Philosophy: Life’s Sober Hand

By: Andrew Deaton

All the time, I’m approached by individuals who ask me, “Why did you major in philosophy?” When I answer, “Because I needed to discover the right way to live,” they often follow up innocently with, “But I thought that philosophy had neither right nor wrong answers? Also, isn’t philosophy supposed to stay above the lowly concerns of real-life applications?” That detached view that modern academics have fully earned for themselves is what is wrong with our culture at large. While I personally invest myself in all of my writing, this piece is going to be more autobiographical than usual, but I take that tone only insofar as is necessary to help shed some firsthand light on principles which you can and, I think, should apply to your own life. Patrick has expressed the same concerns and experiences, so this is also meant to be something like an unofficial manifesto of why exactly Patrick and I do what we do on DEFENESTRATION and just why exactly you should even care.

So much for the appetizer; now for the meat and potatoes.

While walking through downtown Athens, Ga., this past week, I saw two peculiar sights and decided to document them:

The top photo is of a car window decal which displays a stylized “SS”. This is actually the runic insignia of Hitler’s infamous SS, the cadre of elite Nazi servicemen entrusted with the most critical tasks, including the actual execution of concentration camp prisoners. The bottom photo is of a sign outside of the local Ben & Jerry’s shop advertising their belief in “Fair Trade”, as espoused by the organized Fair Trade social movement. There was a line of what I would guess to be a hundred people and counting to take part in the fundraiser to promote that policy.

What is the commonality between these photos? They both represent manifest, deliberate, intricate philosophies whose respective inspirations and implications are kept hidden, yet they impact all of our lives on an everyday basis.
Those instances are not at all exhaustive of just when philosophy has bearing on everyday life. When does philosophy matter? The answer: Every waking moment of your life, from cradle to grave. As Ayn Rand puts it:

You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational convictions – or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.*

Now, what does all of that mean? It means that every single action you take is necessarily guided by principles, i.e. by your philosophy. Whether it’s deciding to make yourself a meal when hungry, what you want to pursue as a career, or whom you want to date or marry – philosophy is your all-purpose manual. When I say must be guided by principles, I don’t mean it simply in the normative sense that you just should be guided by principles, though that meaning is included. I mean that you must be guided by principles, as in, so long as you are conscious, you are living by some set of principles. Right now, as you are reading this, you are living by principles that you may or may not have chosen, such as: I should increase my knowledge; this is a better use of my time than checking Facebook (I’m flattered if you think that); I have a right to freedom of speech and to choose what speech to hear. All of those are just tiny samplings of all of the principles that you are living by right now. The only way to remove the rule of principles is by literal suicide. We don’t live by instincts like other animals; we live by the use of the mind, our rational faculty.

The analogy that helps bring it home for me is that of driving a car. You are the driver, your life is the car, and reality is the road. You can choose either to be aware of what you are doing by choosing to be ruthlessly sober, or you can drift and risk your life by choosing to be drunk. So long as you are behind the wheel – i.e. alive – you must either be sober or drunk; there is no third alternative. To live by a philosophy which you never question nor choose is to be drunk. To live by a philosophy which you choose based on the requirements of life is to be sober.

Contrary to popular belief, there are absolutes in philosophy. Just as a sober driver has to use his sobriety to conform to the lay of the road if he is to avoid disaster, so too must you choose your philosophy in accord with the nature of life, the dictates of reality. You can choose to defy reality in any given concrete instance, but you have absolutely no choice regarding what the consequences of that defiance will be. You can choose to drive headlong into a brick wall; you cannot change the fact that great pain or death will follow. Principles in and of themselves are not enough to achieve happiness; you must live by the right principles.

To repeat, so long as you are alive, you are behind the wheel. That means that no matter what you do, ultimately only you can control what you believe. You have free will, but free will – as with everything else – has a particular identity. It’s not whatever you want it to be when it’s convenient. Free will does not allow you to absolve yourself of its awesome responsibility or its correspondingly awesome power. You can’t hand your free will over to someone else and say, “Here, you make my decisions for me for a while.”

