WHAT A FRIEND WE HAVE IN JOHN LOCKE

To sum up my survey of the some of the giants of 17th Century Continental philosophy, I turn now to Englishman John Locke, whose writings influenced the American founding fathers profoundly. Another highly distinguished polymath, Locke was actually a trained medical doctor, but is remembered primarily today for his writings on philosophy ("An Inquiry into Human Understanding") and his brilliant "Treatises on Civil Government," many of the ideas of which are prominent in America law and governmental structure and philosophy. Locke was an impassioned and articulate champion of the ideas of "life, liberty, and property" (of the individual vs. the collective), and the twin pillars of enlightenment we know and love as faith and reason. His Christian faith solidly underpins his political thought; indeed, it was said that Locke believed in a "world of Newtonian physics attached to a world of Christian morality by virtue of their joint creation by a Christian God."

As distinguished from Thomas Hobbes, who articulated the ideas of the "dread Sovereign" (with pretty much unbounded power) and the State as paramount over the individual (primarily for purposes of military protection and order in Hobbes' day), Locke was a champion of constitutional monarchy (the Sovereign having defined limits), limited power, and the rights of the individual.

Much of his writing in the "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" can be a bit tedious and dense at times (and unremarkable), but he does come through with some nice insights at times, primarily underscoring his intersection of Christian belief with his philosophy of existence. He champions the first line of knowledge, empiricism (reality is knowable; we can know "things in themselves"), and cause and effect. He importantly writes about the relationship between the origin of human thought - as a "cause" - and, therein the question is begged - of what is the origin of consciousness? Further, for Locke, "knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas." We don't really have true "knowledge," then, unless we understand; that is, unless the thing being considered make sense and has no contradiction. We have "intuitive reasoning," and empirical analysis, and for Locke, intuition + demonstration = knowledge.

Moreover, Locke takes the existence of God, of course, to be a given and the Grund of what follows in our Universe. There is a loving, logical, reasonable Creator; therefore, there is indeed an identifiable moral law and we are capable of comprehending it. "God hath not left himself without witness..." Further, Locke is thinking very clearly on ontological issues (much as Descartes and Leibniz): "If therefore we know there is some real being, and that non-entity cannot produce any real being, it is an evident demonstration that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning; and what had a beginning must be produced by something else." Our reasoning process therefore inevitably leads us to the idea of God ("And therefore God..." as Locke puts the beginning of #6 in his articulations of Chapter 10 - "Of our Knowledge of the Existence of a God") - it is a "certain and evident truth." Existence, therefore, cannot be fully fathomed without the evidence from "revelation" (as Locke expresses it in # 12), and for Christians, "revelation" has always served as the counterpart and master of reason. For Locke, there were indeed "eternal truths," grounded in revelation and the moral law.

One of most important ideas Locke articulates is the idea that life itself is sacred and serves as the ground of his concepts of "life, liberty, and property." (Sound familiar? cf. "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights - Jefferson got this from Locke.) It serves as the bedrock for equal rights under law, which was also God-given and sacred. Human life was sacred; a gift from God, and nobody had the right to take another's life, let alone his property - it was a violation of God's great Code (and Locke therefore supported capital punishment along these lines). Since nature gives us Life (through God's providence), all life is sacred. Therefore, Locke was not "soft on crime." Transgression against life and property must be prosecuted and restitution made. A "crime against one" was a "crime against all," or, in the case of murder, a "war against all of mankind," so inviolable was the sacred moral law of life.

Locke found the locus of power not in the person of the Sovereign; rather, it existed in God's moral law. Truth trumped power, in other words, and the Sovereign was not above error (neither the Pope) or arbitrary abuse of power; hence, a serious transgression or "injustice" (and justice is the crux of the matter) by a monarch could be challenged by the collective will of the people in any egregious case (sound familiar?! Remember this thing called the American Revolution?) Any one - or any entity or state - which threatens one's freedoms and rights can be dealt with by deadly force, in Locke's view. If a murderer takes a life, the murderer's life should be taken in kind; it would be a fulfillment of moral law. Ditto for someone who wants to "enslave" another; he is taking away that person's natural right to life and liberty.

Locke goes on in his Treatises on Civil Government to articulate many of the principles of contract law and the payment of money for services rendered. Though living in a "sinful" and "treacherous" world (Locke speaks of the "corruption and viciousness of degenerate men"), every man is a "king" with every right to enjoy his life and property free of threat (from Chapter 9, # 123: "Of the Ends of Political Society and Government"). Locke's ideal state was not one of absolute monarchy; rather, it was one of a Commonwealth, wherein men of sufficient reason, law, and Christian morality exercised their God-given rights to commerce; to attempt to better themselves, and be secure in their lives and property. It was a society of clearly-articulated principles deriving from natural law. Regarding the State, therefore, it had clear definitions and separations of power - both in a legislative and executive branch (cf. Chapter 12 of the Second Treatise).

Finally, a society of law could be the only just society. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins," says Locke so brilliantly and succinctly. No abuse of individuals rights - a bedrock of Locke's thinking - could be tolerated, and no egregious abuse of governmental power could long be tolerated by the Commonwealth.

The end of government is the good of mankind: and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny; or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed, when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservations of the properties of their people?

Locke's political writings read so lucidly and are so critically apropos to the current situation in this country today, with a government that has run off the rails on a crazy train of collectivism; and of multi-culturalism and fuzzy notions of "social justice" trumping merit. Americans in general have so unfortunately forgotten many of the underlying principles which forged this great country and allowed it to achieve its greatness and rise to the top of the world stage. We need to keep John Locke and his great writings (which figured so prominently into our founding documents) in the present tense and not the past (i.e., what a friend we have in Locke; not had.)

