Equality Doesn't Exist?

            I like to fluster my students a bit. We know those teachers… the ones who will play devil’s advocate for the sake of infuriating students and, Hopefully, encouraging them to make rational critiques of what their teacher might be saying. Hopefully, I encourage student to think in more than one dimension. I might say something ridiculous like: “I don’t believe in equality.” It is a pretty absurd use of language (and something that gets teachers a headline on CNN!), and, to be clear, I do not actually believe that statement. Well, sort of.

Surely, there is no dog equal in cuteness to this one! (photo P. Smith)

            My more attentive students hear me say “I do not believe in equality” and they have figured out, “Ok. Smith never really does or says anything without a purpose.” Those students hold their tongue and wait for me explain. A few students get mad and yell at me. It’s important to yell at people who say something that you disagree with; it is more important to listen to them as they try and explain what they said. The term “equality” carries two meanings with it. My students have been practicing terms like “material Truth” in class, and when I ask them if they and I are materially equal, the logical response is “no.” In a material sense, no two people are equal. Material equality suggests that two things are balanced and share identical attributes. That is, they look, feel, taste, sound, and smell exactly the same. Even on an atomic level, two particles that are identical in mass and composition are moving at different rates or occupying different positions in time and space. Material equality does not exist. But I said before that I do not actually believe in my initial statement. So how can I believe in equality if I just proved that it does not exist? My students are quick to incorporate some prior knowledge. They tell me that if it is not True in a material sense, then maybe equality can be True on a transcendent level. I push them to explain. Material Truth only refers to that which is True within the dimensions of time and space. Since two things cannot be identical in the bounds of time and space, then there is no such thing as material equality. But if we assume that there is a transcendent Truth to the human person (we focus on people at this point), and of there are no limitations of time and space on a transcendent level, then there is no limit to how two people can be equal outside their material reality. Some of my students do not believe in a transcendent nature of humanity because there is no direct evidence of transcendence. They are welcome to believe this, but I warn them that if they say that, then they are also saying that their do not believe in equality. That ticks them off even more. But, the logic is pretty sound. The point is, “the Other” is equal to whomever the mainstream demographic is, but not in the way that we want them to be. We need to presume transcendent or eternal natures of humanity in order for equality to exist. To try and force material equality or even the perception of material equality is unnecessary and, in fact, harmful to the pursuit of the authentic self, for, in a material sense, perfect Love and perfect Belovedness is impossible.

God is the Ultimate "Other"

The Philosophical Other and the Mainstream Other

The term “the Other” is used in sociology often, and it is most commonly used to refer to one who is not part of the mainstream demographic in a given society. Most of my students are born and raised in the United States, and most of them are social media and popular culture savvy, so they understand the racial, ethnic, gender, and religious biases on our culture. It is not a difficult lesson to teach that, in general, the “eye” that our culture uses is white, male, and Christian. The general perception most of our media (news, entertainment, literature, academia, etc…) assumes the ideology and experience of what our modern critical culture refers to as the white, Christian patriarchy. “The Other” refers to anyone who does not fit into this particular sociological designation.

On the surface, my time living and working on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation was an encounter with "the Other", and in that encounter I learned how to Love and to be Loved. But on a deeper level, I was encountering God in my students. My humility and vulnerability to my students opened me up to develop a relationship with God. (photo: Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota, P. Smith)

            This is an easy enough lesson to teach. All I have to do is show any piece of news media or popular culture and students can discern this mainstream hermeneutic at work. It is most easy to see in academia and politics as I show students who writes most of the history books they have to study and who holds political office in our country. “The Other” seems like a negative term; I am not sure if there is a particularly politically correct term used in sociology right now, but we stay disciplined in class and we try to be aware that even the language we use to describe “the Other” is biased. I often sense the frustration in my students. There is no way to avoid bias in the way we talk about issues of race and gender and religion. Everything we say or try to communicate will always be slanted based on where we speak from. If we add to that the complication of material Truth and the material inequality of all things, then it gets even more frustrating. But there is a lesson here. I teach my students the danger of fixating on material language in the world, because the words we use to describe each other are almost certainly not effective in describing the Authentic Self. Even more importantly, I am setting up the lesson that if we are in relationship with “the Other”, our Authentic Self necessarily needs to be increasingly humble. More importantly, as we apply the concept of “the Other to God, we realize that God is the ultimate “Other” to us, and if we are humble enough to grow in relationship with Him, then we can Truly begin to encounter our Authentic Self.

