Will (a small soapbox)

This is a bit of a departure from what I intended for this blog and I'm not sure what it will come to, but here it is: read on and see what you think.

Will.

Quae est voluntas?

For those of you who don't speak Latin, that means "what is will?"

This is something that I've thought about recently in light of certain trite comments that people seem to keep making.

When something bad happens or when something that we don't understand occurs, we often hear the phrase "Oh, it's God's will" or "It must be His will." or "We'll find the Lord's will in this."

At the risk of sounding impertinent (although you are reading this, you don't have to): Can we really? Can we really find God's will as it appears to be understood in this statement in every situation that it occurs?

When we study the will of God, learn that there are two kinds. Why? Mostly because it's to help us make sense of the problem of evil - which, I might add, is more or less at the heart of this matter.

The two kinds are active and permissive will.

We see these kinds of will in action every day. I will to eat ice cream today or I will to pray today. I actively choose to do this and make myself perform the action. On the other hand, a parent may not intervene in the action of one of their children so that child may learn for himself what it means when the parent says "don't antagonize the dog."

Did the parent actively desire that the child get bitten by the dog? No. But, they allowed it for the sake of the child's learning.

The same works for God (albeit in a different manner, since He is, well... God). God wills us to be happy; God wills for the world to exist; He wills that you exist so that He can love you and you Him.

But here's where the tricky part comes in: He also wills that you have the ability to will for yourself. This means that because He wants your will to be free (although what that means is also a tricky distinction, we won't go there now). But He also allows everyone's will to be free.

The reason that you are able to sin? Because God wills it so.

Now that sounded wrong, didn't it?

God wills it in the sense that He permits you to sin because He loves you so much that He wants you to be able to freely choose to respond in love (that's what freedom is), but to do so, there must be an alternative.

So, He doesn't actively will you to sin, in fact, He doesn't want you to; it will harm you more than it does Him. But, He permits it out of His love and respect for you as a creation of His that He created with the ability to choose.

That's why bad things happen (at least, some of them): because God permits us to exercise our free will. It's more than I could do; but that is why He is God and I am not.

So, next time you are tempted to say that something bad is God's will, think about this: It this truly what the person you are saying it to needs to hear? Especially if they do not understand this nuance about God's (and our) will?

Does thinking that God willed a calamity to occur make it any better for us? Or will it lead us to think of God as a sadist rather than a loving Father?

If we make the distinction between active and passive wills, then I think we can avoid this issue. Say, instead that God permitted it to happen, or that we cannot understand the mind of the Lord.

Can we specifically say that God did or did not actively will a specific event to take place? No. We are finite beings and cannot comprehend the mind of infinite Being itself. But better to admit our lack of understanding before the Almighty than to lead others to despair.

Now, of course, I'm not blaming people because of their good intentions; people tend to say this out of compassion for others, but I don't think it's an accurate reflection of God at its heart and so we should be careful how we say it.

Do you agree? Or do you think there's another nuance that I missed? Let me know.

As always: Peace and long life   \\//_

In Memoriam

Before I move on to the actual post for today, I should mention something that has happened in the past weeks.

Spock is dead.

No, I don't mean the character; I've seen Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock, I know he comes back. 

What I mean is that the actor, Leonard Nimoy, the man who brought to life one of the most iconic characters in television history has passed away. Spock was a character that I emulated growing up (fancy that, right?), so I will miss the man greatly, even though I never had the privilege to meet him. He did indeed live long and prosper.

God bless you, Mr. Nimoy, and thank-you for all the joy and wisdom (and logic) that you brought to our homes over your long and storied career.

Requiescat in pace.

Transporter φυσιςchosis

Ok, So, I studied Classical languages. I was attempting to make a joke with the title. Φυσις is the Greek word for "being" and, well, a TNG episode had Lt. Barclay thinking that he had "transporter psychosis" which is a mental breakdown due to improper re-materialization in the transporter.

Now is the time to panic!