TTC

WHAT A FRIEND WE HAVE IN LEIBNIZ

I refer of course to the 17th Century German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz is remembered for many things, though chief among them would be his contribution to the discovery of differential calculus (virtually simultaneous with Isaac Newton, and the controversy rages on to this day as to who "discovered it first" and hence deserves the lion's share of the credit). Like many of the best intellectuals of his day, Leibniz was a polymath and world class philosopher who wrote voluminously on a variety of weighty subjects. Religiously, his work offered an ecumenical approach (Protestants/Catholics) to many difficult issues. He is often remembered for his thesis that this is indeed the "best of all possible worlds."

And therein lies one of the most difficult issues in human existence - the problem of "the way things are" (and the way the Universe is designed) vis a vis the problem of pain, misery, etc. Personally, I find lots of 17 C. philosophy to be very friendly to what we today refer to as "Intelligent Design," a movement I'm very much intellectually invested in (think Newton, Descartes, Locke, et.al.). Christianity has always traditionally responded to the problem of pain by reminding us all that the world, in an often difficult-to-fathom but very real way, is "fallen." It is tainted and ruined by sin. Sin is the origin of so much trouble, pain, and suffering in the human continuum. But Leibniz reinforces the idea that this world we find ourselves in, despite its many difficult intellectual dilemmas, is the best of all possible worlds. ("And God saw all the He had made, and it was very good." Gen. 1:31)

Philosophers have to come to grips with the idea that, perhaps, things just could not be any other way. If I have the capacity to feel pain, that capacity also serves as a warning system for me, to keep me from harm (or worse harm, for instance). I know that I ought to keep my hands directly away from fire, for example, although direct accidental exposure (accident = randomness; free will) to it will hurt me. Nevertheless, my body says "get it out of the fire asap!" This is just a simple example, but I could fill up a book with many others, and you should get the picture. If we feel pleasure in some things, how is it that we quantify that, anyway? Normally by comparing and contrasting the opposite - pain or displeasure. So there can be no feeling of pleasure without the potential for feeling pain. The Greeks often used reasoning by opposites to compare and contrast (e.g., Plato); this proved to be an excellent teaching method; a device to further critical understanding.

Bottom line, therefore, is that the more we understand things like cosmology, astronomy, and the like, the more we realize that the Universe (and the planet we inhabit) - despite what sometimes seem like preposterous examples to the contrary - is exquisitely fine tuned for our lives (and all other animals) to exist. And existence is a conundrum in and of itself.

It is thinkers like Leibniz who make the process of figuring all this out a much more delightful task, and Christian-rationalist oriented thinkers should definitely immerse themselves in his writing, as he is a tremendous ally to our way of thinking. There is no love without free will and choice; there is no freedom without free will and choice; indeed - there could be NO life without the inherent degradation involved in just being alive. Our bodies grow and experience wonderful highs (and lows), but it's baked into our genes that we will eventually die; our bodies over time slowing down and decaying (bones, joints, and just about all the rest of what comprises our "stuff"). So to live is to slowly die, in a morbid sense. The very element (oxygen) that keeps us alive is also the substance that slowly breaks down our cells! The challenge is in how we approach our highly improbable existence in the first place (in a Universe that is otherwise incredibly violent and in many places is totally hostile to what we understand as life).

Leibniz was a champion of logic, and His God (Christianity's) is quite logical. Moreover, he is a champion, in very clear prose, of cause and effect - "nothing is without a reason; no effect is without a cause" (from "First Truths" - a brilliant essay). For Leibniz, these statements were a priori to the notion of truth, and he (as do I and so should you) believes in ontic Truth. "Truths" are found in mathematics, for instance - no scientific law makes any sense without the underlying "truth" contained in its premises and propositions. Truth is there; we cannot deny it - how could this possibly be without intentionality? (i.e., a Designer)

My jaw dropped as I read some of Leibniz's statements prefiguring quantum mechanics, with his razor-sharp intuitions to the way modern physics works (way ahead of his time), but throughout my study of philosophy, I have repeatedly (and pleasantly) found this to be the case among the best thinkers. Consider these statements from Leibniz's essay "First Things": "... there is no body that cannot be actually subdivided." "A world of infinite creatures is contained in every particle in the Universe." As he believed that the Universe was a sort of "whole"; an entirety (a "Monad" - literally a "unity" from the Greek), he believed in the immortality of humans (soul + body); they could never be fully "destroyed"; rather, their energy is merely transformed (a la Newton's transformation of energy, which is neither created nor destroyed). "Ensouled beings do not arise or perish, they are only transformed." However, he did not believe in the transmigration of souls, either; rather, in his words: "souls...do not pass from one body into another which is entirely new to them. There is no metempsychosis; rather, a metamorphosis.

Now my jaw really dropped when I read the next statement from Leibniz (from his phenomenal work "The Principles of Nature and Grace"); one I have articulated many a time in debates with colleagues and friends, and one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God, though I had never ever read it in any philosopher's writings before, and I was stunned to see Leibniz, a kindred spirit, had articulated it there for all to see centuries before. One of the most profound truths of our understanding reads like this in Leibniz, in all its majestic simplicity: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (italics are in the original text -at least in my edition) This supports his sound and strong reasoning for cause and effect in # 7 of the principles he is articulating in his "Nature and Grace" essay: "nothing happens without a sufficient reason." I posited in my last post (on Descartes) that many folks who disbelieve in a Creator God really have to resort to sophism to (so they think) make their points re: cosmology, and Leibniz addresses this very same issue in an extensive footnote to # 11: "The reasons for an alleged vacuum (the idea of matter somehow arising independent of a super intelligence) are mere sophisms."

