It’s been quite some time since I’ve posted last. In that time, too much to retell happened. The shorter version: school began, work did too, both finished, and I graduated. I plan to move back to New York from Michigan this upcoming Saturday. My bar review courses begin next Monday.
Let’s see what happens.
The $ quote from Bob Vischer's post:
We do not start from the premise that we exist, we start from the premise that we are created. That's a key distinction, and though its implications often will correlate with existing positions on the political spectrum, it should give rise to a normative framework that is not easily replicated by any single strand of thought within our public discourse.
Oh...and a second one:
If my conclusions are entirely unoriginal, so be it. What matters is not that the lived expression of my faith is meaningfully different from the political prescriptions of libertarians, value pluralists, or communitarians; what matters is the impetus for my expression: devotion to Christ.
Today is my last day of work! That is until, of course, school begins again, which starts the 28th of this month.
It’s been sometime since I’ve actively blawged (or
bloged, whichever you prefer). My
hectic 2L year and busy summer account for that. Whoever said that the second year of law
school is easier lied. Whereas most
other Blawg Reviews have been organized around a theme or a certain presentation, I have decided to approach this week’s review
more eclectically. Attribute it to my
uncertainty about which field of law has yet to interest me, or to a returning
blawger just trying to makes sense of it all.
Yes, you've come to the right place!
Welcome to my blog, Unlearned Hand. This upcoming Monday, August 7, 2006, I will be hosting the next Blawg Review, Issue #69, a roundup of interesting blawg posts of the week. I've recently done a bit of housekeeping to prepare for my turn at hosting. While I haven't yet decided on a theme or a particular style of presentation, I have been forwarded some rather interesting, if not also eclectic posts. I encourage you to post something of your own or suggest something you've read from this past week. Refer to the Blawg Review submission guidelines (or this submission form) if you're interested in either.
I look forward to seeing you back here on Monday!
I'd like to repost a quotation from Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue for your consumption. What triggered my interest in this passage--though, I don't require much a trigger to re-read MacIntyre--is that I have a friend who is currently writing manuals for activism. I'll save the specifics for another time, if ever at all. Suffice it to say, however, I wanted to share with him what MacIntyre said about protest.
It is easy also to understand why protest becomes a distinctive moral feature of the modern age and why indignation is a predominant modern emotion. 'To protest' and its Latin predecessors and French cognates are originally as often or more often positive as negative; to protest was once to bear witness to something and only as a consequence of that allegiance to bear witness against something else.
But protest is now almost entirely that negative phenomenon which characteristically occurs as a reaction to the alleged invasion of someone’s rights in the name of someone else’s utility. The self-assertive shrillness of protest arises because the facts of incommensurability ensure that protestors can never win an argument; the indignant self-righteousness arises because the facts of incommensurability ensure equally that the protestor can never lose an argument either. Hence the utterance of protest is characteristically addressed to those who already share the protestors’ premises. The effects of incommensurability ensure that the protestors rarely have anyone else to talk to but themselves. This is not to say that protest cannot be effective; it is to say that it cannot be rationally effective and that its dominant modes of expression give evidence of a certain perhaps unconscious awareness of this.
MacIntyre consistently returns to the idea that indignation ensues because no one can ever "win." To determine a winner, we'd have to have some agreement on what would constitute or determine a win. As the entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy captures the problem:
MacIntyre claims that protest and indignation are hallmarks of public "debate" in the modern world. Since no one can ever win an argument – because there's no agreement about how someone could "win" – anyone can resort to protesting; since no one can ever lose an argument – how can they, if no one can win? – anyone can become indignant if they don't get their way. If no one can persuade anyone else to do what they want, then only coercion, whether open or hidden (for example, in the form of deception) remains. This is why, MacIntyre says, political arguments are not just interminable but extremely loud and angry, and why modern politics is simply a form of civil war.
My friend's task, as I see it, is to write his manuals, acknowledging that he will be speaking to those with whom he already agrees, or, in the least, already shares foundational presumptions. But how can he universalize his message?
It's already summer 2006. By now, I'm sure, I've lost whatever readership I accumulated. Contributing to my blog, now, only serves as a cathartic exercise. This was, after all, a motivating reason for me to blog when I started initially. To whoever continues to return, or to those who just happen upon my page, stay tuned. I plan on contributing more, continually throughout the summer months.
Even though I'm not listed, you may enjoy this taxonomy.
In the past few weeks I’ve had to acclimate to my new class schedule, battle a forceful cold, and persevere through a new workout regimen. In the coming weeks I hope to blog more, hopefully making up for the time lost in my inactivity these past few weeks.
Keep visiting because there’s more to come, for sure.
First, Happy New Year everyone. As you may have noticed, I haven't been keeping up with posting for reasons which are explainable. I've been traveling a bit in the last week and have not had access to the Internet. First, I flew into New York from Detroit. Second, for Christmas, I left to San Diego. Third, from there I left for San Francisco to attend a friend's wedding, which did not disappoint. I returned to San Diego yesterday, and also flew from there back to New York.
In that time I learned that when a hotel advertises itself as "historic," that's Madison Avenue-talk for old. Second, Ford did well to get rid of the Escort from its lineup. Lastly, the Mini Cooper, for all its faults, is a perfect car to have to drive in a city.
Stay tuned. . .
Next semester, I am taking:
Bill, The Maverick Philosopher, has posted something on the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. The post reminded me of when I had a deep interest in Catholic apologetics. My Protestant friends marshal this doctrine as if it's the end-all when really, as Bill shows, it's self-refuting.
