Look That Up in Your Funk & Wagnalls
Piece of Phronesis—Reading is Fundamental
At my age, it feels odd to have a lot of reading homework.
I now realize that I must “own” my pursuit of phronesis—defined by the Oxford Review Encyclopedia of Terms as “‘practical wisdom’ that has been derived from learning and evidence of practical things.” (See more below from that website.)
As one grows older, it’s easy to claim that the pursuit has been a given throughout one’s life. But who am I kidding? I barely knew that intriguing Greek word for most of my years. I am sure we all have striven to dig for and share truth, and to make good, benevolent judgments, but I for one have also exceeded my quota of foolishness.
Perhaps God is calling us to make another admission about phronesis: It is hard work. Since I want to contribute to the world’s pool of virtuous action in a society that urgently needs more inspired choices, now is no time to slack off.
Current events remind me of one area in which I must redouble my efforts. Phronesis demands that we be active readers. Amid today’s tsunami of information, we need to dive in while also keeping our heads above water.
Reading the news is essential, and we can’t fall prey to confirmation bias or the media’s instincts for quick takes, hot takes, and simplified snap-judgments. The news is multi-layered, and the truth is nuanced. We must read “primary” and “secondary” sources where the voices of unique experiences and hard-won insights may surprise us.
“Owning” and earning my phronesis means, for example, that I must appreciate and learn from the recent opinions of the US Supreme Court regarding abortion, the Second Amendment, and other issues. That means reading the official decisions, the concurring statements, and the dissenting opinions. I discovered that I might have to “own” a better, faster printer at home!
In the case of abortion, phronesis also means reaching back into history through the eyes of expert commentators, even through the original text of Roe v Wade. Both of last week’s gigantic Court decisions implicitly suggest we should reach even further back—to read and ponder the US Constitution and the aspirations of the framers. And the evolving aspirations of the pro-life and pro-choice movements, too.
Those who want to condemn or influence a Justice of the Court owe it to themselves and to that Justice, as well as the institutions and leaders of our democracy, to consider both the content and context of serious statements by serious people. Honoring the gravitas of self-government—and celebrating content that rises above soundbites and talking points—help make citizenship come alive.
The fact that people leap into ad hominem attacks, destructive behavior, and hyperbolic polemics with only a cursory knowledge of the intellectual debates reveals much that shames and endangers our society.
We are starving ourselves of written-word resources at the moment in history when the digital world allows us to benefit from more words, more voices, more insights and discoveries, than ever before. If we mock the media for being shallow, we embarrass ourselves by using “news” in shallow ways.
We have taught ourselves to prefer videos clouded by bias toward the recent past, by filtered opinions, vague impressions, and manipulated emotions. Our minds and hearts deserve better, as the Church and its libraries of informed reflection testify—and as our secular libraries testify, too. Unless the internet is approached appropriately, like a wondrous shelf filled with books, to be traversed with selectivity and intention, cyberspace is a realm of diversion and slap-dash cognition. Witness the software “terms of agreement,” which, alas, we click to “accept” without reading or thinking whenever they pop up.
Pope Francis, in comments for the 2018 World Communications Day, has urged journalists to participate in “education for truth”—not merely telling the truth, but elevating the public’s appetite for truth as a force for stable reasoning and a sense of common ground fostering the common good. Truth is not mere information. Ideally, it is formation.
I say all this without having read the aforementioned self-assignments yet myself. Forgive me, but don’t give up on me among the memes. We are all still in formation.
Even if we do not speak out, or speak with precision about what we have learned, we still can evangelize and edify others simply by telling them that we responded to some momentous issue of the day by reading—setting aside time to satisfy an avid curiosity, to hear others’ views, and to assemble our thoughts into meanings. Let’s try to be role models, encouraging our fellow Americans to do their homework.
xx
Endnote: The Oxford Review site, mentioned above, goes on to say this about phronesis: “Phronesis leads to breakthrough thinking and creativity and enables the individual to discern and make good judgments about what is the right thing to do in a situation.” Breakthrough thinking sounds very appealing these days.
“Pandevotional” Prayer / Pandemic Reflection
I ask you to read this piece more as an introduction to a prayer and a follow-up to the segment above, and less as a political stance, book promotion, or attempt to shut down conversations. The whole idea is the humility of big-picture thinking.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a man worth getting to know better, whether or not you respect his viewpoints. I proposed he is one of those people who believe “everything is connected to everything else.” He believes in transparency, in letting the truth speak for itself, in letting truth fragments fall into place. The new book, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, appears to be worth reading for a look into his life of varied challenges, including a youth where rigorous Catholic schooling was one factor fostering a love of good order, candor, and a rigorous sense of responsibility.