Leibniz, in the end, was a great champion for the twin pillars of human enlightenment we know as "faith and reason," the dual harbor lights that help us navigate our way through what is all too often a dark and challenging existence fraught with pain, sickness, and loss. Leibniz saw the big picture so clearly, and his writings articulate wonderful underlying principles (and great apologias) as to why believers should maintain a spirit of hope (challenging as that may be at times for all of us).


From # 18 in "Nature and Grace": "The love of God makes us enjoy a foretaste of future felicity. It gives us perfect confidence in the goodness of our author and master, producing a pure tranquillity of mind..." Since "God is infinite, he cannot be wholly known. Therefore our happiness will never, and ought not, consist in full joy, where there would be nothing farther to desire, rendering our mind stupid; but in a perpetual progress to new pleasures and to new perfections."

From one who saw the Universe and the journey of the human being within it so clearly... Thank you, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.

TTC

THE JOY OF DESCARTES

I recently completed a re-reading of one of the all time masterworks in world philosophy, that being Rene Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy," a most rewarding study in ontology (the study or science of "being"), "first things," reason vs. empiricism, doubt vs. objective reality, etc. On my read, Descartes is one of our best friends in the field of Christian apologetics (though many dislike him - I believe they misunderstand him!) and a giant in the field of ontology (and of course, mathematics, which was his primary discipline).

Descartes is one of those rare philosophers who is able to state such incredibly important concepts in clear, lucid, and rewarding prose, with clear examples and analogies. This is very, very tough to do. So many writers want to churn on and on with their writing and make what should be simple things much more difficult; it is rare that a masterful author comes along to make difficult things much more simple and accessible.

As those of us who have wrestled with so many other philosophers can testify, this is rarely the case. (I think of Alfred North Whitehead's "Process and Reality," one of the most dense works I've ever read; Immanuel Kant as well - though one of the greats, I conjecture that Kant could write a volume as thick as the New York telephone book on why the sky is blue!) "Meditations on First Philosophy" is Descartes' magnum opus (in my view), and a most rewarding and highly recommended read.

He confronts one of the greatest challenges in human thought: how do we make sense of the world around us? How do we separate illusion from objective reality? What is the nature of cause and effect and their collective implications? What about God in all this? What are the implications for humanity in all of this?

Many people malign Descartes because of his mind/body dualism conclusions (prominent in this work, as well). Agree or disagree, this should not disqualify you giving Descartes a fair hearing for where he really shines (in addition to his mathematical ideas) - especially with his ontology. And Descartes may at least have had a fair point about the mind/body dualism thing after all, should one have a sufficiently open mind about this difficult issue.

Whence cometh consciousness, anyway? I dare anyone to try and explain it on materialist terms. MIT Professor of Psychology Steven Pinker ("How the Mind Works") and other (what I call) "orthodox" Darwinists (or perhaps better said today "Materialists"; Darwin had no clue as to a "first cause" and didn't seem to concern himself with it directly) think they can explain it, but they end up contradicting themselves in the end. I never believe anyone who attempts (and always fails, by the way) to disconnect cause and effect, and neither should you. In the end, they are usually just engaging in sophism, and are never convincing. (Neither was Hume back in the day with his critique of cause and effect.) Cause and effect are axiomatic to existence, and, of course, this leads back all the way to the "First Cause," a problem wrestled with and identified all the way back to the Greeks (or any thoughtful person!). Consider Aristotle's concept of the "Prime Mover," for instance.

Moreover, as a (somewhat) fan of Jung and much of the literature written in recent years re: quantum mechanics, a lot of evidence is accumulating that there might just be something concrete to the idea of the "world mind," a "thought" as an energy transference with (sometimes unforeseen) "effects," the mind as being a conduit of a much larger global/universal consciousness, etc. There has been plenty of talk of late about the possibility and feasibility of keeping a brain alive without the body - the so-called "brain in a vat" idea. What if? What if that could be possible, and what constitutes a human being in that scenario? Consciousness? A total human body? What if your consciousness could live on encoded on a computer chip? Who are you, then? Interesting speculation...

Being of RCC Jesuit education, no doubt this factored into some of Descartes' assumptions. But his logic re: the existence of God is compelling. He starts with the idea of doubt; doubting his mind; his vision; etc. Might some sort of "demon" be deceiving him, etc.? Descartes' approach to "first things" and cause/effect were quite logical and in the Aristotelian camp, and for Descartes, he felt he could establish that God was indeed the First Cause. How could it be otherwise? An infinite Being created what we see (you cannot understand anything you now see without realizing that it all had a genesis somewhere; a creation or cause).

Descartes realized that his vision (any empirical method) might perhaps deceive him (think of a stick put in the water and the light bending the appearance of it; the view of the full moon in the sky, which appears at certain angles/lighting to be much larger than normal, etc.). However, his faculty of reason could "fill in the blanks," so to speak, and he could ascertain the objective reason that the stick was really not bent; the moon was indeed no closer to the earth than it was last night, etc. Though our senses might play tricks on us, our reason could correct them via logical means. God (as author of the First Cause, and consequent causes) therefore, is logical, as the world ultimately could make sense, and WE could figure this all out, assuming we applied ourselves accordingly. How is this possible without a benevolent Deity? Why should ANYTHING make sense, therefore, unless it bear the imprint of a Creator? Moreover, we have the gift (more so than any other created being by any order of magnitude) of being able to comprehend the universe, analyze its mathematical underpinnings, and see where all this led back to (using inductive reasoning). And it led back to the Creator God. God is the author of logic and mathematics (the real "universal language"); not the author of doubt, but of understanding.

