Category Archives: Josef Pieper

Josef Pieper

Apples, Cats, and Demonic Thinking

16 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Josef Pieper, Philosophy, Pro-Life, St. Thomas Aquinas

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Caveat: in my writings about philosophy please understand that I do not consider myself an expert and could be mistaken about what I am writing. I am writing with the purpose of working these things out in my mind and using my blog as a means of recording my thoughts and tracking my progress in this very complicated subject. Of course, I always seek to adhere strictly to the teachings of the Catholic Church and so if any reader ever notices something that could be wrong then please let me know.

The intellect receives its measure from objects; that is, human knowledge is true not of itself, but it is true because and insofar as it conforms to reality.

St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I, II, 93, 1 ad 3

What on earth does this mean and why is it important you ask? This may sound convoluted but actually it is what I would call common sense. My understanding does not come from my own reading of St. Thomas but from those who are much more intelligent than I. In this case the quote, and my understanding of it, comes from Josef Pieper’s book Living the Truth, from Ignatius Press (1989) on page 124.

What St. Thomas is trying to tell us is that we know as being true only when our knowledge conforms to the reality that exists outside of our own minds. Here is an example of what I mean: if I see a red apple on my desk then I can truly know that it is a red apple through my senses. The apple really exists and I know this because I can touch it. And even it I did not touch it I could know that it is there through my sight. Also, my sight tells me it is red in color. Some might argue that the words red and apple are arbitrary and could be called by other names. This is true. For instance, it could be that in our language red is actually called blue and apples are actually called oranges but that doesn’t change the fact that in our language as it is red means something definite and apple means something definite. What I mean is that the things we call red apples are an objective reality that we have assigned the name red apple.

But this does not mean that it is our naming of the thing that makes it what it is. Instead, we all know what a red apple is because we have been taught what it is and we have experienced it through our senses or our intellect. If someone is speaks the English language and picks up a red apple and calls it anything other than a red apple then his knowledge of that object is wrong. But this is only true of those who have learned the Truth of the thing in question. If they have never seen a red apple (which is hard to imagine) then they would not know what to call it. But suppose someone had been taught the wrong word for it. Perhaps they were referring to an apple as a cat. Clearly this would be wrong but the person does not know any better. The solution would be to politiely correct the person and tell them that it is not a cat but an apple. You may even have to go so far as to prove it by showing them pictures of a cat and pictures of apples and then getting other people to corroborate what you are saying. In the end you would suppose that common sense would prevail – right?

But that is not the way our society acts any longer. Although most people would still be willig to accept what a cat is and what an apple is there are other parts of objective reality that they completely discard. For them human knowledge is true of itself, by which St. Thomas means (I think) that the truth is whatever we want it to be. A prime example of what I mean can readily be seen in people’s treatment of the unborn. What is the unborn baby, objectively speaking? It is nothing less than the offspring of two other human beings and, therefore, could be nothing other than a human being. Right? That seems to make sense to me. But in the minds of those who are pro-death it must be something else. How else could they acquiesce in terminating its life? There are only two possible answers to this last question. First, they might think that the unborn baby is something other than a human being: you know – the whole ‘it’s just a clump of cells’ mentality. But from what I’ve read most people, even those who are pro-death, do not believe that any more. (And even if they do believe the ‘clump of cells’ lie it doesn’t seem rational because if it is not a human at conception then at what point does it become one?)

So that leaves just the second possibility – the people in our country, at least those who are pro-death, are no longer rational. In other words, they have no common sense. If they don’t believe the ‘clump of cells’ lie but instead understand that it is a baby and they either approve or actually are involved with abortion then not only are they irrational in their thinking they are also antithetical to their own human nature. And there is another word we can use for that – it is called demonic.

The fact is that to be human means, in part, to be rational. As St. Thomas said, “human knowledge is true not of itself, but it is true because and insofar as it conforms to reality.” There is an objective reality outside ourselves which we did not create and which we do not get to redefine – it is what it is. And we can most certainly come to know that objective reality. Therefore, we cannot redefine the unborn as a non-person in order to dispose of it, and still think of ourselves as fully human. Instead, to be truly rational human beings we must accept the objective reality that that which proceeds from two humans must itself be human.

