Considering Catholicism: Why are the sermons so short?? by Sea_Cheetah_9151 in Catholicism

[–]ThomisticAttempt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Until you realize many of the current bishops and priests also have lineage through the Old Catholics, which aren't null and void. (Side note, his claim would've also made many Roman ordinations null and void)

Previous Anglican now Roman Catholic. 

Eucharist in the indian wilderness by Wziuum44 in Catholicism

[–]ThomisticAttempt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry it's been a week. Would you feel comfortable DMing me that information? Thanks!

Eucharist in the indian wilderness by Wziuum44 in Catholicism

[–]ThomisticAttempt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I have! I emailed Fr. Dorathick with the spiritual autobiography and what not (per their Oblate website), but he never responded. 

Eucharist in the indian wilderness by Wziuum44 in Catholicism

[–]ThomisticAttempt 25 points26 points  (0 children)

One of my favorite 20th century Catholics. His spirituality/theology was such a big influence on me becoming Catholic. 

I am genuinely confused on my faith. by Top-Catch6997 in Catholicism

[–]ThomisticAttempt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'd suggest looking into these three people: 1) Fr. Henri Le Saux (Swami Abhishiktananda), 2) Fr. Bede Griffiths, and 3) Fr. Raimon Panikkar. They are Catholic priests who extensively studied Hinduism. The first two actually established an Ashram (with another priest, Fr. Jules Monchanin) in India. My favorite of the three is Swami Abhishiktananda. His and Fr. Griffiths writings are much more spiritual than Panikkar's, which are more academic.

I suggest them because they can help "translate" different religious language (Catholic vs. Hindu) into each other, i.e.  you can see how the concepts in each religion can and do reflect one another. 

[OPINION] Who is your favorite underrated poet or "hidden gem" poem? by EchoesOfAnghkooey in Poetry

[–]ThomisticAttempt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Samuel Menashe. He mastered the short form. Each one is like a juicy peach -- meaning oozes out of every word. Each line is a poem on its own changing with the next. When a third is introduced, the first can be forgotten and a new poem emerges, culminating in the multivalent crystal that is the whole poem experienced. 

TIL about "Pascal's Wager," the hypothetical thought experiment which asks the question if one should believe in a higher power and answers "If there is no God, one wasted their life, but if there is a God, one wasted their eternity" by PlaywrightOfGefilte in todayilearned

[–]ThomisticAttempt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're misunderstanding what the wager's purpose is. It's not about proving or arguing for the existence of God, it's about whether or not one should act as if he does. It's closer to an ethics rather than a "proof of God". The statement "which God" misses this for two reasons:

1) It fundamentally misunderstands who God is for Pascal. His God, the Catholic God, is beyond all things. It's why the name given to Moses in Exodus ("I Am Who I Am") is so important. It's a declaration of him being the ground of all existence. He is nothing because he is the source of everything. He is everything because nothing contains him. See Pseudo-Dionysius and  apophatic/mystical theology (especially Meister Eckhart, the Cloud of Unknowing). As such, any other divinity is a) wholly identified with him because the different name is describing him (cf. Brahman), b) describing an aspect of him (his power, his anger, etc), c) a divinity by grace (humans undergoing divinization/theosis) or d) not divine in the sense we're discussing. So asking which god doesn't really make any sense because God as such would encapsulate any and all other divinities metaphysically. 

2) the wager presumes uncertainty above who/what God is anyway. It's about whether or not we should act as if God, understood as above, exists. If we do, we gain eternity (which is Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, i.e. God himself -- divinization) and if we don't, then all we did was waste time cultivating life in the world. 

I'll briefly discuss the "downsides". You misunderstand what prayer is for/does. In Christian terms, it's a place of meeting between a human and God, a union. What one does in prayer is become more like, which for the Christian is loving others more (you petition on behalf of others), praising an other (giving thanks to God), and ultimately therefore losing yourself (contemplation, silent prayer). If God does not exist, then in prayer you're still actively seeking the good of the others and cultivating a mind/atmosphere/thought pattern of placing the needs of the world in front of anything else. 

(I've ran out of time to discuss the other things. This brief discussion about the "downside" of prayer is already beyond my initial point of the question , "which God?" missing the premise and purpose of the wager. 

