Etymology and hatred

Inspired by, "an act of contempt," which jumped out and presented itself to me as another one of the many reasons I shouldn't use Facebook.

Etymology is interesting. Take the word 'contempt' for example. It is derived from the Latin word contemnere, which means, "to despise," or, "to think little of." Contemnere itself is derived from the Latin word temnere, meaning, "to scorn," or, "to despise," and the prefix, "con-," a form of cum, which means, "with," or, "to associate with." 'Contempt' refers to associating a thing with scorn or disdain. 'Disdain' is itself and interesting word. It is derived from the Latin dedignari, a combination of the verb dignari, meaning, "to deem worthy," and the prefix, "de-," which means, "out of," or, "from," leading to it being associated with the idea of removal or reversal. So disdain is the reversal of deeming a thing of having some worth, i.e. to deem a thing to be of no worth or value.

Now what is interesting here is that a man who deems a thing to be of no value does not go out of his way to attack it. He simply walks away from it and ignores it. A man who has contempt for the penny does not start a campaign to eliminate the penny, he simply refuses to to use them, leaving them behind in those little dishes at check-outs or turning them into larger change. He will not stoop to pick up a penny, but he doesn't denounce the penny at the top of his voice. To do so would to give it more attention than it is worth. A man does not attack what he despises, what he has contempt for. He attacks what he hates. But hatred, for all its negative connotations, does not deal in worthlessness, in insignificance. It is not insignificant things that we truly hate, it is significant ones. Annoyances can he ignored, it is monsters that must be killed.

This leaves us with a question we must ask: "What does it say about a man who hates - truly, viscerally hates - the single longest continuing organization of the West? An organization that, for whatever good or ill one might accuse it of, is at the roots of the civilization in which he lives.

Does he care for reason? It is this organization whose monks preserved learning, both practical and theoretical, when the lights went out on civilization and the barbarians ran rampant over the land. It was this organization that civilized the barbarians. It was this organization that created the university and the hospital.

Does he value freedom? It is this organization that said the authority of kings has its limits, and that the use of power was not a rule in itself but was rather ruled by justice. It was the organization that said that there was more to life than the state, which must be contained to its proper sphere.

To hate the Catholic Church is to hate Western Civilization. To hate Western Civilization is, for western man, to hate himself, for he is its product and heir. Hatred of the Catholic Church - true, pure hatred of it - is born of self-hatred. And true self-hatred is born of a guilty conscience, one that continually whispers, "This is not how man was meant to live. The pleasure you pretend to revel in is empty, the pain you ignore is deep and true."

A man who does evil must necessarily hate himself in some way. He must either hate the evil he does, and seek mercy; or he must hate that in himself which accuses him, and seek to destroy it. And if he wishes to destroy it, he must try to destroy that which constantly reminds him of the accusations.

The Church is the conscience of this and every age. An age that despises and seeks to kill conscience is one that must despise and seek to kill the Church. We live in such an age. Miserere nostri, Domine, miserere nostri. Have mercy on us, Lord, for all our foolish hatred. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Something worth reading

Sandro Magister, "A Philosopher Reissues the Pope's Wager: To Live as if God Exists."

A brief article on Robert Spaemann's newest - at least as of October 31, 2008 - book, which does not yet seem to be available in English. Following the article are some excerpts.

My favorite bit:

With the loss of the idea of truth comes the loss of the idea of reality. Our speaking and thinking that which is, is structured in an inevitably temporal form. We cannot think of something as real without thinking of it in the present, meaning that it is real "now." Anything that has been only in the past, or will be only in the future, has never been and never will be. That which is now, at one time was in the future and will be in the past. The "futurum exactum," the future perfect, is inseparable from the present. Saying that a present event will no longer have been in the future means that in reality it does not exist even now. In this sense, everything real is eternal (emphasis added). There cannot be a moment in which it will no longer be true that someone has felt a suffering or joy that he is feeling now. And this past reality is absolutely independent of the fact that we remember it.

That might be the most profound thing I've read in awhile. I wish I read either German or Italian so I could pick up a copy of this book. Hopefully we'll eventually get an English translation. Or, barring that, I'll eventually work my way through my list of "Languages to Learn" to German or Italian.

