NOTE: I mean to expand this list to include more authors. In honor of the day I am writing this being January 28th, the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas, I have started with Dr. R.J. Snell's talks that I find most interesting but hope to include others. Dr. R.J. Snell's talks are featured by the Thomistic Institue which is a work produced by the Dominican Friars living in Washington D.C. Another speaker known to work with the T.I. is Dr. Karin Oberg I will include her talks which help provide an understanding of how order can be found in the greater universe. More speakers I may post about are Fr. David Dufresne for a perspective on manhood and being Christ-like to others, and even (of all things) a rapper who's messages so very much resonate with the topics of this post.

Acedia

Anyone stuck in a perpetual WFH career can relate to these talks:

• Acedia and the Bleaching of Being
• Acedia, the Forgotten Capital Sin

Discovering the notion of acedia (pronounced ah-che-dee-ah (ecclesial) or ah-cee-dee-ah (classical)) and its effects in my life has been essential in helping me recognize how poorly I use my time. And not only that, but also how the way's in which I waste my time introduce disorder into my life. These details are personal and different for everyone but listen to these talks and you will quickly see how you can better assess your actions throughout the day.

This is not a self-help guide or a recipe for success but rather assistance in developing the mentality of purposeful living.

Love

Once I understood the concept of Concupiscence, I started to understand myself and my captivity to my desires. This lecture by Dr. R.J. Snell that was given at Princeton in February of 2020 provides a perspective on Concupiscence on how it compares to the other forms of love.

Demons at the Feast of Love: Concupiscence, Benevolence, and Transcendence

Speaking of forms of love, I have found it useful to be aware that love is not equal and love is not just a feeling. Love, is verb, and in it's most ordered and good form is an act of giving of ones self to others. Love is not expecting to receive something. The ancient Greeks knew this, we have all but forgot this: Eros, Filial, Agape (Benevolence).

Consider how the ending of the Gospel of John closes with our Lord's three time petition of Peter's love. In English:

He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee.

If you look at the original Greek of these words you will observe that this exchange involved different words for love throughout. In summary, it was like this: the first and second petitions, Jesus asked with the word "Agapas", Peter responded with the word "Philo". Here, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him in the highest form but Peter responds with a lower form of love, that of a friend.

In the final petition, Jesus lowers His expectation and asks Peter with the word "Philo", matching Peter's responses and showing mercy and acceptance to His apostle.

Faith

Ever hear anyone say, "I'm spiritual, but not religious". This lecture given at Yale in September of 2021 by Dr. R.J. Snell provides invaluable insight into this chaotic ideology:

Can you be spiritual but not religious?

1. Meet up at Basilica steps at 0500
2. Count off
3. Invite St. Michael
4. Scenic Mosey to base of 495 hill through tunnel and around waterfront and into the darkness under the bridge
   1. Hope we do not get attacked
5. count off
6. Crowed sourced warm ups
7. 10 minutes of Hamburger Hill
   1. At bottom of hill, 10 'mericans
   2. Lunge half way up hill then run to top of hill
   3. At top of hill, 10 slap planks
   4. Safely run down hill
8. Regroup at top of hill
9. Count off into pairs
10. #1s line up along low cement wall near traffic light, #2s stand in sidewalk
11. #2s runs from traffic light to cemetary fence and back while #1s do (squats, step ups, dirkins)
12. Swap when #2s return
13. Pairs are done after 50 squats, 50 step ups, and 50 dirkins
14. 6 minutes of abs
15. Return to Basilica through Washington St.
16. Count off, COT, Coffee

To summarize his treatise, a 2-bit binary truth table can be used:

Pascal's Wager

By this logic, it is within reason to believe in God. Faith is not contrary to reason. To further develop this idea we can turn to St. Thomas Aquinas and look at three mistakes that he cites when the issue of Faith vs. Reason arises:

The 3 Mistakes:

1. Skepticism - Says that faith is irrational because it cannot be proved. Or science has disproved religion (somehow, there is no evidence of that either).
2. Fideism - Agrees that faith is opposed to reason but affirms that faith is all you need.
3. Subjectivism - Faith is purely personal and interior

St. Thomas argues that faith and reason are not in conflict because they are both seeking a fundamental unity of truth based on the order of reality.

Cannot have something that is true according to faith and at the same time false according to reason.

Truth is not subjective, private, or personal. Truth is based on reality.

When we derive truths from others, by trusting what they say, we rely on the Signs of Credibility in their message. These signs show the rational marks that allow us to accept the truth.

Because God is that fundamental Unity sought by faith and reason it only makes sense that He is the source of reality (of all that exists).

Thus He must also then be the source of reason (and of faith and revelation).

But, How again do we /know/ that God is the source of reality? By definition of reason: God is not a created being, some “old man in the clouds“. God is that which nothing can be greater: God is Love, God is Truth, God is Goodness.

By definition of faith: Per Aquinas and Catholic teaching, the church claims that the signs of credibility are provided by examples such as Jesus’ miracles and the enduring presence of the church through time.

So it must be up to us to accept these claimed signs of credibility and thus accept them willfully as truths without any tangible proof. Thus we must have faith in them. They are mysteries and cannot be proven by natural reason.

Is this reasonable, to accept that there is natural reason AND supernatural reason (a.k.a the supernatural light of faith)? … rather, is faith reasonable?

Faith may not be what you think it is. Consider how in physics, either kinematics or energy models can be used to determine the end result of a physical process: faith and reason can be viewed in this way as well. Both seek the same result. Both employ similar mechanisms (thought). They just accomplish the same thing in different ways. Similarly you cannot have one without the other because faith without reason is blind and reason without faith is futile. So it seems that faith is reasonable.

Why is reason without faith futile? Consider as an example that I have visited a city far away and you have not. Would you have faith in my description of that city, would you believe that the city exists or would you have to physically see everything for yourself before you can make a determination? Faith in many ways, is necessary.

“Understood this way, there is no opposition between the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and modern Big Bang cosmology. They examine the same reality from two different, non-competitive perspectives.” (ref)

“…truths which man can hope to know fully in the ultimate state of human perfection” (ref)

Induction: Can you label a claim as Truth and then explain it cannot be proven by natural reason? “Look, there’s no way to prove it. Just trust me. Look at these other reasons why you should. Are those reasons not credible?”

Belief can be ascribed to an act of obedience to a higher authority. It requires an active and conscience decision of the will to accept the claims that cannot be proven by natural reason.

Some truths can be known in this life but 5 reasons point to the necessity of faith:

1. Eccles. 7:25 said: “It is a great depth, who shall find it out?” Thus, the depth and subtly of the claim may not make it apparent to us.
2. The human intellect is not perfect, compared with God, and we cannot comprehend all things.
3. Since divine truth is the “end” of all sciences, it would be necessary to understand all the sciences to understand the truth.
4. Due to man’s natural constitution, intellectual investigation is limited.
5. Because man is too busy trying to stay alive, and their lives are short, they would be unable to learn everything required to understand all things.

So the claim here is that Faith is a replacement for these limitations. Is. 7:9 said:

“Unless thou hadst believed, thou wouldst not understand.”