Saturday, January 27, 2024

Immortal souls at West Point

Had a great time visiting the United States Military Academy at West Point this week for a Thomistic Institute talk on the theme “Do You Have an Immortal Soul?” Thank you TI and cadets!

Posted by at

27 comments:

  1. English CatholicJanuary 27, 2024 at 7:15 PM

    Can your next book be on time management? Clearly you have a lot to teach in this area!

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJanuary 27, 2024 at 8:01 PM

    This should eventually be available as a podcast from the Thomistic Institute
    https://thomisticinstitute.org/upcoming-events/immortal-soul-usma

    ReplyDelete
  3. JackJanuary 28, 2024 at 7:29 AM

    The TI is an awesome resource for anyone wanting to learn more about Catholicism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Vini TJanuary 28, 2024 at 7:32 AM

    That's great, Ed! It's a very nice initiative!

    Keep it up, man!

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJanuary 28, 2024 at 1:02 PM

    "Today is the feast day of the incomparable St. Thomas Aquinas, whose wisdom and intercession both the Church and the world, both theology and philosophy, need now more than ever before. “We now say to all such as are desirous of the truth: ‘Go to Thomas’” (Pope Pius XI)"

    This is the best biography of St Thomas in print:
    https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Aquinas-Historical-Theological-Environmental/dp/0809153866

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJanuary 28, 2024 at 6:21 PM

    Thanks for that X about Dr. Prudlo's book. I tried my best to get Fr. Pacwa to interview him on EWTN Live but nothing came of it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJanuary 29, 2024 at 11:18 AM

    I rather dislike saying that Aquinas is the greatest philosopher ever to have lived, because I realize it sounds like a hackish thing for a Thomist to say. But it is in fact what I believe, after decades of reading and thinking carefully about his work (and with due love and reverence for Plato and Aristotle, the other two of the Big Three, who Thomas synthesized so masterfully)

    St Thomas had one of the greatest minds in human history. His memory was incredible.
    https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/h086rpMemory.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. TonyJanuary 30, 2024 at 2:20 PM

    Immortal souls at West Point

    Do they really have immortal souls there?

    Did you mean "immoral souls at West Point"? For want of a "t", the soul was lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SacredKnowingFebruary 6, 2024 at 11:07 PM

      @Tony

      The immoral souls at West Point made a practice out of dancing, poker-playing, drinking, and movie-going. :)

      (Nota bene: In conservative Baptist churches in Old America, these were the four cardinal sins that marked a backslider from a true convert.)

      Delete
  9. DNWJanuary 31, 2024 at 10:24 AM

    "Did you mean "immoral souls at West Point"? For want of a "t", the soul was lost."

    There probably was a time not too long ago despite some infamous cheating scandals at the academies, when that pun-like malapropism would hardly have seemed like a feasible joke; unlike now.

    Almost all institutional places nowadays however, have been thoroughly reduced to the equivalent of sinecure packages to be distributed as part of a wokish spoils system.

    "X" is judged as entitled to "get a piece of that 'socially produced' action"; "Y" should be allowed to inhabit this or that slot so it can revel in the inertial status and capital bequeathed to what once was a hypothetically deserving posterity.

    Of course such hollowed out regimes cannot endure. They either reform and correct, or collapse for failure to fulfil their charter.

    The Catholic priesthood for example, is not despite the insistent assertion of a woman I know, "a job" that can be equally role-played by any mumbling manque be it boy, girl, or undefinable other.

    And at some point grandpa and grandma's bequests run out; and once the current paying customers decamp and turn their backs on the sham, there is only so much of the skeleton that can be cannibalized by the infesting colonizers before institutional collapse ensues.

    Whether you get a good laugh out of it or not kind of depends on how close you are when the walls come tumbling down.

    When the architects of their own destruction lie pinned and shrieking in ruins of their making, should you care? If so, why?

    Christians on the one hand and the peverted Emos of the Wokish clans on the other, may both conclude that one should, but based on very different premisses: one of which has to do with those souls which the other clan denies exist.

    But regarding the question of the soul and those who deny that any such thing can exist [especially a ghost in the machine version] one wonders how they would purport to know even in principle?

