Well, Why Not?

Father Malcolm Willoughby, a former pastor of our parish at St. Dominic in Detroit and whom I've spoken of in the past, once offered during a conversation an idea I'd have never considered. "When bad things happen to someone, there's a tendency to ask, 'Why me?' Well, why not you?" he said. "Why shouldn't you be as subject to the awful things which can and do happen to others?"

He's right, of course. And, you'll notice, the question rarely gets asked when good things come along, as though the good might be seen as an entitlement and the bad an outrageous affront. Oh, and Fr. Willoughby made this point too as we talked, you don't say that to someone who is currently suffering from a death in the family, or a personal crisis of some sort. But the question, why me?, really doesn't have any value. It may be perfectly reasonable to feel that way when you're down. Yet just as you're not exempt from the good, you aren't protected from the bad either.

Holding On

His voice was tired and weak. An old friend had called just to chat; among what we spoke about were his upcoming medical tests. "They're looking at my heart, Marty. I don't know what they expect to find." He sounded sad, alone, and isolated, if that makes sense.

I begin to understand the despondency which seems to come with age. This friend, a man I've know over 50 years now, was clearly feeling down not just physically but psychologically too. And I began to feel down for him. It does make you think just that much harder about the passing of time, of things gone by never, it may feel, to be again. With that comes doubt. Doubt is scary.

C. S. Lewis I believe spoke of obstinancy in belief. If I take it rightly he meant that sometimes all we can do is hold on tight to what we know is true and damn the torpedoes. There are days when that's just all we have. In this case, it means remembering that this world, though important, isn't the end. We have a journey here and what we do and say and think and experience is critical. Yet it isn't all. There is more, and greater, on the horizon.

I promised my old buddy prayers and I will say them. I will also try very hard to be obstinate. I hope he can be too.

Ruminating on a Sunday Morning

We often hear, in various forms, about people looking for their authentic selves. In all honesty I can't imagine what they seek.

The first problem is that such a trek implies they are somehow complete as they are and simply must find that completeness within themselves.  While I believe there is some truth there - I will employ an old religious trope and assert that the Ten Commandments are indeed written on our hearts - the answer can't be so easy. I find they are written on my own heart yet I routinely violate them. So it seems to me that having some ideal self within you fails to help you in your search precisely because the self, the honest self anyway, realizes that it isn't perfect right from the start despite having an innate idea of where inspiration can be found. Looking for you entirely within you then becomes little more than self indulgent. I don't see why that can be trusted. We cannot be our own judges as we will be too harsh, or more typically too lenient, with ourselves.

Then there is the very question of authenticity. Are we born a blank canvas or are we born complete? I don't see a blank canvas possible if we have some idea of right and wrong, good and bad from the start. Yet I don't see us complete either. We aren't born this way in the sense that we can't alter or adapt. Indeed we must change ourselves to really grow as persons. We don't leave infants and toddlers, teens and young adults, alone. We guide; we direct; we instruct; we train, even if only by inference. We begin to do all that to ourselves eventually after what are called the formative years. 

I suppose my point here is that there isn't really an authentic self within any of us. We must be, we will be, influenced by outside forces no matter what. It's so clear that we aren't born whole and authentic but rather develop over time that I can't see the point of questioning it. It's not a matter of being authentic but of what we do with our lives. Do we discipline and direct ourselves towards something or are we all right exactly as we are? 

If the latter, you can stop looking for the authentic as it's already there. If the former, it might be a good idea to start judging the well from the ill and acting accordingly.

You gotta stand for something

The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.

-G. K. Chesterton

Ayn Rand, though a very entertaining author, has her philosophical flaws. But if she is right about anything, she is right about this so far as it goes: you must have a philosophy to live by or you will have no bearings for judging your actions. You will have no way of interpreting what to do or when to do it.

Too many people lack this. Set aside for the moment whether any given philosophy is right. That is surely the next question to ask, but it isn't my point just now. The thrust of today's commentary is that a framework is necessary for us to determine the value of our life's, in fact even of our daily, work. Certain frameworks will prove to be wrong; indeed I suggest that there can only be one right, basic set of guidelines when all is said and done. But again, I am veering from the issue at hand.

Rand says, if I remember her correctly, that if you do not discipline yourself towards thinking about things at the least within a context of ideas which you take as a given, you will eventually merely wander from day to day, from idea to idea, and find yourself eternally at the influence of other forces without regard for what you may actually want or need. You will discover, if the thought ever actually develops in your mind, that you have not become an individual of any value. You will be a sheep. The time of slaughter will one day consume you, and you will have no way of defending yourself from it.

Or something worse will happen. You will become a petty little dictator, self assured that all that you wish do is itself the standard of right and wrong. And why not? You would be at the point where whims and passing fancy will guide you, or, more correctly, you will be the flag proudly fluttering in the wind, too proud to know that it is the air which unfurls you and not your own knowledge or will. As the breeze fades and dies, so do you. And what will be seen of you as you are opened to the world?

So you need a philosophy. You need some way of determining whether the people and events around you are evolving into things useful or things destructive. You need coherency in your life. You need to, in the words of that old saw, stand for something lest you fall for anything. This approach may well leave you standing for the wrong things in the end. Still, it's better than nothing, and indeed your only chance of being found by the just and true lies in the firmness of your stance.

Ayn Rand and Philosophy

The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
G. K. Chesterton

Ayn Rand, though a very entertaining author, has her philosophical flaws. But if she is right about anything, she is right about this so far as it goes: you must have a philosophy to live by or you will have no bearings for judging your actions. You will have no way of interpreting what to do or when to do it.

Too many people lack this. Set aside for the moment whether any given philosophy is right. That is surely the next question to ask, but it isn't the point just now. The thrust of today's commentary is that a framework is necessary for us to determine the value of our life's, in fact even of our daily, work. Certain frameworks will prove to be wrong; indeed we suggest that there can only be one right set of guidelines when all is said and done. But again, we are veering from the issue at hand.

Rand says, if we remember her correctly, that if you do not discipline yourself towards thinking about things at the least within a context of ideas which you take as a given, you will eventually merely wander from day to day, from idea to idea, and find yourself eternally at the influence of other forces without regard for what you may actually want or need. You will discover, if the thought ever actually develops in your mind, that you have not become an individual of any value. You will be a sheep. The time of slaughter will one day consume you, as you will have no way of defending yourself from it.

Or something worse will happen. You would become a petty little dictator, self assured that all that you do is itself the standard of right and wrong. And why not? You would be at the point where whims and passing fancy will guide you, or, more correctly, you will be the flag proudly fluttering in the wind, too proud to know that it is the air which unfurls you and not your own knowledge or will. As the breeze fades and dies, so do you. And what will be seen of you as you are opened to the world?

So you need a philosophy. You need some way of determining whether the people and events around you are evolving into things useful or things destructive. You need coherency in your life. You need to, in the words of that old saw, stand for something lest you fall for anything. This approach may well leave you standing for the wrong things in the end. Still, your only chance of being found by the just and true lies in the firmness of your stance.