The Christian Vanguard

I recorded my class session at Holy Innocents. I may do this regularly. The topic for today was on marriage and divorce.

Here is the last assignment on Aristotle I turned in for my class. Footnotes have been omitted. I'm done with this class. Booyah.  Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics is primarily concerned with what the good, or best, life is. Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics is primarily concerned with what the virtuous life is, which is what the best life is to have been as discovered in Book I. Aristotle develops this by first noting that all acts have some end to which they aim. But even these aims may have a greater aim for which they strive for, so there must be some final end where all the striving is terminated. Aristotle found that it is happiness which all other things strive for. In order to find out what makes us happy, Aristotle wants to know what the end of man is since a good man is he who functions well. That function, which is a rational activity of his human soul, is to be virtuous. Having laid down the more broad inquiry of what kind of life we should be striving for, he then

The following was submitted for a class assignment. Footnotes have been omitted.  Aristotle says that one becomes virtuous by habit. Just as men become builders by building or men become brave by doing brave acts, so one becomes virtuous by doing and practicing virtuous acts. However, doing one virtuous act every now and again while most other times we behave viciously isn’t sufficient to be a virtuous person. What is needed are like cases where we habitually do a virtuous act so that the state of being a virtuous character arises. It is also not sufficient that we merely do virtuous acts. We must also take pleasure in them and not be annoyed by them. The younger we begin to form these habits, the better. If they are taught to us early in our youth, they become more deeply ingrained into our lives and are more difficult to corrupt. These virtues need to be taught because they are not part of our human nature. If they were part of our human nature, then it would not be possible to

I turned this in for a class assignment. Footnotes have not been included.  Aristotle recognizes that generally, men say that happiness is the highest of goods to which men aim. However, since some men say that to have health or wealth when one is sick or poor is happiness, or that some ideal above those appetitive pleasures is what happiness is, the disagreement among men makes it unclear as to what the answer is. So, Aristotle points out that there is an end to which all ends strive. A man practices medicine to obtain health, but what is the end of health? The end of strategy is victory, but what is the end of victory? All these ends have a final end, or good, to which they strive. It is final in the sense that the line of questioning or justification terminates there. That end for which other ends strive has nothing else which it strives for. This is what happiness is. It does not make sense to ask what it is that happiness strives for. It is an end unto itself. Since happiness

Another assignment for my class. Footnotes have been omitted.  Aristotle thinks it is important to ascertain the function of a man because human happiness is an end of an action. So in order to know what is good and bad for human happiness, we must know what mans function is. To determine what it's function is, we have to determine what kind of soul it has. If the function of a flute player is to play the flute, then playing the flute well is what makes the flute player a good flute player. Likewise with man, whatever our function is, doing that function well is what makes us a good man. The powers and function of man is not to be found in the body alone, but in the soul since material bodies are just potentiality and souls is what actualizes the matter into the kind of bodies that they are. So, as body-soul composites are those which exist by nature, that is they have an internal principle of change, they also have an end, or function. Further, for anything that has a form it

The following is a short assignment I turned in for my class. Footnotes are omitted.  Aristotle’s argument for teleology is a disjunctive syllogism. Things are either a result of a coincidence or an end. Things are not the result of coincidences. Therefore, they are a result of an end. Aristotle considers a problem of explaining why things happen. Rain happens but it does so not for the sake of the crops, which do benefit from the rainfall. If it can be said that it happens out of necessity, that is for material causes devoid of final causes, why should it not be said for all else that we think would have an end, like teeth? According to this view, the reason these things are observed is because those with those incidental features happened to survive. Aristotle’s argument against this is to say that it cannot explain why these things, if they are accidents, why they happen regularly. Coincidental causes, as they are causes without an end for the sake of which they strive, cannot

The following was written for a class assignment. Footnotes are omitted.  Chance is a species of the genus spontaneity. Chance is a cause, but unlike other causes it doesn’t have a regular effect. This is because chance does not have an end or telos for the sake of which it strives. While our understanding of causes has a necessary connection to their effects, the connection a cause by chance had with the effect is accidental. So for example, someone may heal an injured person, and he does so because he is a trained doctor. So the doctor is the cause of healing. The doctor may also be a surfer, and it would also be true that the surfer healed the person, but his status as a surfer is not what caused the healing. The surfer status is an accident, that is, it has no necessary connection to the effect. In the same way, chance causes have no necessary connection to their effects. Chance happens for a purpose, but that purpose does not cause it since incidental cause never come pri

