On Oughtness

Introduction

One of the most interesting questions of history is ‘how ought man behave?’ Probably the most interesting part of that question, at least in this author’s opinion, is the word ought. If the word had been ‘does’ then we would have a whole different issue on our hands. We would begin to describe all the social habits of the curious creature known as man. If, on the other hand, the question had been ‘why does man behave as he does?’ then we would have yet another completely different discussion ensue. That discussion would probably take the form of evaluating the psychology of man and what things he does because of nature versus what things he does because of nurture and so on.

But our discussion for the purpose of this paper is oughtness. I propose to take a tour through some of the foundational works of social science and divide them between pre-modern and modern to see where there is agreement and disagreement. It is my supposition that what will be found is a distinct shift in thinking on oughtness (which is synonymous with objective moral truth) when the transition happens from pre-modern to modern. I will try to draw out, through the course of this paper, what it is that I believe has driven this shift in thinking.

For our pre-modern works I will consider Solomon’s Proverbs, Plato’s The Republic, and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. For the works of modernity I will be considering Machiavelli’s The Prince, selections from Karl Marx’s Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, and finally Friedrich Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals. Certainly a great deal of other works could be considered but these works may be representative of a general way of thinking in the pre-modern versus modern of world. Exceptions are, of course, always available to the norm.

Solomon’s Proverbs

First I want consider the oughtness presented to us by Solomon. Of what kind is it and where does it originate? Let us consider the introduction of Solomon’s work:

The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: To know wisdom and instruction,  to understand words of insight, to receive instruction in wise dealing,  in righteousness, justice, and equity; to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— Let the wise hear and increase in learning,  and the one who understands obtain guidance, to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Here we Solomon’s purpose in writing. He is writing to instruct about the gaining of knowledge, wisdom, insight, wise dealings, righteousness, justice, equity, prudence and discretion. All of these words imply a sense of oughtness. Had we gone on to the next verse we would have found that Solomon is addressing his work to his son. These are things he wishes his son to know and apply to his life because Solomon believes he ought to.  But why ought he to?

The answer comes, I think, at the end of the section I quoted. “The fear of the Lords is the beginning of knowledge.” All of the oughtness of Solomon’s work has this as its reference point, the Lord. A closely related term for moral is justice and likewise for immorality is injustice. Though they carry a more legal connotation we may argue successfully that all legislation hails back to a moral standard. If it is unjust to steal or to murder, and if there is legislation against such deeds, then the reason those things are ruled against is because they are recognized to be immoral deeds, deeds that should not be done at all. So there will be some going back and forth between words like good and bad (or good and evil), just and unjust, moral and immoral as we move forward. While there are some reasonable distinctions to be made between some of these words there is, at the core, a common sense of appeal to oughtness.

Solomon gives us several example of justice and injustice in his Proverbs which may help us clearly see his connection of the origin of moral objectivity to God. He writes,

“For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom for the upright; he is a shield to those who walk in integrity, guarding the paths of justice and watching over the way of his saints. Then you will understand righteousness and justice  and equity, every good path; for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul; discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you, delivering you from the way of evil, from men of perverted speech, who forsake the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness of evil, men whose paths are crooked, and who are devious in their ways.”

Solomon connects justice with walking on the right path and with exercising wisdom which is received from the LORD (this is YHWH in Hebrew, the personal name of God for Jews and Christians). Furthermore, he puts these in juxtaposition with the ways of evil and darkness, perverse speech and being devious in action. Elsewhere Solomon connects injustice to accepting bribes (Proverbs 17:23) and showing partiality for the wicked and depriving the righteous of their due (Proverbs 18:5). Solomon does not blush at connecting Justice directly to God as the origin and source, “Many seek the face of a ruler, but it is from the Lord that a man gets justice.”

So it is not hard to discover that, for Solomon, there is absolutely a sense of objective moral truth that all should seek to know and live out. Furthermore he directly links this objective morality to the LORD, the Creator of the universe. Upon the ultimate being Solomon places the weight of justice, goodness and truth and he is confident that its weight can be held by him.

Plato’s The Republic

Plato’s great work, The Republic, is entirely about the subject of justice which we have already said is closely related to morality and is without a doubt about oughtness.