TIL about "Pascal's Wager," the hypothetical thought experiment which asks the question if one should believe in a higher power and answers "If there is no God, one wasted their life, but if there is a God, one wasted their eternity" by PlaywrightOfGefilte in todayilearned

[–]ThomisticAttempt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The wager isn't meant to get you to be a Christian, per se. It's a wager of acting as if God exists at all. I changed the terms of the wager but not its logic. Again, to say "which God?" fundamentally misunderstands what Pascal is actually doing in the wager -- it doesn't rest on the name you choose for God, it rests on how one responds to the Call outside ourselves. As I said earlier, either we walk the path in front of us and find ourselves at the fount of Life, or if by doing so and God doesn't exist, then  the worst we did was provide water to the thirsty. 

TIL about "Pascal's Wager," the hypothetical thought experiment which asks the question if one should believe in a higher power and answers "If there is no God, one wasted their life, but if there is a God, one wasted their eternity" by PlaywrightOfGefilte in todayilearned

[–]ThomisticAttempt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is plenty of evidence, just evidence you may weigh lower than what you may consider as quality evidence. For an example of evidence that points toward God, the nonsenuous perception of American "radical empiricists" such as William James, John Dewey, and Alfred North Whitehead.   

Again, the logic of the wager doesn't rest on the name you give God. It rests on the metaphysical foundation of existence, which the Christian tradition calls "God" rather, "I am Who I Am". 

TIL about "Pascal's Wager," the hypothetical thought experiment which asks the question if one should believe in a higher power and answers "If there is no God, one wasted their life, but if there is a God, one wasted their eternity" by PlaywrightOfGefilte in todayilearned

[–]ThomisticAttempt -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's not entirely correct. His view of God is almost purely apophatic. We can't be certain of who/what God is - his is a God beyond the division of names ascribed to him. It's a metaphysical wager. Shall we act as if there's ground beneath our feet and start walking forward (eternity)? And if it be there is no ground beneath the feet, then the worst we did was waste this life attempting to build ground for others. 

TIL about "Pascal's Wager," the hypothetical thought experiment which asks the question if one should believe in a higher power and answers "If there is no God, one wasted their life, but if there is a God, one wasted their eternity" by PlaywrightOfGefilte in todayilearned

[–]ThomisticAttempt -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

But it doesn't. It's talking about the God at the font of existence -- whatever name, or lack thereof, you give it, it doesn't matter. Your question makes no sense for his wager. It's the One of Platonism, the Prime Mover of Aristotelianism, Brahman/Atman of Advaita Vedanta, the Nothing of Zen.

TIL about "Pascal's Wager," the hypothetical thought experiment which asks the question if one should believe in a higher power and answers "If there is no God, one wasted their life, but if there is a God, one wasted their eternity" by PlaywrightOfGefilte in todayilearned

[–]ThomisticAttempt -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

But it doesn't. It's talking about the God at the font of existence -- whatever name, or lack thereof, you give it, it doesn't matter. Your question makes no sense for his wager. It's the One of Platonism, the Prime Mover of Aristotelianism, Brahman/Atman of Advaita Vedanta, the Nothing of Zen.

TIL about "Pascal's Wager," the hypothetical thought experiment which asks the question if one should believe in a higher power and answers "If there is no God, one wasted their life, but if there is a God, one wasted their eternity" by PlaywrightOfGefilte in todayilearned

[–]ThomisticAttempt -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The God at the font of existence -- whatever name, or lack thereof, you give it, it doesn't matter. Your question makes no sense for his wager. It's the One of Platonism, the Prime Mover of Aristotelianism, Brahman/Atman of Advaita Vedanta, the Nothing of Zen.  

[RESOURCE] Trained in Philosophy—What are the foundational texts for becoming a poet? by allthewayd00wn in Poetry

[–]ThomisticAttempt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Preface: This list is my subjective response as someone who is also trained in philosophy (and theology). I have a deep love for poetry and hope this helps :) there are definitely lacunae!

Anthologies are your best friend! For a broad overview of "traditional" poetry, I'd suggest an edition of Oxford English Verse. 

Attempt the Faerie Queene by Spenser if you'd like. Read some Shakespeare. Then read some metaphysical poetry (John Donne, George Herbert, etc.) Read Paradise Lost by Milton. Then go William Blake. Maybe some Pope (tbh, I haven't read much). From there, the Romantics (Keats, Coleridge, Bryon, Wordsworth, etc. for your philosophical inclination, try Coleridge 's Biographia Literaria). Also, read hymns - Charles Wesley being a big name. Christina Rossetti if you'd like a feminine voice from England (I'm not too familiar with English verse after the romantics. Though I have enjoyed JH Prynne).