That means that you have to think for yourself. Again, here we have a double entendre. You have to think for yourself in the obvious sense that no one else can think for you. But, you also have to think for yourself in the sense that you have to think for your own sake. There is a rampant misconception that it is possible to think on your own while living for the sake of everyone and everything other than yourself. To ask someone to develop his own convictions while ordering him to follow everyone else’s is hypocrisy and, ultimately, is impossible. The ethics that says that you must think for yourself in order to live for your own sake is rational egoism, the ethics developed by Ayn Rand (and since rationality is necessary for egoism, I will henceforth dispense with the adjective “rational” and just say “egoism”).

Egoism is a moral or ethical concept, and it is in the field of ethics where rubber meets road. Ethics is the central focus of philosophy: there is no point to philosophy without ethics. If there is nothing else that you take away from this piece, at least get rid of the notion that there is anything noble about a morality that tells you that you must choose between being moral and being happy; the one leads to the other. You cannot dispense with morality for the sake of “convenience” any more than it is “convenient” for the drunk driver to decide that just this one time he should be fine behind the wheel. In principle, it is the same situation. No matter how tempting it may seem to abandon your principles for the sake of an immediate whim, the sober, safe driver keeps his eyes on the road because he will let nothing stop him from reaching his destination safe and sound. The drunk driver lets up “just this once” – and that is the last decision he makes. The sober driver also does not let himself be distracted from focusing on his path – not distracted by God, not by society, not by the state, not by Mother Earth, not by Nirvana – none of that. On the road of life, your destination is your own happiness. If you focus on anything but your route, you’ll crash. Don’t let your life pass you by because others have convinced you that you’ll get a do-over in some mythical hereafter or that your life doesn’t matter anyway because you are just an irrelevant member of Society.

For all of my own and Patrick’s talk of philosophy, you might be interested to know that neither of us digs into this stuff as our primary pursuit. My overriding passion is the study of and an eventual professorship in military history; Patrick’s love is the printed word. You might also be a bit surprised to know that we are both Objectivists (for those who are unaware, Objectivism is the philosophy founded and developed by Ayn Rand). If you are confused as to why two semi-starved college grads would spend so much time on something that they don’t intend to pursue as a profession, or why you may have never heard either of us mention Objectivism or Ayn Rand – don’t be confused. We are cases in point that living by principles means living by principles. We don’t need to tell everyone we meet that we are Objectivists if it doesn’t come up in conversation. If you know us face-to-face, then I dare say that neither of us gives a first impression of “philosophical” or even “academic” (I once almost got in trouble because a superior at my job thought I was going to lose it when in an early encounter he told me that he didn’t like Arrested Development – true story). Talking about philosophy doesn’t mean a damn thing if you aren’t going to put your money where your mouth is, and that “cash-value” – to borrow the pragmatists’ term (in a very different sense) – is exactly what we’re in it for. Really, that’s the only thing which gives philosophy any value, and I encourage you to cash in.

This happens to be a time when mentioning Objectivism is entirely relevant and proper, and it is here where I recommend that, if your appetite for applying philosophy to life is whetted, then you should read Ayn Rand’s many works, the most encompassing and most famous of which is her novel Atlas Shrugged, though I recommend that you begin with The Fountainhead. Whether you are an Objectivist or not, whether you ever decide to become an Objectivist or not – that is not the primary goal of this piece, though I most certainly do hope that DEFENESTRATION will help set you on the course to becoming an Objectivist. The point is that philosophy by its nature is what provides the sober hand needed for you to reach your waypoints and ultimate destination in life. Just keep your eyes on the road, your hand on the wheel, and don’t let anything slow you down.

---

       * Ayn Rand, “Philosophy: Who Needs It,” in Philosophy: Who Needs It, ed. Ayn Rand (New York: Signet, 1984), 5.