In this work many ideas are proposed such as the one given early on by Cephalus when he argues that justice is “speaking the truth and giving back what one takes.” It does not take Socrates long, however, to poke some holes in this offered definition when he gives a counterexample that clearly shows it would be unjust.  At least in some specific situations it would actually be unjust to give back what one has taken from another. The  specific example Socrates uses is that of giving back a weapon to someone who is not in their right state of mind when they ask for it back. What follows from this discussion is perhaps one of the greatest treatises on the matter of justice that has ever been written. That being said, the definition of Justice remains elusive in The Republic. It is easier to recognize justice and injustice in practice and to point to examples of just behavior than it is to define the concept itself.

This difficulty of giving a proper definition of justice might lead some to conclude that there is not one and that perhaps justice itself, and not just the definition, is what is elusive. But this would be a mistake because Plato does not have a hard time showing us examples of injustice and if we recognize what is unjust we must admit that their is such a thing as justice no matter how difficult it may be to define.

While the proper or perfect definition of justice may remain just outside of our graps, according to Plato, its origin and basis is not. It would appear that he sees justice as being in accord with virtue and imitating the gods. To this point he writes, “For, surely, gods at least will never neglect the man who is eagerly willing to become just and, practicing virtue, likens himself, so far as is possible for a human being, to a god.” So then, injustice is to be unvirtuous and out of step with the gods. Furthermore, Plato has already said earlier in The Republic that the laws they create must be in accordance with what is good and patterned after the god who is good. In fact, it is outlawed to suggest that any god did any unjust thing but, rather, “the god’s works were just and good.” So then what is lawful in The Republic is that which is virtuous and mimics the gods who only do that which is good and virtuous.

This means, although Solomon and Plato would make significant departures from one another’s understanding of the divine realm, they both agree that morality, our objective oughtness, squarely rest upon the shoulders of the divine. There is no doubt between them that there is a right way to behave and a wrong way and that God (or the gods) are the reason why these things are so. They cannot think of another place upon which to safely rest the weight of morality.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

Aristotle continues down a line of similar thinking as Solomon and Plato when he gives us the example of the law abider and the law breaker and connects justice to that which is lawful when he writes:

he who is a lawbreaker is unjust and he who is lawful just, it is clear that all lawful things are somehow just…. The laws pronounce on all things, in their aiming at the common advantage, either for all persons or for the best or for those who have authority either in accord with virtue or some other such way. As a result, we say that those things apt to produce and preserve happiness and its parts for the political community are in a manner just.

Further, in Book 7 and Chapter 1 of Nichomachean Ethics Aristotle draws from Homer’s work where Priam spoke of Hector being “exceedingly good” and that “He did not seem to be a child of any mortal man but a god.” For Aristotle then (and Homer, although he is not currently under consideration, but certainly another pre-modern case) you have the connection of goodness or morality with the divine. Here we rest, once again, morality upon divine shoulders. This, then, places Aristotle in a camp agreeing with Plato (and essentially Solomon) that goodness and virtue lie ultimately with the gods.

As I said earlier, these are but a small sample of great thinkers from the pre-modern era but they are a good representation of the majority of thinking from that time on the present issue. But let us now turn our attention to some modern era thinkers and their view of oughtness and moral truth. I think what we will find is a definite and fundamental shift in the conception of oughtness and its origin.

Machiavelli’s The Prince

Machiavelli’s The Prince is an interesting work full of tongue in cheek statements but his aim is ultimately a serious one. He seeks to instruct towards what the ideal governmental system is and how to maintain control as a leader. One of the pivotal statements in his work is the following: “The principal foundations which all states have, whether new, old, or mixed, are good laws and good arms. And because there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there needs must be good laws, I shall omit the reasoning on laws and speak of arms.”

Here Machiavelli cleverly tips his hat and reveals his priorities, namely, that of control by arms (force). Now Machiavelli is not suggesting that there be no laws, nor is he suggesting ruling purely by brute force alone, but he is talking priorities. He shows elsewhere in his book that his primary concern is that of maintaining power by whatever means are necessary and there is no objective moral ethic (merely a utilitarian one) to restrain what one should do while pursuing or maintaining power over a state. At one point he goes as far as saying, “Hence it is necessary for a prince, if he wishes to maintain himself, to learn to be able to be not good, and to use it according to the necessity.”