The topic of this post, then, is whether or not Transporters actually bring you to the desired destination. Do you actually get there or does the transporter kill you then reassemble a copy that looks and acts exactly like you. Is your soul still attached to the body that re-materializes? In other words, is it the same being that re-materializes or should we legitimately be afraid of such contraptions as the Transporter? Be warned, I don't think I'm going to come down hard on one side or the other; this post is more of the pondering kind.

First, as disclaimer: As cool as I think transporters are, I'm a bit squeamish about the idea of using one. I tend to follow Dr. McCoy: "Dammit Jim, I'm not letting that thing scramble my atoms and put them back together!"

So, it basically comes down the classical philosophical mind-body problem, although with a bit of a twist.

Are you identical to your body? Well, Yes and no.

The soul (or form for you purists) is what gives the being what kind of thing it is while the body (or the matter) gives the being this-ness, that is, allows it to be this specific thing. For example Jim Kirk's soul gives him humanity and some other characteristics, but his body makes him this Jim Kirk and not someone else. Now, of course, we could get into the problem of how the soul is different from other souls (is it an act of existence, ordering to specific matter, something else even more mysterious?), but that is a topic that is a little too big for one blog post. It's best not to go after the entire Borg collective with one starship, as they say.

Anyway, back to the point. You are identical to your body insofar as you are a rational animal. Humans (Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, Frengi [maybe], Pakleds [probably not]) all are rational creatures, that is what separates them from the lower animals like dogs, elephants, dolphins, and the even lower animals like cats, but they are animals nonetheless.

 We are smart!

Your soul is the "essential" element (actually, it is) of who you are; without it, you simply are not... you. It is more than the body, more than "your puny physical existence." (sorry, Q got to the keyboard). It is what gives us access to rational thought, abstract thought, creativity, concepts of other beings, ability to exercise virtues, and so many other things. All these are essential to who you are and go along with your body to make the unique person that you are.

Ok, so why does this matter? Well: matter. Your soul is connected to the matter that is your body. The two together make up you. So, what happens when that matter ceases to be the kind of thing that your soul can inform. This is, actually, how some philosophers attempt to explain death, since the body (matter) has reached the point that the soul cannot cause it to seek out its end.

For instance, Picard puts bullets through a Borg in the holodeck, Qui-gon Jinn is stabbed, the Doctor is shot by.... spoilers. In all of these the matter can no longer sustain or hold onto the form, since it is not ordered in the right way anymore. And since the matter is not ordered in the proper way, the soul departs. What the soul does after that I will not pursue at this point.

In the transporter, the subject's body is converted to energy and then beamed to a planet (or other desired location) where it is re-materialized (or converted back to matter from energy). For those of you who are Treknoology experts, yes, I know there are a few different ways to describe the transportation process, but this is, as far as I am aware, the most commonly accepted theory.

Here's how it works. Totally clear, right?

So, the question is whether the body that has been converted to an energy stream still has a soul connected to it or not.

We could simply say. "The body has been destroyed, the soul can no longer reside there. Therefore, the person is dead and the soul has departed. End of story." This is certainly possible (and definitely logical based upon what I've already said), but so much less interesting. Let's explore the other possibility, shall we?

A term that you may have heard flying around philosophers (or philosophizers) is "potentiality." This means that something can become something else through a change of some kind, be it growth, development, change in electrical current, motion, etc. Often, this term is used to talk about human beings who are either in state of mental handicap or have not fully developed (embryos). They have a natural capacity for rationality (a essentially human trait), but are inhibited from expressing that trait for one reason or another. They then have a potency (or power) that has not been actualized (made real). They are still considered human beings and thus persons, and, for our purposes, the same persons across time (and space) because they have this natural capacity for rationality (that is, they are human).

Here comes the stretch... We can (attempt to) apply the same kind of ideas to the transporter. The matter that has been converted to energy is still "your matter." According to what we know of transporters, it is the same matter that goes all the way through the transportation process; it is not matter that is re-purposed on the other end. So, that matter, (because of the way it exists in the transporter pattern  buffer) has the potentiality to be you. It is still potentially ordered in the correct way for your soul to inform it. Much as someone who has been "medically dead" and then comes back (although, I grant you, some of these are miracles and so are not good examples.).

