![]() |
| Favorite neighbors... |
(I somehow took not a single sunset/sunrise photo this year, so instead of the customary burning atmosphere, you get the local ducks. Sorry. I shall do better in 2026.)
![]() |
| Favorite neighbors... |
(I somehow took not a single sunset/sunrise photo this year, so instead of the customary burning atmosphere, you get the local ducks. Sorry. I shall do better in 2026.)
Every year, I let my HUM II classes give me a question to write a 45-minute in-class essay on--sort of a fair turnabout for all the writing I assign them! They give me four possible topics, and I pick one to answer. This year's two topics were "What is beauty?" and "What do you think of the doctrine of predestination?" Both pieces are severely limited by lack of time and space, but here they are, just the same.
In our age, “beauty” is often relegated merely to the natural form—the sort of word we use about pictures of Rocky Mountain landscapes unspoilt by the hand of man, or a particularly fine bone structure in the body of a Hollywood star. This is fine as far as it goes, but all too often this degenerates into mere taste: one guy likes the Shenandoah Valley in the early morning and the other likes LA sunsets (the smog really sets off the clouds). But if beauty is merely personal taste, then we’ve reduced it to the perception level of each person. No one can say what beauty is, the same way no one can force me to like pineapple on pizza or the color combination of orange and maroon. In short, we destroy the very concept of beauty by drowning it in a sea of mere preference.
If you hang around more than one classical Christian school for any length of time, it can quickly become apparent that no one knows exactly what they’re doing. I don’t mean that the teachers don’t know their subjects well, or that the administrators can’t fill out a spreadsheet, or that the students can’t add up a grocery bill—those skills are usually better than the average. But if you ask twenty people in those schools what on earth classical education is, exactly, you will probably get twenty-two different answers.
"...not that I mean to depreciate [the poets]; but everyone can see that they are a tribe of imitators, and will imitate best and most easily the life in which they have been brought up; while that which is beyond the range of a man’s education he finds hard to carry out in action, and still harder adequately to represent in language.”—Plato, Timaeus (Jowett)
It is a common Twitter trope these days to portray our American elites (political or artistic) as a deliberate set of societal saboteurs, scheming in air-conditioned offices about how to take down the whites and the Christians, the "grillers" and the "normies." They lure us with innocent-sounding phrases like justice and neighbor or a wonderful Episode 1 of a streaming series. The mass of middle America joins in, some with caution, more with enthusiasm. And then--bam--in swoops the Wokeness, the lawfare, the main-character-who-surprise-is-actually-gay-but-still-somehow-just-as-awesome. The trap closes, we conservatives lose another political battle or beloved IP, and the process starts all over again.
It turns out all the assumptions of the Conservative political
project were built on sand.
For years, the “normal folks” assumed that the small-town America
of the 1980s was still lurking, unseen, around the corner. That when the
crazies (on either end of the spectrum) raised one flag too many, pushed a
little too hard, or assumed a bit too much, the “Silent Majority” would rise up
and toss them all out. That A-mericuh—Land of the Red, White, AND Blue—would
resume its customary sanity and we could all go back to normal. That folks just
wouldn’t stand for any more of that s---.
They were wrong.
The resulting pressure of being a consciously self-conscious
materialist must be unbearable. How can someone as limited as the “you” knows
itself to be deal with an infinite number of outcomes and an infinite number of
possible obstacles (most of them the people closest to you)? No wonder Nietzsche
went insane. But there are workarounds. That pressure can be dulled by routines;
smothered by the anodyne embrace of sex, drugs, and alcohol; ignored by the
mass of flesh-colored emoticons that pass for people in our logic-free society.
But I believe most often it is channeled into the Cause.
The Cause can be anything. Better schools for the kids. A
new car. The top of the career ladder. Conservative politics. Progressive politics.
A famous Instagram account. Freedom. Safety. A Hollywood career. Global
warming. The perfect body. One more dollar. One more cat.