In a nutshell, in my view, Descartes was an adherent of "Intelligent Design" before being a member of the intelligent design camp was "cool." (Apologies to Barbara Mandrell.) It should not be too hard to see why a brilliant mathematician could be so, and come to such conclusions. The fact that anything about existence, the Universe, etc. makes perfect sense is astonishing, and the fact that everything about reality has an identifiable mathematical component is even more astonishing. It is not that we cast our "ideas" upon the Universe - the fabric of the Universe is/was always there waiting for our Minds to discover and comprehend it. (There is something to Plato's ideas of the "Forms," after all!)

Though Descartes borrows somewhat from Anselm in his 3rd Meditation (God is "that beyond which nothing greater could be conceived"), Descartes encapsulates millennia of ontological thought right here in his Meditations. Because God "planted" the thoughts of both Him and His creation in our minds (as a first cause), and because there is indeed sense to be made of our existence; therefore, the idea of God "creating humanity in His image" is a very real and true concept (4th Meditation). God has given us logic and reason as gifts therefore: to keep us alive , to bring us into intuitive relationship with Him, and to ultimately help us grow and prosper.

I've never been a fan of the "everything is an illusion" school. Surely there are some things about our lives that are indeed illusory and ephemeral (many of our wants and desires, fantasies, etc.), but the basics of our existence are not. The Universe does make sense (albeit with quantum weirdness), and we have the tools to figure it out - or at the very least slowly uncover what was already there in the first place and make some sense of it. Like Descartes, "We think - therefore we are" (his famous Cogito ergo sum). There is indeed a "reason" for being, for living, and for believing - and for believing that there is much more to Creation than our senses are initially letting on...

TTC

NOT SURPRISED BY THE JOY OF C.S. LEWIS

Most people get their introduction to Clive Staples Lewis through his timeless classic "Mere Christianity," one of the great apologies for Christianity and probably his most widely read book. (And of course, it needs to be pointed out that in the original Greek, "apologia" meant a "defense of,"; it did not have the connotation we give it today in English).

Lewis, of course, was a very prolific writer and scholar (and former atheist), having taught in his lifetime at both Cambridge and Oxford. He ended up his career as a professor of Renaissance Literature at Cambridge. Importantly, many of his experiences (and written reflections) were written with the horrors of WWII as a backdrop. He left us in 1963.

It is rare that a scholar of such depth has such a comprehensive reach with his work, in that his writings remain very popular today for both scholars, students, children (with all of his children's literature, such as the "Chronicles of Narnia"), and are accessible to the common reader as well. Of course, the recent "Chronicles of Narnia" movies proved quite popular, and were very well done (especially the first).

All too often in America today, the image of evangelical Christianity is one of shallowness (think: some TV Evangelists, truculent fundamentalists, et.al.) and narrowness. This is unfortunate, as there are many great Christian philosophers, scientists, and writers who state the case for Christianity in compelling and convincing ways. Their works are very rewarding reads.

C. S. Lewis is one of these, and I have been challenged and blessed in recent studies of several of his key works. The world has an image of believing Christians that is all wrong: that we must be ignoramuses, we are anti-science and anti-rationalist, we believe in a woodenly literal version of the Genesis creation stories, etc. This could not be further from the truth, but the truth is hidden from those who do not want to see it. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever known (or read) are Christians, and their work spans the gamut of human endeavor and achievement. Lewis pulled of the rarest of rare feats in his works, since he could appeal to children, adults, and professors; in short: everyone, who had "ears to hear." His prose was quite lucid and appealing, and he had the ability to encapsulate some of the most difficult theological concepts and intellectual struggles in easy-to-understand language.

If you've ever read John Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress" (highly recommended; a phenomenal work), you'll enjoy Lewis' "The Pilgrim's Regress." He uses the whole idea of Christians being on a life journey to great effect, and has re-set the "progressive journey" idea into a more contemporary, yet mythological setting, with the same clever use of allegory as Bunyan.

Of course, many have read "The Screwtape Letters." This is a story about old "uncle Screwtape" (Satan) writing letters to his nephew "Wormwood" on how to properly tempt and lead a newly-professed Christian to his spiritual demise via the clever cunning and devices that only Screwtape had honed and perfected over millennia. (He fails in the end; the parishioner succeeds.) A superb, short read; apropos to our time and personal journeys.

Other fine works include: "Miracles," "The Abolition of Man" (reminded me a great deal of William F. Buckley's classic lament "God and Man at Yale"), and, the book from which I got my title, "Surprised by Joy," among so many other great works. Moreover, several years ago, a movie came out depicting Lewis' life starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger (pretty well done).

"The Problem of Pain" (1940) really touched some nerves with me. Lewis deals with the problem comprehensively, and it is such timely and fresh reading. It is a universal problem endemic to the "human condition." What are its origins? Why do we suffer so, if there is a loving God? Why have hope in the face of enormous personal and corporate suffering? Is there an antidote? Might a great deal of the antidote have spiritual dimensions?

