others. I could not fathom why people would hate other people simply because of the color of one's skin. But it happened, and it seemed like there was nothing I could do to stop it.

And now, as I scrolled through Instagram on my phone, it seemed that racism would never end. There was a picture of Sandra Bland promoting the mass murder of white people on my feed, and I could only let out a loud sigh over the sheer stupidity that this woman possessed. How would promoting racism against one race possibly end racism against the other? It was contradictory, and I couldn't believe that so many people actually agreed with her. It was unsettling nevertheless, and after spending countless hours attempting to show the world that racism would never solve anything, I had achieved nothing. I had been awarded nothing but the mocking of my fellow peers, the hatred from the opposition, and the knowledge I would never succeed in my endeavors. I had pretty much given up with trying to help end racism.

As I let out another sigh, scrolling past the photo and onto something more vibrant, I felt as though someone was standing in my room. I quickly looked up and took note of the random woman standing at the foot of my bed; instead of being afraid and concerned that a total stranger was in my room, I was almost in awe of her. She was extremely beautiful with light brown skin and a flawless complexion. Her blue eyes were round, and it seemed as though her gaze could pierce into the very depths of my soul. She had a mane of wild, brown hair that framed her face and cascaded over her shoulders. She wore a gown of many colors - the most predominant colors being black, brown, and white - and I noticed that throughout her gown were different pictures that depicted the multitude of cultures in the world. Not a single race, not a single culture was absent from her dress. In her left hand was the only item she carried: a small globe.

The woman looked down at the phone in my hand and her expression changed to one of complete anger and disgust. When she spoke, her voice was full of authority: "Why do you waste your precious time on something so trivial, something that only distracts you from the outside world? Put away that device so that you and I may converse freely without the possibility of distraction."

I did exactly as she instructed me, and I tucked my phone away under my pillow. I watched as she sat down on the edge of my bed and I gave the mysterious woman my full attention, curious as to who she was and what she would say. But she must have noticed some confusion etched onto my face because she chuckled soft and said, "You must not realize who I am. I am the antithesis of racism, the end of the beginning. I am pure where racism is corrupt."

And in that instant I knew she was the lady Unity. "But why are you here?" I questioned her.

"I am here because I see your struggle, my child," she told me. "I see that you are wrestling with an inner torment, and I have come here to help your relieve yourself of this dilemma. Because it is in my name that you face this evil and it will be in my name that you are cured of this depression."

"It's not that I would call myself depressed," I said with a hint of misery in my voice. "I'm not sure that's an accurate word to describe my situation."

The lady Unity nodded in understanding. "You are correct," she spoke. "It is not depression that ails you; it is helplessness. You feel as though you cannot contribute to the cause of my ideals. There have been many others throughout time that have felt what you are feeling right now, and they have risen to do great things. Frederick Douglass suffered through the horror of slavery and the scorn of enemies for many years. Now his books are being read in schools and the history of slavery is being presented. Jean-Jacques Dessalines faced persecution within Haiti even after becoming its emperor, and while he wad despised for his brutality during his reign, he is regarded as one of Haiti's founding fathers. Martin Luther King, Jr. is remembered as one of the most prominent Civil Rights activists, but even he was assassinated for what he believed to be true."

She paused, eyeing me up and down before saying, "While you may not be protected in the flesh for your actions of my behalf, while you may face the scorn of many, it is ultimately what you leave behind that will have you written down in the history books. You must pave the way for others. Do you comprehend what it is I am trying to tell you?"

"I think I understand what you are saying," I replied with a shrug. "What I don't understand is what I can do. How can I aide the troops who fight racism for your sake if no one will pay me any attention? I am considered to be privileged in today's society. Because I am white, I am automatically racist. Because I am white I am perceived to be something that I am not. Because I am white I can do nothing according to some to end racism, and I can do everything according to others. And yet, right now, I feel like I can't do anything but sit here and watch as this world continues to dive into the depths of racism."

"It was eerily silent for a moment. I watched as Unity processed my words and formulated her own response. "Racism is not going to end because of one individual," she explained to me. "One person alone cannot expunge an issue that plagues the whole earth. No, racism will only cease to exist once the world unites as one to overcome it."

I was confused. How exactly were the races supposed to unite? "I've heard people say that they don't see the different races; they only see the person. Is this what you mean?"

She shook her head slightly in disagreement. "No, that is not the solution. If you claim that you see no distinctions between the races, you won't remember the beauty of the different cultures this world holds. You will ultimately see one race, one culture, one people, and in the end, you will have thrown away the histories of all nations. You will not achieve unity this way. You will achieve more opposition, more hate.

"But if we continue to see the different histories of the races," I protested, "we won't be able to forget the past. People will still be angry about the things that happened years ago! If we cannot forget the past, we cannot stop the animosity between white people and black people, between Hispanics and Asians, between one culture and another." I sat back and shifted into a more comfortable position.

"There is a problem with forgetting: you will not learn," she voiced. "You must remember the different conflicts that each race has faced throughout history. Because if you don't, you are doomed to repeat these actions in the future. Segregation and slavery will be reinforced and no one will be happy."

"It feels as though we are segregating ourselves, if I'm honest. More than ninety percent of the time you will see white people hanging out with only white people or vice versa for the other races. It's rare to see a white person and a black person hanging out nowadays. It's rare to see any races hanging out nowadays!" I explained to her.

"The only way this will end is if the entire world joins together in unity."

"What exactly is it we need to do to achieve this unity then?" I asked her directly, wanting to hear the answer.

"The answer is simple but painfully hard to do," she said. "Every race, culture, color of people must meet in the middle of this feud. Each party must extend the olive branch of forgiveness forward to usher in a new era. Just as you would not want to be punished for sins committed in the past, neither does each race. They cannot do so to the other. There must be agreement from every end of the spectrum to cease racism."

I processed the information. It made sense and it seemed like it was the only solution that would actually have positive results. "But it's impossible," I told Unity after a moment. "There is so much animosity and hatred that some people have made a living based off of it. It fuels some individuals. It's not plausible to believe that everyone will join together."

"It isn't impossible," she began, "but it isn't something that will just magically happen anytime soon. This will take time, effort, dedication, even bloodshed for this to become a reality." She paused before adding, "But it's not impossible." Her dress crunched as she stood up from the bed and gazed at me. "Do you understand now what you must do, my child? Do you feel better about the situation?"

I nodded. "I do, and I understand what it is that you command of me."

"The world must come together in the ultimate form of peace to combat racism: unity." And then she vanished, leaving me to my thoughts and my phone forgotten.