The Pursuit of True Happiness is NOT Selfish

            I revisit the concepts of eudaimonia and Beatific Vision. “Ugh! We already know this!” I ignore them this time and push them to consider the question: “If we think of eudaimonia or Beatific Vision or transcendent happiness as our goal, doesn’t that suggest our entire goal to be self-serving? Isn’t this kind of thinking selfish and the opposite of Agapic Love?” There is always one student who wants to find the hole in my argument and so they ask this question, thinking they have found the flaw in Western Philosophy and Theology, like they are some revolutionary! I beat that student to the punch, and I ask the question first because there is a rational answer to whether this can be consistent with Agape and humility and self-gift. Of course, we have already answered the question in our discussion about Aristotle and Aquinas, but, again. My students have compartmentalized that information and it does not matter to them after they have taken the test. No! Every piece of information matters! This is a basic premise to Sacramentality!

Our Lady of Knock Shrine in Knock, Co. Mayo, Ireland. It was the Joy of the Apostles at His Resurrection that gave Jesus happiness. Indeed, it is the Joy we find in Him in our conversion that pleases Him. Our happiness and His are entwined. (photo P. Smith)

            For Aristotle, eudaimonia is “human flourishing”, that is, it is the condition in which all humans are content while not being stagnant. It is the condition where all human beings are happy, not necessarily because they are constantly experiencing the same pleasurable moment for eternity; Aristotle and later philosophers and theologians, including Aquinas, explain how Beatific Vision, eudaimonia beyond human ability, is a state where one is able to “contemplate Virtue”. Indeed, as they say, Virtue is its own reward. If we are made to be virtuous, as one practices virtue increasingly, the first thing they witness is the Joy of “the Other”, the object of their virtue. The Joy of “the Other” echoes in the heart and soul of the one who practices Virtue. Eudaimonia or Beatific Vision is the “Joy” that we can now contemplate; it is the state in which we can observe the effects of our virtue, and as we see “the Other” as Beloved, we recognize our Authentic Self, Lover, in action. At the same time, we contemplate the virtue of “the Other” as they Love us. We contemplate the way in which “the Other” recognizes our dignity in how they Love us, and in that contemplation, we view the Authentic Self of “the Other”. We are made to Love and to be Loved. Virtue is that Authentic Self in action. Eudaimonia or Beatific Vision is the Joy we experience when we can contemplate that action as we and “the Other” live it. Because the whole process requires the self and “the Other”, the goal of Eudaimonia or Beatific Vision cannot be considered self-serving the same way eating a second piece of pie when others have had none is self-serving. Eudaimonia or Beatific Vision is only achieved within the context of relationship, therefore, “the Other” is necessarily as important as the self in the practice of Virtue and the telos of Eudaimonia or Beatific Vision.

Eudaimonia, Beatific Vision, and Happiness

I may introduce this unit in my classroom as focusing on “the Other” and I may even mention how we will discuss service and mission, topics that students get more and more excited about the longer I teach, but I take a step back to reiterate the concepts of telos, eudaimonia, and Beatific Vision.

The Cathedral of Our Lady Assumed into Heaven and St. Nicholas (photo P. Smith). To many people, a church is just a building. In Catholic belief the Church is much more than just the physical space or even the people of the Church; the Church is a Sacrament, bot material and transcendent in nature.