The Anti-Conceptual Basis of Anarchism

By: Andrew K. Deaton

Anarchism is often upheld as the pinnacle of freedom, even by those who add the disclaimer that it is “too much” freedom.  There are many supposed variants of anarchism: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, etc.  Their underlying theme has no positive platform, but only a single negative: the dissolution of the state, or anarchy.  (Note that anarchism is that ideology which wishes to bring about anarchy.  The terms are often erroneously used interchangeably.)  Since its platform is essentially negative, libertarianism should properly be identified as a more mainstream, less confrontational presentation of what is really anarchism.  For purposes of this essay, the term “anarchism” will refer to a spectrum of ideologies in which libertarianism is but the logical antecedent to outright anarchism in much the same way that socialism is but a waypoint to communism.  Thus, all criticisms henceforth applying to anarchism are to be taken univocally against libertarianism in equal measure.  (I will not try to explain just yet the supposed points of disagreement between the different “types” of anarchist thought, as I will explain below why there can be no such thing as different forms of anarchy.)  Ultimately, anarchism – remember, this includes libertarianism – is characterized solely by a rejection of concepts as such, and it is only by first positively advocating conceptualization that anarchism might be rejected and that a truly free society might be brought forth.

At its root, anarchism upholds the metaphysics of determinism.  Determinism is the doctrine which states that man has no more free will than does a lump of coal.  With this as its footing, anarchism proclaims that individuals can be corralled under the proper social circumstances to act in perfect harmony with one another.  Once those circumstances are achieved – beginning with the abolition of the state – anarchism claims that we will have achieved a social system which will be in such perfect working order that it needs not the maintenance of the thought of the individual, that it will inexorably maintain itself.  Even if there are the occasional hiccoughs from certain rogue anomalies who cause some trouble here and there, they will be immediately quashed by the dialectical power of anarchy and society will bounce right back to tranquility.

Since it is the whole of anarchy’s workings – the anarchic Geist, so to speak – which will resolve all societal ills and since man cannot be held responsible for anything against the background of determinism, anarchism necessarily espouses agnosticism, first in epistemology and as a consequence also in the arena of ethics.

Epistemology is the field that asks if we can know anything, what we can know, and how we can know.  For anarchism, epistemology is a dead end.  It is only through free will that man might have knowledge, and it is by determinism that he is barred from the slightest mote of certainty.  Knowledge is power, and power is knowledge.  Since determinism reduces man to the agency of a lump of coal, it also reduces him to the cognitive efficacy of that same inanimate lump.  Anarchism is the manifestation of the epistemology of Immanuel Kant.  For anarchism, all beliefs are either analytic or synthetic; that is, they are all either idle fantasies or they are unverifiable postulates.  Since thought is thereby rendered irrelevant to reality, there is only room for impulsive action on the anarchist scheme.  Thus, anarchists say, the only way to achieve the perfection of an anarchic society is to dissolve the “artificial” and “unnatural” illusion put forth by the concept-born state and instead to return to the rule of concrete-bound instincts – spontaneous, randomized action inspired by whim and answering only to whim.  (How it is that anything could be “unnatural” in a deterministic universe is something for which anarchists will not even begin to account.)

Since man has no choice under determinism, moral judgment is thereby rendered non-applicable according to anarchism.  When speaking of determinism, a killer has no more moral culpability in murder than does a house which collapses on its occupants.  Thus, according to anarchism there are no such things as political rights as rights are nothing more than the implementation of ethics (or morality) in a societal context.  Anarchism opposes the state because it sees the state as imposing upon individuals a moral structure, i.e. the moral structure which dictates that it is wrong to initiate the use of force.  Anarchism forbids that any man should be forbidden from anything whatsoever and that his natural instincts be his only motive power.  (In ethics, too, anarchists refuse to acknowledge the fact that they are inherently assuming a contradiction: their “right” to violate the rights of others at the anarchists’ pleasure.)