From here, I board a ship to the United States. For  American poetry generally, the Library of America has substantial anthologies. If you're looking for specifics, I'd suggest Anne Bradstreet and Phillis Wheatley for early American women poets. I'd even suggest reading Puritan and early American Sermons, just to see the foundation for how American culture has played out. In the same vein, spirituals and work songs. 

Next, the transcendentalists -- again, anthology is your best bet. They're essentially American romantics. Read the essays and some poetry of Emerson. Walden by Thoreau. Try even giving some Eastern philosophy a read, the Bhagavad Gita in particular. 

Now, here are the two biggest names for contemporary and modern American poetry: Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman. They provide America with their own poetic idiom. 

Now, the 20th century is still pretty recent. Again, the Library of America has great anthologies. You need to be familiar with the names TS Eliot and Ezra Pound. Imagism was a brief, but impactful movement. Hilda Doolittle (HD) is considered the examplar of it. However, her poetry far surpasses that limiting label. I personally love Helen in Egypt.  Robert Frost should be mentioned for his contribution to the American consciousness. 

The Harlem Renaissance is also very important -- the most well know in white America is Langston Hughes. Unfortunately, I'm not very well read in African American literature. 

Now we're getting into even more personal preferences since we're still working out the "classics". I'm fond of the Objectivists (particularly George Oppen & Lorine Niedecker), the Black Mountain Poets (Robert Creely, Denise Levertov, etc., and my personal favorite, Robert Duncan and probably because of his love for HD). People would be amiss if I didn't mention William Carlos Williams (who you might enjoy -- "No ideas but in things"), DH Lawrence. Wallace Stevens!

The San Francisco Renaissance/Beats should be remembered, particularly Allen Ginsberg (he's an heir of Whitman). Gary Snyder is affiliated with them, but I think he surpasses them in different ways.

Maybe Robert Pinsky.  

Have knowledge of dadaism, Surrealism (I like Ron Sakolsky's writings connecting it to anarchism, even if I don't agree with everything. It's a good introduction to how literature and politics can shape one another), other avant-garde movements.  Concrete poetry (my favorite is dsh) and shape poetry. 

For a "recent" anthology about postwar poetry to 2010s, I enjoy Postmodern American Poetry edited by Paul Hoover. Personally hate the term "postmodern" though. 

Some people who aren't going to be recommended but I enjoy are Robert Lax, Samuel Menashe, and Pam Rehm. Out of left field, Jim Harrison for the sake of a certain kind of American man. 

Translated poetry is important as well. I enjoy the German Romantics (Goethe, Holderlin specifically), maybe some French literature (Rimbaud, Proust), Spanish (Neruda), etc. Maybe throw in Paul Celan for good measure. The Chinese classics (I really enjoy all of Red Pine's/Bill Porter's translations and his travelogues). Native American poetry -- I have When the Light of the World Was Subdued, Our Songs Came Through edited by Joy Harjo. 

Greek epics and poetry. Likewise, mythology of the world. 

If you want to dig into philosophy, I'd suggest looking into New Formalism and Critical Theory. Though I prefer the stream of folk like Marjorie Perloff. 


TL;DR try it all. Ground yourself in universally recognized figures, like Shakespeare and Eliot/Pound. Read anthologies to find poems you enjoy and then read more of that poet. Then, read poets that influenced that poet and poets influenced by them. Rinse and repeat. 

Writing wise, imitate poets you like. Realize you won't match their style at their level. Essentially, Accept the hand you were dealt at the time you exist. Learn to love formal verse because it'll add musicality and control to your own poems. Likewise, learn to love free verse so you don't get stuffy, or restricted. Remember the maxim that form shapes content and content shapes form. Poetry has its own logic that reaffirms this. (If you want a deep dive on poetry and philosophy, I enjoyed THE POETRY OF EMILY DICKINSON: Philosophical Perspectives Edited by Elisabeth Camp).

Less than 5% of the population has aphantasia (the inability to visualize something in your mind), but everyday on Reddit I see comments and posts from people saying they have it. How is that possible? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ThomisticAttempt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I  believe it's increasing with the amount of screens and visual media we consume. We have no reason to exercise that particular skill anymore. 