Because the matter has the inherent capacity to be you, since it is "kept that way by the transporter," then it is quite possible that your soul remains connected with that "energized" matter. And once the matter has been put back into an easily informable state, the soul fully informs it once again. We cannot say that the soul fully leaves the matter only to come back; that causes all other kinds of problems.

So, potentiality is a very important term here. I'm using it, probably to the extent of its meaning and likely a little beyond. However, with this little bit of a stretch, it becomes possible for the same being to go into the transporter and emerge from it (even if it is a long time in happening, right Scotty?)

Aye.

I'm not sure if that made any sense to you or if it was fully incoherent. Either way, if you have thoughts to share (agree, disagree, distinction), leave a comment below.

Until next time. Peace and long life.

The Best of Both Worlds...

Yes, I just did that. I used the title of my favorite TNG episode for a blog post title. Deal with it.

Recently, I have been thinking about how fiction and fantasy stories are actually good things. This runs contrary to how some people view the world, since, to them, anything that is not "real" cannot be good.

From a philosophical sense, this is, in a sense, true, since to actually have qualities, something needs to exist. But... 

We can look at this in two ways.

1.  The concept of the fantastical thing can actually be thought of, so there is, at least, some reality there, the reality of an idea. For instance: I show you this picture:
   
   You (presumably) know what this is (if you don't, I am so sorry), where it is from, what it can do; there is content to this. It has a this-ness. While the particular version of what it is may be fictional, it has concepts that are real: gun, weapon, laser, emitter end goes towards other man, etc. Be that as it may, there is a reality to this phaser (ok, now you know what it is) even if it is fiction. So, the fact that it has an ideal (meaning in the manner of an idea) existence, it can have the qualities of good, beautiful, things like that. And that's just a prop, not a story element, plot, characters, events, or anything, this is just a thing. So, doesn't that lend itself to the idea that there can be good in fiction?
2. This may be a very lame reason, but I'll go for it anyway. The fact that so many people can see good in fiction like The Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, etc. is a fairly good indicator that there actually is something there. Now, of course, popular opinion does not guarantee the truth of anything, but, in this case, it, at least, merits a closer inspection. Because we can look at a film like Star Trek: Insurrection and see the struggle between following orders and doing what is right, we can see that there is some content behind it that makes it real to us. So, while there may not actually be a U.S.S. Enterprise orbiting the Earth (I know, I just shattered someone's world... Oh wait, that was mine!), the stories that are told have meaning to us and so can have content that is actually good or bad.

OK. So, fiction can be "real", in a sense, but can it be "good?" This other question comes in when we compare some fantasies to other. First, not all fiction is created equal. There is good fiction, like what I've mentioned above (and plenty of others), and there is bad fiction (I won't point names or name fingers, but you know of what I speak).  So, there can be "fantasies" that are bad (and some downright evil), but the simple fact that there is one bad PotatOS, does not mean that all potatoes are bad.

(Yes, that was a Portal 2 joke)

Sometimes we can also worry that fantasy or fiction causes us to become detached from reality or feel discontented with reality (You know, like those sad people after Avatar came out). Instead of me coming up with reasons, here are some other awesome people to explain this:

Fantasy is a natural human activity. It certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy will it make. If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth (facts or evidence), then Fantasy would languish until they were cured. If they ever get into that state (it would not seem at all impossible), Fantasy will perish, and become Morbid Delusion. ~J.R.R. Tolkein

“It would be much truer to say that fairy land arouses a longing for he knows not what. It stirs and troubles him (to his life-long enrichment) with the dim sense of something beyond his reach and, far from dulling or emptying the actual world, gives it a new dimension of depth. He does not despise real woods because he has read of enchanted woods: the reading makes all real woods a little enchanted. This is a special kind of longing.” ~C.S. Lewis

Another guy that has some really cool things to say about this is G.K. Chesterton. In his book, Orthodoxy, he says that fairy tales (which are fiction) are:

“Those tales say that apples are golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water.”

