The purpose of education

The purpose of education is friendship.

This is what I heard from a CiRCE Institute podcast, from one of its founders. I hadn't thought of it like this before. I might have said that the purpose of education is to know the truth, or to be virtuous, or something along those lines. Yet, if the purpose of virtue is friendship - true friendship, that is - then the purpose of education must be friendship. Our education ought to train us to be capable of true friendship.

How different this purpose is from that the world now thinks is the purpose of education: career; or even more base: money or status. It is interesting also that in our day, career is almost always placed above friendship as a life priority.

I was listening to an episode of On Point on NPR, talking about the decline of male friendship. According to many who research these things, almost all men lose all their friendships by middle age. Men in middle and old age, for the most part, have no intimate friendships with anybody, and the resulting loneliness is causing a host of physical and psychological health problems. How did it happen? It happened because men placed career and family above friendship, and over time all their friendships fell away. It's not entirely men's faults. Our society expects men to treat career and family above friendship. Friendship cannot be forged in isolation; it is a collaborative exercise requiring mutual acknowledgement and commitment of two individuals. Thus, even if one man decided to place friendship above or equal to career and family, chances are he would find no one willing or able to reciprocate. This is the process by which male friendship has eroded into nonexistence over the past few decades.

The Masculine Genius

The quest for and the perception of beauty. This is an integral part of the masculine genius, yet much maligned in our age both by women (with some justification) and by some feeble-minded men who think they can thereby ingratiate themselves with women. Men can be friends with women or lovers, but no man should ever be buddies with women, especially at such a price. A man who disparages the masculine genius is just as pitiable as the woman who disparages the feminine genius. You want to shake him and say, "Snap out of it, brother!"

If no man ever found Helen beautiful, there never would have been a Trojan War; but neither also would there have been an Iliad. Speaking from my own experience with women, it just doesn't seem that women have a taste for beauty like men. This can be seen foremost in the ways some women attempt to make themselves appear beautiful to men. A woman's beauty resides in her soul and her virtues; anytime she attempts to appeal to a man with immodesty, she appeals to what is base and lustful in man, but not to man's desire for beauty. But sometimes it seems that women don't see any difference between the two. 

(We first learn from our mothers that we are loved, but it is only from our fathers that we learn that we are worthy of love, that is, that we are beautiful. And for those of us who had absent or less than perfect fathers, we learn that more perfectly from our Heavenly Father anyway.)

The works of art women make, too, are often original, powerful, tender, humorous, disturbing, genius, intricate, and often moreso than art made by men, but rarely do I find it more beautiful. (A notable exception, I think, is the realm of the performing arts, at which women excel in creating beauty, and that, I think, because they are portraying beauty from within, rather than beauty in something else). I know I have some female readers. I don't mean to offend by saying this. I'm generally curious whether you agree. 

It follows, also, that women just can't perceive beauty in men like men can. I do not think women find beautiful men attractive. There are other things about men that attract women. As with women, a man's beauty lies in his soul and his virtues. A woman may find a man's soul and virtues attractive, but probably not because they are beautiful, but for other reasons (and there is nothing wrong with this; it is perfectly natural). I got the sense, growing up with my mom and my sister, that they were entirely oblivious to male beauty. Maybe I'm wrong, and their appreciation of beauty was deeply hidden, but as they would have had no reason to hide it, this doesn't seem likely. 

This is one reason why I think men need male friends. Everyone needs someone to find him beautiful (women, do you agree?), and men are the ones best equipped for the task. It is a part of man's genius, after all. (And I mean nothing impure or disordered here). In friendship, men show other men that they are beautiful and worthy to be loved, though in our age of suspicions about love between men, this end of friendship is heavily veiled under other pretexts, communicated in indirect ways. In less perverted ages, this was not necessary, as can be readily noted from literature and Scripture. 

But I am curious as to whether I'm wrong about all this. To any women who wish do respond: Do you find men beautiful? Is your attraction to men motivated by a quest for beauty? What qualities do you find make a man beautiful? In seeking female friends, are you drawn to the beauty of woman, or to something else? What makes a woman beautiful?

More on Cicero and Friendship

I have some more thoughts in response to Cicero's On Friendship.

