Culture of Questions

"I know the question of 'ends' cannot safely be mentioned in the polity itself, because that would imply that some 'lifestyles' are better than others. We do not want that sort of sentiment around. Virtue cannot be a viable option, for that would mean that some things are vices. Still, as an act of rebellion, it is good to wonder about things that we are not supposed to think about."

Fr. James Schall's thoughts from On The Unseriousness of Human Affairs bring up an important facet of life which is easy to pass over: asking questions. In the hustle and bustle of each day, finding the time to sit back and contemplate life isn't easy. And, to be honest, contemplation sounds both heady and boring to most of us. Between our lack of time and the apparent lack of practicality, our culture doesn't encourage asking questions.

Or, perhaps we should say our culture does not encourage asking the right questions. When you think about it, there are all sorts of questions that we regularly ask. Who will win the next game? Is the stock market up or down this morning? Did you hear about the latest gaff from that celebrity? What is the best way to do ____? How will the President respond to this crisis? What are the polls saying about that hot button topic?

The list could continue. When we look at our questions though, how many do you see directed towards "ends?" That is, how many are focused on the purpose or reason for things? As Fr. Schall says further on:

"Those things that flow into us and those things that flow out of us belong to one world. We are not complete if we do not reflect on the highest things, or even on our own things. Nor are we complete if we do not seek to relate all things to one end, not just to any end, but to the truth of things."

Thinking about "ends" involves seeing how things fit into the truth about the world around us. While everything is unique, they are also specific parts of a whole - the whole of reality. Schall emphasizes that seeing this whole requires contemplation - specific focus on each of these facets and how they relate to and are part of the whole. Of course, in order to do this, we must know what the whole is, or at least have the framework from which to hang the other facets we encounter.

Francis Schaeffer communicated similar thoughts when he indited the Church for seeing "things in bits and pieces instead of totals." Schaeffer's concern was that focusing on the differentiation of subject matter prevented us from seeing how all of reality works together. Viewing the world as a series of compartments makes it easy to forget that these facets are part of a whole. Until we understand and know the whole, we will not be able to make sense of the facets.

This idea of knowing the whole implies that there is an absolute truth to the world - truth that applies to everyone all the time. This is why Schall regretted that questions of ends could not safely be asked in our culture- if they were to be accurately answered, we would find that some people were living life wrong because they were pursuing wrong ends. Still, he encourages us that, counter-cultural as it might be, these questions about ends are worth asking. After all, there are some things which are important enough for us to contradict the culture.

In the end, Schall and Schaeffer remind us that questions about ends are important because they require us to see reality as a whole - and in the process realize that Truth is something we see, not something we create.

In light of their thoughts, there are several questions we should ask ourselves: Do we agree that these questions ought to be asked? If so, does our personal culture and the culture we add to those around us support and encourage asking these questions? How do we encourage this kind of culture?

Feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts and answers. I'd be interested to hear your perspective!

Truth and Satisfaction

Last fall schoolwork had me studying American Literature. Assignments from one week brought selections from Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass. While reading the introduction to this key collection of poetry, I came across the following quote:

"Whatever satisfies the soul is truth."

I don't know how it strikes you, but I actually find that I could agree completely with Whitman. Some of you might be disagree with me, and not without good reason. After all, hasn't Whitman in those six words summed up the idea of Relativism? This is a question which is worth a closer look.

By way of background, relativism is the belief that there are no absolutes. Usually the term is used in reference to moral absolutes, but it can be used to refer to a belief about the nature of absolute truth in general. Other statements which epitomize this idea of relativism include:

• "Whatever floats your boat"
• "It's all good"
• "Who are we to judge"
• "There is no right and wrong"
• "Just because it's true for you doesn't mean it is true for me"

Read Whitman's statement again and notice his standard for truth: "Whatever satisfies the soul." If what satisfies us is the determining factor in what is true, than there is no firm definition for truth. After all, we are all satisfied by different things. In some areas, these sources of satisfaction can be contradictory (for instance, my love for coffee and other's pitiable distaste for it). If truth can be both "a" and "not a" at the same time, it really isn't true or a guide for life.

Given this argument, why I would agree with Whitman's statement? The answer to that question lies in definition.

What do we mean when we say "whatever satisfies the soul?" From the perspective of the Bible, the only thing which will satisfy our soul is living in line with God's plan for the world. "Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart." (Psalm 37:4 ESV)

With this definition of satisfaction, Whitman's statement makes perfect sense. After all, there is only one time we are ever truly happy in this world, when our lives align with the Truth. It logically follows that the more joy we have in our lives, the closer we are to living the Truth.

But that's the rub. Most of us want to define satisfaction for ourselves. Because of the fall, we think that we know what is best for ourselves...and it definitely is not what God wants for us. By pretending that we can define what brings happiness, we end up running from our most fulfilling satisfaction. C.S. Lewis puts it this way in the Screwtape Letters: "...we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever-increasing craving for an ever-diminishing pleasure is the formula. It is more certain; and it's better style. To get the man's soul and give him nothing in return..."

In the end, Whitman's quote seems to hold out both a promise and a warning. It promises us that Truth and pleasure enter our lives hand in hand, and that having one will include having the other. However, it warns us that aside from God's salvation and sanctification, we will be blind to both Truth and pleasure.


Do you agree my my analysis of Whitman's quote? If so, how should it affect how we evaluate our lives and beliefs? What kind of an impact should it have on our outlook on life?