He must “learn to be able to be not good!” That is quite a statement indeed. For one it seems to recognize a notion of ‘good’ or perhaps ‘common decency’ but suggests that a prince ought (and there is that word again) to break with the good. It would seem in light of this and other comment made in The Prince that Machiavelli consider morality something like a social convention to be used when it is helpful and broken when it is more helpful. Of the references that Machiavelli makes to religion they are mostly utilitarian as well. Whether or not Machiavelli believed in God may be up for debate but what is very clear is that he did not fear him nor did he hold to an objective morality for all people (especially princes). Use religion when helpful, ignore when it hinders.

Karl Marx’s Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

Where Machiavelli championed the cause of Princes, Marx believed himself to be championing the cause of the people. In this way they sat on opposite sides of one another. But there is definitely room for agreement because they are both utilitarian in their approach to problem solving. Marx responded to the suffering of the masses in his day with an attempt to cure the problem as he saw it. Marx felt that capitalism was a disease that kept the rich in power and oppressed the majority and he proposed a kind of communism as the answer. He wrote, “Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.” Furthermore he asserted that, “Communism begins from the outset with atheism.” Whereas Machiavelli taught princes to live like opportunist atheists who used religion to their own gain when useful, Marx says atheism is a presupposition and not a hidden one at that.

Because of this assumption of atheism the only guiding principle for Marx is the proletariat cause. So Marx would not see morality as relative but as defined by the cause. Actions and deeds are good when they support the communist agenda and bad when they hinder it. The utilitarian principle may never be clearer than in the Manifesto of the Communist Party when Marx describes the ideal Communist state. He states:

Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with the state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state….

And the list goes on.

What is evident in Marx’s thinking is that the Communist agenda trumps all sense of individual rights. Anyone moving into his ideal state automatically loses all of their personal belongings or are labeled as a rebel (and then lose all their personal belongings). He is convinced that this approach, mutual state ownership, is the key to ending suffering and the class problem but anything that gets in the way will be annihilated with extreme prejudice. He concludes his Manifesto by saying, “The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

Friedrich Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals

Nietzsche sets out to give an explanation of the origin and evolution of morality in his book On the Genealogy of Morals. In his thinking the origin of the concept of good began with elite or noble class. What they did, what they were, was good and what stood in contrast to them (i.e. the lowly) was bad. He wrote, “The judgment “good” did not originate with those to whom “goodness” was shown! Rather it was “the good” themselves, that is to say, the noble, the powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions  as good…” He later argues that this concept becomes inverted by the religious, particularly the judeo-Christian tradition, to the point where what was once despised (e.g. weakness and low station) has become the ideal for moral goodness.

Regardless of who or what ‘the good’ is, it is clear that for Nietzsche that the concept originates with man and not with God. Nietzsche too is an atheist but he is not as optimistic of hopeful as Marx is in his Atheism. Nietzsche realizes that atheism equals no truth, moral compass whatsoever and that any principle for guidance we have is merely subjective and man made. He seems to agree that man will endure on by sheer act of will but he does so apart from any real meaning to life.

Conclusion

So much more could be and needs to be said to do each of these authors justice in representing their thoughts and stances. Nonetheless what I have hoped to draw out, and what I think should be clear from what we have seen, is that the shift in thinking about morality or oughtness that took place with the turn of modernism was a shift towards nihilism and subjectivity. The pre-moderns, while certainly having major disagreements about things, held a common presupposition that there was objective truth to be sought and found and that there was a real good and evil (justice and injustice) and that one ought to seek the good and turn form the bad. The common strand for the pre-moderns was the existence of the divine. God (or the gods) allowed a place outside of and above mankind upon which an objective morality could rest, a sufficient origin of morals and also a way to make them objective and equally obligatory for all people.

