“This method of spiritual recognition has two inescapable and mutually inclusive sides: on one hand ethics as a guide for behavior for the external, material world, and on the other hand a contemplative exercise for inward, spiritual experience. In order to know the Divine, beyond all the acknowledged metaphysical theory, both these interdependent and indivisible aspects must be present within a given religion.¹
What exactly is this contemplative praxis? Very simple: Prayer.”
Read the full article here.
“Proponents of modernity often relate with glee how science has shown traditional concepts of man and the cosmos to be materially and demonstrably false. In some cases they even claim that the latest scientific theory represents an improvement not only in physical understanding, but also in moral understanding.
[...]
Some seem to think that when Aristotle placed the earth in the center of his physical model he did so because his “primitive” conceptions could not allow him to imagine a universe where man was not of the utmost importance, and that the modern models, by making man’s abode just one of a countless multitude of peripheral specs driven about in various cycles, made him more humble. This idea is completely false, and is in fact an inversion of the truth.”
Read the full article here: Man’s Place in the Cosmos
“Michael Sandel’s second Reith Lecture entered the treacherous terrain of morality in politics, and not just morality but religiously inspired morality to boot
His argument, in a nutshell, is that you can’t remove morality from political discourse, so you’re better to have it out in public. Moreover, if you don’t, political life is impoverished. That’s not just an intellectual loss, for it causes real social problems too: it opens up a kind of moral vacuum into which all sorts of reactionary and fundamentalist opinions will rush.
That said, moral debate is risky in a plural democracy because people will profoundly disagree. This is what the liberal tradition seeks to avoid when it does not enquire into the merits of individual lives: instead it asserts rights based solely on the principle of autonomy – each can decide. And yet, if you take the risk, Sandel’s contention is that a more mature kind of politics is made possible. “A politics of moral engagement is also a more promising basis for a just society,” he concluded at the end of the lecture.”
-Link
When awareness of Good is lost, fragmented and relative perceptions of goodness replace it. While these are convenient imitations of Good, they bring only short term satisfaction. But what about the overall direction of our cultures? In the post-modernist view, there’s no direction, but instead separated perceptions of relativistic happiness in the form of legislation and private norms. Politicians avoid moral issues in the ignorance of Good, but keep a dogmatic approach to secularism and materialistic relativism as a surrogate. Supposedly, everyone knows what is just, but no one is able to define Justice, blaming the concept itself, but not our lack of intelligence.
If we wish to have an ascendant direction for our cultures, then morality and its metaphysical and teleological concerns have to become the core of politics. According to Aristotle, Politics are nothing but a complement of the Mora. In spite of the modern paradigm, Politics are transformed by ethics, and therefore a philosophical ruler, one who understands the essence of phenomena, is needed to guide the moral character of any particular society.
As an example in his lecture, Professor Sandel brings up gay marriage, and whether it has to be backed by the state. Beyond giving a response, he analyzes the fact that, in order to define the issue, moral questions have to be answered, specifically, does gay marriage support values or methods worthy of being honored? From a liberalist view, such moral conditions should be avoided, but actually, moral discussion does enrich the debate, and does serve to interpret hard data.
En Español