Of course, I'm not here talking about pedestrian forms of pain such as headaches, routine "hurts" and the like, common to us all and part of our experience of living in this world. Every animal experiences pain; certainly all mammals in a very real sense. Much of what Lewis addresses in this work comes under the rubric of "existential angst." Much pain - in the human psyche for sure - comes about by how we live, cope, and deal with our environment; our trials and tribulations, etc. We are both rational and spiritual beings; hence, we will always be surrounded by suffering in its many forms.

For Lewis, the first step in the healing of the "pain" process was to make a personal decision to follow Jesus Christ. Much of our "pain," our angst, our suffering, comes about by what we individually choose to do. Every act has some sort of consequence; Paul speaks of the "wages of sin" in Romans, for instance. It is rooted deterministically in cause and effect. You do something, you experience something, for instance. Lewis has a great phrase for what "pain" can actually do for us positively, if we have ears to hear: "Pain plants the flag of truth within a rebel fortress."

In other words, we do have free will as humans, and much of Lewis' theology is underscored by his belief in a very real hell for the finally unrepentant, and our very real free will (a gift from our Creator) to choose many of the paths put before us by life (and hence either enjoy or suffer the consequences). This is a very tough idea for many contemporary folks to swallow, especially considering much of the prevailing thought in America. Lewis (as are all Christian scholars) was not concerned with "popular" or "folk theology," but a theology strongly and unapologetic - ally rooted in Biblical truth. Lewis believed very literally in the "unseen world," as opposed to the partially revealed world apparent to our senses. This world is not - was not - "all that there is" (the materialist stance in philosophy, for example). This world is a created world; a sort of testing ground for eternity, and I agree. I believe the choices we make today have ramifications for our eternal destiny. Life is not a trivial thing by any means.

Says Lewis: "The doors of hell are locked from the inside" - the finally "damned are rebels to the end. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded and are therefore self-enslaved; just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free." Hard medicine for contemporaries to swallow, but Lewis believes (as do I) that much of what we perceive as "freedom" in our actions is an illusion; we think we are "free" to do this or do that without consequence, but therein lies the illusion. Without instruction, without the truth revealed in the Bible, without Torah (literally "law," "instruction"), without a daily "Halakh" (Hebrew for "walk") with God; without the light, life, love, and salvific work of Jesus Christ, we are blind and doomed - ultimate rebels headed for even more heaps of "pain" than we could imagine.

"Pain" is a mechanism of communication therefore: to be authentic as human beings created in the image of God, we therefore have the ability ultimately to choose - either to ignore or listen to pain, suffering, and yes, even shame. For Lewis, shame could even be "valued - not as an emotion - but because of the insight to which it leads." Wow - if there was ever a difficult concept for moderns to wrap their minds around it would be this one. We live in a culture that has lost any sense of shame; we view it as overwhelmingly negative and something none of us should ever have to feel. But Lewis gives a radical interpretation of it (to modern ears): shame is a "mechanism" - it is a psychological "alert" that something is indeed wrong; there is a reason why we feel this way, and it is a harbinger that we must change our behavior and avoid these events/things/words/whatever that bring shame into our mind.

Christ can heal us of our shame; He is the antidote (not pop psychology!). But we must have the will to repent - to turn away from the shaming event and turn to Christ. This can only be done with the free will that God instilled in us.

Ultimately, Lewis was an optimist. He did not accept the Calvinist doctrine of "Total (human) Depravity." I disbelieve that doctrine partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. But he did believe that life was a journey; a constant struggle between good and evil forces which are very active in our lives. I venture to say that common experience shows all of us that this is indeed true, if we're being honest with ourselves.
The Reign of God will ultimately prevail, and it is slowly - if sometimes imperceptibly - advancing within the human continuum

Thank you C. S. Lewis for your great (and joyful) books, your vision, and your courage to be an intellectual, yet defend the truth and "particularity" of the Christian Gospel so brilliantly.

TTC

ON LIBERTY

The USA is like a giant river with many smaller rivers flowing into it, not so much different, in simile, to the Mississippi being the amalgamation of the flow of several other rivers (both big and small). So it is with the philosophical, political, and religious thought that forms the basis of what this great country is today. It has many "streams of thought" flowing into it (especially Christianity and the Enlightenment) and has since its formation.

It has been helpful to me to read and digest many of the great works that have assisted in the political character formation of our country. One of these is John Stuart Mills' "On Liberty," dating from 1859.

One could say that Mill was a man ahead of his time. His philosophy is characteristic of the true 19th century European "liberalism" (nothing like the "liberalism" of the left wing of contemporary American politics, by the way) that influenced thought in the US a great deal. American intellectuals often took their cue in this era from the Continent (this has not been the case so much in recent times, though it still persists a great deal on the left wing). A student of Jeremy Bentham (of "Utilitarianism" fame), Mill was a champion of the inherent rights of the individual versus society at large.

Many of the political "causes" of Mill's day (and in his writing) concern us today, such as euthanasia, abortion (Mill thought it unconscionable to bring into the world babies that could not be loved, cared for, and fed), multi-culturalism, political pluralism (so as to avoid any univocal concentration of power whether on the right or left), and temperance (the abuse of alcohol was as big a concern in his day as ours). Mill voiced objection to the "tyranny of the majority," and articulated separate spheres for morality: both a "private morality" (between consenting adults and behind closed doors; private and nobody else's business) and "public morality" (whatever is for the good of the most; to keep society functioning smoothly). The question for him was: "will this behavior hurt anybody else"? This attitude is very pronounced yet today in American behavioral practice. (Of course, the degree to which my behavior affects another human being is highly debatable, when you look at it very critically.) Mill even advocated competency testing for school teachers (by merit)!

