I agree a lot of Smith's arguments and claims are vacuous, but at the same time I have to confess having some sympathy for the enjoyment and beauty of depictions of everyday things, or even simple things like using normal rocks to form a triangle, or drawing a blue square with a blue pencil in a notebook. These may be on an altogether different aesthetic plane than high art, but they're still in an aesthetically valid plane to be on, even if lower than high art.
Besides this, some of Smith's musings reminded me of, believe it or not, Mario Maker and the video games related to it, because I'm able to enjoy and appreciate the vast majority of levels people make in some way as having something fun about them, to the point where I'm not even bothered by a level composed of a bunch of green pipe pieces organised randomly rather than having solid ground to walk on, whereas it seems many other people are much more snobbish to the point where they'd criticise a level as being a "bad level" if it's even slightly different from the usual way of making a level.
But at the same time I wouldn't call this taste of mine postmodernist in any real sense, because I don't think the standard vanilla levels are somehow NOT beautiful or fun in their own way, and I do think some level designs are MORE fun than others. It's just that the scope of level design that can be fun and enjoyable is larger in my opinion than many other people's personal taste goes.
I appreciate this comment! There's a certain kind of conservative—and I'm not accusing Ed of this, for he's written against it in his post "Conservatism, populism, and snobbery"—who perch on their thrones of high culture and enjoy mocking ordinary people. They'll vilify you for wearing blue jeans and t-shirts, or listening to any alternative music...it's so annoying lol.
I don't know specifically if Smith leans into this or not, but I have frequently run into people with modern types of aesthetic pronouncements and (at least apparently) likings, who proclaim the importance of "The Other", being open to The Other, being welcoming to The Other, loving The Other. I don't deny that there in a few cases they mean something decent and perhaps even wholesome, but as far as I can tell, this always occurs when an actual object could be attached to The Other to FINISH the thought: The Other custom of that nation over there; The other food you have never tried before; The Other person who becomes your neighbor.
But all too often they push and push and push the edges until the extremes are reached and they want to push beyond that into THE OTHER ABSOLUTELY. This is where I not only get off the train, but push back and say no: What is other absolutely from the good, is evil. What is other absolutely from being, is non-being (or worse, privation, and worst of all, moral privation). You are not supposed to love these, welcome these, be open to these, you are supposed to defy them and reject them.
But even the not-quite-extreme is objectionable: you are well advised not to even ATTEMPT to "love the other QUA otherness". That's not a wholesome enterprise. You can indeed love the other person, who is truly other than you, but you do so in virtue of what is lovable in them, which might be like to your own self, or might be different and better than your own self. But it's not in virtue of being other as such that makes them lovable, such that you would love defect where you haven't that defect, merely because defect is "other".
And even when the avant-garde art crowd are not using this terminology, it is clear that often they want to explore the ugly precisely because it's not beautiful. And that's just the same business all over.
I have to confess having some sympathy for the enjoyment and beauty of depictions of everyday things, or even simple things like using normal rocks to form a triangle,
There's plenty of beauty in simple and prosaic things. Being able to recognize it, and more to be able to shine a light to manifest it, is fine.
I've always thought that Smith was overrated. His works on Augustine and Charles Taylor did nothing for me, and I've never been able to take anyone who constantly references art house cinema and existential philosophy very seriously. But maybe that's the problem with subjective spirituality. His way of relating to the world is utterly alien to mine, and since that's all spiritual experience is, we have nothing to say to each other. Deconstruction narratives are nearly always more about the personal psychology of their protagonist than about the issues, and I've never been terribly impressed with the rigor of the "evangelical public intellectual" milieu to which Smith belongs/belonged. So, no real surprises, but maybe one more chance for that world to pause and take stock of why all their golden boys keep having public crises of faith.
(Incidentally, the reference to Mr. Rogers is telling, because Fred Rogers's TV persona was in fact carefully crafted based on clearly-defined moral criteria, and not merely a spontaneous outflowing of his inner being. Everything that happened on his show was carefully and thoughtfully vetted. Rules, rationality, and control, not postmodern mysticism, gave us Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.)
Also, am I correct in inferring that this book would probably have seemed very topical in about 2017, but that Smith just happened to have his culturally-hip crisis of deconstruction ten years too late for anyone to care?