With its utter agnosticism, anarchism refutes concepts wholly.  A concept is formed by accurately integrating the data of the senses through essences, by stripping perceptual entities of their discrepancies and finding their unique underlying commonality.  Concepts are the key to man’s survival, as it is essential to man’s nature that he live by concepts.  That is what distinguishes him from all other organisms and makes him qualitatively superior to them.  Without concepts, he loses that distinction and is ruled by whim (or instinct).  Rule by whim psychologically means rule by force politically.  It means that man becomes impulsive like David Hume’s legendary billiard ball being struck by the cue.  Just like the billiard ball, men lose the ability to peaceably resolve disputes – even honest misunderstandings – and have no choice – no choice but to use force to survive, to force the other billiard balls out of their path.  As Hobbes famously put it, this natural (read: pre-conceptual) state is “nasty, brutish, and short.”  Anarchists really only want freedom from one thing: concepts, which means freedom from thought, which means freedom from the responsibility which a state’s rule of objective law codifies.  If man is “freed” from thought, he thereby becomes an absolute slave to everything else: disease, famine, the elements, and especially the fear that his neighbor next door might spontaneously murder him in his sleep.  If one accepts anarchism, who is to stop his neighbor from doing just that (or himself from doing just that to his neighbor)?  Anarchism is nothing more than the advocacy of a return to a pre-historic condition, with all of the “freedom” which that entails.

While anarchism is nothing more than a negation of all thought in a societal context, a rejection of anarchism must propose a positive, constructive alternative.  (Since the focus of this particular piece is to demonstrate the invalidity of anarchism, I will discuss the proper alternative only insofar as is necessary to prove that there is one.  I would like to put forward a more focused address of the subject in the future.)  That alternative is a state with an objective government, which requires an entity that has a monopoly on the use of force over a certain geographic area.  Yet of what would an objective government consist?  It would be one that is ruled by objective law.  By “objective law” I mean law which is designed only to protect the rights of the governed and is applied only to protect those rights.  This requires three apparatuses: the courts, to provide arbitration of disputes between men, both honest and criminal; the police, to enforce the law domestically amongst citizens; and the armed forces, to protect the collective citizenry of the state from external threats. 

The key objection brought forth by anarchists is that this is the initiation of force by the state because it does not allow men to pick and choose whose laws they will abide by on which days – assuming they choose to abide by any.  There is no way to guarantee that the government will not become corrupt just as every government today is to one extent or another, so why should men not have the right to “subscribe” to another code of laws at their own leisure?  The response is simple: there simply is no way to “guarantee” that a government will not become corrupt because there is no way to “guarantee” that its citizens will not become corrupt.  Thus, we have come full-circle: the nature of man is that of a being with free will.  The only way to prevent corrupt, tyrannical, bad government is to change the fundamental philosophy of that government’s society.  The mechanistic, deterministic, clockwork society for which anarchists search simply does not exist if the society in question is made up of human beings.  This is also to what I was referring at the beginning of this essay when I said that the myriad hair-splitting distinctions between anarchists are false since they are based on a forecast of how men must behave when government is dissolved.  No matter how perfect, how utopian, how peaceful a society becomes; the price of freedom always remains eternal vigilance.  A society will be free only so long as its citizens work to both achieve and then to perpetually maintain that freedom.  Any talk of a system that removes the contingency of free will talks of removing man since he is the contingency.  It can be guaranteed that good philosophy leads to good government (freedom) and bad philosophy leads to tyranny (I take this term to encompass anarchism).  Yet guaranteeing that men will choose one over the other is a metaphysical impossibility as it contradicts the nature of man as a being with free will.  It is for each individual in a society to decide what he believes, what he advocates, what he strives toward.  Thus, men must become rationally convinced if they are to uphold a free society while anarchism attempts to bypass the nature of man altogether and thereby only ends in bypassing freedom to make way for force.  Thus, a society’s level of freedom is in direct correspondence to that same society’s reverence for concepts, thus exposing the reality that anarchism’s hatred of the state is really a hatred of concepts, man, and freedom.