But when we arrive at the moderns we see that the oughtness begins to be a fuzzy idea. Machiavelli pays some lip service to the good, at least as a social convention that is normally expected to be upheld, but he says the Prince ought to ignore it as needed for maintaining control of the state. He does not out himself as an atheist but he encourages a practical atheism for princes. Marx assumes atheism and he adopts a utilitarian ethic which says all that helps communism is good and all that opposes it is bad. But this is not an objective reality, it is something to be imposed by force. Finally, Nietzsche presents himself as the honest one who embraces atheism and its logical outcome, nihilism. There is no meaning, there is no truth and there is no moral imperative.

Some of the greatest minds of social science bring us to this point of realization. If there is moral truth that is objective, equally true for all people in all places and at all times, then there is a divine being (or beings). If there is no divine reality then there is no basis for objective morality and ultimately there is only force, there is only the will to power. We now live in a confused society that needs to be honest about the options before them. If there is oughtness there is God. If there is no God, there is no oughtness.

2016 Reading List

2016 Book List

Books:

1. The Place of the Lion: A Novel by Charles Williams (01/02/16)
2. Art for God's Sake by Philip Graham Ryken (01/05/16)
3. The Owlings: A Worldview Novella by Daniel DeWitt (01/08/16)
4. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J. K. Rowling (01/25/16)
5. Hood by Stephen Lawhead (01/28/16)
6. Apology by Plato (02/07/16)
7. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J. K. Rowling (02/29/16)
8. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) (03/29/16)
9. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by J. K. Rowling (04/15/16)
10. 100 Cupboards by N. D. Wilson (04/26/16)
11. The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto (04/27/16)
12. Dandelion Fire by N. D. Wilson (05/11/16)
13. The Chestnut King by N.D. Wilson (05/26/16)
14. Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire (06/01/16)
15. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (06/08/16)
16. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (06/19/16)
17. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (07/01/16)
18. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (07/15/16)
19. Emma by Jane Austen (07/25/16)
20. The Art of War by Sun Tzu (08/01/16)
21. The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien (08/04/16)
22. The Tales of Needle the Bard by J.K. Rowling (08/06/16)
23. Out of Silent Planet by C. S. Lewis (08/07/16)
24. Perelandra by C. S. Lewis (08/12/16)
25. That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis (08/22/16)
26. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (09/10/16)
27. Poetics by Aristotle (09/21/16)
28. Wordsmithy by Douglas Wilson (10/11/16)
29. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy (10/17/16)
30. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien (11/2/16)
31. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien (12/30/16)

Shorter Works from The Gateway to the Great Books:

1. Contentment by Plutarch (01/12/16)
2. The Moral Obligation to be Intelligent by John Erskine (01/13/16)
3. How should One Read A Book by Virginia Woolf (01/22/16)
4. Of Beauty by Francis Bacon (01/22/16)
5. Of Discourse by Francis Bacon (01/22/16)
6. Sketch of Abraham Lincoln by Nathaniel Hawthorne (01/25/16)
7. Death of Abraham Lincoln by Walt Whitman (01/25/16)
8. Definition of Number by Bertrand Russell (01/26/16)
9. Of Studies by Francis Bacon (02/08/16)

How about you? What are you reading in 2016?

The Giver Quartet by Lois Lowry

I have recently finished reading Lois Lowry's The Giver series and would like to share my thoughts and also would like to encourage others to read these books. I do not want to give you anything like a play-by-play because I do not want to ruin the story for you. You should experience the twists and turns and surprises all on you own. My only desire here is to draw out some of the elements of the story that I think are important and which should be evaluated from a Christian worldview. I hope those who have read these books already will benefit from my analysis and those who have not read the books yet will be more eager to do so after having read this post.

There are four book in the series, the first book being titled The Giver and the following three are called Gathering Blue, Messenger and Son. All of these stories take place in the same world although not all in the same community. Part of the beauty of the books is that although the stories are connected, and Lowry pulls all those strings together in her final book, it is not immediately obvious how they are connected. When one reads The Giver and then picks up the next book in the series, Gathering Blue, they automatically feel the deep contrast between the environments of the main character in the first book (Jonas) and the main character in the second book (Kira).