Last time I wrote about Cicero's view of friendship as higher than the natural relations of family because it is not indissoluble. If a man is unfaithful or disloyal to a spouse or relative, he violates the natural law. This makes sense, as marriage and family are necessary for our survival, and that is why these relations are indissolubly bound by blood and covenant, and violated to our peril.

Friendship, on the other hand, is not bound by blood or covenant, but is dissoluble. It is not law and vow that binds a man to be a loyal and faithful friend, but his own character and integrity. This is why those lacking virtue are incapable of beginning or sustaining true friendship. Friendship, being founded on less secure and more fragile parts of our nature, requires greater care and attention, such that only the wise and virtuous can pull it off. Friendship is not, strictly speaking, necessary for survival, but it is necessary for thriving, joy, and happiness on earth; humanity reaching its full natural potential. 

We may no longer value friendship as the Greeks and Romans did. We may think it something lower, on the way to something else, or something temporary and to be used for our pleasure and advantage; a little hobby to piddle around with on the side. (The ancients would not call this true friendship.) Whether or not we value true friendship like the Greeks and Romans, it is undeniable that we are freeloading off of their commitment to and obsession with true friendship. 

It is not an accident that the Greeks and Romans dominated the ancient world politically, culturally, and intellectually, and laid the foundations of our civilization. It is due, in large part, to the extreme degree to which their leaders and thinkers valued and pursued true friendship.

Societies that only have good-will for spouses and kin, but are prone to back-stabbing, deception, quarreling, and warfare with non-kin and outsiders, are societies that remain perpetually tribal in nature. Thousands of years go by, and they survive and pass on many lovely family traditions, spend many nights in the comfort and security of their loved ones, but they never move on to something higher, something that transcends the insularity of their households and private interests, something that unites all of humanity in good-will.

If only we were as noble as these tribal societies, much less the ancient sages! For, we are coming to the point where we can scarcely even pull off marriage and family, much less true and unwavering friendship. It is rarer, these days, to find even a man who has good-will for his parents, children, or spouse, much less a non-relative. We are truly freeloaders on the faithfulness of our forefathers - but how long can we pull off this selfish act before facing the consequences? We already see signs of the degradation of society's structures...

Here's a snippet from Cicero:

[M]ost men unreasonably, not to say shamelessly, want a friend to be such as they cannot be themselves and require from friends what they themselves do not bestow. But the fair thing is, first of all, to be a good man yourself and then to seek another like yourself. It is among such men that this stability of friendship, of which I have been treating for some time, may be made secure; and when united by ties of goodwill, they will first of all subdue those passions to which other men are slaves; and, next, they will delight in what is equitable and accords with law, and will go to all lengths for each other; they will not demand from each other anything unless it is honourable and just, and they will not only cherish and love, but they will also revere, each other. For he who takes reverence from friendship, takes away its brightest jewel. Therefore a fatal mistake is made by those who think that friendship opens wide the door to every passion and to every sin. Friendship was given to us by nature as the handmaid of virtue, not as a comrade of vice; because virtue cannot attain her highest aims unattended, but only in union and fellowship with another. Such a partnership as this, whether it is, or was, or is yet to be, should be considered the best and happiest comradeship along the road to nature's highest good. In such a partnership, I say, abide all things that men deem worthy of pursuit — honour and fame and delightful tranquillity of mind; so that when these blessings are at hand life is happy, and without them, it cannot be happy.

The only thing missing from Cicero, I think, is charity, but he comes about as close as possible, for a heathen, to the Gospel truth.

Cicero on Friendship

I'm reading his Laelius de Amicitia (translated On Friendship usually). Cicero, speaking through the character of Laelius, contends that friendship is higher than family or neighbor (the relations according to nature), for the very fact that it is not indissoluble. This is radically opposed to our culture's understanding, I think.

Among family, there can be breaches in trust, fidelity, and good-will. Family bonds can be played out partly or entirely on use or pleasure. Yet, family is always family, no matter what. This is why family is a baser form of love. In friendship, however, at the very moment good-will ceases in either one of the two, friendship ceases by definition. And, friendship is not even possible in the first place among those who lack virtue or merely seek to use others for pleasure or social advantages. Relationships such as those are not true friendships at all. Thus, for Cicero, friendship is the highest and rarest love among human beings, requiring more from a man than anything else, such that many or most men are not capable of giving or receiving it.