It is interesting that, in this era (and I learned this from Mill), the state of Maine actually prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages pre-Civil War (and well before, obviously, it became a Constitutional Amendment in 1919; not repealed until 1933). This is a case where a State practiced its sovereign right to choose and stand apart from the rest of the country, not taking its cue from Washington.

Mill was also ahead of his time where it came to the issue of women's suffrage (cf. his 1869 work "The Subjection of Women") and the abolition of slavery (England was a few decades ahead of the USA in abolishing the practice). He had an interesting partnership with his intelligent wife - Harriett Taylor - when it came to women's issues, and she was a very important influence on his thinking.

One axiom that Mill articulated in "On Liberty" really stood out to me, as "Truth" is an issue which we all struggle with: how do we define it; and how can we possibly define - and know - what truth is? Is it relative? Or absolute? Culturally defined? Or universal? ("Just gimme some truth!" goes the chorus to a great John Lennon song.)

Mill give us a succinct and brilliant thought on truth in his "On Liberty," which certainly resonates with the American character (and indeed western democracy in general). Mill wished men "not to take authority for truth, but truth for authority."

TTC

THE JOY OF GREEK TRAGEDY AND COMEDY

I recently undertook for myself the enjoyable task of reading and studying the entire extant corpus of Greek Tragedy (Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides) and Comedy (Aristophanes and Menander - not much of Menander is extant and what is are mostly fragmentary). One of the great themes that stands after such an endeavor is just how there indeed is "nothing new under the sun." Many of the same concerns, causes, problems, wishes, yearnings, and the like in the classical Greek era (4-6 centuries B.C.) are the same as concern us today. Only the settings have changed.

Of course, much of the classical and political thought of western civilization is yet permeated with themes discussed by the famous Greek tragedians, and, on the other hand, Aristophanes' comedies struck me as remarkable in their demonstration that human nature and behavior haven't much changed through the millennia.

There are of course great philosophical, political, and religious themes in these works. Of course, in that time Greece was divided up into various city-states and provinces, chief among them Achaia, Macedon, Attica, etc., with principal cities such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, et.al.) And Greece vacillated over the centuries - in various places - with political paradigms of tyranny, totalitarianism, democracy (both representative and direct), monarchies, etc. (Read Aristotle's "Politics" for the definitive work on this). Naturally, every political theme and scenario that we deal with today was dealt with in their era, as well.

My feminist friends would enjoy plays such as "Ecclesiazusae" (Aristophanes), in which women take over the entire governing structure and men take a back seat. How many times have we all heard that if only "women could take over," things would be different?! And in the play, the women do take over, and,ultimately, not all that much changes in the end. The same human foibles that routinely take the souls of men hostage strike the women in the end, too. But the tables are turned, big time. And you thought this "women-taking-over-thing" was something new! "Lysistrata," "The Bacchae" (about the secretive Dionysian cult of women), and "Madea" (one pissed off woman!) are also great works with pronounced feminist themes. (Feminism is nothing new, guys.)

Of course, there are the great political dramas of the "Oedipus, the King," "Oedipus at Colonus," and many of the others. Themes such as the tension between war and peace, plenty and want, feast and famine, love and loss, democracy and the sacrifice of freedom, etc. are very pronounced in these timeless works.

It is also amazing just how vulgar Aristophanes is! There are constant references to flatulence, all kinds of whoredom, drunkenness, and general debauchery. I have no doubt that the social problems he addresses in comedic fashion are descriptive of life in his day. And they read like today's newspaper in our own free and libertine society. (Nothing new under the sun.)

Another great theme of the plays is the fact that, in this society, people could represent themselves in legal matters. (And it is astonishing the degree of litigiousness in this society, much like today, if not more so.) Therefore, they went off to take lessons from the Sophists in the art of diversionary rhetoric - all the better to win their cases in court!

One line from Aristophanes' play "Plutus" I thought was so apropos to American government today I had just had to copy out and quote here in my Blog. The character "Poverty" is speaking, and he is addressing the politicians and "orators" of his day.

Look at the orators in our Republics; as long as they are poor, both state and people can only praise their uprightness; but once they are fattened on the public funds, they conceive a hatred for justice, plan intrigues against the people and attack the democracy.

As succinct a polemic against big government as any that could be articulated today. And I hasten to add, another great argument for term limits.

TTC

WARREN "THE WHIP" AND DERIVATIVES

An addendum to my last post re: Warren Buffett, the bell curve, etc.

I couldn't help but notice (with a wry chuckle) recently that when all the news broke regarding the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting, it was revealed that Buffett had some holdings in "derivatives" on his books (along with his famous roster of classic blue chip value holdings, such as Coke, P & G, and many others). Here was the guy who "told us so" (about derivatives being the "time bomb" that would eventually cause calamity within U.S. financial markets); who warned all of us about the over-leveraging routinely practiced by hedge fund managers, investment officers at many of our largest corporations, etc. And yet he himself fell victim to their seductive song.

Unbelievable...

Surely there are some - emphasis on only some - good uses for the occasional derivative position (i.e., puts and calls - among other sophisticated strategies - on futures and options). Namely, for the hedging effect. You take a long position in equities, you want to "hedge" (or buy put options on, say, the S & P 100 to hedge your position should your equity position turn south the minute after you buy it and start to bore a hole through the floor to the earth's molten core). Some measure of "portfolio insurance" is natural and legitimate; as protection against the "unforeseens." In fact, derivatives had their genesis as hedging vehicles for farmers to lock in prices on their crops. Agriculture is where this all got started in the first place (not to mention the penchant for greed in the human heart when it came to the abuse of such contracts).

