
The Underground Thomist
Blog
Does Beauty Have Survival Value?Monday, 07-07-2025
Query:C.S. Lewis said, "Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival." This prompts me to ask you whether you believe beauty is "necessary" for life. I am thinking that it’s technically not essential for survival, but still key to a good life. Would you share your thoughts on this?
Reply:I do think beauty is necessary for life, but to make my meaning clear, I had better make a few distinctions. Sometimes when we say that having P is “necessary” for doing Q, we mean that we can’t do Q as well without P. This is how we are speaking when we say that an automobile is “necessary” for getting to San Antonio. Sure, we could walk there, but it would be slow and difficult. Is beauty necessary for life in this sense? Yes. God has endowed us with such a powerful longing for beauty that if we are drowning in ugliness, we will probably be sad and listless even if we do stay alive. We will not be living well. On the other hand, sometimes when we say that having P is “necessary” for doing Q, we mean that we can’t do Q at all without P. This is how we are speaking when we say that lungs are “necessary” for breathing. Remove my lungs, and I die. Is beauty necessary for life in that sense? Probably not – yet in some cases it can be. One can imagine a person who has no beauty whatsoever in his life, who finally becomes so listless that he stops eating and taking care of himself, so that he does die. Your introduction of the expression “survival value” brings in another complication, though, because this expression too can be taken in two senses. A person who asks whether beauty has “survival value” may mean, “Given that we are creatures who powerfully long for beauty, will we die without it?” I’ve just answered that question above. We probably won’t die without it, but we might. But a person who asks whether beauty has “survival value” might instead mean something quite different. He might be asking, “Can I explain the human longing for beauty in terms of adaptation, as Darwin would have explained it? That is, would a creature which did long for beauty have a better shot at passing on its genes than a creature which didn’t long for it?” And to that question, the answer is plainly “No.” Consider a creature which desires only food, water, shelter, and a mate. If it can get these things, it not only survives but thrives, and if it doesn’t get them, it dies. Now consider a creature which not only desires food, water, shelter, and a mate, but also longs for beauty. The conditions for its flourishing aren’t easier to achieve, but harder, because even if it does have the other four things, it still may not have beauty. For this reason, one would expect a mere process of natural selection to work against the development of a general longing for beauty. Yet here we are. From a sheer biological perspective, this looks like a miracle. The suggestion that creatures like us are merely the meaningless and purposeless result of a process which did not have us in mind is staggeringly implausible.
|
Elon Musk, Babies, and TapewormsWednesday, 07-02-2025Elon Musk has many children with many women, some of them paid very large sums to bear them. He says his purpose is to help stave off population decline due to falling birthrates. A more likely motive is to multiply his own image. It is a technological solution to depopulation, like a photocopying machine: There aren't enough children, so get lots of women pregnant. Needless to say, this is not kind to the children. Human children need a mom and a dad, not a mom and a rich sperm donor. The moral solution to depopulation would be to marry, have lots of children with one's wife, and encourage others to do likewise. Earth's creatures have two ways to continue the species. Some, like tapeworms, have huge numbers of offspring but invest little or no time in any of them. Most of the offspring die, but a small percentage of a huge number is still something. If only Mr. Musk would think less like a tapeworm and more like a human being.
|
Rules-Based International OrderSaturday, 06-21-2025
Why do we keep finding ourselves at war? Why can’t all nations agree to a rules-based international order? The reason is that what the foreign policy establishment likes to call “rules-based international order” is something like a constitution without a government. Since there is no overall authority to enforce the rules, the system gives the advantage to rogues, who exploit the reluctance of rule-following states to act against them. Of course, even without an overall authority, likeminded states can act together to punish violations of the rules. But reaching agreement to do so is difficult, and the difficulty goes beyond merely getting them to agree. For how do you do away with the temptation to be a free rider? If some states agree to enact sanctions, then other states will use the opportunity to cut a deal with the rogue. In fact, even states which approve the sanctions in principle will be tempted to work around them quietly. Besides, the goal of those who cherish the idea of a rules-based international order is predictability. Everyone knows what everyone else will and won’t do under every condition. So those who aren’t pleased with the status quo game the system, always walking right up to the line and putting their toes a quarter of an inch beyond it. The temptation of the status quo states is to keep moving the line back. Thus, without occasional resort to force, the so-called rules-based international order makes certain disruptions of international order more likely rather than less. And that means less peace rather than more.