What intentions can and cannot do, part I

Suppose that law makers passed a law that demanded all $100 bills be printed in blue ink. But further suppose that those law makers, in passing this law, really intended that all $100 bills be printed in red ink. Would it be a false interpretation of the law to rule that printing $100 bills in blue ink was in keeping with the law, while printing $100 bills in red ink was a violation of the law? Do the intentions of the law makes force "blue" to mean red?

A word I hate

I hate the word "sentient." Though, to be honest, it's not so much the word I hate as the way it's used. "Sentient" is often used to describe beings that possess intelligence, reason, intellect &c. But "sentient" is derived from the Latin sentire, which means "to feel." "Sentient" can still be found in modern dictionaries defined as "having sense perception" and "experiencing sensation or feeling." A better word for a being possessing intellect would be "sapient," i.e. a being that possesses or is capable of possessing wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge of the highest and most universal cause and it is the intellect that allows one to know the universal. Sense perception only allows one to know the particular.

On the term "fair"

What does it mean to say that something is "fair"? Standard usages seems to imply that something is considered fair if it is equal. For example, children almost always consider it unfair if their siblings get a bigger piece of cake, get to stay up later &c. If this is an accurate definition, then I have to wonder whether fairness is worth all the trouble people put into it.

Justice is giving another what they are due. Now, insofar as two people are equally due something, said thing should be given to them in equal amounts or shares. But insofar as people are not equally due something, it would seem to follow that there is no injustice if they are given said thing in unequal or unfair amounts or shares.

Thus, there is no injustice to be found in the unfair examples previously give. If the cake is being given to the children as a gift, then it is entirely gratuitous rather than something owed. There is no cause for complaint if you are given an undeserved gift in a smaller quantity than another is given an undeserved gift. And even if the situation were one where it could be conceivably said that cake was due to the children, such as a birthday party, it might still be due to them in different proportions. A younger child might be due less cake than his older sibling simply because he cannot eat as much. Similarly, a younger child might be due an earlier bedtime than his older sibling simply because he needs more sleep.

How much luck you would have in presenting these arguments to a young child I cannot say. But it is depressing that many modern adults argue like little children, thinking that if they do not get some equal share or some similar benefit they have in some way been treated with injustice. Think of many of the arguments in favor of abortion, homosexual "marriage" &c.

On the use of the term "person"

The the term "person" and what it signifies, as it has been handed down to Western civilization through the Christological and Trinitarian deliberation of the early Ecumenical Councils, is primarily an ontological term that signifies a specific mode of being. A person is an individual substance of an intellectual nature. Or, to make more explicit what it means to be a person, we can say that a person: (1) possesses a substantial existence, not an accidental existence; (2) possesses a complete nature; (3) exists per se, possessing the fullness of its existence, its nature, and all its powers and acts; (4) separate from others, meaning that the primary sense of the term "person" refers to a specific individual rather than something universal, though we can use the term analogically to include all types of beings whose nature and mode of being render the individuals of said nature persons; (5) possessing an intellectual nature, i.e. possessing intellect and will.

Any use of the term person that does not fall under this specific definition is analogically related. For example, a legal person is treated as is it possessed a separate, substantial existence, possessing an intellect and will and being the full and sole possessor of all its powers and actions. A corporation, for example, does not possess any of the attributes of a person, but it is treated as such for the purpose of the law. This can be fine and necessary for a well running legal system (though I am myself opposed to corporate personhood). But if we loose site of the primary meaning of the term "person," the one from which any and all analogical uses stem, then we have lost sight of something very important to the proper understanding of human nature and the reality of the world.

On the Use of Language as a Sign of Rationality

Here is a paper on the difference between the use of language by human beings and what appears to be the use of language by apes:

Dennis Bonnette, A Philosophical Critical Analysis of Recent Ape-Language Studies.

See also:

Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book.

Idem, The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man is, How Queer Language Is, and What One Has to Do With the Other.

Robert Sokolowski, Phenomenology of the Human Person.

The last book has not yet been released, but I was fortunate enough to take a graduate class with Msgr. Sokolowski where we used an earlier draft of it as our text.

Further references on the topic would be appreciated.