    And going further, and provisionally granting nominalism and the rejection of the existence of natural kinds and real categories as the default position for the sake of argument: on what basis could the Pervs go on to conclude that even though it may be that they have themselves no souls, others, obviously not of their kind in any essential sense [ essences being decreed as fictive ] , must lack them as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyFebruary 1, 2024 at 6:54 AM

      on what basis could the Pervs go on to conclude that even though it may be that they have themselves no souls, others, obviously not of their kind in any essential sense [ essences being decreed as fictive ] , must lack them as well?

      This also applies to the epistemology question of knowing independent truth, as opposed to the relativistic kind of (each one) adhering to "your own truth" because "yours is as valid as anyone's." If the Skeptic's view of there being no such thing as natural kinds is all that HIS kind of mind can apprehend (which leaves him with "his" truth but not with simply the truth), then how can he declare that everyone else's minds are of the same kind as his and bear the same limitation? Maybe when some of them declare that they can apprehend that there are indeed natural kinds, and that universal absolute truths follow from them, that truth is also valid - after all, it is as valid for them as the Skeptic's view is for him.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousFebruary 1, 2024 at 11:16 AM

      So you think the cadets in West Point are in there as part of a "spoils system?" You wouldn't stand a chance against anyone of them, in the classroom or in the gym.

      Delete
    3. SacredKnowingFebruary 1, 2024 at 9:00 PM

      This also applies to the epistemology question of knowing independent truth, as opposed to the relativistic kind of (each one) adhering to "your own truth" because "yours is as valid as anyone's."

      It is intellectually dishonest not to believe in a multiplicity of the Truth.

      If someone came to believe in some model of the world, then the reason why he did so is because it is successful. And because success presupposes truthfulness, it therefore follows that it must be in some real sense True (although perhaps not faithful to reality).

      Delete
    4. DNWFebruary 2, 2024 at 9:51 AM

      "If the Skeptic's view of there being no such thing as natural kinds is all that HIS kind of mind can apprehend (which leaves him with "his" truth but not with simply the truth), then how can he declare that everyone else's minds are of the same kind as his and bear the same limitation?"

      Yeah, the redounding implications of their own assumptions are a problem for them when they start mouthing categorical propositions of any kind.

      Statistical or probabilistic language is adequate if you are describing the "behavior" of a subatomic particle, but the fact remains you have to definitively identify it too in order to make the general class predication in the first place. What is it exactly, that we are supposedly referring to with the term? And in referring to it as distinctive and with its own nature or tendencies, we do so on what basis, precisely?

      When it comes to moral rules, the problem for the progressive solidarity pimp is even worse. As definitions tend to be seen as oppressive and in the way of their liberation or their will or better, "whim" - they fundamentally "got nuthin" but emotion left in their little bag of interpersonal overture tricks. They can bat their eyes, wag their tails, snarl or whimper, but that is about it. And any attempt to negotiate in terms of so-called balanced interests is eventually going to be countered with a cold-eyed calculation of what advantage might accrue to the normie if the interests were not balanced but if instead the normie winner took all and went on his merry way.

      They don't even have the barest makings of a system of objective duty and obligation to counter with.

      And as we have seen both here and in works like Rorty's, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, they eventually are forced to admit it, and to acknowledge that its all just rhetoric in the form of veiled pleas and threats gushing out of their pointless, meaningless, materialist prog pie holes.

      So, thought problem: An Emowokist has been thrown to the ground by some antagonist it has annoyed in a place beyond the reach of rule enforcement agencies. And as the helpless Emo looks up, it pleads, " Please don't finish me off, because ..."

      "God doesn't approve "?
      "I am really just like you"?
      "What you are doing is objectively wrong"?
      Huh. They cannot convincingly plead any of that as they don't believe it themselves.

      How about, "Spare me even if I am annoying, because diversity is our greatest strength!" Or "Mere tolerance, is not enough!" Or ,"Stop! Empathy is the hallmark of an evolved personality !"

      Just try, to fill in the blank in the way a progressive moral nihilist Emo type would, yet in a way which would seem convincing to a normal person.

      Is it any wonder then that knowing of this impossibility, that neuroticism, paranoia and a desire to establish totalizing sloganeering-rife social control is so characteristic of the nominalist/moral nihilist progressive?