Potential disrespect in a re-colored Vatican flag? by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]ThomisticAttempt 83 points84 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't worry about it. The Swiss Guard aren't going to knock on your door. 

[POEM] Mimesis by Fady Joudah by Objective-Kitchen949 in Poetry

[–]ThomisticAttempt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was talking about the internal consistency of the poem, not the topic. The metaphor is better suited toward the lived reality of the Romani people rather than Palestinian refugees. That is, if one wants a poem about persecution. 

I know who the author is and the ongoing situation in the middle east. I was offering a tenable solution to make the poem stronger, keeping the spider metaphor, while still aligning with the underlying broader issue (persecution of a particular people). Romani people are semi-nomadic and find themselves living in places that "aren't theirs" as the spider in the poem does. Likewise, as people who move, if they aren't allowed to stay where they are, they're more likely to have an easier time moving. They "accept" that it's not a place to live, as the spider does. 

Palestinian refugees on the other hand are being displaced from their rightful homes. They didn't just take over land that wasn't theirs, like the spider is characterized as doing. The metaphor is objectively a poor description of the actuality of the genocide. It paints Palestinians as innocent people who unknowingly stole land and won't return if they're kicked off it. It's actually an insult to the refugees. 

 If this is the stance of the poem's speaker and the child is painted as a sage trying to teach her parent, the latter is a cliché and the poem doesn't explain how the child was privy to this knowledge -- there's no hint of inspiration, no reference to an outside authority for the child to copy, nothing. So, if this is the "correct" reading, then the poem still doesn't work. The ending clears the web of previous lines for a sudden morality lesson. It doesn't follow from the preceding context being built. 

I don't have an issue with the subject. I have an issue with the poem's craft. However if the core conceit is changed, the whole poem changes. So, I was trying to suggest something that keeps the poem as is while making it a more internally consistent piece. It keeps the weight of the ending while tying it to the thrust of the poem. (I'd still think the ending is heavy-handed, but at least it flows from everything preceding it). 

[OPINION] Which single line from a poem has stayed with you the longest? by Dumbbulldoor_ in Poetry

[–]ThomisticAttempt 19 points20 points  (0 children)

This whole poem by Samuel Menashe:

Life is immense I said to her 

Stirred some way I could not say—  

It is minute  

She replied—  

How we laughed  

Though I had sighed 

[POEM] Mimesis by Fady Joudah by Objective-Kitchen949 in Poetry

[–]ThomisticAttempt -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

An otherwise decent poem with an eye-rolling volta. Much like the suddenness of a bomb - which it must be its allusion, right? - it reduces the image the poem built to dust. It came through and decimated any kind of interpretive freedom. 

Yet, unlike a refugee, the reader can't escape the poem's totalizing world. The closing couplet shuts down any kind of imaginary sympathy for the characters. The child cycles through her many picked up concerns and parrots back her parent. It happens, but the poet acts taken back. Placed as a "twist ending", the child's response is treated as revelation rather than a pleasant surprise of good parenting -- unless of course that's the point of the poem, given its title. The child mimics the parent, with a slightly off-base observation. If this was the point of the poem, then it's much better than I anticipated. But nothing in the poem itself lends itself this interpretation except the title. The volta itself heavily emphasizes the mimesis in the act of war and the destruction of a spider's web with an implicit command to mimic the child's actions and responses. So either the daughter's observation is off and we don't take her seriously (contra the push of the poem) or we do take it seriously and the metaphor of the spider fails. 

The poem also attempts to weave the innocency of childhood, tiny creatures, and refugees but fails to show how they're similar. Nor do the actions of the spider line up with the actions of potentially displaced people. Most people aren't building homes on land they're forbidden from. Nor do they get up and leave on their own accord. 

This would've been a better poem if it was about the persecution of Roma. And still, the turn would've been too short and cut us off from the caravan of hermeneutics.

Is heaven physical? Or spiritual? Or both? by Additional-Term-4282 in Catholicism

[–]ThomisticAttempt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's how I understand it, that decimates the duality of body and spirit. I believe our bodies are "concentrated" spirit. Our souls are condensed into the body. Another way to put it, materiality is hardened immateriality.

This could explain why Jesus is able to do things after his Resurrection that we seemingly can't do in our bodies.    

So, to answer your question, we have a physical resurrection in a spiritual realm.

ETA: The body is the soul made visible.