A marketing or “optics” specialist might have suggested that his concurring opinion in Dobbs exclude his cautionary note about the reasoning behind Roe—how it might apply in other landmark decisions whose possible reconsideration would be explosive. But he is letting us know what he notices. Once you have seen explosions of sloppy thinking, even if things were fine when the dust settled, you tend to favor landmine reconnaissance so you can inform the troops.
My guess is that Thomas is neither speaking from a political vantage point nor trying to lead any judicial initiatives for those instances of reconsideration. Rather, he is pointing out connections to make us think harder about undue reliance on the courts and the need for grass-roots phronesis in democracy, policy-shaping, and everyday life.
Thomas also has grappled with the implications of grand strategies and big decisions during his career, prompting a commitment to help form the public for citizenship in a republic. Rather than impose his morality, perhaps he wants to set forth his mentality. Perhaps he thinks he can draw back the curtain on how we think about democracy today: how we reflect on crucial issues, our assumptions, and decisions at every level of government. My guess is that he is happy to leave lots of things up to the public, recognizing that self-governance will be messy, thanks to human nature. Recall that Pope Francis has said he wants a messy Church, where God can work wonders through foibles, paradoxes, and misunderstandings.
I do not suggest Justice Thomas is any patron saint of phronesis. No one should nominate a solo all-star for something that ultimately is a team sport where picture-perfect outcomes are neither possible nor desirable. Thomas may be making mistakes. As I have said, the pursuit of phronesis is hard work. But it’s possible he intends more to be an educator raising tough questions than a demigod plotting tough answers.
My surmise is drawn partly from something mentioned in the Created Equal book. On his office wall, Thomas has hung a text that I have heard called “the world’s most dangerous prayer.” The Litany of Humility is very Christian and very contrarian in a world that worships power and fakes heroism. I recommend that phronesis fans read the prayer, but I will stop short of recommending they pray it. Delay at least until your spiritual journey has given you great resilience. I have pressed pause.
Chewing on This—a story I heard
Readers of this newsletter already know I am a fan of Star Trek. I recently enjoyed watching a documentary on Leonard Nimoy and the “Mr. Spock” character he created. Many followers of the original series say they identified with Mr. Spock as a nobly complex person. He was marginalized as a human-Vulcan “half-breed” who defied complete understanding, but he did not play the victim. For the sake of service, he struggled to moderate his inner struggle between Vulcan logic and human emotion.
In that documentary, For the Love of Spock, the famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson offered this reflection about the character: “I think a little bit of Spock needs to be behind every important decision we make in our lives, about ourselves or with regard to others.”
Nimoy’s Jewish background reportedly helped him to put flesh on the bones of a character who found anchorage in his Vulcan cultural heritage, including practices and symbols that bespoke solidarity and strength.
For one episode of the original series, “Amok Time,” he offered a suggestion for a particular scene. He was greeting an esteemed Vulcan, and he supposed the two should exchange some ritual gesture of respect, just as some cultures might bow or salute.
He recommended that the two characters speak the words, “Live long and prosper,” and add a physical action. They would elevate their right hands, forming a “V” with two fingers inclined to the right and two to the left, keeping the thumb a separate third element.
Where did he get that idea? It was a symbol he saw as a youth in the synagogue, during high holy days, a somber motion made by elders toward the congregation. They were forming shin, a three-pronged letter from the Hebrew alphabet which begins the word shadai, loosely translated as “God Almighty.” It is a virtue signal about His virtue. Perhaps its use can be revived as a code of solidarity, a “dog whistle” for the message, “Peace, let us communicate.”
Just Kidding—Some Witty Thing Waiting to be Used
Tammy Bruce, a talk show host and commentator, said she had heard someone remark: “I haven’t seen the Democrats this upset since yesterday!”
Her comment occurred during a set of days when Democrats were enduring a string of Supreme Court decisions to which they objected. In fairness, it should be said that the politics of anger are not resident at only one end of the political spectrum; indeed, I see it throughout our culture as a sour fruit of social media, whose algorithms use enragement as a form of engagement.
As a method of interrupting civil discussion, we can call this “the algorithm method.”