            After the groans from students that seem inevitable when I repeat what I think are important concepts, I reiterate what I have said before: telos is a target that we cannot reach, but the more we try, the closer we get to the target, and the closer we get to the target, the better we become as human individuals and as a human society. “Ugh! We already know this!” I know they already know this, but most education on our country is so compartmentalized that students do not always synthesize the details. Kids in this country know more about everything than ever in the history of the world, and if they do not remember all the details, they have more immediate access to virtually any information that they want. But what they do not have is the critical capacity to integrate and synthesize all of this raw information so they can begin to understand deeper and more fundamental Truths about their existence. Without the ability to synthesize all the information we have access to, we cannot develop or create new ideas, theories, philosophies, or theologies that stretch the human mind and heart to higher levels of knowledge and understanding. If we allow ourselves to simply consume information and to think of facts as being sufficient in and of themselves, then we are destined for an intellectual “Pit” out of which there is no escape. I repeat concepts of telos, eudaimonia, and Beatific Vision for my students so they can practice using vocabulary and difficult concepts in a way that builds on itself. By the end of the year, it is amazing how creative many students have become in their articulation of some of the deepest theological concepts in the history of humanity.

The Lover, the Beloved, and the Love Between

            Augustine writes that the Father is the Lover and the Son is the Beloved. Scripture gives evidence for this. At the Baptism of Jesus and at the Transfiguration the voice of God refers to Jesus as “Son”. Jesus refers to the Father multiple times, perhaps most especially in the Lord’s Prayer, when He prays for unity of the Apostles and at His Crucifixion. The Father Loves the Son perfectly and eternally, and the Son, because He is God too, does the same in return. The Love between them is so perfect, according to Augustine, that the Love between them is a unique and perfect person in itself. The Father is the Lover, the Son is the Loved, and the Spirit is the Love between the two. This is one of the few dynamics that I do not explore in depth with my high school students; it require a great deal of higher-level philosophy to event begin to explain. But what I do address the greater question: “How can this God be one if God is three persons? How can this not be polytheism?”

The Cathedral of Our Lady Assumed into Heaven and St. Nicholas. The Love Mary has for her Son is so profound that it draws her ever closer to the Cross and the suffering of Jesus. The Image and Likeness of God and the Universal Call to Holiness, perhaps, tells us that we should be the same (photo P. Smith).

            I start by reminding them that there is no perfect model to demonstrate the Trinity. The Trinity is not a Shamrock; sorry St. Patrick. The Trinity is not a triangle; sorry fifth grade religion teachers. The Trinity is not water (liquid, gas, solid)…sorry, but not sorry, anyone who has ever taught this. Heresies aside, I try to get students to consider what it means to be “One.” To be one is to be unified in thought and in will. Even the self can be divided if you are not focused on a single will. If I tell myself I want to be in better shape, and I should go for a run, I might also be telling myself that I want to sit and watch TV and eat nachos. I am, by definition, divided, not physically, but intellectually. I have two wills, and, usually, the nacho-will wins out. But if I can unite my body, spirit, and mind in a single will, then I am one. What is keeping us from doing the same with “the Other”? For God, He is His own “Other”, except the Wills of God’s self and God’s Other are so perfectly attuned, they unite in a single Will, though they are three distinct persons. Further, since the Son is the only one with a Body, God does not have to deal with the division or union of the material form to be “One” for there is only one body, that of Jesus Christ. The mind and the spirit of the three persons of God, as they are not material Truths, are perhaps more easily attuned and unified to each other. So think of this: if the three persons of God are so perfectly in tune with each other in body, mind, and spirit, then aren’t they, ontologically, one? Aren’t they so united in Will that they exist as a single God? This only leaves the question: if we are made in the image and likeness of God and if God is so perfectly attuned to God’s self, then shouldn’t our Vocation be to attune ourselves to “the Other” in the same way? If we want to live out the image and likeness in which we are made, shouldn’t we seek unified relationships with everyone in the world? The answer is “Yes”… the Universal Vocation to Holiness is to Love “the Other” and to be Loved by “the Other” the same way God does. But we must come to understand why this is beneficial to us, who exactly is “the Other”, and how can we actually come to do so. This is the focus of the next section of my class, and here is where the class begins to take root in the hearts of my students.

