Senioritis
I had my thesis defense last Tuesday. In keeping with my whole approach to the affair, I waited until the last moment to prepare, and put the finishing touches on my praesis (sp?) only minutes before the actual defense. I'm a true intellectual procrastinator. While I may not have been as ready as I could have been, I felt very relaxed. This was pretty much necessary, as I was about to spend the next hour doing something I had spent the last four years trying not to do; talk in a classroom. It went well for the most part, though I found Dr. McArthur to be non-sensical at best. He kept bringing up what I thought were objections or problems with what I was saying, but after he verbally fumbled around for several minutes and I tried asking him to clarify his question, he'd start all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat for the next half-hour, and you have the bulk of my defense. It was wholly unsatisfying. It's clear that most of the tutors barely glance over the theses they are attacking. Instead, they try and get a grasp of your position, and rely on their previous knowledge of the subject matter to try and test you. McArthur had a different understanding of the operation of the practical intellect in moral matters, and since I was under the assumption that he had read and uderstood my position, I think my failure to realize this led to most of the problems we had.
McArthur was holding that in moral matters, since our intellect judges about universal propositions, and can only act upon one judgment at a time in the practical syllogism formed in moral action, it must through a fault made in grasping the particular in some action that the incontinent man acts. Otherwise, he held, the incontinent man would not differ from the intemperate man, for he would not be acting against some judgment from reason, but from some other universal proposition. This is the problem we struggled with for the majority of the time he talked. When I finally realized what he was saying, I was shocked, because this is such a basic misunderstanding of Aristotle's position. Aristotle holds that the practical intellect judges concerning universal propositions relating to moral action, and presents these propositions in the formulation of the practical syllogism. When the continent man acts, he has two universal propositions in his intellect. One proposition comes from judgment in accord with right reason, the other is a proposition presented by the desiring part of the soul. It's clear that this proposition is taken from what St. Thomas refers to as the Formes of Sin, or the law of the members. It is not a proposition formed by the reason, but the appetitive part of the soul does present the intellect with this desire in the form of a proposition. The continent man rejects the influence of his passions and holds to the judgment of his reason, and acts through a practical syllogism in which this universal judgment of reason forms the major premise. In the incontinent man, the will allows desire to win out over reason, and such a man acts through the universal proposition from desire. In either case, though moral actions are concerned with particulars, the particular to be acted upon remains the same. So the intoncintent man does NOT differ as McArthur wanted to say by mistaking the universal in the particular. He seemed shocked when I made the distinction between the two universal propositions involved in the moral operation of the incontinent man. Weird. Like I said, the whole affair was unsatisfying, when the majority of the discussion was spent trying to resolve such a basic misunderstanding.
Pat C., Gabe, Claire and I hit the Hill Top afterwards. We've been there more or less everynight for the last few weeks celebrating our "circumcisions" - Big Al's coinage - and this night was a capper. After my second or third pitcher, and who knows how many free double shots of Crowne (with a dash of coke, you rock Big Al), I found myself staring at one of the barflies across from me.
Setting: lots of loud background chatter, swimming lights and a rosy glow surrounding a group of college kids smoking and drinking inside the Hill Top. Camera pans, focusing in on a young man perched atop a bar stool with elbows resting on the counter, a cigarette hanging from lips parted in laughter, engaging in conversation with someone off the screen. Over time the crowd slowly lessens, the laughter begins to fade, and the hero slowly starts aging as the cigarette cherry burns lower. His hairline starts receeding, his waistline expands and he becomes less animated and aware of his surroundings, which are slowly changing as time progresses into the future - but really, how much do bars change? The rosy glow and laughter of the opening scene eventually fade into a dull background murmor arising out of the shadows, and the camera focuses in on our now wrinkled and balding hero sullenly staring into the bottom of a whiskey glass, the last few puffs of his cigarette wreathing his gnarled features in obscurity. If you want to be whole circle about the thing, at the end we have a new hero plop down on the bar, laughing with his friends as he lights up a cigarette and accidentally elbows the old hero in the ribs, causing him to drop the now spent butt. Fin. Cue new age hippie music!
Bob is really the inspiration for this little idea. Bob is a fifty-something cowboy from up north, and he remembers. Or so he kept assuring us. For several hours good old Bob felt moved to share his years of wisdom with Gabe and I. The best place to find loose women in these parts of California: "Up ways near Bakersfield... Crystal Palace. You come through those swinging doors, tip the hat, and 'yes ma'am'." He gave us some tips on good hikes around the area, ideas on investment (always silver) and property managment, and even a place to stay if we ever come up north. When Gabe finally let him know we were Catholic, his frequent comments on laying the loose women stopped coming. He later mentioned he had a rosary in his truck. The discussion never really turned religious, but it did seem like something resembling a conscience was awakened in him for a time. This coming from a man currently supporting three lady interests and a wife he no longer lives with. It's amazing how responsive all of these old barflies are to Catholicism and us TAC students in particular. I've got a lot of stories and memories now from talking with guys like Bob, and while these characters are really interesting, they're also incredibly depressing. Hence the hero in my little story. You pray for these people and hope something good comes to them in the end, but you don't expect it.
