Monday, 7 November 2022

What Abrams Says To Flandry

Scouring the early chapters of Ensign Flandry for any references to John Ridenour, I reread this interesting speech by Commander Max Abrams to Ensign Dominic Flandry:

"'They rammed you through your education. You were supposed to learn what civilization is about, but there wasn't really time, they get so damned few cadets with promise these days. So here you are, nineteen years old, loaded to the hatches with technical information and condemned to make for yourself every philosophical mistake recorded in history. I'd like you to read some books I pack around in micro. Ancient stuff mostly, a smidgin of Aristotle, Machiavelli, Jefferson, Clausewitz, Jouvenal, Michaelis. But that'll take awhile. You just go back to your quarters today. Sit. Think over what I said.'"
-Poul Anderson, Ensign Flandry (London, 1976), CHAPTER FIVE, p. 57.

What had Abrams said? We can return to that but, first, reflect on how much each individual is required to learn, most of it experientially, in their first two decades:

a spoken language, e.g., English with a regional accent;
ways to interact socially;
basic literacy and numeracy;
other school subjects (mostly forgotten);
some kind of preparation or training for work.

Possible extras:

more academic subjects in higher education;
religious indoctrination arbitrarily imposed by parents.

It is not surprising that this complicated process does not always run smoothly. Some individuals wind up badly out of joint with society. Personally, I was blind and deaf to much of the social training, resented and resisted much that I regarded as arbitrarily imposed, rationalized but then questioned received indoctrination and was very slow to formulate any kind of career aim. But I was not capable of doing anything else. My contemporaries responded in very different ways to very similar inputs.

Do I agree that Dominic Flandry should read some social philosophers? Certainly. Do I agree that he should focus on "a smidgin" of authors selected by Max Abrams? Certainly not.

32 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I disagree that "religious indoctrination," however that is arbitrarily defined, can only be arbitrary.

I myself have read a smidgin of the writers listed by Abrams: Aristotle, Clausewitz, Jouvenal. And a smattering of many others: Marcus Aurelius, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Ludwig von Mises, Benedict XVI, etc. Nor do I believe Abrams meant Flandry should read only the authors he listed.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

By "arbitrary," I mean that two babies could have been switched at birth and brought up as a Muslim and a Mormon instead of vice versa. If my parents had died immediately after I was born and if I had therefore been brought up by other members of my father's family, then I might have been a Baptist or an Anglican. "Indoctrination" is being brought up while being told that certain doctrines are true. I was told that I "knew" that marriage was a sacrament. I did not know it. I had been told it. Children in other schools were being told something else.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

That clarifies what you meant. Albeit, because I don't believe Mohammed or Joseph Smith were prophets, I don't believe the religions they founded were RIGHT. A bit more complicated with Baptists and Anglicans, they are both different kinds of Protestant Christians. I believe them to be right in some ways, where Catholics can agree with them, and erroneous in other ways.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

My point about Islam and Mormonism was not that either of them is true or false but only that it is a matter of chance which religion a child is indoctrinated in. I chose "Muslim" and "Mormon" as two examples beginning with M for the sake of alliteration but the precise examples chosen was not the point.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

"Indoctrinated" is not the would have used. "Raised in" or "educated in" is how I would have put what you described. "Indoctrination" sounds too political a term to use in this context.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I was told that I believed certain doctrines and that it was sinful to risk disbelieving them so I call this "in-doctrine-ation." The terminology does not ultimately matter but the effect on minds does.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

That was not my experience. I read or had explained what the Church believed had been divinely revealed as true. With it being at least implied that assent to belief had to be voluntary.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Then our experiences differed considerably.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

You seemed to have endured unfortunately clumsy methods of instruction.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I was educated by Marists in the 50s and by Jesuits in the 60s and the Catholic Church prided itself on its uniformity. "Heresy" was not another point of view but a sin.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

And heresy is a sin, correctly understood. And I believe in that uniformity of defined doctrine which all who wish to be Catholics need to assent to.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

My point is that my indoctrination was not unfortunate but uniform.

Difference in belief is sinful?

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I'll quote part of the entry for "Heresy" on page 175 of Fr. John Hardon's POCKET CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, to make my point clearer: "In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy: previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative."

To prevent misunderstanding I'll quote further: "Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith." So sincere Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc., are merely material heretics in Catholic eyes.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Pertinaciously? Well, I don't think anyone is a sinful heretic in the sense defined.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

You can find "formal" heretics if you look for them. Mostly in obscure little sects breaking away from the Catholic Church but still claiming to be "Catholic." Or in Catholics who deliberately become Protestants, formal heretics.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But a Catholic who becomes a Protestant has been persuaded by arguments for Protestantism. Is this sinful?

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

In Catholic eyes, yes. Such a person, if he becomes a Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, etc., has denied defined doctrines taught as divinely revealed. He has become a formal, not a merely material heretic.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But it does not make sense that to accept an argument or a line of reasoning is sinful.

Paul.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Someone who has been persuaded that the Pope cannot be infallible no longer believes that Papal infallibility is part of the Revelation.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

To believe that a doctrine has been revealed yet not to believe the doctrine is self-contradictory.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I think you are over looking what Fr. Hardon said: "...outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth..." that "...a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative." Heresy can be either material or formal.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But, if he "knows" that a "truth" is a doctrinal imperative, then he accepts it.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I agree that is what should happen. But, alas, many formal heretics, past and present, refused that assent to doctrinal imperatives. Which means they had to leave the Church.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Leave the Church, of course, but following their understanding of the truth.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Which is what Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al, did when they pertinaciously refused to give up their errors.

Ad astra! Sean







1

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But is this pertinacious? No one sees his own views as "errors."

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

But that is how a convinced Catholic would logically think, believing as I do in the divine inspiration of the Catholic Church. So "pertinacious" can rightly be used of people like Luther.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But Luther came not to believe that what the Church was teaching was divinely inspired.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Of course! Luther had to think like that to justify his obstinacy. Pertinacious, IOW.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Someone you disagree with is not honest but obstinate and pertinacious?

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Not always.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Then why Luther?

Paul.