I've already registered for next semester, but I will be adding one hour of directed research. My plan is to complete one-credit hour for the next three semesters I am here, which will hopefully amount to something publishable. Though I will have to present my topic officially soon, I am still brainstorming. As of now I have an interest in the differing conceptions of natural law, specifically the differences between John Finnis and Alasdair MacIntyre. I also have a deepening interest in "rights-talk," such as the human rights project at the international level or the right to/of privacy at our national level. I haven't yet explored ways to approach this second interest more than highlighting the debate taking place between accommodationists, who say we should secularize the Catholic intellectual tradition's contribution in this area, and those who say that same intellectual tradition is untranslatable to a secular vocabulary. Some might even say that even if it were translatable to a secular vocabulary, it would be a neutered one, one without a foundation. Where shall I go from here?
Why the Left Ought to Support (An Aspect of) Bush's Foreign Policy
I know some readers of this blog tend to be from the Left. Let me get my worry off my chest. One of the pathetic sights of the last few years has been the reluctance of the Left, here and in Europe, to denounce and reject Islamofascism. Yes, because, in spite of all the PC talk about Islam as a religion of peace, the enemy we are facing is Islamofascism (I hasten to say that not all Muslims are fascists). One of the great traditions of the Left has been its struggle against all forms of totalitarianism, especially of the fascist kind. Yet the Left has, to my knowledge, refused to endorse the message of the President's second inaugural address, when he promised to fight tyranny in the world. Why? Because the Left is partisan and hypocritical. The current ethos of the Left is to support any regime, even fascist ones, as long as they are targeted by a U.S. Republican administration. For the Left to take to the streets to support Saddam Hussein , a genocidal monster, is the ultimate shame for a political movement that, while slow to criticize Communism in the past, at least bravely fought fascist forms of oppression. The movement that took to the streets in 2003 was not to protest the horrendous dictatorship in Iraq, but to protest the intervention to overthrow the horrendous dictatorship. Shame on the Left. I think the Left has to reconstitute itself and recover the great imagination about equality and freedom, and stop obsessing about G.W.B. and conservatives. As far as I'm concerned, the Left today is a reactionary political movement. It not only supports Islamofascism. It also distrusts free markets, the one hope of reducing world poverty. Once you peel off all the layers of the onion, there's nothing left.
Zenit has just run an interview of Francis Cardinal Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, published in Inside the Vatican magazine.
You should read it in its entirety, but here are some excerpts I thought you'd enjoy.
Regarding "music in the liturgy, we should start by saying that Gregorian music is the Church's precious heritage," he said. "It should stay. It should not be banished. If therefore in a particular diocese or country, no one hears Gregorian music anymore, then somebody has made a mistake somewhere."
[...]
"The local church should be conscious that church worship is not really the same as what we sing in a bar, or what we sing in a convention for youth. Therefore it should influence the type of instrument used, the type of music used."
Suitability
"I will not now pronounce and say never guitar; that would be rather severe," Cardinal Arinze added. "But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass. Yet, it is possible to think of some guitar music that would be suitable, not as the ordinary one we get every time, [but with] the visit of a special group, etc."
[...]
Showmanship
"Vatican II brought many good things but everything has not been positive, and the synod recognized that there have been shadows," Cardinal Arinze acknowledged.
"There has been a bit of neglect of the holy Eucharist outside Mass," he said. "A lot of ignorance. A lot of temptations to showmanship for the priest who celebrates facing the people.
"If he is not very disciplined he will soon become a performer. He may not realize it, but he will be projecting himself rather than projecting Christ. Indeed it is very demanding, the altar facing the people. Then even those who read the First and Second Reading can engage in little tactics that make them draw attention to themselves and distract the people.
[...]
Abuses not new
Contrary to what many think, he said, "even when there was the Tridentine Mass there were abuses. Many Catholics did not know, because they did not know Latin! So when the priest garbled the words, they were not aware of this.
"Therefore, the most important area is faith and fidelity to that faith, and a faithful reading of the original texts, and their faithful translations, so that people celebrate knowing that the liturgy is the public prayer of the Church."
If you haven't already crossed the recent revelation of who the Article III Groupie of Underneath Their Robes is, read about it here:
Be sure to check out Lind Greenhouse's recent article.
(HT Artice III Groupie)
From Joseph Bottum's latest post on the First Things blog, On the Square:
The Washington Post has taken up the question of Catholics on the Supreme Court. Mostly a set of quotations from various commentators, the story at least asks the right questions. “Why have recent Republican presidents turned again and again to Catholic jurists when making appointments to the Supreme Court? It may be partly an effort to woo Catholic voters, but mostly it’s because so many of the brightest stars in the conservative legal firmament are Catholics, several scholars said.”
Those scholars included Notre Dame’s Gerald Bradley, who told the Post: “I do think that there is an important truth in saying that Catholics are the intellectual pillars of social conservatism. Compared to their political allies in that movement, Catholics are heirs to a richer intellectual tradition and . . . are more inclined to believe that reason supplies good grounds for the moral and political positions characteristic of social conservatism. Call it the ‘natural law’ thing.”
Bob Vischer, of Mirror of Justice, brings our attention to a WaPo (ala Althouse) article:
Today's Washington Post has an article on the coming Catholic Supreme Court, containing a complaint from the Feminist Majority Foundation that non-Catholics and non-believers are now underrepresented on the Court.
This is, of course, a dangerously silly perspective on the Court, but doesn't this complaint make a certain degree of sense given the current public discourse?
* * *Am I overstating this trend of legal instrumentalism effectuated through judicial identity? . . . If the trend is real, does it simply represent the overdue articulation of the fact that judicial identity has driven jurisprudence all along, or have the culture wars brought us to a new, starker stage of identity-based jurisprudence?
I don't believe Vischer is overstating the trend; Am I wrong to see it as the most recent expression of legal realism?