Despite the fact the settings are different, and even the cultural behaviors are strikingly different in each community featured in the series, there are certain themes in common which run through all of the stories. One of the clearest themes in these books is the need to value human life. The first two communities you get acquainted with in the series are in stark contrast to one another in some notable ways. The first community, where Jonas is from, is sterile, orderly, peaceful and technologically advanced. The second community, where Kira is from, is dirty, chaotic, violent and technologically stunted. Despite the stark differences, however, one becomes painfully aware that the ultimate problems are the same, namely, human life is not considered sacred or inherently valuable. People are means to an end and if they are able to fit the communities' standards, or be a helpful worker, then they should be put to death.

This serves as a powerful reminder that advancement in technology, or being higher in social position, do not equal ethical superiority. People can be brutal and evil in advanced societies just as much (if not sometimes more so) than in primitive ones. We often mistake other kinds of forward motion as synonymous with moral improvement; but this is a mistake.

The two communities you meet in The Giver and Gathering Blue are in juxtaposition to the two communities you meet in the latter books Messenger and Son. In Messenger you are introduced to a community known simply as 'Village', that was formed by those who have fled from numerous other communities because of the brutality they experienced. Most of those who have fled have some kind of 'imperfection' whether it be blindness, birthmarks, missing limbs, etc. All things that should never be seen as taking away from the value of a human person but which, where were from, was considered unacceptable, unprofitable and punishable by death.

One cannot help but think of elective abortion here. Parents today to often choose to terminate the life of their unborn child for any whim they might have. They wanted a boy, not a girl. The baby would have a deformity of some sort. The baby might be a carrier of a genetic disease, etc. As technology advances the threat of Eugenics begins to take new life. Soon parents will be able to design a baby to their specifications and discard any imperfection. But it's not just the unborn, it is the advanced in age or those who become crippled that societies have sometimes seen as a drain on the more able bodied. If the cost/benefit analysis doesn't work in your favor you may be in trouble in many societies and our own country is increasingly adopting this attitude.

Back to the review, the Village, made up of these refugees, is a return to civilization in its truest sense. The people there recognize the value of others simply for the fact that they are human beings. They willingly take care of one another and bear each others burdens, they welcome new comers escaping terrible situations. They are a picture of what we can be when we recognize that people matter and we treat them as we want to be treated (seems like that idea has been stated by a great teacher at some point). The fourth community, introduced in the fourth book, Son, is perhaps not as together as 'Village' is but there is still a much greater respect for life found there. Here you see a picture of families and children, and people coming together to meet needs, to support one another, and they welcome and care for the stranger that comes unexpectedly into their midst from the sea. These communities in contrast to the other two show us a picture of a humanity that has been lost in many other places in their world.

It should be pointed out that there are several other important themes in the book. One is the concept of love. Love for fellow man in general, the valuing human life, is of course already in view but these books also address more personal kinds of love towards specific individuals. In the Giver the very word 'love' is considered antiquated and without meaning in the Community. It is too ambiguous and lacks "precision of language" according to Jonas' parents. Throughout the series of books the concept of love is rediscovered by the main characters who have grown up in communities where the word carries little meaning or, at least, is not practiced by very many. Through the adventure of our main characters we see love well up within them in a variety of ways, normal human ways. Where marriage and marital intimacy was abandoned it is found. Where the natural connection between a mother and her baby has been cut off, it is reconnected. Where an orphan is discarded to the street, they are given a home. Love, these books teach us, is not an irrelevant concept after all.

Another important idea addressed is freedom and especially freedom of information and education. Information is power and in the first two books you see how information is carefully guarded by those in power. In our two negative communities the common person is not allowed to know things freely. In The Giver only the community rule book is allowed for reading and nothing else. In Gathering Blue only males are allowed to learn to read, but many of them do not appear to be interested in that prerogative anyway because intellectualism is not valued so much as hunting. Wherever information is controlled, either by force or social convention, people suffer. Education, the ability to read good literature and study ideas, is crucial for a community to thrive and become truly human.

One final theme I detected was the value of gender roles. This is, of course, a wildly unpopular notion in our society today. But Lowry points out the sacredness of both manhood and womanhood. The idea that men ought to be protectors, providers and self sacrificing is present and praised in the books. Also Lowry highlights motherhood, giving birth and raising children, and elevates it as a blessing that should be cherished. The idea of marriage and fidelity and how important they are to a healthy society is also pictured in these books. The failure of the family to be what it is meant to be may be the most critical problem our first two communities have. These themes could be easily overlooked but I hope the reader will see them there.