Invisible Ideas

Invisible Children Movement Influences Abuse of Political Power

By: Patrick T. Adams

Two weeks have passed now since what can only be classified as a social media phenomenon: the Kony 2012 viral video. For about a week, this 30-minute video, sponsored by the not-for-profit group Invisible Children Inc., spread like wildfire through YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, bringing the video to over 85 million views. It had nothing to do with the usual suspects of social media mentions: March Madness, American Idol, the GOP campaign, etc. In fact, oddly and frighteningly enough, it was political without seeming political – your typical trip into postmodern hipsteria. It had nothing to do with the Keystone pipeline, the Arab Spring, ObamaCare’s constitutionality, birth control, or unemployment, but rather with the welfare of displaced and abused Ugandans amidst a violent insurrection led by religious extremist Joseph Kony. There is a crucial contention to shed light on, though not with the moral status of this civil war in itself. On the contrary, the contention is with the U.S. decision to intervene politically and militarily. I can tell already that I’m fighting an uphill battle against a vast social media army, but you have to climb a few flights of stairs just to defenestrate anything.

The subject matter of the video concerns Joseph Kony, a Ugandan guerilla warlord and religious zealot who is notorious for his abduction and conscription of thousands of children into the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). While his political ambitions are to usurp the current Ugandan regime and erect a theocracy based on the 10 Commandments – a sort of Christian Sharia law – his militant sadism and mystical obsession with black magic seem to suggest pathological megalomania.

There is no question that Kony is truly evil and quite insane – bearing an uncanny resemblance to Kurtz in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness – but are his actions proper grounds for a U.S. political or military intervention? Many seem to think so, including George W. Bush (ordered the 2008-2009 Operation Lightning Thunder during his presidency), President Obama (signed into law the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act), and an overwhelming consensus crossing both sides of the aisle in both the Senate and House of Representatives. The acclaimed documentarians from Invisible Children clearly reached some very elite ears in addition to those of several impassioned Americans.

The government’s role, however – despite years of neoconservative and liberal welfare wars – is not to apportion its troops’ lives and its civilians’ money for the sake of foreign disputes that have negligible relevance to U.S. foreign policy interests. The government, as the American Founders imagined and established, should be reined in because of its monopoly on the use of force, a monopoly to be exercised only in retaliation to initiated force (there is no such thing as a right to initiate the use of force). Man requires individual rights, within a social context, as a moral sanction to act on his own judgment for the sake of his own life. To surrender one’s judgment to another or idling oneself to deterministic forces is to surrender the only human means of survival: the mind. In this respect, government is necessary as a means to securing man’s rights.

Rights are also not determined by arbitrary, subjective whims. Conceptually, rights are conciliated by a philosophical axiom, the law of identity, meaning that rights are not contradictory (i.e. they do not apply only to certain individuals but not others, or in some scenarios but not others). The identity in question when regarding man’s rights is the identity of man qua man, thus by being a man (read: human being) one has certain rights. As mentioned before, man’s identity is that of an organism who survives by the unfettered use of his mind, and rights are the recognition of this fact insofar as they leave a man free to follow the convictions of his own mind. A slave owner who believes in the right to life while denying it to his slaves has some premises to recheck.

A proper application of individual rights to foreign policy will show that government action not on its citizens’ behalf is a sacrifice of its citizens’ pursuits, and therefore of their individual rights. International political and military engagements require an enormous commitment of resources: strategic planning, time, money, and often human lives, with the latter being the most important consideration. When and if the government commits these things to any other purpose than ensuring the protection of its citizens, it is then abusing the powers delegated to it.

This is the case with the U.S. providing assistance to the Ugandan government. One hundred U.S. troops have been committed by the authorization of President Obama, but consider taxpayer dollars as well. According to a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate published in late 2009, implementation of the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act would cost $28 million over the 2010-2014 period.

But these are just insignificant considerations, right? It’s just 100 troops. They’re just advisory. It’s only $28 million. The Ugandans are less privileged than we are.