|
The FBI, Against Fanaticism and For ItSaturday, 06-14-2025
We know now that the FBI’s infamous Richmond Memo, targeting traditional Catholics as potential terrorists and comparing them with Islamists, was not merely the product of a few rogues in a single field office, as the agency had claimed. Multiple offices were involved in drafting it, and it was distributed to over a thousand employees. This post is not going to be a rant against the Biden administration. What interests me is what was going on in the analysts’ heads. I credit them with sincerity. But why did they think traditional Catholicism is comparable to the ideology of radical Islam? The most generous interpretation which can be placed on the memo is that the analysts thought of fanaticism simply as strong belief, and assumed that any strong belief is potentially violent. But a sensible definition of fanaticism would emphasize the content of belief, not its strength. You aren’t a fanatic for believing very strongly that you should “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” The more strongly you believe that, the less likely you are to be a terrorist. On the other hand, you really are a fanatic for believing that you should “kill them wherever you find them,” meaning Jews and infidels. The more strongly you believe that, the more likely you are to be a terrorist. The content of belief did come into the analysts’ definition in one way. They plainly believed strongly in their own ideology, yet it seems never to have occurred to them to view themselves as fanatics. It seems, then, that in their view, the term “fanatic” must have meant not just "anyone who believes strongly," but rather something like “Anyone who believes strongly enough in God, rather than in progressive dogma, for his belief to influence the rest of his life” – and the full force of the federal government must be used to surveil and suppress all such people. So by their definition, yes, traditional Catholics are fanatics. But by a more sensible definition, which ideology is a better candidate for being called by that label?
|
New Podcast – Anchored in the BodyWednesday, 06-11-2025
Gentle readers: Not long ago, I was interviewed by Marco Casanova for the Desert Streaming Podcast, and the interview has just been uploaded. The topic is “Anchored in the Body: Understanding Identity in a Post-Human Age.” You can go straight to the podcast, or go to my Talks page to see what else there is to see and hear. Hope you enjoy it!
|
Common SenseMonday, 06-09-2025
The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek words for love of wisdom. Often, though, what we call philosophy isn’t really love of wisdom, but merely love of unsettling received opinions. This love is often connected with contempt for any beliefs we can’t give reasons for. Ah, but there are reasons and reasons. The sort of reason one has in mind when he demands “Why do you believe so and so?” is a reason for so and so which the other fellow believes with even greater confidence than he believes so and so itself. But there is a problem with demanding that in every case. Certainly we can demand it in some cases. I believe that if two glasses have the same amount of milk, and that if I add the same amount of additional milk to each, then they will still have the same amount of milk. Why do I believe that they will? Because equals added to equals are equal. I am much more confident that equals added to equals are equal, than I am about my perceptions of milk. Very good. But why do I believe that I am sitting at my desk, writing about the matter? Sure, I could give “reasons” of a sort. I believe that I seem to be doing that. I believe that I remember sitting down. I believe that don’t remember getting back up. But although I am confident of those reasons too, I couldn’t say that I am more confident about them than I am that I am sitting at my desk. They aren’t that kind of reason. In fact, I seem more confident of some of my beliefs than I am of any of the reasons I might give for holding them. For example, I could certainly trace my belief “It’s wrong the twist the baby’s arm” to still deeper premises. But is that why I believe it? Probably not. And that’s okay. It is wrong. Matters of common sense which we believe even more than any of the reasons we might give for believing them are sometimes called “Moorean beliefs,” after the late philosopher G.E. Moore, who wrote about them in a famous article entitled “A Defense of Common Sense.” I happen to be thinking about them today because of a new book by Brian Besong, which defends natural law sexual ethics in terms of Moorean beliefs. The book, called Sex in Theory, is coming out in August, and I know about it because I was asked for a blurb. “At the very least,” I wrote, “a good moral theory should be able to explain our most obvious and deeply rooted beliefs and intuitions about right and wrong. Analytical philosopher Brian Besong convincingly shows that by this test, most theories of the rights and wrongs of sex spectacularly fail the test. Utilitarianism, for example, can’t explain the problem with bestiality, and Kantianism can’t even tell what is right about the natural intercourse of husband and wife. Exactly one theory passes the test: Natural law. This book is a truly fine contribution not only to the theory of sexuality, but to the renaissance of the natural law tradition.” Very interesting. It’s not an easy read for non-philosophers, but I recommend it.
|
Making Good Decisions Is Unfair to Everyone ElseMonday, 06-02-2025
“The science is finally settled on this one,” reads this magnificent specimen of reasoning: “people who consistently make good decisions enjoy an undeniable and unfair advantage in life.” No, it is not a satire. Silly me, I always thought making good decisions is “merely a matter of luck.” Amazingly, say the authors, it’s not! Then could it have something to do with prudence? Not that either! What a relief! But why doesn’t it? Because actually, good decisions result from a “virtuous cycle.” A virtuous cycle sounds like a good thing, doesn’t it? Wrong again. “Good decisions lead to better outcomes,” we find, “which in turn provide more opportunities and resources to make even better decisions in the future.” But by definition, all such advantages are “ill-gotten,” because deriving benefit from good decisions is unfair to everyone else. This is why “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” And that’s not all. Consider that virtuous cycle again. If good decisions lead to good results, and if good results lead to still more good decisions, ad infinitum, then we have a “compounding accumulation of ill-gotten advantages.” “Compounding” – where have we heard that word before? Why, that’s just like compound interest! And you know what that implies! As the authors explain, “You need not have listened to many Warren Buffett lectures to get the less than subtle hint that this good decision-making is inextricably linked to capitalism.” For the sake of equity, from now on I will try to make all my decisions foolishly. I’m so glad that “the science is finally settled on this one.”
|