Matthew Chominski

Good post, Katie, it’d be interesting to see you develop your thoughts on criticism, the need for it, and the hostility found in Christian circles towards it, further.

Along these lines, and more personally, I appreciated a critique of a point I made in a talk I recently gave. The one critiquing did it in an entirely humble manner, yet had the respect to state the criticism and not remain silent on the point. The manner in which the criticism was delivered was, in a sense, even more appreciated than the criticism itself.

There is much to think about here, I gave Jules a copy of the recent edition of The Publican, my article entitled ‘On Arguing’ may have some similar themes. If you get a chance to read it, I’d be interested to get your thoughts on it. The Publican

Jules,

When you had mentioned this argument when we saw each other at Villanova I left without a clue as to why cloning offended the clone’s ignorance.

I find the argument very compelling though.

Does not cloning offend the ignorance of all others as well? Isn’t a great joy (or source of anxiety and sorrow) for parents the experience of seeing their children take possession of their lives and begin discovering themselves?

Wouldn’t the clone’s parents find themselves expecting the clone to be like the one he was cloned from and thereby damage their own experience of their child?

Wonderfully true.

I do know Grandmom knows how to use the internet, so I should watch out about sweater criticisms.

Thinking a little more about man dressing animals, not only is it done for pragmatic reasons, for warmth primarily I would assume, but also for humor and/or cuteness appreciated by humans; i.e. the poodle in the tutu or the monkey in the tuxedo.

It seems like the dressing up of animals for humorous ends is a sign of man’s dignity, however muddled a sign it may be.

Man is the animal that dresses other animals, i.e. terrible sweaters from grandmom for both children and dogs.

Having read and heard Scruton in this regard, I am wondering if and to what degree he coincides with Wojtyla and von Hildebrand and how he might diverge?

Much appreciated post Jules, critical and constructive.

Thanks for the reading suggestions Katie. I made a somewhat focused skim of Fr. Geiger’s post, I am wondering what your thoughts on it are though?

I too find references to human beings in technological and mechanistic terms troubling and erroneous. It is especially annoying when I find myself doing it.

I am not sure what a satisfactory answer to the question, ‘what constitutes marriage’ looks like, but I suspect that what would need to be laid out in any explanation of marriage is the broader societal implications of marriage properly understood. What does it mean that marriage is at the foundation of society, etc.?

Perhaps one of the reasons ‘same-sex marriage’ seems more plausible to many people recently is that a healthy understanding of marriage and its extra-familial implications, demands and benefits have not been presented, or have been drowned out by other cultural factors and trends.