      It knows full well that on its own view that it really "got no reason to live". And if that is the case, and if those around it partake of the same conviction, then ...

      Delete
  10. DNWFebruary 2, 2024 at 11:01 AM

    AnonymousFebruary 1, 2024 at 11:16 AM
    So you think the cadets in West Point are in there as part of a "spoils system?" You wouldn't stand a chance against anyone of them, in the classroom or in the gym.

    Oh geez. Is that you again "Oh-dear-me-I-must say" Anonyponce? Or, might you be [assuming you two are not one and the same] the "Russel" (sic) university graduate with a supposed physics degree who illiterately accused others of being "inumerate"? That would be the same commenter who effectually admitted to being a troll.

    You may recall him, or you, or whoever.

    Well, if it will ease your mind, try seeing what I actually wrote rather than that which your fevered imagination pantingly chased after.

    Quoting exactly and comprehensively rather than merely insinuating, might be a self-administered discipline which will help you acheive this lofty goal of accuracy and honesty.

    But, and since you unlike me have expressed a specific interest in the gymnasium acheivements of West Point cadets, you might find watching the linked material below gratifying.

    And afterwards - if you don't mind a little advice - go find someone else to obsess over. What you are doing is probably unhealthy as well as being pretty damn creepy.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9L7y_SdQQm4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 3, 2024 at 3:30 PM

      You are confused. I know very little about physics and I don't misspell. Actually, the point I made still stands, your youtube video notwithstanding. You wouldn't stand a chance against any West Point cadet, male or female. I doubt if you can throw a basketball 42 feet and I am pretty sure you can't do 41 pushups either. Nor can most people. And as for "unhealthy and creepy," another poster awhile back commented on your strange obsession with manliness and suspected you might be practicing a "solitary habit." You remember that post and how it a nerve, don't you?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousFebruary 4, 2024 at 12:23 AM

      Well , here we go again with yet another bizarre rant from DNW. As for trolls, he is the troll feeder extraordinaire, as he engaged with the 'Anonyponce' - who was clearly winding him up at every level - with endless novella length responses.

      And why this obsession with spelling DNW? There is a lot more you should be concerned about in the style and content of your missives than that!

      Delete
  11. AnonymousFebruary 5, 2024 at 9:46 PM

    My mother said that at Berkeley in the 1940s, there was a professor who told students, Anyone who thinks he (heh heh, this was the '40s, though my mother was a She) has a soul, park it outside.

    ReplyDelete
  12. DNWFebruary 8, 2024 at 8:23 AM

    Speaking of Academy mores and so forth, some might get a kick out of an old MGM 1930s potboiler which critics of the time acknowledged as true to type but done at an elevated level.

    The movie itself is much more sedate than the credits fanfare.

    Nonetheless, Pajama boys, Emos, and pansexual mutants are advised not to watch; as any part of it may be triggering and lead them to days spent sucking a blanket corner in a closet safe space.

    But for heartier types, Navy Blue and Gold (1937) might provide some interesting diversion or background while multitasking, as well as some interesting true to era backdrop scenery of the Annapolis campus.

    Now, unfortunately, I did not see the Thomistic Institute having a chapter at Annapolis, or at the Air Force academy, but that may be yet to come

    For those old enough to have seen "classic movies" on broadcast or cable TV as kids, the names of Jimmy Stewart and Robert Young will not be unfamiliar.

    You have to take it with a grain of salt of course, but for all its corny and comic treatment of moral themes of aspiration and cynicism , they are clearly there, right up front..

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QUUP6CvxzzE&pp=ygUdTmF2eSBCbHVlIGFuZCBnb2xkIDE5MzcgbW92aWU%3D

    If you cannot sift through a movie addressed to naive and popular sentiment in order to extract the valuable, then avoid it.

    Instead catch the YouTube videos of young men and veterans vowing to in future stand back let it all burn, now that their governments have been completely captured by self-serving hostiles inimical to the interests of the nation itself.

    Let the prog schoolmarm grandmas be dragged through the streets by their demented spawn to the flames which they have themselves kindled, as the revolution eventually eats its own. "Who cares?", say the now disaffected former servicemen.

    They will pick up the pieces, if any exist, later.