I wrote the following for a class assignment. It deals with Book 2, Chapter 1 of the Physics. Footnotes are omitted.  Aristotle’s line of thought is that some things exist by nature and by nature he means that which has an internal principle of change. This principle is to be found within the thing itself and not in an accidental attribute. One account of nature says that the matter which constitutes the thing is what the nature should be identified as. Antiphon, a proponent of this view, points out the wood of a bed is the nature of a bed since if you were to plant the wood of the bed what would sprout is not another bed but wood. Since nature tends to produce more of itself, and wooden beds do not produce other wooden beds but only wood, the bed is only an accidental attribute of the wood. Those who wish to identify nature with the form point out that matter considered by itself is only a potential, and doesn’t exist until it receives some form to inform it to be the kind of thi

The following was an essay I turned in for class. There were footnotes, but those didn't copy over. The copying also made the Bayesian formula a little weird, but I did my best to make it look like a legit equation.  David Hume has a two pronged argument against belief in miracles. The first is granting for the sake of argument that a full proof could be given for a miracle. Since the full proof for a miracle stands against a full proof against it, the miracle cannot be believed. The second is that in actuality, there has never been a full proof mounted for a miracle, so even more so miracle cannot be believed.  Hume sets out as a principle of knowledge that one proportions his belief to evidence. When one comes to two competing propositions that needs to be judged, one proposition may tip the scales, so to speak, and the weightier proposition will be the more probable one. Now miracles are defined as a violation of the laws of nature. What establishes a law of nature is o

The following was a paper I turned in for class. There are footnotes, but they don't copy over for whatever reason.  Socrates argues that the soul has three parts, the appetite, the spirit, and reason. “Part” refers to a faculty that moves us to act. Since there are movements of the human soul that desire contradictory things, the origins of those desires must therefore be distinct. He argues for this by first putting forth the principle of noncontradiction when he says a thing cannot want or do contradictory things. If the soul wanted to do something contradictory, like to drink and not to drink, then we would be dealing with something else other than a whole unified soul. We would be dealing with some part of the soul instead. In further establishing this approach, Socrates deals with some possible counter examples, such as a moving man or a spinning top. In the case of a man who may move his arms and legs, this is dealt with by distinguishing the parts of the man which move

The following is a bible study I did for Newman. Feel free to use as you see fit. What Does The Bible Say About: Sola Scriptura? Definition: Sola Scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that the only infallible rule of faith (and practice) is Sacred Scripture. Biblical Data: 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.  Discussion: All scripture is what by God? Inspired. What does inspired mean? This means that God, although he uses man to write the scripture, is ultimately the author of scripture. What is it useful for? Teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. What is the point of teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness? So that we as Christians can be proficient/equipped for every good work. Does this prove that scripture is therefore the only infallible

This was an essay I turned in for class. Locke’s Argument for God Locke’s argument comes in two stages. In the first stage, he argues for a first cause, and in the second stage, he argues for identifying that cause as God. It can be summarized thusly: 1. There are beings that have a beginning 2. All beings that have a beginning have been produced by something eternal 3. Therefore, something eternal exists In support of the first premise, Locke points to our own existence as a thing that exists. His reasoning here is that if one truly does not exist, then one is nothing. Yet at some point, Locke is confident, that the one claiming he is non-being will eventually be hungry or have pain, which is only possible to being, not to non-being. This may sound like a practical argument, and practical arguments are not always the strongest arguments, but Locke also says that non-being cannot produce being. Non-being cannot have properties, sensations, passions, or anything whatsoever, predicated

I have an anabaptist coworker, and we got the talking about Original Sin. After pointing out Romans 5 to him and how it talks about how Adam's sin lead to the condemnation of all people, he pointed to a verse in the OT that says we will not inherit the iniquities of our fathers (which I have dealt with before on my short 3 part series on Original Sin, which you can find here , here , and here ). I then pointed to other OT verses that seem to say the opposite, my point being that with the ambiguity in the OT, we should look to the NT for a clear interpretation. But it occurs to me now that perhaps that isn't even necessary. His response was that the OT verses I pointed out only show that we suffer sins consequences. Is this a good response? It is not. According to Romans 6:23, after its long emphasis on the fallen state of humanity, says that the wages of sin are death. In contrast, our reward in Jesus is eternal life, and because that contrast is being made, we know that dea

The following is an essay I wrote on Meno's Paradox.  Meno raises a problem concerning whether inquiries or a search for knowledge is, in principle, possible. Meno objects, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is?...If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing you did not know?” Socrates takes the word “it” here to refer to the form, or a standard, particularly the standard of virtue, although Socrates applies the problem to the search of any standard whatsoever. It isn’t certain that limiting the problem to the search for standards is what Meno had in mind, as Socrates first calls the argument a kind of debaters trick. Nonetheless, Socrates narrows the argument to just the search of standards when he says, “He cannot search for what he knows-since he knows it, there is no need to search-nor for what he does not know, for he does not know what to look for.” For example, suppose you didn’t know how to use the metri