He says that friendships allow a man to thrive and prosper. In friendship, a man's fortune's are doubled (because two share them together) and his sorrows are halved (because the two share them together). However, it is not for any convenience to himself that a man enters into true friendship (this, again, would be a relationship of use, not friendship). Rather, he who is virtuous makes friends by virtue of his virtue itself, and any benefit is as a side effect.

I'm eager to read more.

The Ultimate Relationship

(Part 3 of 3) I will recap my points from the previous posts, then in my blog I will move on to other topics.

Marriage, perhaps because it is under attack, has been promoted by well-meaning groups as a kind of Ultimate Relationship that fulfills all needs, has no limitations, and reaches all possibilities of human excellence. It has been promoted as a kind of Rosetta Stone to unlock the meaning of every aspect of Reality, a medicine to cure every spiritual and societal illness. I believe that this is an immoderate viewpoint.

A moderate assessment shows that marriage is good and holy and essential to human society and flourishing, but that it also places impediments and limitations on a relationship, by its very nature. To be a good husband to a woman means I cannot be a certain kind of friend for her. She must go to someone else for that kind of friendship. Being married to a woman means I should not be in a spiritual relationship with her. She must go to someone else for a spiritual relationship. The contrary is true also. To be a certain kind of friend for someone means that I cannot also be in the role of spouse or partner for that person.

We already intuit this in the case of kindred. Being a brother for my sister means I cannot be her husband. That would be Gross. But, in our time, we have lost the distinctions of marriage, spiritual affinity, and friendship. Our culture tries to force sexual relationships to fulfill the roles of all three at once. We are looking for one person to be our rock, our everything. We seek it because the movies, songs, and poems tell us to, and our peers and relatives say so.

What is the point of all of this? I find that the overvaluation of marriage, especially among the single, who don't see the reality from the inside, has lead to a kind of idolization resulting in envy and verging on despair. This sort of idolization causes some to grasp for (potential) spouses with an unhealthy attachment, meanwhile neglecting the other persons with whom God might be calling them to practice total self-gift. The (moderate) truth is that we are forced, in this short life, to practice total self-gift within the confines of limited relationships that cannot completely fulfill us, and marriage (like the relations of friends and kindred) is one of these limited relationships. To view it otherwise is to place it in a position that can only justly be occupied by our relationship with Christ, who is the only One with whom we can be in the Ultimate Relationship on either side of eternity.

In Scripture, Christ speaks to us in the language of all three: brother, friend, spouse. This is not insignificant. Each of these limited relationships gives us a glimpse into the reality of our relationship with Him.

Marriage and True Friendship

(Part 2 of 3) I was wrong to say that spouses are not entirely capable of true friendship. What I mean is that marriage, by its nature, excludes some of the equally excellent possibilities of true friendship. No one relationship, save our relationship with Christ, can exhibit all possibilities of friendship and love. To say yes to one relationship model with a person is to say no to other possibilities that are equally excellent. Marriage, by its nature, is a cleaving of two persons, who become one flesh, which inherently excludes some possibilities, but opens up other possibilities. In the same way, disinterested friendship is a bond that allows for the flourishing of possibilities that are diminished by the kind of attachment found in marriage. Thus, I would say that marriage has the possibility of becoming a true friendship, but that this true friendship is nonetheless limited by the very thing that makes marriage itself excellent: the unity of spouses and the procreation of children.

It was not God's plan that one human relationship should achieve all possibilities of excellence. This is why Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply. It would otherwise have been sufficient for Adam and Eve to be fruitful only: to have one male and one female child, who would marry and repeat the process. But we see, in God's plan, the desire for an abundance of persons, so that societies might flourish in the world, not merely man and woman and their nuclear family. Society consists of a variety and layering of relationships, each with its own kind of excellence and depth, to the exclusion of others. The conjugal dyad is not the crowning achievement, but it is the noble beginning of it all, and all ultimately points to our union with God in heaven.