No. That wasn't my point. Fred Rogers believed in the things he said and did, but his show was subject to rigorous control to ensure it conformed to his principles. Scripts were edited and re-edited over and over again to ensure they conveyed exactly the message he desired, because Fred Rogers (unlike Smith) did not think he needed to "figure out how to love." He knew how to love, because he knew Christianity and he understood child psychology. If Smith really wants to become like him, he needs to stop watching movies and become a Sunday school teacher.
"That these reactions have nothing to do with mysticism should be obvious from their sheer onanism." "Onanism." Sexual sins. As you write your book on sexual ethics, remember that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in 2342 that "Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life." The great Catholic novelist Graham Greene struggled with his faith and his sexuality throughout his life. So do many others.
I think the reference to onanism was metaphorical. To say something is masturbatory just means it's excessively sensual, entirely self-directed, and of no value to anyone else.
Yes, Thurible, I know what Dr Feser meant in his extremely well-written review. However, I know he writing a book on sexual morality, and masturbation (sometimes but incorrectly called onanism) is considered mortally sinful and so is fornication, which many people (including Graham Greene) have indulged in. And so I made reference to what the CCC says about self-mastery being a "long and exacting work" and pointed out how Graham Greene struggled with his carnal desires and his Catholic faith throughout his life. Nevertheless, he had confession and received Holy Communion from his priest/friend Fr. Leopoldo Duran shortly before his death and presumably died in the state of grace. The article below goes into detail about his Catholic faith and is sexual failings. We don't have many writers like Graham Greene anymore, but many people do struggle with their sexual sins and their faith https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/converts-graham-greene-and-confessionals/
Are masturbation and fornication considered mortally sinful? The orthodox Roman Catholic position is that they are (at least in most cases) venially sinful.
Technically nothing is a mortal sin per se in Catholicism, since the definition has just as much to do with full knowledge and free consent as the nature of the act itself. But masturbation is defined as "grave" by the catechism, which means it is a mortal sin by default, but can fail to qualify because of other factors.
As someone who is fascinated by mystics in general, this book seems quite disappointing. Sadly, this more modern way of "introspection" seems quite a barrier to a real investigation that the mystics undertakes(a self-criticism here, btw)
It seems to be no accident than mysticism usually appears in a monastical setting or in other contexts were discipline are important, like when a guru is guiding. Left to ourselves, it appears that we tend to distract ourselves too much.
I do think as catholics we ought to pay more attention to visions ,sightings and healings associated with Mother Mary as ways of coming to belief in the Christian Faith.
Norm, This is a true story. In 2005, outside a small church in Tumacori, AZ, which is near Tucson, AZ, which we were visiting from GA,. My mom and I went in to pray. After about 10 minutes, I got up and left just to walk around the church and the surrounding area. After about 20 minutes, my mom (she was 60 then and is with God now) came out with smiling and with her face glowing and in a calm voice said to me, "The Blessed Mother smiled at me." I didn't believe her so I peppered with questions like a lawyer cross examining a witness: were you still in same pew or did you walk closer? could you see her teeth? did you speak to her? what was going through your mind at that moment? how long did she smile? She listened to me and then once again said calmly, "The Blessed Mother smiled at me." When we got back home to GA, I asked her again if the Blessed Mother smiled at here and got the same answer. Periodically over the next 10 or 15 years I would ask the same question and get the same answer. Something happened in that church to my mom. Did she just fervently imagine it (she was a VERY devout Catholic who prayed on her knees an hour every day) or did the BVM really smile at her. I don't know.
Thomist philosophy saved me during a very, very dark time in my life. No matter how much my emotions felt that reality was absurd down to its very marrow and that evil had had its final triumph, logic showed me that that was ridiculous and impossible. Every feeling cried out against faith, hope and charity, but there was no good reason for disbelieving or abandoning them, so by God's grace I didn't. It's only thanks to good, sound, classical philosophy that I'm still a Catholic. So I get very pissed off when I see people dissing it because it didn't help them through a hard time.
I agree a lot of Smith's arguments and claims are vacuous, but at the same time I have to confess having some sympathy for the enjoyment and beauty of depictions of everyday things, or even simple things like using normal rocks to form a triangle, or drawing a blue square with a blue pencil in a notebook. These may be on an altogether different aesthetic plane than high art, but they're still in an aesthetically valid plane to be on, even if lower than high art.