To think in such a way drops context and marginalizes our own problems. The U.S. is not a disposable asset to the rest of the world simply by being the most prosperous nation on Earth. Those 100 troops, advisory or not, are being put at risk simply by allying against such a radical militant group, and even if it were just one troop, that doesn’t reduce the significance of that life, let alone 100 of them. Servicemen do serve a purpose, but it’s to protect our individual rights, not to distribute war handouts. Remember the hellhole of Vietnam?  The U.S. initially became involved only in sending Green Berets as “advisors” to the South Vietnamese. We all know how that turned out. It’s really easy to get desensitized to numbers in this day and age when politicians toss around the military and billions of dollars like pocket change. This is why it’s so important to deal in concepts in lieu of the sensory overstimulation and shock value coughed up by sensationalist documentarians and politicians.

Also, the focal point of this movement is what appears to be a madman driven by religious ideology. Assuming Kony is still alive - and apparently there is reasonable speculation that he isn’t - who’s to say that making him “famous,” as the Invisible Children movement intends, or offering financial and military assistance to his enemies won’t provoke the LRA to commit retaliatory violence, possibly exacerbating the situation and requiring more effort to defeat the LRA? Who’s to say that this won’t become pro-Kony propaganda that gains him recruits in the form of opportunists and similarly minded ideologues?  Islamic terrorists acting in the name of Allah certainly didn’t mind provoking the powerhouse United States over the past few decades.

However, it’s important to identify the critical difference between the actions of Islamic militants, specifically al-Qaeda, and those of the LRA. The former actually initiated aggression against innocent Americans in multiple instances throughout the 1990s and 2001. In such cases, the U.S. had moral justification in responding with retaliatory force. On the other hand, the LRA is indeed contemptible, but they do not warrant a U.S. political or military intervention; they have not initiated aggression against us.

It’s no wonder that pacifist anti-war groups gain so much clout when the U.S. sacrifices human lives and spends itself into oblivion with so many altruistic liberation wars and skirmishes. On the current path, if the time comes when the U.S. is truly put in a position to defend its citizens’ rights and safety, it will be even more difficult to gather the resolve to successfully engage in an armed conflict when resources are allocated elsewhere.

What is particularly unsettling is that a string of well edited documentary clips and poorly developed concepts is enough to mystify and incite mob rule from YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. And a couple of weeks later, it seems to be completely forgotten. Although it’s creepy, it’s not surprising in a country where the overwhelming attitude is that benevolence requires coercively forcing the sacrifice of its citizenry to the latest emotional impulse. The proper alternative to this altruistic bandwagoning, however, is a genuine intellectual commitment to principles and not mere stimuli. A positive difference in the state of the world can’t be achieved by drawing tickets randomly out of a lottery of issues.

Sex: A Necessary Good

By: Andrew Deaton

I recently came across what is essentially a manifesto against pleasure. Its title: “Ways To Be Intimate Without Having Sex”. The content is in the form of a list of around 80 items. Some examples: “Give compliments”; “Plant things”; “Find a secret spot to call your own”; “Record a voice tape of special messages”; and – oddly enough, 30 or so items down the list – “Say ‘I love you’”.

Such a list is symptomatic of a doctrine that plagues our society: a hatred of sex fueled by the belief that it is dispensable and evil. This has led to a two-fold false and lethal dichotomy in the practice of non-platonic relationships: those who avoid sex and those who have sex promiscuously.

The first group is generally of the Judeo-Christian mold, though not necessarily. To most members of this group, sex is only to be had after marriage (e.g. mainstream Protestants) and/or only for procreative purposes (e.g. Catholics). The first criterion views sex merely as the completion of the magical marriage ritual because it brings God’s love into the mix. Thus, Christians view sex as a three-way with God, but no one ever seems to call Christianity out on this. Sex is thereby reduced to the meaninglessness of a rubber stamp to the ineffable marriage ritual. This same view is included in the second criterion with the addendum that sex may only be had in order to make more worshippers of God, thereby reducing man to swine, and sex to the mere act of the manufacture of more swine. In other words, both criteria view sex as permissible only when it is purified by God. The logical conclusion of this view is the consistent ascetic view of the Shakers: sex itself is evil under all circumstances and must never be practiced. Such people fear what sex will reveal about how they really feel about their partner and, by extension, themselves. The hallmark common amongst this entire group is the view that sex is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.