For certain there are also many spiritual overtones in the book. The main character in Messenger, (Matty) is something of a Christ figure by the time the story wraps up. There is a sinister character named Trademaster who grants people their wishes but only at the cost of trading part of their identity away. The Trademaster breaks down the humanity of individuals who give themselves away for things hardly worth so much adn in turn it breaks down the wholesome society of 'Village'. While the stories are not overtly Christian, and I would say that certain spiritual themes could be seen as bordering on new age, Christians can certainly see redeemable qualities and discussion points all throughout the series.

There is much to be enjoyed about The Giver series and I heartily recommend the books to you. There is adventure, wonder, battles between good and evil, heroes who persevere over unimaginable challenges and there is a sense of longing for what civilization is meant to be. That longing is not only experienced by the characters in the books but also by the reader who recognizes the fallen nature of our own culture. We long for a society where people are valued and respected and where our need to love and be loved is met. We long to know the truth and to be free. We long for forgiveness and a chance to start over.

The biggest downside to the series, in my opinion, is that while it grabs hold of so many important themes and recognizes some major problem in our own society (and personifies them in the communities) it does not sufficiently provide an answer to the problems. While one could say that it does, it answers it by saying "we must love our fellow man and value the family as it is intended to be" the problem is that a person could easily ask "and why is that?" The book provides no grounds other than an emotional appeal, a strong and good one, but just emotion. What is the objective reason for valuing life, for loving our neighbor?

As Christians we know that it is only in Christ, only by affirming the imago dei (image of God) in man, that there is any hope to see a restored humanity. No other worldview offers a foundation, a sufficient reason, for why we ought to love one another and treat people with respect. God is the necessary factor that needs to be explicitly pointed to for us to be able to take the concepts in The Giver quartet and be able to actually consistently apply them. If there is no God then there is no meaning, no purpose, no objective moral values and people are only a means and not an end. The gospel is the only path forward to creating a true humane society where these values are upheld. In the end it will be only when the Lord Jesus comes again that all of those desires we have will be perfectly fulfilled. Even then it is only so for those of us who have come to know the Savior.

Animal Farm by George Orwell

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is an allegorical tale of revolution and regime change. In many ways this is a story which has seen itself played out over and over again in history. Much of the familiarity of the story comes from the pages of our history classes as we have seen this happen in the nations of the world many times before. More disturbingly, however, is the fact that much of the familiarity of this story is not merely something we’ve read in our history classes but it is something we are reading in our daily news currently.

The scene is set at the Manor Farm somewhere in England which is owned and operated by Mr. Jones, a reprobate drunk of a farmer who does not properly care for his animals. The animals long for a better life than this which they are living which so often is hard, hungry and short. Old Major, a respected and prize winning boar on the farm calls the animals together and lays out a dream he has had, which he takes to be prophetic, and inspires the animals to believe that one day the beasts of England would rise up and overthrow their oppressors and become their own masters. This revolution which was sure to occur would lead to a golden age of equality for all animals, peace and prosperity.

At this point in the story the reader cannot help but align with the animals who, of course, deserve so much better. Major’s speech sets out a vision for the animals that truly sounds wonderful, a thing to be strived for and it settles down into their heart. Eventually Major passes aways but his words do not and when there came a day when the drunken farmer forget to feed his animals altogether they take matters into their own hooves. As they break into the storage bins the farmer and his hands come to beat the animals into submission but, instead, they are met with a frenzied attack by the animals. The seed of Major’s rebellion has finally taken root and the animals overthrow their oppressors.

Elated by their victory the animals seek to start living out the dream of Major and seek to treat all animals with respect and equality. Even so, due to the fact that the animals were not equally intelligent the more intelligent animals, namely the pigs, graciously stepped forward to organize the farm and make sure everyone was treated fairly. The farm adopted the name Animal Farm, and the way of life they now lived was called Animalism. To help the animals live out the principles of Animalism, and to ensure that no atrocities would ever occur again as had under farmer Jones, the pigs codified Animalism into seven basic laws.

