Sacrificed and then discarded, in that order hopefully, otherwise it’s just waste.
Better for boys to learn and men to be adapted to the reality: Men are discarded every day should the conditions be such that he provides no further value to others. It just is this way. One can imagine many other ways it could be, but reality persists. In this men may reconcile themselves and choose to what they shall sacrifice before the inevitable.
"It’s been said that with 100 men and 1 woman, you can make a small number of children, but with 100 women and 1 man, a nation can arise on a short historical timeframe.... women are inclined toward a principal value of something like cultivation, or being cherished; men are inclined toward a principal value of something like sacrifice, or being discardable."
This has always struck me as a materialist argument. Or at best an argument that reduces man to merely animal nature. I don’t understand why a Catholic would be making it. As a materialist argument it is untrue; as a type of argument of the latter sort, it is uninteresting. As in, our ability to behave like animals is not an interesting subject.
It is also sentimental. It feels good (for a man in particular) to say women are to be cherished, and men are to be satisfied with being discarded. But it is not true. There is much more to be said about valuing a man’s ability to provide a spiritual haven to his wife and children. It is the sort of thing that cannot be done by a woman, and also the sort of thing that cannot be done by 1 man with 100 different women. It requires a one-to-one relationship, man with woman.
Only if we neglect considerations of the life and sustenance of the soul are men discardable. But again, why would a Catholic be making this sort of argument?
1. The natural law is abstracted from observations of material existence, so material existence is worthwhile to investigate & draw conclusions from. Proof: The rational intellect is in potential to all *material* essences—not to all essences knowable. (i.e. if we weren't drawing from material observations, we'd have nothing to work with.) This refutes paragraph 2.
2. The proper object of courage is death. Therefore, if man is going to provide a spiritual haven it’s going to require the virtue of courage, and thus a willingness to take on death. This refutes paragraph 3.
3. Christ, and all the martyrs, sacrificed themselves in this life for the good of souls. They were willing to be discarded for something greater than living in this world. Evidently, providing a "spiritual haven", which they certainly did to the highest degree, transcends this bodily life. This refutes paragraph 4.
Thanks for the reply, and your further thoughts. I have no issue with observations of material existence, but do have an issue with speaking as if they are the only realities. I don't suppose you think they are the only realities, but words have meaning, and I think discardable is a false word, not matching the reality. To face death courageously, as our Lord did, does not mean he was discarded, or expendable, like a trash can liner, or as something just used up and forgotten. Nor is this the case with any man, who has an immortal soul, and the unique ability to foster and protect spiritually as a father. He is called to sacrifice in a particular way, and I agree that nature reflects this in the surplus given to the male in his fertility. He is by nature equipped for sacrifice. This does not mean *he* is expendable or discardable.
A BRILLIANT PIECE! Thank you — and God Bless 🤲🏼
I'm very impressed by the brevity and succinct quality of this article. Bravo!
Sacrificed and then discarded, in that order hopefully, otherwise it’s just waste.
Better for boys to learn and men to be adapted to the reality: Men are discarded every day should the conditions be such that he provides no further value to others. It just is this way. One can imagine many other ways it could be, but reality persists. In this men may reconcile themselves and choose to what they shall sacrifice before the inevitable.
"It’s been said that with 100 men and 1 woman, you can make a small number of children, but with 100 women and 1 man, a nation can arise on a short historical timeframe.... women are inclined toward a principal value of something like cultivation, or being cherished; men are inclined toward a principal value of something like sacrifice, or being discardable."
This has always struck me as a materialist argument. Or at best an argument that reduces man to merely animal nature. I don’t understand why a Catholic would be making it. As a materialist argument it is untrue; as a type of argument of the latter sort, it is uninteresting. As in, our ability to behave like animals is not an interesting subject.
It is also sentimental. It feels good (for a man in particular) to say women are to be cherished, and men are to be satisfied with being discarded. But it is not true. There is much more to be said about valuing a man’s ability to provide a spiritual haven to his wife and children. It is the sort of thing that cannot be done by a woman, and also the sort of thing that cannot be done by 1 man with 100 different women. It requires a one-to-one relationship, man with woman.
Only if we neglect considerations of the life and sustenance of the soul are men discardable. But again, why would a Catholic be making this sort of argument?
1. The natural law is abstracted from observations of material existence, so material existence is worthwhile to investigate & draw conclusions from. Proof: The rational intellect is in potential to all *material* essences—not to all essences knowable. (i.e. if we weren't drawing from material observations, we'd have nothing to work with.) This refutes paragraph 2.
2. The proper object of courage is death. Therefore, if man is going to provide a spiritual haven it’s going to require the virtue of courage, and thus a willingness to take on death. This refutes paragraph 3.
3. Christ, and all the martyrs, sacrificed themselves in this life for the good of souls. They were willing to be discarded for something greater than living in this world. Evidently, providing a "spiritual haven", which they certainly did to the highest degree, transcends this bodily life. This refutes paragraph 4.
Thanks for the reply, and your further thoughts. I have no issue with observations of material existence, but do have an issue with speaking as if they are the only realities. I don't suppose you think they are the only realities, but words have meaning, and I think discardable is a false word, not matching the reality. To face death courageously, as our Lord did, does not mean he was discarded, or expendable, like a trash can liner, or as something just used up and forgotten. Nor is this the case with any man, who has an immortal soul, and the unique ability to foster and protect spiritually as a father. He is called to sacrifice in a particular way, and I agree that nature reflects this in the surplus given to the male in his fertility. He is by nature equipped for sacrifice. This does not mean *he* is expendable or discardable.