A note on the title of the blog...

I feel a little explanation for the title of this blog would be beneficial to readers, since I actually have them now :).  I orginally envisioned this blog as being a sounding board for a critique of modern culture and it's disassociation with any kind of moral truth.  I, following the writing of Nietzsche, envisioned writing in his biting style, but with Thomistic truth. I named the blog with rhetorical terms like "soldier" and "warrior" because I felt we needed a more masculine Catholicity to confront modern paganism, so I originally used the rhetoric of power. That may still seep in as it is fun to write that way, but in recent readings I realized to reach more people, I needed to be clearer and less metaphorical.  Once my readers are up to speed on how I am using terminology, I will probably delve back into that rhetorical stance. Ultimately, writing is an art, and even philosophy is more fun for readers if it is presented in a mysterious and beautiful way. I say that with some caution, as philosophy is meant to present ideas and terminology as precisely as possible. When we let poetic rhetoric creep in, we can sometimes lose precision and ultimately the truth we are pursuing. So, long story short, I want this to be artistic, but philosophical too. In the beginning, then, I will be as clear as possible, I will teach, and as a grasp of the terminology grows amongst readers, the rhetoric of Catholic power will reappear.  Of course, I reserve the right to allow the muse to inspire me, so there may be poetic/rhetorical posts along the way.

Given this new perspective on how to present this blog, I have change the name of it to "Lights through Diamonds."  This is a metaphor for how we approach truth.  The question of Pontius Pilate to Christ, "Quid est veritas?" (what is truth) echos more strongly today than in any other epoch.  Nietzsche perceptively caught that there was an element of perspective in all the philosophies presented by philosophers, but he wrongly assumed that there was no truth and that the deliberations of philosophers were merely prejudices of people who sought to dominate others.  MacIntyre, who in my mind is the most important moral philosopher since Nietzsche, has given greater credence to the idea that we approach moral truth through a perspective.  All activity requires a context to be intelligible, and virtues are only realized in an infinite number of contingent circumstances.  Thus, moral truth is not relative, but the right thing to do in all situations requires prudence and deliberation. There is not one mathematical or categorical answer to ethical dilemmas, and our cultural history will influence how we react to moral situations. 

So, following Plato who spoke of the good as light, and Christ who spoke of it as such, I have chosen the language of "Light" as the symbol of the transcendentals that are found in God, i.e. Being, the True, the Good, the Beautiful, and so on.  Diamonds, then, represent the prism through which we see the light.  We all have perspective, a material, efficient, final, and formal cause. Our cultural, familial, religious and cultural heritages inform how we percieve the world.  It's time to move away from the Enlightenment lie that we can be completely above and beyond perspective in inquiry. On the surface, this is a seemingly innocuous fancy, but it is a dangerous chimera that has careened us into the dictatorship of relativism we live in today.  For example, atheist physicists often present themselves as having no agenda, but to just let the science do the talking.  They claim to be following science, but then ignore all indicators that there is intelligence behind the very rational structure of reality.  This "scientism" then lends itself to a doubt about all things moral as it puts reason to war with religion, even though it is a false dichotomy.  There is no real antagonism between science and religion so long as neither side over steps its realm of understanding; indeed, science is unified by the existence of God, by Being.

In this blog, then, I do not pretend to not have perspective in looking for truth.  The perspective is meant to be open ended and dialectical, following my heroes of Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, I plan to circle around questions posed for debate.  I plan to spin the diamond in my hand, to locate all perspectives and look for the most direct route to the source of the light.  Through my intellectual and moral meanderings, I have encountered many perspectives, but the one that spoke most powerfully to my nature, and I believe will speak to all human being's nature, is the truth I found in Catholicism.  Indeed through reason I have come to believe the Catholic faith is the most consistent and rationally grounded way of approaching existence; through faith I have come to accept all that she teaches.  What I have discovered is that her faith and morals, while handed down from above, always have rational justification for themselves, we just need to be open to studying what she teaches.  I have found that the Church is like a laser that cuts through the diamond and opens us to the light without having to spin the diamond in our hands.  The prism has been shattered and the light given to us.  Nonetheless, we were created as seekers of knowledge, as door knockers for truth, so even though it was given to us, we must continually search to strengthen our faith.  Reason upholds the faith, the second wing on the great bird taking us to heaven.

So the perspective presented here is one of a Catholic convinced of the truth of the Church through rational inquiry.  When I earned my first Masters Degree in Catholic Studies, it was the first time I was given perspectives. I was shown for the first time dialectic, by being taught what those opposed to the Church's teaching held. Of course, I had been given these same perspectives as an undergraduate, but the opposing views were not presented. I was spoonfed a existentialist relativism without dialectic. It was one relativist viewpoint, and by reason of it's lack of giving perpectives, extremely unphilosophical. Catholic Studies wasn't presented as "Here are the enemies of the Church," it was presented dialectically, "Is this true what this person argues? If this is true, then the Church is wrong."  This affirmed my faith because the Church basks in the stronghold of truth.  She didn't fear criticism or silence opposition; she listened, and rebuked with reason.  Her rebukes spoke most profoundly to my inner nature.  Was what she taught uncomfortable? At times, yes. But truth is often uncomfortable, so even the hard teachings beckoned my nature.

Following Socrates and the classical tradition, then, this blog will be dialectical.  It will question the Church, it will question post-modern Enlightenment dogma, it will question all. There is no fear of the truth here.  So, the truth comes to us in perspectives, but there is Truth.  We will look at the light through diamonds, in open ended inquiry.  My hero Aquinas left his great theological works open ended, they weren't meant to be the final say on truth, but were truly dialectical.  We will do the same here.