But the devising of cockamamie schemes to "beat the market" is where people get in real trouble. And it's this penchant for gambling (derivatives as "investments" = gambling) in the human heart that got us into the mess we are in now (especially our major banks). I stared incredulously at the news wire stories of Buffett himself having "positions" in various derivative instruments. And, as he ruefully admitted, he lost some serious money on these positions recently. Seems the master himself succumbed to the siren song of quick riches after all his years of wisdom and discipline! Funny how human nature is...

Just goes to show you: even the wisest among us are susceptible to doing stupid things. ("Wherefore let him who thinketh he standeth, take heed - lest he fall...") We all need to cast a wary eye towards all the slick Elmer Gantry-type financial hucksters pitching these things (and any number of other absurd schemes and "opportunities") to us. Beware, as Burton Malkiel says (author of the "Random Walk Down Wall Street" series), of "castles in the sky." The more sophisticated the scheme; the more slick and well-dressed the salesman/woman, the more my ears and eyes perk up and inner radar goes off. That's about the time you want to do a 180 and RUN the other way!

Buffett has recently come on record as saying that the world in general needs a whole lot of "de-leveraging." Amen to that. And he'll be "eating his own cooking" on this issue going forward, too.

The Madoff scandal is case in point. Last night (May 12), Frontline (PBS) did a piece on Madoff - who got away for nearly 4 decades with running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, running phony "investments" and a phony "hedge fund" as the vehicle. Many thousands of people across the globe were drawn into this mess. If they themselves had done some due diligence (everyone was tossing this excuse back and forth on the show - usually blaming "the government" instead of themselves), they might've had at least a clue that something was rotten in the state of Denmark (or on the 17th floor of the "lipstick building" in NYC, where Madoff and his employees ran their "fund"). Any guy who claims to beat the market without fail over 4 decades (averaging 15-18% steady returns) and is secretive about both himself and his methodology should be something that should raise serious red flags. And Bernie was claiming to "beat the market" consistently during the down periods.

But people ignored the red flags, gave in to their own greed and ignorance, and held on for the ride. As long as they were getting paid the dividends, nothing else mattered. That is, until the "black swan" came long. In this instance, the total collapse of all world markets in synchronous fashion, as has happened over the past 2 years. There has been nowhere to "hide"; no asset class has escaped thoroughgoing destruction. A true "perfect storm" broke over the globe, the likes we have not seen since the Great Depression. (Even then there were several spectacular rallies in the 1930s - and bonds and gold did just fine, thank you.)

And when that perfect storm started to blow, Madoff's empire (and all the over-leveraged hedge fund nuts) took a stiff, hurricane force wind and all the houses of straw came "a-tumbling" down. The aftermath of a craze is never pretty; nor was it for the Madoff "investors" who finally got a dose of cold, hard truth in their morning coffee. And now Bernie goes off the hoosegow where he belongs to enjoy years of numbing solitude.

Another American con man bites the dust.

Let's hope the hedge fund nuts have gotten religion. And that the 2nd Glass-Steagall act ("The Banking Act" of 1933) is restored (separating banks from investment brokerages). Nothing was broken before, and nothing needed to be fixed in that arena. We have some serious "fixing" to do. Let's get to it...


TTC

WARREN "THE WHIP" AND THE BELL CURVE

I couldn't resist the title. I refer, of course, to the legendary Warren Buffett, iconish American Billionaire investor. Several years ago I read Andrew Kilpatrick's excellent and very enjoyable biography of Buffett entitled "Of Permanent Value" (highly recommended). In the mid/late 1990s, I owned a couple of Class A Berkshire Hathaway shares as well, so I've always been a follower of Buffett and keen listener whenever he talks. (not to mention reading whatever I can from or about Buffett) In the book, Kilpatrick makes reference to Buffett as "Warren the Whip," since Buffett had been asked on some occasions to throw out the first pitch for the Omaha area minor league baseball team. (Buffett is very fond of sports and supportive of his local teams.)

I refer also to a great book from the early 1990s entitled "The Bell Curve," authored by Hernnstein and Murray (Harvard psychologists). In particular, this volume dealt with some "inconvenient truths" about the distribution of IQ scores among the American student population. It caused quite a stir back then, and legions of apologists came out of the woodwork to smear the authors and slander their intentions (and the resulting data) for their research. Actually, the book just outlined the statistical phenomenon of the bell curve in one particular (uncomfortable) area. It shows up in virtually all mass distributions of statistical data.

Every year Warren Buffett and his Berkshire investing sidekick Charlie Munger hold the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting in Omaha, and it has become known as a "Woodstock for Capitalists" in recent years. And for good reason: this year, the event hosted upwards of 30,000 Berkshire faithful who fly in from all around the country (and globe) to enjoy the event and glean nuggets of economic and investing wisdom from Buffett and Munger. Unfortunately, I personally have never had the opportunity to attend, but it is widely followed now on the Internet and also on CNBC, as well as other financial media.

The Berkshire meeting was just held last week (as I write this - May), and it got me to thinking about several things blogworthy. Moreover, I enjoyed a lively conversation with my brother recently about the state of our economy, the markets, investing, and so on. A "stimulus plan" for a good blog post...