In these two sentences, it is quite apparent that fairy tales tell us something about the world and how we are meant to interact with it. We adults have forgotten that it is an amazing thing that apples in our world are, in fact, green, instead of another color such as gold. We no longer remember that our rivers need not have run with water, but rather could have run with something else, such as wine. This reminds us that the world is wonderfully made. Even though we are used to its existence, since we live in it every day, we should be constantly be amazed at the world, because of the amazing fact that things work the way they do and not another way.

            In fact, Chesterton says that it is adults, not children that need fairy tales. When we are children, “we do not need fairy tales: we only need tales. Mere life is interesting enough.” Because children have not seen many of these things before, they seem to be fantastic, which they actually are. Because we have lived in the midst of all these amazing things, we have become accustomed to them, thus it no longer shocks us that things in the world happen. We need a dragon to pop out of a door to make our lives interesting and to fill us with a sense of wonder. The point of fairy tales, then, is to inspire in us a sense of wonder. As stated above, these fairy tales remind us that the world did not need to be so. It could have easily been created in another way, with the “laws” being entirely different. The fairy tale should make us draw connections between our world and fairytale land. By doing so, we rediscover our wonder at things by seeing how the fairy tales point to our world, where they draw their substance from. If the thing in fairytale land is so amazing, surely the actual things out of which it was created must be even more so.

Why yes, that was from a paper I wrote a while ago. You caught me!

So, through all of that mess that I just typed up, suffice it to say: Fiction is a good thing and you can get good things from it! Get it? Good.

Granted, from the fact that the topic of this blog is fiction, this should be obvious. However, since I was pondering it, it seemed like it should go up. If you have a comment, I would love to see it, even if it is just "Well, that could have been better." 

Well, I'm off. It's time to go do some work in the Great Unknown (Theology papers). Until then, Live long and Prosper!

 

To Boldly Go...

The thought process for this blog has been in motion for quite some time now and only at this time have I decided to begin posting things.

Why?

Well, I wasn't quite sure that I could maintain a blog or have anything interesting to say. Then it occurred to me: No one else has anything else to say either! er.... Most blogs have topics that they like to discuss. So, since I have some topics that I like to think and write about, they might as well be available to those who wish to read my take on subjects. You can take it that way or that I have succumbed to the overly narcissistic current culture and just want to write about myself. That may be so... But let's not speak of it, shall we?

You may ask: "What are these topics that you have not mentioned so far?"

I'm glad you asked! Such a pertinent question! I like to ponder many things about science-fiction. Star Trek and Star Wars are my main two universes (since I was raised on them). However, I have taken a recent liking to shows such as Doctor Who, Firefly, and probably a few others that I can't recall at this moment.

Also, I have taken a great interest in Philosophy. No, not any of that newfangled modern or contemporary stuff (although some of them do have some merit). I prefer the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and the two giants he drew from (if you don't know who Plato and Aristotle are.... you have been deprived).

Technology is also something that interests me, although I am not quite as knowledgeable about the newer stuff, since my studies have been  occupying me a little more.

I also am a faithful Roman Catholic (currently studying for the priesthood [say a prayer, would you?]), so I love to discuss liturgy, salvation, and various Catholic topics, even ad nauseam compared to some.

These topics also get mashed up in various ways so, you might one day see a post about the philosophical implications of using the transporter in Star Trek. You never know.

One more point, I tend to be sarcastic, dry, and nerdy in my humor, so don't be too surprised if you don't get what I say (a lot of people don't). If it seems like it might be a joke, it probably is.

So, after all of that mess of explaining what I may or may not be doing on these pages. We shall have to see where it leads. It's an exciting new frontier.

So, what do you say? Will you come away with me and see what's out there?

p.s. Don't worry, my grasp of how Blogger works will improve, the posts won't always be a bunch of text.

Test