The second of the aforementioned groups is the hedonists, those who know nothing but whim and unquestioningly follow nothing more than their own immediate urges. It is these who have one-night stands. To them, the mindless writhing of two anonymous persons for a couple of hours is the most to which we can aspire. They are swine who revel in the mud and engorge on the slop. These individuals secretly fear and/or know that they have nothing in the way of substance to offer in an organic and sincere relationship. Thus, they run once the sex is over so that the other person cannot leave them first. According to this group, sex is a necessary evil, but a necessity nonetheless.

The truth is that a sincere, organic, romantic relationship between two loving adults requires both the non-sexual and the sexual. To reduce a relationship to a dogmatic Weight Watchers-style sexual substitution program is to encourage sexually active adults to engage only in sex. There simply is no substitution for the sex that comes with a meaningful relationship. It is the necessary effect of having a healthy relationship.

The view that marriage should come before sex is not only ridiculous, but is actually destructive. Sex serves an extremely important function in addition to being the metaphysically greatest pleasure imaginable: it serves as a barometer of the relationship’s health. “Trouble in bed” might be the result of trouble elsewhere. To know that this is the case, one must of course first rule out other possible causes, e.g. erectile dysfunction, stress from work, exhaustion, etc. However, once one has established that such factors are not viable explanations, then the explanation is that something is wrong with the relationship. It does not necessarily mean the end of the relationship. A relationship’s being healthy is not the result of never having problems; it is the result of being able to resolve those problems honestly and effectively.

In cases where such problems are indicative of a fatal flaw in the relationship – i.e. one or both of the partners is not fully convinced that theirs is a relationship to which they are willing to commit – imagine what it would mean to that couple if they were to first marry before having sex. How much of an emotional toll must it put on two individuals to discover after years of courting and anticipating marriage and sex to discover suddenly that they do not truly love one another? That is why the abstinence movement is destructive.

Anyone who truly believes in the sanctity of a loving relationship must embrace sex as the greatest joy that one can ever achieve. It is a reflection and a summation of a relationship. It is a necessary good.

From the Chief

For quite some time now, I’ve been anxious to have a medium where I can spin some threads on the recurrent themes underneath the overwhelmingly large umbrella called culture. My generation is and will be shouldering burdens that, in my opinion – and I think many feel the same way – require an unparalleled degree of intellectual determination and focus. Living in the Information Age, especially since the advent of the World Wide Web, there is no shortage of ideas, but the supply of ideas is not the problem facing this generation. The problem, as with any intellectual endeavor, is comprehension (grasping meanings and significance), contextualization (ideas are a part of a complex, interrelated framework), discrimination (discerning the bad and/or irrelevant from the good), and integration (synthesizing concepts and observations into a comprehensive system of thought). 

In a previous age, the Industrial Revolution, mass production and greater standards of living weren’t the problem. The thinkers of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution paved a political landscape that would make such a socio-economic structuring possible. However, the unprecedented economic growth and social mobility of the late 19^th century gave rise to feelings of resentment. Author Mark Twain notoriously called this period the “Gilded Age,” while Ida Tarbell, one of the famous “muckraker” journalists, aroused the public’s contempt for big businesses such as John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. 

So, what happened? Why, in spite of unprecedented wealth creation and social liberalization, are the values and accomplishments of the West accompanied by feelings of enmity and guilt? Intellectually, the answers are in philosophy; by demonstration, they are also in history. 

And it is in history that offered both this blog’s symbolism and its namesake, Defenestration. The meaning of the word is to “throw a thing or person out of a window.” Historically, two of the most notable defenestrations took place in 15^th and 17^th century Prague, where Bohemian Protestants became frustrated with the religious persecution and corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. 

This blog doesn’t aim to throw anybody out of a window, but Defenestration will be a vehicle for scrutinizing the intellectual roots responsible for today’s cultural anathema and, at the very least, create a dialogue for replacing nefarious ideas with benevolent ones. 

Andrew Deaton and I invite you to visit Defenestration with regularity and share what we have to offer. 

Patrick T. Adams
Editor-in-Chief