philosophy

Found: An interesting article from Gladden J. Pappin on Liberty, Technology, and the Advent of Social Networking. It's a bit tl;dr, but I've read through once, and hope to sit with it a little longer sometime.

The article (and many like it) makes me think a bit about the theme of personhood on the Internet, and how our use and overuse of social media, blogging, etc. in building our own self-image is something about which we must always be cautious.

I recently watched the Star Trek TNG Episodes 'Booby Trap' and 'Galaxy's Child', and while I'm no supporter of the strange philosophies that guide Star Trek morality/ethics, I wonder if we are becoming like Geordi LaForge, who fell in love with a projected image of a person on the holodeck.

One of the keys to using social media effectively is to keep a proper separation between one's true self-image and the image one projects on the 'holodeck' of the Internet (and make sure you know that others are not defined by tweets and avatars).

Thomas Aquinas, on whether the ends justify the means:

On the contrary, Boethius says (De Differ. Topic. ii) that "if the end is good, the thing is good, and if the end be evil, the thing also is evil."

That is a simple way of stating it, but he elaborates:

Nothing hinders an action that is good in one of the way mentioned above, from lacking goodness in another way. And thus it may happen that an action which is good in its species or in its circumstances is ordained to an evil end, or vice versa. However, an action is not good simply, unless it is good in all those ways: since "evil results from any single defect, but good from the complete cause," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).

Thomas is basically saying that, while there may be some good effects resulting from some bad action, the action (the means) must be taken into account when judging whether an end is truly good or desirable. We cannot justify an evil act through a good outcome—the act is still evil. Therefore if we truly wish to have a 'good' outcome, we cannot allow it to happen through an evil (immoral) method.

Aquinas speaks more eloquently about causes, species and accidents (which take a bit to wrap your mind around) in his article "Whether a human action is good or evil from its end?"

While reading through a relatively decent overview/article on the current controversy, I found a paragraph that I take some issue with, especially with regard to the question of 'faith vs. science/reason':

Ms. Pynchon makes a critical observation: “These religious beliefs (that sexual conduct outside of a one man-one woman marriage is sinful and can be “cured” by Jesus) are held by fewer and fewer Americans. They have also been repudiated by many liberal American Christian churches (including my own. -JM] They fly in the face of American secular legal principles [read as separation of church and state - JM] and contradict our contemporary scientific understanding. They are matters of faith, not science or reason.” What this author is summarizing is what is becoming the national story — that our individual DNA is our essence, and we treat our essence with respect. It’s similar to our other national stories, for example, that you don’t stone a woman to death for adultery.

Unfortunately, Ms. Pynchon, along with most other academics and voices in culture today, misunderstands the unity of the human person, and of a supernatural view of our universe.

For a Catholic, like myself, human sexuality—including the psychology, physiology, and even the ideas informed by my faith—is a matter entirely wrapped up in rational (scientific) understanding, and then improved and refined by my faith.

Catholics, at least (I can't speak for other religious affiliations), are encouraged to pursue reason, to study the sciences, to examine DNA, the genome, etc... but inside a well-formed philosophical mindset. One that has a comprehensive worldview centered around the dignity of the human person, as created by a loving and relational God.

Many people, who have the same idea of religiosity that Ms. Pynchon has, would dismiss me as a religious zealot who dismisses science and rationality.

But I do not. In fact, I'm pretty sure there are genetic dispositions towards different kinds of sexual behaviors and patterns—just as there are genetic dispositions towards such things as alcoholism, racism, elitism, etc. A genetic predisposition towards homosexuality does not make homosexuality a 'good' or a 'right,' or even 'okay' for some people. Just as with every other human behavior, a wider worldview must be used to judge the righteousness of a human action or behavior—including acting on homosexual tendencies.

All I'm asking, really, is for writers like Ms. Pynchon, John Martellaro, et all to at least lend an ear to my arguments, as I do them. Don't ignore my voice because I'm Catholic. That would be just as offensive and infantile as my ignoring them for being scientists.