ReplyDeleteBesides this, some of Smith's musings reminded me of, believe it or not, Mario Maker and the video games related to it, because I'm able to enjoy and appreciate the vast majority of levels people make in some way as having something fun about them, to the point where I'm not even bothered by a level composed of a bunch of green pipe pieces organised randomly rather than having solid ground to walk on, whereas it seems many other people are much more snobbish to the point where they'd criticise a level as being a "bad level" if it's even slightly different from the usual way of making a level.
But at the same time I wouldn't call this taste of mine postmodernist in any real sense, because I don't think the standard vanilla levels are somehow NOT beautiful or fun in their own way, and I do think some level designs are MORE fun than others. It's just that the scope of level design that can be fun and enjoyable is larger in my opinion than many other people's personal taste goes.
I appreciate this comment! There's a certain kind of conservative—and I'm not accusing Ed of this, for he's written against it in his post "Conservatism, populism, and snobbery"—who perch on their thrones of high culture and enjoy mocking ordinary people. They'll vilify you for wearing blue jeans and t-shirts, or listening to any alternative music...it's so annoying lol.
DeleteI don't know specifically if Smith leans into this or not, but I have frequently run into people with modern types of aesthetic pronouncements and (at least apparently) likings, who proclaim the importance of "The Other", being open to The Other, being welcoming to The Other, loving The Other. I don't deny that there in a few cases they mean something decent and perhaps even wholesome, but as far as I can tell, this always occurs when an actual object could be attached to The Other to FINISH the thought: The Other custom of that nation over there; The other food you have never tried before; The Other person who becomes your neighbor.
DeleteBut all too often they push and push and push the edges until the extremes are reached and they want to push beyond that into THE OTHER ABSOLUTELY. This is where I not only get off the train, but push back and say no: What is other absolutely from the good, is evil. What is other absolutely from being, is non-being (or worse, privation, and worst of all, moral privation). You are not supposed to love these, welcome these, be open to these, you are supposed to defy them and reject them.
But even the not-quite-extreme is objectionable: you are well advised not to even ATTEMPT to "love the other QUA otherness". That's not a wholesome enterprise. You can indeed love the other person, who is truly other than you, but you do so in virtue of what is lovable in them, which might be like to your own self, or might be different and better than your own self. But it's not in virtue of being other as such that makes them lovable, such that you would love defect where you haven't that defect, merely because defect is "other".
And even when the avant-garde art crowd are not using this terminology, it is clear that often they want to explore the ugly precisely because it's not beautiful. And that's just the same business all over.
I have to confess having some sympathy for the enjoyment and beauty of depictions of everyday things, or even simple things like using normal rocks to form a triangle,
There's plenty of beauty in simple and prosaic things. Being able to recognize it, and more to be able to shine a light to manifest it, is fine.
I've always thought that Smith was overrated. His works on Augustine and Charles Taylor did nothing for me, and I've never been able to take anyone who constantly references art house cinema and existential philosophy very seriously. But maybe that's the problem with subjective spirituality. His way of relating to the world is utterly alien to mine, and since that's all spiritual experience is, we have nothing to say to each other. Deconstruction narratives are nearly always more about the personal psychology of their protagonist than about the issues, and I've never been terribly impressed with the rigor of the "evangelical public intellectual" milieu to which Smith belongs/belonged. So, no real surprises, but maybe one more chance for that world to pause and take stock of why all their golden boys keep having public crises of faith.
ReplyDelete(Incidentally, the reference to Mr. Rogers is telling, because Fred Rogers's TV persona was in fact carefully crafted based on clearly-defined moral criteria, and not merely a spontaneous outflowing of his inner being. Everything that happened on his show was carefully and thoughtfully vetted. Rules, rationality, and control, not postmodern mysticism, gave us Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.)
Also, am I correct in inferring that this book would probably have seemed very topical in about 2017, but that Smith just happened to have his culturally-hip crisis of deconstruction ten years too late for anyone to care?
DeleteSo Mr. Rogers wasn't the nice comforting person he portrayed? Any more to share?