As an example to show that there are a variety of relationships with excellence, which exclude other possibilities, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that those in a spiritual relationship with each other (through sponsorship in baptism or confirmation) cannot (validly or licitly) marry each other. And, if those who are married enter into a spiritual relationship, it is an impediment to the marriage, though it does not dissolve it. The reason why, according to Thomas, is that "spiritual relationship is by itself a sufficient reason for friendship", and, if you're looking to marry someone, you need to seek intimacy and friendship with someone else.

Valuing Marriage, Family, and Friendship

(Part 1 of 3) Marriage, family, and friendship together form a threefold foundation upon which society flourishes. In our time, all three are under assault. 

There was the Protestant/Puritan/Victorian prudishness, which viewed the body and sexuality as dirty and animalistic and which suppressed and hid this part of our nature (with some exceptions, such as outdoor nude swimming and bathing, which is too much for even our "sexually liberated" era). 

Then there was the Sexual Revolution, which was a reaction against this, oddly keeping the belief that the body and sexuality are dirty and animalistic, but going to the opposite extreme of reveling in it by behaving as animals and exhibiting and using the body as an object. Following this was the rapid destruction of the family and the ubiquitous practice of perverse, selfish, and disordered sexual acts. 

Following this, in my opinion, was another reaction, in many Catholic and other Christian circles, an overvaluation of family, marriage, and sexuality, which has caused its own problems. What are some examples of what I mean? The notion that sexual intimacy is the only or the highest form of intimacy. The framing of all Truth through the lens of marriage and sexuality.

What we need, then, is a solid valuation of marriage, family, and friendship, neither undervaluing, nor overvaluing, any one of the three. In my opinion, the overvaluing of marriage and sexuality actually worsens the assault against true marriage and sexuality. If in our society the sexual relationship is considered the highest and only true form of love and intimacy, and friendship is reduced to a kind of second-rate option, it is then no surprise that those who are not called to true marriage will be under heavy pressure to create false visions of marriage and sexuality, since love and self-gift are the vocation of all people. The best way to defend marriage and sexuality, as the Catechism suggests, is the cultivation of and flourishing of intimate (but chaste and disinterested) friendship.

Marital/sexual relationships should be valued, then, but moderately, in their place. The same applies to familial relationships and friendship. We need all three in order to flourish as a society. We must recognize the excellence and the limitations of all three.

Friendship is limited in that friends cannot achieve total unity, for they are not one flesh. Marriage is limited in that spouses cannot achieve total disinterestedness with one another, because they are one flesh. As it turns out, the excellence of each is also the limitation. Friendship is at its highest in disinterested love which gives birth to virtue and truth; marriage is at its highest in unitive love, which procreates new life. It is for this reason that there are some things a person can say and do with his/her spouse, but not with a friend; and there are some things he/she would say or do with a friend, but not with his/her spouse. (I contend, against what some would say, that spouses are not entirely capable of true friendship.)

Yet, both friendship and marriage, properly lived, are images of Charity, of Christ's sacrificial love. Only in our relationship with Christ can we achieve both total friendship and total unity. And the world needs examples of true marriage and true friendship to guide us to that end toward which we were made.

Thanksgiving Thoughts

On Thanksgiving I wish, first of all, to thank God for giving me life and my parents for saying yes to it. I'm thankful for my family and my friends. I'm thankful for the many blessings and privileges which I have enjoyed in life, knowing full-well that I am not a self-made man. And, though I never would have welcomed them, I am thankful for what the little suffering and grief I've faced in life has taught me, both about myself, that I may be more grateful and humble, and about others, that I may look outside of my interests toward the wellbeing of others.

One thing, though, has especially been on my heart this year, that I am especially thankful for. There is someone who taught me much, and continues to teach me though we are apart. At the time, I did not know I was being taught. I took her presence for granted. But, with every passing day this year, I have looked to her example for wisdom, and her life inspires me to be compassionate to others, and to know myself more deeply. I repent of having taken her for granted.

I think of her and other friends who are no longer with me. What I learn from this is to be grateful today for what I will wish I had been grateful for tomorrow. Because today is passing away forever, and the things we do, or refuse to do, will be forever.