All that really matters in the long run is that the Cause
inevitably becomes part of the Self. It has to, really—the Self is the only
cause-er we know from the inside out, and therefore the only force in the world
that is personal. Nobody knows what is really making that other Joe do
anything, the same way nobody knows what makes gravity do anything. Some folks
with funny Greek names (psychiatrists and physicists, respectively) have pretty
good guesses, but they still don’t know. All they know is what the stuff
is made of and some of what it’s doing. But we know the Cause—no matter
who you are, for you it is the obvious, normal thing to do. Often it is also
the thing most noticeable about you, betrayed by social media posts, bumper
stickers, clothing, attitude. You give it life, and in return it becomes part
of what you are. How many people have you met that one of the first things they
uttered was “I am (whatever Cause they are currently chasing)”? The Cause, no
matter how trivial, becomes part and parcel of the person. When it succeeds,
they do, and when it doesn’t…
Well, that is not to be contemplated, for no man ever hated
his own Cause. It must be the fault of all those other Causes out there, competing
for the same limited resources, time, applause, and support. In this world
there are only those who support the Cause, and those who hinder it. And since
the Cause is part of the Self, there are only those who help you, and those who
hurt. Failure is personal: it is other people. And the vast majority of them
are out to get you.
Materialism wasn’t supposed to turn out this way. Instead of
turning the universe against you, it was supposed to bring freedom from the
Great Enslaver, Religion. After all, hadn’t it given us the Industrial
Revolution? Was not Utopia in sight at the turn of the last century? Finally,
we could feed and clothe the world, travel around it at lightning speeds, and explain
virtually every natural phenomenon (not to mention the supernatural) we saw
along the way. Man’s labor could accomplish anything. We bored through
mountains, bridged oceans, harnessed the lightning bolt, caught and rode the
very winds. There was a price, of course—work became mostly boring, stifling,
repetitive, and soul-killing. But we didn’t believe in souls anymore, and until
we figured out how to fix that (and of course we would) there were escape hatches.
Sex has always been a popular choice, but now there was “reaching the top of
the ladder” and “vacation” and “recreation” and most importantly “progress” to
help it out. Every machine needs a little oiling now and then, and materialism’s
two major oils were sex and science. Each could save you from the perils of the
other—sex made the Self feel real in a sterile scientific world, and science made
the ugly biproducts of a sexual liberty less and less of a problem.
Enter Roe v. Wade.
Now Roe v. Wade is dead, and the response is showing just
how much of a Cause it is for so many people out there. When those judges
struck it down, they struck down all those Selves, too. No wonder the
Christians are being exhorted to “be sensitive” or “watch our tones”—they are strolling
through the middle of a mass grave, and a cheery whistle just seems like the
final unwitting insult to the Apocalypse. “Horsemen charging, flashing sword
and glittering spear, hosts of selves, heaps of Causes, dead bodies without end—they
stumble over the bodies!”
Long ago, a reluctant African academic also lived through an
Apocalypse. He was exhorted to be sensitive, to watch his tone, to cautiously mourn
with those who mourn, to love these Selves as they loved themSelves and their own threatened bodies. Instead he
glanced at the shattered Cause around him, and he gave the following
exhortation to those around him:
“There is no need to be instructed to love oneself and one’s body; we always love what we are and what is inferior to us but belongs to us, according to an immovable unvarying natural law, one which was also made for animals, because even animals love themselves and their bodies. It therefore remains for us to receive instruction about what is above us, and what is close to us. Scripture says, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. The aim of the commandment is love, a twofold love of God and of one’s neighbor. No class of things to be loved is missing from these two commandments…The person who lives a just and holy life is one who is a sound judge of these things. He is also a person who has ordered his love, so that he does not love what it is wrong to love, or fail to love what should be loved, or love too much what should be loved less (or love too little what should be loved more), or love two things equally if one of them should be loved either less or more than the other, or love things either more or less if they should be loved equally. No sinner, qua sinner, should be loved; every human self, qua human self, should be loved on God’s account; but God should be loved for Himself.”—Augustine of Hippo, De Doctrina Christina Bk. I
Love God, love His Cause, and love all those selves out there like they were your Self, in that order. That includes the million-plus helpless kids who now have a better chance to see the light of day.
Be thankful, and rejoice,
for Material and Cause is not all there is. We know it, because Roe is dead,
and the fight is just starting.