During the early period of Animal Farm things go pretty well. The seven laws of Animalism, when followed, really do guide the animals in a way of profitable and peaceful living. Not everything is easy, having to learn to do things on their own, but the work that is done is honest and all do their part so it was good. Over time, however, things begin to shift and the pigs begin to take a more and more dominant leadership role. Two pigs in particular take leadership roles, Snowball and Napoleon. Furthermore the pigs themselves do no labor on the farm but they take the position of administration of duties because of their higher intellect. It was also the pigs who put forth new resolutions in the regular meetings and who eventually designate the harness room for their own use as headquarters.

Eventually it was noticed that the milk which was being produced was disappearing and eventually it was found that it was being used by the pigs and although this did not set right with the other animals at first, Squealer, another pig who had a way with words and the ability to make things sound however he desired, was able to convince them that it was actually to everyone’s benefit that the pigs drink the milk. In addition to this when the new puppies were born, and after they had been weaned, Napoleon took them away from the mothers assuring them that he would see to their education personally.

Eventually there was an attempt by Mr. Jones to take his farm back. The animals charged to battle although some were injured and one life was lost, they were able to drive back the enemy under the leadership of Snowball. After the battle Snowball was awarded Hero First Class for his heroic efforts. A major victory for the animals this was a watershed moment for Animal Farm and a historic moment to be remembered.

As time progressed at Animal Farm the disagreements that had been long standing between Snowball and Napoleon grew more sharp. There was a windmill project that was created and led by Snowball, which was adamantly opposed by Napoleon, which was meant to bring many conveniences to all the animals. A day came wherein Snowball and Napoleon were at the regular meeting with the animals debating the issue of the windmill in which suddenly a ferocious pack of dogs burst in and chased Snowball off the farm. It eventually became clear that these were the puppies whom Napoleon had taken from their mothers to educate.

From this point on changes continued to occur gradually but steadily to the way things had been. The regular meetings were cancelled, there was no more discussion to be had between the animals about what should be done, Napoleon would tell them what was best. The dogs would growl into submission any who dared to show any dissent. Eventually Napoleon would order that the windmill should be built and eventually it would be spun that it was really his idea originally anyway. Snowball was said to have been a traitor who did not fight valiantly as they recalled but rather was in league with Mr. Jones all the while.

On and on the changes came, and the less intelligent animals were often made uncomfortable by these changes and thought that they were not in accord with either history as they recalled it or the laws of Animalism. Even so, Squealer was always able to assure them that they had not remembered correctly what really happened or what the laws of Animalism really said (most of them couldn’t even read it, after all). Even when some of them would check the laws it was noticed that indeed the pigs were right, it said what they were saying, not what the animals had remembered.

All of these changes progressed and the animals were always assured that everything the pigs were doing was really for the benefit of all the animals and that all the animals were equal. The animals thought they remembered better times and having had more food in the past, but they were constantly assured that they had never had it so good as they did now. Eventually Napoleon and the pigs moved into the farmhouse and Napoleon was himself rarely seen and always guarded by the dogs when he was.

In the end there came a day when the humans came and met with Napoleon in the farmhouse and the animals spied through the windows to see them not as enemies but as friends. And it had come to the point that the animals who looked at Napoleon could hardly discern whether or not the pigs were still animals or whether they were people. Somehow, over time, the pigs had taken over Mr. Jones spot and yet they were far worse than he had ever been.

This sad allegory is much like what we have seen in history and eerily like some of what we see today in our own country. From instances like the Hitler Youth who were taken from parents and brainwashed to obey a tyrant, to the rewriting of history, to the use of propaganda to convince people that everything is really for their benefit, this is how regime’s rise to power. It usually starts with a vision of a better life and often that better life seems to occur at first but gradually things begin to shift. The ignorant masses who do not know the law or history for themselves are powerless to stop what occurs before their eyes. Those who do have the wherewithal to read between the line and see what is happening are often ruthlessly suppressed.

