As a style of writing, epigrams go in and out of fashion. Here I try my hand at just a few.
On Epigrams and Blogs. The idea of an epigram is to present “something to think about” in a way which is memorable or at least amusing. The typical epigram is just a sentence, a stanza, a paragraph, or at most a few paragraphs. One might think epigrams would be especially suited to blogging, because they are so short and punchy. On the other hand one might think that they are not at all suited to blogging, because people tend to surf through material on the internet instead of reading, pausing, and pondering. Then again, perhaps we can entertain the hope that a return to epigrams might slow us down a little.
On Discerning Cranks. Distinguishing original thinkers from cranks – for example, in online posts like this -- is more difficult than it seems. It’s crankish to insist on one’s ideas in despite of what the wisest have thought through the ages, but it’s not crankish to buck the current of one’s own time. It’s crankish to have contempt for the thoughts of the learned, but it’s not crankish to criticize the prejudices of the merely degreed. Because we are not designed to think well in isolation, it’s crankish not to give a damn about what anyone thinks, but it doesn’t follow that we should be the slaves of majority, elite, or fashionable opinion. Does it sound as if I am contradicting myself? Then you see the problem.
Which Side Are You On? Some who pride themselves on their adherence to Calvinism deny natural law, even though Calvin believed in it. Some who pride themselves on their adherence to the Bible deny natural law, even though the New Testament explicitly affirms it. Some who pride themselves on their adherence to a transcendent God deny natural law, even though natural law doctrine places God, the Creator, over nature. Some who pride themselves on their reliance on the Savior deny natural law, even though Christian natural lawyers have never supposed that we can save ourselves. A Protestant friend who, like me, believes strongly in natural law, opined to me once that the real motive of some of his fellow Protestants for rejecting natural law is simply that Catholics believe in it; therefore it must be false. Dear God, if only all Catholics did believe in it!
On Levels of Prudence. We speak of prudence as though it were just one thing, but it isn’t. At least we should distinguish transient prudence (deliberating with a view to the goals of the moment) from permanent prudence (deliberating with a view to the enduring goods of human life, such as forming the next generation). Often the two are very different. We should also distinguish natural prudence (deliberating with a view to what can be accomplished by our natural powers) from divine prudence (doing so with a view to what can be accomplished only with the help of grace). Another sharp contrast.
On Faith and the Fatherless. Undermining the possibility of a close relationship with God the Father is one of the chief effects of parental divorce and separation. One suspects that bringing this about is the real, underlying goal of radical feminism and of gender ideology. If I were the Adversary, I would be congratulating myself on a job well done.
On Equal Chances vs. Equal Results. Some say equality of opportunity is a sham, because it doesn’t produce equality of outcomes. But consider what equality of outcomes would require. “All it would take is giving everyone the same starting point,” egalitarians say. Oh, is that all? That’s not much! Since some people are more beautiful, to give them the same starting point we would have to either make the loveliest a little uglier, or else suppress the natural human attraction to loveliness. Since some people have greater natural endowments of intelligence and capability, to give them the same starting point we would have to either give everyone identical genes, or else handicap the more capable and intelligent by making them run the race wearing concrete overshoes. Since some people have wiser parents, to give them all the same starting point we would have to either give all children to the state to raise, or else compensate for the difference in parents by, say, making good parents pay a tax to bad ones. What fine, fine ideas these would be.
On Drafting Women. Even some women think that in the name of equality, men and women should be equally liable for military service. To believe that this is a good idea, what else would you have to believe? Protecting the hearth from enemies is important, but you would have to believe that protecting it is categorically more important than having a hearth to protect. Stopping people who might harm the nation’s children is important, but you would have to believe that stopping them is categorically more important than bringing them into the world in the first place. You would have to either insist that women aren’t good enough unless they are just like men, or deny that men are generically stronger than women, or – the easiest alternative – just abandon the idea that the strong should protect the weak. A world in which men no longer think they should protect women is not one I am keen on being in.
On Big Government. There are four main reasons for seeking big government. One group of people just likes control. This is loathsome. The second group seeks big government in the conviction that the function of the state is to fix all our problems. This is naïve, because it so many things: That government does most things poorly, that other institutions, such as families, churches, and networks of friends, have work of their own which the state should not usurp, and that some problems, like selfishness, cannot be fixed by political means. The third group seeks big government in the hope that it will give them advantages at the expense of others, for example through patronage and subsidies. This is greedy and patently unjust. As to the fourth group – one of the most momentous discoveries of adulthood is that some people don’t turn to government because they see problems, but invent problems as an excuse for enlarging government. That’s the side on which they see their bread as buttered. Gee, maybe there are only three reasons for seeking big government after all.
On Misguided Compassion. One of my greatest sorrows as a teacher has been witnessing the change for the worse in student strength of character. A sweet girl, the daughter of one of my finest female undergraduate students, enrolled in one of my courses a generation later at her mother’s recommendation. I was delighted. The first thing that happened was that she presented me with a letter from the university administration saying that she needed “accommodations” – read “lowered standards” – because of her tendency to be anxious. The second thing was that she didn’t do the readings, rarely came to class, and didn’t complete her assignments. The third was that she dropped the course. An entire bureaucracy now caters to such hapless students, and they account for an increasing fraction of the student body. One can’t help but think that all this coddling is making them anxious, dependent, and unmotivated, although of course a febrile culture provides other causes too. Such help doesn’t help. It hurts.
We Believe in Science. Whenever I see one of those yard signs proclaiming “In This House We Believe in Science,” I think of the activist who showed up at my office door when I was still a very green teacher. You would recognize the name of his organization. At that time, it was newly formed, and I didn’t. He explained that he was seeking faculty support for what he called “science,” and I listened with quite a bit of sympathy. Soon it became clear, though, that by “science” he meant not a method, as at first I thought he mean, but a body of fixed beliefs. He didn’t mean following the evidence wherever it leads and having rigorous debate, but shielding certain tendentious hypotheses from challenge and not allowing students to hear alternative views at all, because, he said, they were “proven.” Naïvely, I tried to explain something about the philosophy of science, and how science actually works. He grew annoyed and left.
The Verdict. What do you say? Food for thought? Or just snacks?
NEW STUFF
Titus Techera reviews my book Pandemic of Lunacy: How to Think Clearly When Everyone Around You Seems Crazy in the online journal Civitas Outlook: “The Quest for Sanity.” Mr. Techera is Executive Director of the American Cinema Foundation as well as a culture critic for several think tanks. He teaches in the Logos Fellowship of the Manhattan Institute.