Delete@bmiller
DeleteNo. That wasn't my point. Fred Rogers believed in the things he said and did, but his show was subject to rigorous control to ensure it conformed to his principles. Scripts were edited and re-edited over and over again to ensure they conveyed exactly the message he desired, because Fred Rogers (unlike Smith) did not think he needed to "figure out how to love." He knew how to love, because he knew Christianity and he understood child psychology. If Smith really wants to become like him, he needs to stop watching movies and become a Sunday school teacher.
Read more carefully. It was precisely because Mister Rodgers was a good man that he was so careful.
DeleteGot it.
Delete"That these reactions have nothing to do with mysticism should be obvious from their sheer onanism." "Onanism." Sexual sins. As you write your book on sexual ethics, remember that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in 2342 that "Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life." The great Catholic novelist Graham Greene struggled with his faith and his sexuality throughout his life. So do many others.
ReplyDeleteI think the reference to onanism was metaphorical. To say something is masturbatory just means it's excessively sensual, entirely self-directed, and of no value to anyone else.
DeleteYes, Thurible, I know what Dr Feser meant in his extremely well-written review. However, I know he writing a book on sexual morality, and masturbation (sometimes but incorrectly called onanism) is considered mortally sinful and so is fornication, which many people (including Graham Greene) have indulged in. And so I made reference to what the CCC says about self-mastery being a "long and exacting work" and pointed out how Graham Greene struggled with his carnal desires and his Catholic faith throughout his life. Nevertheless, he had confession and received Holy Communion from his priest/friend Fr. Leopoldo Duran shortly before his death and presumably died in the state of grace. The article below goes into detail about his Catholic faith and is sexual failings. We don't have many writers like Graham Greene anymore, but many people do struggle with their sexual sins and their faith
Deletehttps://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/converts-graham-greene-and-confessionals/
Are masturbation and fornication considered mortally sinful? The orthodox Roman Catholic position is that they are (at least in most cases) venially sinful.
DeleteTechnically nothing is a mortal sin per se in Catholicism, since the definition has just as much to do with full knowledge and free consent as the nature of the act itself. But masturbation is defined as "grave" by the catechism, which means it is a mortal sin by default, but can fail to qualify because of other factors.
DeleteAs someone who is fascinated by mystics in general, this book seems quite disappointing. Sadly, this more modern way of "introspection" seems quite a barrier to a real investigation that the mystics undertakes(a self-criticism here, btw)
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be no accident than mysticism usually appears in a monastical setting or in other contexts were discipline are important, like when a guru is guiding. Left to ourselves, it appears that we tend to distract ourselves too much.
I do think as catholics we ought to pay more attention to visions ,sightings and healings associated with Mother Mary as ways of coming to belief in the Christian Faith.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, it should always be qualified.
Norm, This is a true story. In 2005, outside a small church in Tumacori, AZ, which is near Tucson, AZ, which we were visiting from GA,. My mom and I went in to pray. After about 10 minutes, I got up and left just to walk around the church and the surrounding area. After about 20 minutes, my mom (she was 60 then and is with God now) came out with smiling and with her face glowing and in a calm voice said to me, "The Blessed Mother smiled at me." I didn't believe her so I peppered with questions like a lawyer cross examining a witness: were you still in same pew or did you walk closer? could you see her teeth? did you speak to her? what was going through your mind at that moment? how long did she smile? She listened to me and then once again said calmly, "The Blessed Mother smiled at me."
DeleteWhen we got back home to GA, I asked her again if the Blessed Mother smiled at here and got the same answer. Periodically over the next 10 or 15 years I would ask the same question and get the same answer. Something happened in that church to my mom. Did she just fervently imagine it (she was a VERY devout Catholic who prayed on her knees an hour every day) or did the BVM really smile at her. I don't know.
Hi Anon
DeleteThat's very moving !
Pope Benedict XVI had a lot of regard for these miraculous sightings particular in places which were hostile to Christianity.
Till today a lot of people convert because of miracles.
Thomist philosophy saved me during a very, very dark time in my life. No matter how much my emotions felt that reality was absurd down to its very marrow and that evil had had its final triumph, logic showed me that that was ridiculous and impossible. Every feeling cried out against faith, hope and charity, but there was no good reason for disbelieving or abandoning them, so by God's grace I didn't. It's only thanks to good, sound, classical philosophy that I'm still a Catholic. So I get very pissed off when I see people dissing it because it didn't help them through a hard time.
ReplyDeleteI am glad your life was saved Anonymous.
Delete