As I have covered in other posts (see "Where Have All the Good Times Gone?"), the bell curve is a statistical phenomenon that shows up virtually always in the distribution of large amounts of data, whether we have a sample of weight, height, intelligence, whatever. It is - mysteriously - part of the warp and woof of human experience. There is a big bulge in the middle (the bell), with the most sample participants represented, with a minority of sample participants - "fat tails" - on either end, featuring those, say, either very short (the left tail) or very tall (the right tail). The same happens with the performance of investors or managers of hedge funds, mutual funds, etc. - their performance, over long periods of times (a couple/three decades) follows the path of the "bell" in a graphed distribution. It is an event that goes along with the determinist view of existence (the old argument of free will vs. determinism). You can't escape it ultimately, and if you do for a short period of time, it's only a matter before your performance "reverts to the mean." Nobody stays at the fat right tail forever - it is impossible.

Why impossible? Because if it was, somebody - sooner or later - would corner all the world's wealth, and that has not - nor can it ever or will it ever - happen. Whether God's or Adam Smith's invisible hand waives on the new contestants into their place in the sun (or the dog house) at any given time is up for debate, but the phenomenon is quite predictable and reliably demonstrated - again - over long periods of time. Short periods of outperformance give us the illusion that somebody has a hot hand with some proprietary system (usually complicated, of course, to bamboozle investors into putting their money with the hot manager of the moment) and he/she will make a quick fortune. Never works out that way - except for a lucky few at the right end of the fat tail on the bell curve.

Yep - it's guaranteed that some will indeed profit mightily by some "system" or another (whether value, growth, commodities, or momentum - whatever "flavor" of the moment) - these are at the right tail. Concomitantly, those at the left end of the curve will appear like unfortunate boobs and will be losing their rears, since it is determined beforehand that they will lose big (somebody has to!). The schlubs who populate the vast majority in the middle of the bell curve might just stay even with the averages - if they're lucky. They certainly will not outperform the market averages over 2-3 decades time.

Moreover, the distribution of performance of even the best and smartest managers - such as Buffett - will "travel" around the bell curve whether they like it or not. Doesn't matter how "smart" or well-trained the manager is (and Buffett is among the smartest and wisest with winnings to prove it). Buffett is traveling currently from the far right of the bell curve (significant outperformance of the averages from the late '60s/early '70s on up through the '90s) towards the middle. His performance has recently reverted to the mean. Let me explain.

Buffett has earned the reputation as America's (and one of the world's) best and most astute investors; deservedly so. A disciple of the great Benjamin Graham (professor of finance at Columbia) and apostle of the Graham and Dodd value investing methodology, he has been able to amass a fortune for himself and his early investors with his investment vehicle Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA). And, along the bell curve distribution, his performance figures for those roughly 30 years were at the far right of the bell curve. An incredible performance streak, to be sure.

Unfortunately, the past 10 years had something else in mind for Warren. His performance has been mediocre at best (granted in a generally lousy market), and Berkshire shares trade for no more than they did 10 years ago. One might be tempted to say that at least he has kept up with the S & P 500, which has also gone nowhere over the last decade (actually, it has declined a bit) and has not cost his shareholders much of their cash, as have other worthless mutual funds and hedge funds, etc. It's been a tough, tough ten years, for sure.

However, that's only considering the nominal figures, as we have to factor in inflation as well. And on this score, not only has America and her citizens and investors lost major ground over the past decade in buying power (while salaries have gone nowhere, for the most part), but so has Buffett's Berkshire. So, that $90,000 share price for ONE Berkshire Hathaway share today actually has the buying power of only $67,000 in 1999 dollars, assuming an average of 3% inflation per year; a reasonable assumption and the figure used in Graham and Dodd's book "The Intelligent Investor" to estimate likely inflation in the era subsequent to the publishing of that book (1970s - and, I might add - with an excellent Forward written by Warren Buffett himself). Long story short - we have ALL lost money in this last awful decade - both nominally to a lousy market - and in real, painful terms due to inflation and dollar degradation.

Yes, even the great Warren Buffett is subject to the force of the Bell Curve. (Resistance is futile...) I might even say that the first 30 years of Berkshire (not to take anything away from his smarts and financial savvy) were boosted along by the good, old-fashioned force of luck. Yes - "LUCK." (His investment style was "in the right place at the right time".)

Granted Buffett has a knack for picking undervalued assets and holding them until the market recognizes their value (his favorite holding period is"forever," as he wisely says). At any given time, SOME form of market divination or investment "style" will be in - it is guaranteed by the bell curve phenomenon. Somebody will indeed be basking in the successful limelight of the right tail of the bell curve (but not forever!). These individuals will look very "smart" and successful at the time. (I hope they enjoy it. It won't last.) But, just as has happened to Warren "the Whip" over the last 10 years, their relative outperformance will not (and cannot) last, and they will travel along the timeless, well worn curves of the bell curve, on their way with many fellow travelers toward the great, fat, mediocre middle.

TTC

SOCIALISM AND "O.P.M."

By "OPM" of course I mean "Other People's Money." The concept of using "OPM" in finance, of course, comes up in real estate transactions (you use the bank's money to acquire a property you cannot afford to pay cash for and leverage your asset over time) and stock investing to use borrowed capital to acquire a block of shares (or the whole company, if your T. Boone Pickens!).

In this short blog post, I couldn't resist putting this on my site. It's a quote, attributed to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, very apropos of our current situation here in the U.S. and the pronounced swing toward socialist/collectivist government underway in Washington. You know, the phenomenon of "spending our way out of a recession," or, put another way, "spending our way to prosperity." (with, of course, "other people's money" - China's, Japan's, our tax dollars, etc. Ever notice how generous some folks are with YOUR money? Not their own, of course.)

Unfortunately, there may just be a problem with such thinking, since, as Lady Thatcher admonished:

"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other's people's money."

Enough said...



TTC