McArthur was holding that in moral matters, since our intellect judges about universal propositions, and can only act upon one judgment at a time in the practical syllogism formed in moral action, it must through a fault made in grasping the particular in some action that the incontinent man acts. Otherwise, he held, the incontinent man would not differ from the intemperate man, for he would not be acting against some judgment from reason, but from some other universal proposition. This is the problem we struggled with for the majority of the time he talked. When I finally realized what he was saying, I was shocked, because this is such a basic misunderstanding of Aristotle's position. Aristotle holds that the practical intellect judges concerning universal propositions relating to moral action, and presents these propositions in the formulation of the practical syllogism. When the continent man acts, he has two universal propositions in his intellect. One proposition comes from judgment in accord with right reason, the other is a proposition presented by the desiring part of the soul. It's clear that this proposition is taken from what St. Thomas refers to as the Formes of Sin, or the law of the members. It is not a proposition formed by the reason, but the appetitive part of the soul does present the intellect with this desire in the form of a proposition. The continent man rejects the influence of his passions and holds to the judgment of his reason, and acts through a practical syllogism in which this universal judgment of reason forms the major premise. In the incontinent man, the will allows desire to win out over reason, and such a man acts through the universal proposition from desire. In either case, though moral actions are concerned with particulars, the particular to be acted upon remains the same. So the intoncintent man does NOT differ as McArthur wanted to say by mistaking the universal in the particular. He seemed shocked when I made the distinction between the two universal propositions involved in the moral operation of the incontinent man. Weird. Like I said, the whole affair was unsatisfying, when the majority of the discussion was spent trying to resolve such a basic misunderstanding.
Pat C., Gabe, Claire and I hit the Hill Top afterwards. We've been there more or less everynight for the last few weeks celebrating our "circumcisions" - Big Al's coinage - and this night was a capper. After my second or third pitcher, and who knows how many free double shots of Crowne (with a dash of coke, you rock Big Al), I found myself staring at one of the barflies across from me.
Setting: lots of loud background chatter, swimming lights and a rosy glow surrounding a group of college kids smoking and drinking inside the Hill Top. Camera pans, focusing in on a young man perched atop a bar stool with elbows resting on the counter, a cigarette hanging from lips parted in laughter, engaging in conversation with someone off the screen. Over time the crowd slowly lessens, the laughter begins to fade, and the hero slowly starts aging as the cigarette cherry burns lower. His hairline starts receeding, his waistline expands and he becomes less animated and aware of his surroundings, which are slowly changing as time progresses into the future - but really, how much do bars change? The rosy glow and laughter of the opening scene eventually fade into a dull background murmor arising out of the shadows, and the camera focuses in on our now wrinkled and balding hero sullenly staring into the bottom of a whiskey glass, the last few puffs of his cigarette wreathing his gnarled features in obscurity. If you want to be whole circle about the thing, at the end we have a new hero plop down on the bar, laughing with his friends as he lights up a cigarette and accidentally elbows the old hero in the ribs, causing him to drop the now spent butt. Fin. Cue new age hippie music!
Bob is really the inspiration for this little idea. Bob is a fifty-something cowboy from up north, and he remembers. Or so he kept assuring us. For several hours good old Bob felt moved to share his years of wisdom with Gabe and I. The best place to find loose women in these parts of California: "Up ways near Bakersfield... Crystal Palace. You come through those swinging doors, tip the hat, and 'yes ma'am'." He gave us some tips on good hikes around the area, ideas on investment (always silver) and property managment, and even a place to stay if we ever come up north. When Gabe finally let him know we were Catholic, his frequent comments on laying the loose women stopped coming. He later mentioned he had a rosary in his truck. The discussion never really turned religious, but it did seem like something resembling a conscience was awakened in him for a time. This coming from a man currently supporting three lady interests and a wife he no longer lives with. It's amazing how responsive all of these old barflies are to Catholicism and us TAC students in particular. I've got a lot of stories and memories now from talking with guys like Bob, and while these characters are really interesting, they're also incredibly depressing. Hence the hero in my little story. You pray for these people and hope something good comes to them in the end, but you don't expect it.
posted by mittens at 4/25/2005 10:24:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home