Who Was God Loving before He Created Us?

            One of my favorite questions to ask my students (and I borrowed this from one of my graduate school professors) is related to the claim that God is a community. I give my students this claim and question: “If we assume God is Love and if Love has both a Lover and a Beloved, then who was God Loving before He created us?” The question is a bit loaded. My sharper students remind me that we cannot use temporal vocabulary like “before” when we talk about God. I put my head in my hands and revise the question: “Since God exists independent of us, and if God is Love, then who does God Love and who Loves God independent of us?” Technically, it is a better question, although a bit complicated. Usually it is the same students who caught the temporal problem with the former question who can actually answer. They were really just showing off before. “God must be Loving Himself and God must be Loved by Himself,” they respond. I ask the class in return, “So God just Loves Himself? What does this say about God? What can we conclude about God based on this?” Occasionally I have to lead students to some of the deeper logical conclusions, but most of the time I get responses like: “God must be really into Himself” or “God really likes Himself.” They are not wrong, but they are not completely right. “But is this type of self-Love consistent with Agape as self-gift or humility, like we have discussed before?” St. John and the Church Fathers interpreted Agape in Scripture as a kind of Love that asks for nothing in return. That is, it is a Love that is not self-interested or egotistical. It is “self-donation” or submission of Will for the sake of the Truth of self and the other. It is the opposite of what we see in the Fall of Adam and Eve. It requires a distinct individual to acquiesce their Will, and their ego, out of concern for the Other. In order for God to be Love, as St. John wrote, then God must possess at least two distinct identities within God’s self. There must be an identity that is Love and another that is Beloved. This is, at least, how St. Augustine describes the persons in the Trinity. God is Lover and Beloved in two distinct persons (or more). My students can at least leave my class with a little bit of this theological language and understanding of the Trinity. It gets complicated when we talk about the third person of the Trinity and how this is not some form of polytheism.

The Cathedral of Our Lady Assumed into Heaven and St. Nicholas in Galway, Co. Galway, Ireland (photo P. Smith).

Who is the Other? The Trinity

Who is the Other?

           Originally I taught this section of the course with the questions: “Who are You?” Of course, this would mean I would spend a day and a half explaining that when I ask “who are you?” we are not asking who are you, the students in my classroom, as if the entire unit focuses on people not myself, Patrick Smith. I changed the language about a week or so into the unit. The previous unit focused on who the self is; this unit discusses who the other is. That is, who is everyone other than the self?

Made in the Image and Likeness of a Triune God, Again?

            It is important to recall concepts from the chapter on Christian Anthropology regarding the nature of God and the nature of self. If God is community in the Trinity and if we are made in the image and likeness of God, then we are also made to be in relationship, at least, with God. This chapter explore how it is not enough to be in a personal relationship with God; we must also be in a personal relationship with “the Other”, that is, with other human persons, and we discuss how that relationship, if it is to reflect the relationship God has within the Trinity, it must be characteristically self-giving and humble.

Trinitarian Abbey in Adare, Co. Limerick, Ireland. The Trinity remains the central mystery of Catholic Christianity. The image and likeness of God, we believe, is a relationship so perfect in Love that it is one God. If we are made in this same image and likeness, then we certainly need relationship with self, other, nature, and God. (photo P. Smith).

            God is Love, according to St. John, and that means that God Loves perfectly and is Loved perfectly. The “perfectly” stems from the transcendent nature of God. The capacity with which God Loves and is Loved is not limited; it is a telos at which His rational creation, humanity, should aim. But if God’s Agape is what we say it is, God must have an object of His perfect Love and God must have one who Loves Him perfectly. Since only God can be perfect and Love perfectly, this suggests a community within what we call God, the Trinity.