What’s right for you…

30 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by in Josef Pieper, Morality, Politically Incorrect, Truth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

He who wishes to know and to do the good must turn his gaze upon the objective world of being. Not upon his own 'ideas', not upon his 'conscience', not upon 'values', not upon arbitrarily established 'ideals' and 'models'. He must turn away from his own act and fix his eyes upon reality.

From Living the Truth, by Josef Pieper

The quote above is from the second half of the book that is cited. The second half is titled Reality and the Good. Although I have only finished reading the first few pages, which the author titles “The Thesis”, it appears that this essay is in regards to how mankind can know right and wrong and therefore be able to do that which is good. This is evidenced by the three sentences that precede the above quote where Pieper writes, “All obligation is based upon being. Reality is the foundation of ethics. The good is that which is in accord with reality.”

When I first started this essay I had to read those three sentences several times. They seemed to me to be disjointed – that they did not fit together. It now seems to me that the reason it seemed disjointed was because of my lack of background in philosophy. After all, you cannot really understand what someone is trying to say to you unless you understand his frame of reference. But as I continued reading the thesis statement the point the author is making began to make sense to me.

In order to understand this we must first have a correct understanding of reality. First of all, mankind is not the author or definer of what is true or good, but he can come to know it. In other words, we do not create the reality in which we live, instead we exist within an objective reality. And we experience this objective reality through our sense perception. It is through our senses that we experience the things around us. 'Things' here is to be understood as the word res from philosophy. Pieper says, “Res is everything that is 'presented' to our sense perception or our intellectual cognition, all that has being independently of our thinking.” Another word from philosophy, realis, is taken from res and denotes reality. Of this Pieper says, “Reality (in the sense of realis) is the whole of being which is independent of thought.” And elsewhere says, “Reality is the basis of the good.” Also realis means “that to be good is to do justice to objective being…the good is that which is in accord with objective reality.” “All laws and moral principles may be reduced to reality.” 'Reality' here meaning objective being outside ourselves.

As a result of all of this the author makes the conclusion that this “makes impossible the attitude of always referring to oneself and to the judgment of one's conscience*, which is considered as providing the norm in each instance. We are forced now to look through and beyond our own moral judgment to the norm presented to us by the objective reality of being.” I most heartily agree with this conclusion. [*Just a side note: here the author is referring to people who use their consciences as an excuse to do whatever they want. He is not referring to the use of our conscience in the correct sense. The Church teaches that a “human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” (CCC §1800) But the Church also teaches us that we must have a well-formed conscience that “formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.” (CCC §1798) This is completely the opposite of using your conscience as a scapegoat to do whatever you want to do.]

But our modern society most certainly does not agree. The world is no longer viewed objectively by society but instead it is interpreted in a relativistic way. What I mean can be shown through an example: people who don't want to abide by traditional norms of moral behavior seem to have adopted the slogan, “What is right for you may not be right for me.” (You can replace right with moral or with good.)

Now to a certain extent this slogan is correct. For instance, if someone has cancer it would be right for them to have chemotherapy because that is one of the only methods we have to get rid of cancer. Whereas for someone else, who does not have cancer, it would not be right to have chemotherapy because to a person who is healthy chemotherapy is poisonous. Like I said, this would be a proper way to understand the above slogan.

But in saying this slogan our modern society means something completely different. For them the slogan turns everything upside down. To use the previous example about cancer – when modern society says “what is right for you may not be right for me” it isn't talking about whether or not a person should have chemotherapy. Instead, it is trying to change the rules to such an extent as to say that there is nothing wrong with cancer in the first place and that we don't need anything to fix it. Obviously, this is just crazy talk.

With this in mind we can begin to understand why our modern society is so disordered. It has left behind any idea of objective truth (like cancer is bad for you) in favor of just doing what feels right. And obviously, the chemotherapy this society needs (that being objective standards to determine morality) to fix its diseased nature would not feel right (because it would cause people to have to let go of the fantasy world they have created for themselves where right and wrong is determined by their own judgments). But nevertheless, objective truth is the only medicine that will cure us.