Having a Nature and Metaphysical Struggles: The Emotional Hangover

What does it mean to have a nature, an essence? Am I a bundle or a concrete particular with a certain set of properties? Well, I don’t fancy myself a bundle, and Nominalism in general seems false to me. I have written papers where I defend a substance view of humans, Substance Dualism (in a Thomistic sense, not Cartesian). However, I must confess that I would rather not believe in various bits of metaphysical realism such as abstract objects. Also, I am especially bothered by the fact that the property of Red, may not itself be Red. That just seems strange.

On the other hand, it seems right to me that the essential nature of a fish is to be in water. The problem of being a “fish out of water” is obvious and persuasive to me. No matter what anyone else might say, fish are supposed to be in water. That seems objectively clear, and NOT a matter of convention to me. Even those fish (if there are more than one KIND) that can survive outside of what for short periods of time are still generally supposed to be in the water. If this were not the case, we should be tempted to think of classifying the air loving fish as an amphibian or something all together different.

Furthermore, it seems right to me that I have a nature. I might even do things that go against my nature. For example, those childhood times where I have tried to fly have contributed to my overall sense of bodily discomfort presently. I think most people would agree to this generally.

However, the problems come quickly because the argument from nature is often used to defend various moral claims. An interesting spilt on this issue is homosexuality. Some want to appeal to nature (in a “thin sense”) and claim that homosexuality is simply determined by our genes. (I will not comment on the merit of this scientific evidence at this time). One’s nature (thinly) determines our sexual preference, it is argued, so they cannot be morally blame worthy for homosexuality. Now, what I, as a proponent of libertarian freedom, don’t like things that suggest that I did not choose. I occasionally entertain the thought I may have had influence on who my parents were to be. Granted, there are some things that in the end I must admit I cannot control about myself (e.g. what beliefs I directly choose, my parents, feelings, etc.). But I don’t have to like it.

On the other hand, others will claim that the human essence is by nature (thick, metaphysical sense) not supposed to be homosexual. Those who make this claim in a think sense are speaking much more deeply than referring to “plumbing.” The problem here is possibly my lack of information or possibly epistemic support. My question is “what is exactly are you ‘looking’ at to make such a judgment about natures?”
I am planning on finding out, about natures and who is looking at what. I want to know who is right, why she is right, and how does she know. What do you think? And what bothers you about your view?

The Balance of engagement

Side one: My instincts lead me away from television (I don't really watch much anyway) and many of the things in culture. I don't want to be like everyone else. I don't want my kids to be like everyone else. I want to be like Aquinas or Aristotle or someone Great. I want to make a difference in the world and not merely accept the current medium's of culture today. I want to be literate - that is read the Great books (plus books that are great)

Side two: While Novels are still important, it SEEMS that movies are the biggest push in culture. And who can really influence someone else if we are not engaging in the culture? It seems that one can best shape culture from within it. "In but not of" seems to be a good rule here.

So, what can we look at to know if "we" are in balance? Then, what ever it is we are looking at, how do we know we are interpreting the results correctly?

Here Jesus is a strange answer. Jesus was predictably unpredictable. However, He was always about His Father's will. This clears up the main stuff (torturing babies for fun is wrong, etc.), but it seems plausible that I could help the most by being truly counter-cultural; however, it could be argued that writing novels or movie scripts could have lots of impact too.

Maybe feeling the tension is what keeps us balancing His will and plan for our lives, but no matter how many times you walk the tight rope, you still get butter flies: It is still dangerous, and you can still fall.

Waiting for a phone call

So I'm sitting here, waiting for a phone call that will tell me where I live next year. It could be anywhere. New York? Maybe. San Francisco? Perhaps. Toledo, Ohio? Who knows. ;-)

It is, in all honesty, a bit unnerving. But at the same time, I get the sense that it's a wonderful opportunity to learn something about peace and patience. There is nothing I can do at this point to change my fate. The phone call will or will not come on its own terms. My choice is whether I will fill my time productively or if I will fill the hours with nervous energy. My hope is that I have the good virtue to wait with patience, filled with the peace of knowing that things like this always work for the best.

Now That's Experience!

What do you do with a man who runs a horse association so far into the ground that he's forced to resign?

Well, apparently you make him director of FEMA.

I'm hopeful that after the disaster that was hurricane Katrina, Congress has the foresight to legally require disaster management experience before receiving a high-level appointment in FEMA. While I'm really happy that Michael Brown had the good luck to be friends with President Bush, I'm saddened by the fact that the friendship actually cost people their lives.

We are a nation of almost three hundred million individuals. We deserve better.