Yes, to some people, this is funny. But whether Scott Adams did it on purpose or not, it’s also rather profound.
Wait, you ask with a smile. Are you seriously suggesting that “preferred pronouns” are a sign of the death of Western civilization? Actually, you think this too, whether you know it or not. You just may not have noticed yet. But to get there, we have to go on a bit of a detour first. Actually, it winds up being a pretty long detour, so I have split this post in half. Part I of this post will briefly cover the development of the current idea of our civilization, Part II will contrast it with the idea of personal pronouns and show why they cannot both work.
Our Western
Civilization
“Civilization” is
a pesky word that is hard to define. Just try for a second. To our grandfathers
it often meant grand cities of towering buildings instead of mud huts and loincloths. In a
history book it can refer to any large, probably rather urban, gathering of
people, i.e. “the Mayan civilization.” To an academic these days it might
merely be the lingering Power of the White Heterosexual Male. To a hiker just
coming off a two-week walk in the wilderness, it can often be the humblest
porcelain toilet in the most run-down, filthy gas station you have ever seen (the
academic might then point out that the toilet is also white, or at least used
to be.)
We get the word
by way of the Latin civilitas, which carried the idea of the manners
necessary for the running of the Roman state. Romans were expected to act a certain
way in public; if one did not, one was a “Greek-lover,” or a “barbarian,” perhaps
a dramatic fool like Nero—at any rate, someone not worth respecting. A foreign king might
have been wealthy and powerful, but Rome did not merely value power. If some
king got a good report from a Roman historian, he was more than grand or
authoritarian—he had civilitas, or as we might say, he had good manners.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. A “homo civilitatis” meant someone who
lived in Roman society and by its rules, as distinct from the barbarians.
Over the next millennium,
Christianity took that notion and built on it. The idea of proper manners
became married to the idea of the proper man; one who knew his place in the
cosmos (God’s regent on earth) and his station in his own country (from the king
to the beggar). This became the medieval standard of civilization. There was
still a sense of superiority to the uncivilized, but it was now derived not
from citizenship in one particular powerful city, but instead in a proper
worship of the true God. A “civilized man” meant someone who lived in Christian
society and by its rules, distinct from the pagans.
As Enlightenment
rationalism leached its way into this worldview, the idea of worship began to
be divorced from man. The philosophers and deep thinkers of this period made
the curious assumption that after a thousand years of Christian training,
certain morals and manners were actually natural to men—particularly white-skinned
men. Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary leans toward this view when it defines
civilization as “the state of being refined in manners, from the grossness of
savage life, and improved in arts and learning.” Instead of “Christian civilization”
we now had “Western civilization”: a vaguely Christian moral compass married to
the tremendous technological advances made by the Scientific Revolution. A “civilized
man” meant someone who lived like a European, distinct from the darker-skinned
society any other place on the globe.
Whether a modern
person likes it or not, it is this Western civilization that built the American
system of government, laws, and manners (though it was reinforced, joined, and
in some cases supplanted by the older medieval view). The idea that you can
elect a leader, retain the right to disagree with that leader publicly after an
election, and do whatever you wish with your free time (without that leader having
the least say) are all direct fruits of it. So is the Bill of Rights. So is the
ability to walk down the street without having to move aside for a superior human
being. So is the idea that you can walk into a courtroom and have a case
decided by what you have done, and not who you or your opponent are.
And it also means enjoying the richest, most technologically adorned lifestyle
in history. In a contrast to Webster, the OED currently defines civilization as
“the stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is
considered most advanced.” (Note the idea of progress.)
So currently, the
(Western) “civilized man (and as you must say now, woman)” means someone
who lives by ideas of electoral and legal equality, in a state of
technological advancement; distinct from any society either hierarchically
structured, or less technologically developed. This is why it is possible (though rarely politically popular) to speak
disapprovingly of Chinese, African, or Indian civilization as inferior to the
United States’, they are either repressively unequal (China), underdeveloped
(Africa), or both (India). These emphases will be important when
we get to Part II.
![]() |
| Yes, this is pretty much my mother every holiday... |