I recently found out that there is a Rothko Chapel . Apparently, Rothko intended on arousing a religious experience when you looked at his paintings, and it inspired some to build a chapel in his honor, where there would hang some of his work (different panels of the same project). Looks cold, sterile, and somewhat dystopian.  Two years ago, I wrote about how realism is necessary for art, which you can find  here . It was a reaction against Pollock and Rothko, and I still agree with what I said there. I did qualify myself as saying realism may not have been alone a sufficient reason, but it was definitely a necessary one. I want to add that abstraction is also necessary, which wasn't a view I held at the time. My reaction against the radical abstractionism of Rothko and Pollock inclined me against the view that abstraction was a necessary condition. I mean, look at the "chapel" and you could see why I believed it. It was nothing but abstraction.  But in a con

I was in line at the confessional last week or so. I was towards the end of the line, and the priest had already begun hearing confessions. Another priest then came and directed some of us to another room where he would also be hearing confessions. So I go, and so do a few others. We realize that his confessions will be face to face, and not behind a veil. This isn't a problem for me, and never has been. It seemed to be a problem for the lady behind me. Now, it's usually bad manners to chit chat while in line for confession, since that's a time to prepare and meditate upon our sins, but apparently she didn't get the memo. "Oh dear," she says to me, "he's doing face to face. That makes me nervous." "It shouldn't." I tell her.  "But he will know who I am."  "That's right. And when you die, and you see God in the face, God will know who you are and what all your sins were, and you will have nothing to hi

Another Newman Bible study I wrote. What Does The Bible Say About: Mary Biblical Data: Luke 1:41-48 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? 44 For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.” 46 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed; Discussion: Sometimes Protestants will point to v47 to show that Mary was a sinner in need of a savior, which is contrary to Catholic teaching that Mary, from the moment of conceptio

The following is a study I wrote for the Newman Bible Study. Feel free to use it as you see fit. What Does The Bible Say About: The Trinity Definition: In one substance God, there are three divine persons , The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Some Notes: 1) Because anti-Trinitarians, such as the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, typically do not deny the deity of the Father, we will not be going over biblical data proving it. We will only be focusing on the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. 2) While there may be Christians who disagree with Catholics on some issues, such as the modes of baptism, it is still true they are Christians. However, anyone who denies the Trinity cannot be said to be Christian at all. Biblical Data: Acts 5:1-6 But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2 with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 “Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has S

The following is a handout I typed for the Newman Bible Study. Feel free to use as you see fit. What Does The Bible Say About: Baptism Biblical Data: Acts 2:37-42 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Discussion: What is the context? Peter just preached the first sermon,

The following is a handout I typed up for the Newman Bible Study. Feel free to use it as you see fit. What Does the Bible Say About: Marriage Biblical Data Ephesians 5:21-33 21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates

The following is a paper I wrote for class. To avoid plagiarism, I won't be putting up the prompt, just my findings. Euthyphro In trying to defend his scandalous actions to Socrates, Euthyphro argues that his actions are pious, which implies some knowledge of what the nature of piety is. At first, Euthyphro gives a rough definition as being that which the gods love, but soon refines it to be that which all the gods love. Socrates then asks, “Is the pious being loved by all the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” Socrates goes on to flesh out what the thrust of his argument is, giving analogous examples such as being carried and being seen. What those examples are supposed to show is that when we try to define the nature of a thing, we have to be able to explain it in such a way that it wouldn’t be dependent on anything else. Some of the examples he gives are being led and being carried. The point of these examples is that one gives r

The following is a handout I made for the Newman Bible Study. Use it as you see fit. What Does the Bible Say About: Homosexuality Definition: Homosexuality is the sexual attraction of one person to someone of the same sex. Biblical Data: Genesis 1:27-28 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Genesis 2:21-24 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. Old Words: The expression “male

The following is an essay I wrote for class. To avoid plagiarism, I will not be putting up the prompt, just my personal findings. There were footnotes as well, but they don't show up in a copy-paste edit. “I Exist” In The Second Meditation Descartes argues that “I exist” is necessarily true. He writes, “...if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed.” Being convinced of something implies there is someone real to be convinced. If there was no person existing to be convinced, then the thoughts don’t exist for us to be considering. But they are being considered, so there is a person existing. Descartes formulates the argument in a modus ponens, but can also be understood in the modus tollens way that I gave as they are materially equivalent. The conclusion that “I exist” is significant in the Meditation because it comes in the context of a severe skepticism. Skepticism in this sense is not the rejection of beliefs as actually being false, but only that we do