We’ve heard it said that those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it. I have once read something equally true, and ever more terrifying, which said that those who do know history are doomed to watch in horror as everyone else repeats it. Orwell’s book ought to be read and reflected on as we see things gradually changing in our own country because I fear that America is on a dangerous trajectory in many of the same ways that are laid out here in this book. As our political leaders promise a better tomorrow, “free healthcare” and “equality” for all, do these things (specifically the way they define them or suggest that they may be attained) really lead us to freedom and equality or to quite the opposite?

A Case for Being Bookish

In our fast paced electronic world today who has time for books anymore? Even if we had the time why should we spend it reading a book? After all, anything we want to know we can Google and have our answer in an instant. What possible reason, then, could compel the modern man to stop, sit down and read a book from cover to cover? Honestly it is a difficult and daunting task to try and convince a person of today to give reading a book a try. If they want entertainment they have movies, television and an iPod/iPhone for that. If they want to know something they do not already know then there is Google and Wikipedia for that. It seems then that books have outlasted their purposes and are antiquated mediums for things we can now access so much more expediently.

One of the greatest difficulties of convincing such a person that they ought to read books is that they wouldn’t read an argument for doing so. If they started to read an essay like this one they probably would have stopped at the end of the first paragraph and said “exactly.” But for those who would continue reading I am probably preaching to the choir by now. Even so, let us discuss the matter of why people ought to read books, lots of them, and good ones. After all someone might read on by the grace of God and those of us who are already convinced can at least sharpen our thoughts on the matter and then make a Youtube video to try and convince the others.

One of the best reasons for becoming bookish, that is, for becoming a person who surrounds themselves with good books and actually reads them, is because books communicate both entertainment and knowledge in ways those other mediums cannot. Consider, for instance, how the mind interacts with the written word in a story as opposed to how it engages a movie. Had you never seen the movie adaptation of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, but only read the book, what might Orcs have looked like in your mind? Consider further if you had read it for the first time when you were twelve years old rather than thirty years old? Do you think that the way your mind would have imagined Orcs would be the same when you were twelve as opposed to thirty? Likely not.

One of the important differences between story in books versus story in film is that it is the mind of the person reading a book who sets the limits on mental images and conception of characters and events. Certainly words can paint a gruesome picture at times but, generally speaking, our minds can limit a character in our imagination to what we can handle. So a twelve year old conception of an Orc is not nearly so gruesome and horrifying as what a thirty year old might conceive of. Yet when we experience an Orc in the movie version of The Lord of the Rings one’s mind is filled (indeed forced) by someone else’s depiction and whether you are ready for it or not, there it is. In this way the visual arts and film are more violent towards the mind because they force upon us at once images that can never be unseen whereas books allow our own experiences to shape how we see an perceive characters and events. While other reasons could be given for seeking our entertainment from books rather than movies or television the freedom of mind, and in some cases the security of it, is a good reason. Movies imagine for you and they tell the audience what they must see and therefore both limit the imagination of some or hoist upon the minds of other something they weren’t ready for. Books allow the audience to see any number of realities as the story churns on but movies paint one blunt picture without any give.

How about when it comes to gaining information? Why are books more valuable than our instant resources like Google or Wikipedia? One of the primary reasons they are better is because they give us rooted information rather than disconnected information. By rooted I mean information that is fixed within a context to help gain a more meaningful understanding. What is better, I ask, to learn a word by looking it up in a dictionary or to learn it by reading it being used in context? How much more likely are you to understand the nuances of that word and how it relates to the real world if you discover it in conversation rather than on the word of the day calendar? This is not only the case with vocabulary but when you read books you learn about people, cultures, eras, philosophies and more and you experience them as living and breathing things rather than cold isolated factoids. Information is meant to be learned and experiences in context because we are not trivia machines that are meant to learn answers to questions but then not really understand our own answers.

These are but a couple of simple reasons to become bookish and a great many more could be given. Most of those reasons come back to the same basic idea, however, that books engage the mind in a way no other medium does and they provide a tailored experience to each person. As Schall has said “The same book can move another’s will and understanding differently than it does our own. We ourselves are receptive to different books at different times in our lives. It is quite possible for one to get nothing out of reading a book, whereas someone else, reading the same book, goes out and changes the world.”