    Huh. Just occurs to me that maybe Frankie should look up some of their videos. Might get a clue. But probably not, as he is quite aware of what he's doing

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousFebruary 9, 2024 at 11:17 AM

    So, DNW, you did not see West Point chapter of the Thomistic Institute? It's there on their website.
    Next time, do some elementary research so you won't embarrass yourself.
    https://thomisticinstitute.org/campus-chapters/usmilitaryacademy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DNWFebruary 9, 2024 at 11:02 PM

      Anonymous
      February 9, 2024 at 11:17 AM
      So, DNW, you did not see West Point chapter of the Thomistic Institute? It's there on their website.
      Next time, do some elementary research so you won't embarrass yourself.
      https://thomisticinstitute.org/campus-chapters/usmilitaryacademy

      That's not what I wrote, you pathetic troll.
      Yes I did research and see it, and that is why I specifically referred to the Air Force Academy, and to Annapolis as seemingly missing from the list, and not West Point.

      "...unfortunately, I did not see the Thomistic Institute having a chapter at Annapolis, or at the Air Force academy, but that may be yet to come"

      No wonder you won't pick a combox identifier.
      You would only be able to use it once, before shame over your stupid blunders forced you to select another name before daring to return.

      Better stay annonymous. Or better yet, find yourself another more wholesome hobby.

      Delete
  14. DNWFebruary 10, 2024 at 9:52 AM


    "Anonymous
    February 9, 2024 at 11:17 AM

    So, DNW, you did not see West Point chapter of the Thomistic Institute? It's there on their website.
    Next time, do some elementary research so you won't embarrass yourself.
    https://thomisticinstitute.org/campus-chapters/usmilitaryacademy"

    To repeat, in case my earlier reply to your blundering gambit did not take.

    I saw it. And, although no research would have been necessary since the very posting itself was premised on a chapter, I had looked at the chapter list curious to see if other military academies, nation or state, were listed. You know, such as the U.S Navy, VMI, The Citadel ...

    You however, in your perfervid haste to dig up some error to brandish, first imagined and then projected an error not there, into what I actually wrote.

    Here is what I really said: " ... I did not see the Thomistic Institute having a chapter at Annapolis, or at the Air Force academy, but that may be yet to come"

    Navy and Air Force, not West Point.

    Can you see more clearly now, troll?
    It's right above. Go take a look.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousFebruary 10, 2024 at 4:15 PM

    You right, D. I misread what you wrote. But your reply was way over the top. I could almost hear you sputtering in cyberspace.

    ReplyDelete
  16. DNWFebruary 11, 2024 at 2:33 PM

    " I could almost hear you sputtering in cyberspace."

    Like you could "almost" see me saying West Point was not included.

    Pick a combox name. It might teach you to behave responsibly if only through fear.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2024 at 11:20 AM

    "Fear?" "Of you?" Now that's a joke. We are just strangers in cyberspace and attaching a name means nothing. You are the one who is afraid because you get rattled so easily, and that's what makes you an easy target.

    ReplyDelete
  18. DNWFebruary 12, 2024 at 7:30 PM

    Anonymous
    February 12, 2024 at 11:20 AM

    "Fear?" "Of you?"

    Fear of being individually identified by all and sundry with your previous trolling stupidities and blunders, each time you show up to comment.

    Fear of no longer being able to continue to personally shirk responsibility for your petty malice and your stalking obsessions, by means of hiding behind a generic tag.

    Fear of the slight labor but great moral shame of constantly inventing new ID names, in order to escape the pathetic reputation you will inevitably establish for yourself.

    You cannot face yourself in the mirror of a comment box; even with so little connection as a made up identifier used to distinguish you from others.

    That's how afraid you are. But typical of your kind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2024 at 12:23 PM

    Don't you know that I or any combox commentator can post under different names? I have multiple Gmail accounts, as I am sure others do. I could post under a combox name, but clicking on Anoymous is just quicker and easier.

    "Moral shame?" No, I think my comments about your are a public service for those who come here and read your bloviations.

    "Stalking obsessions?" Well, like I said, your hyperbolic reaction to my comments make you an easy target. And judging from how you squeal, I hit my mark pretty well.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)