Friendship vs. Fellowship

I recently read in a book called The One Minute Philosopher by Montague Brown Ph.D about the difference between Fellowship and Friendship. Here is what it said:

Friendship: Mutual Affection and Esteem

Although there are all kinds of friendships, the deepest and most fundamental is centered on selfless concern for another person. In true friendship, each party cares about the other for that other's own sake. To be a true friend is to put our friend first.

True friends really care about each other's full happiness. If I am your friend, I want what is best for you. This means that I want to be useful to you and make life enjoyable for you. But even more, it means that I want you to be wise and good, for only then can you be fully happy. Because true friendship is based on a mutual commitment to help each other grow in wisdom and virtue, it tends to last, for these goods cannot be lost owing to changes in fortune.

In true friendship, there is no envy or jealousy. Friends do not begrudge the fact that one has achieved or been given some good that the other does not have, but they rejoice in each other's success. Nor is friendship exclusive; it naturally gives rise to and nourishes other friendships. Friends are happy that their friends have other friends. If I am a real friend, I would even give up my chance for glory so that my friend might have it. This commitment to the full happiness 

of others is the ideal of all human relation.

Fellowship: Mutual enjoyment and camaraderie

Fellowship is a necessary and pleasant part of our lives. But unlike true friendship, fellowship is not necessarily centered on the good of another. It may be centered simply on the pleasure of entertaining company. Fellowship is compatible with putting ourselves first.

In fellowship, our care for one another is secondary to our desire for enjoyment. Our fellowship need not involve any dedication to promote each other's full happiness. Perhaps we share a desire for some object or activity, or maybe we just have fun together. There is nothing wrong with such a relationship, but it lacks the deep commitment characteristic of true friendship. Since fellowship depends on mutual enjoyment, it may not last beyond our first disagreement.

Although fellowship falls short of the full mutual commitment characteristic of true friendship, it is an important ingredient in social relations. It makes interacting with others easier and more pleasant. Clubs, sports teams, organizations, and businesses all benefit from the cultivation of fellowship. Fellowship supports a spirit of cooperation, contributing to the efficiency and enjoyment of such groups. In addition to being useful and pleasant, fellowship may eventually develop into true friendship.

Chivalry still Lives: an Essay

Here is an Essay by me. It is a basic overview of modern Chivalry. It may help in our search for a Practical Chivalry for Modern Man.

What is Chivalry? It is a much used word, and it’s meaning which most often springs to mind is, as the Oxford American Dictionary says: “Courteous behaviour esp. that of a man toward women.” Chivalry most certainly is that, but more. Chivalry, in short is the tendency to act courageously, with “honour, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak”(OAD). In the twenty-first century, chivalry has lost much of its attraction. The strong can help themselves and the weak can go to the devil. But chivalry is not dead. On the contrary, chivalry is making the comeback of the century.

To act courageously is perhaps the hardest thing for humankind. Man has a natural tendency toward self-protection and acting courageously often means forgetting oneself. Courage means doing what’s right as opposed to what’s easy. But to do what is right, does not justify how you do it. It must be done with honour, doing things right, the right way. It must be done with courtesy, respect for all people, It must be done with justice, a sense of the fair and reasoneable. And most importantly, it must be done with a readiness to help the weak. This is the core of chivalry. Chivalry is not doing the right thing because it will gain you acclaim. It is not all flashing swords and colorful pennants. It can take that face, but now in the twenty-first century, they are symbols for more ordinary things. After all, they were at one time the ordinary. Now, however, we must find our modern face of chivalry, and it is there.

In the modern day, chivalry is often characterizeds by cliches such as holding doors open, but modern Man can do better, and does do better.  Helpfulness in all areas and for all people should be our goal. One place that this can be put to practice is in the workplace. Very often there are odd jobs that need to be done, or sometimes, you can get short-handed, and so people have to do extra. The chivalrous approach is to help as much as you can. If you are doing nothing else, pick up the slack. This is just one example, but a general rule can be followed. We should think of others first, we should respect people even if we disagree with them, and we should give ourselves for the sake of others. We should protect the weak, man, woman, and child, and treat them honorably and respectfully. Not only can we do this, but we do. Chivalry still lives!

Chiv.

 Ladies and Gentleman,

I have a noble and and charming idea. Let us write a code of Practical Chivalry! By doing this we would provide a clear path for modern youth, that's the noble part, and the charming part is it will be jolly fun to create!

What say you?

Graduation is a relative term...

As many of you faithful readers know, the time has arrived when certain people, generally seniors, graduate. I, in fact, am one of them. Now I say that graduation is a relative term, setting aside it's mathematical meaning. For instance, not only am I not done with classes, but I most certainly not done with all my schooling in my Life. So what does it mean to graduate? Is it merely an artificial milestone or what? I for one am going out of state for college, so it's a bit of a change, but what of those people who just go to a community college in their hometown? It's hardly different. Certainly you meet new friends, but you don't forget the old ones, and if they're good friends, you'll stay close to them all your life.

Here is a song I wrote concerning graduating:

They always say that they can’t wait

to graduate

and neither can I

But neither can I forget you at all

And in the fall

When I call

Remember that if I could

I would take both worlds and still will try

To make your world with every “hi”

Cause you’ll continue to make mine

More tolerable than it’s ever been before

They always say ttyl

forget the cell

But I’ll try not to

And I’ll try not to get caught up in what

Just doesn’t cut it

And you know, but

I’ll remind you, if I could

So, Things in Motion stay in motion

So can you slow me down?

They say emotion, what a notion,

Tends to spin us round.

I feel like I’m spinning too

But I’d just like the sight of you

So i think that I’ll spend the day

Not thinking bout going away

Cause you make it possible to say

Notre Dame Response

ND vs. USC…CB

 

In 1977, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish defeated the University of Southern California Trojans in an epic battle. It was literally epic, because the Irish came out of a wooden horse, took the field and defeated the enemy. Now they are fighting again, but this time against a more formidable and eternal opponent. And let’s hope they lose, or rather, that they win, for to win this battle, they must lose it.

This is World Non-famous reporter Nate Gotcher. Today I’m following the interesting and controversial story of President Barack Obama’s visit to the University of Notre Dame and the student response commonly known as NDResponse.

            Now, the controversy doesn’t arise from the fact that President Obama is visiting Notre Dame, but rather that he is speaking at the commencement and receiving an honorary Law degree from the self-same University. But of course, you all know all this, since it has been covered pretty thoroughly by the media…or maybe you don’t.

            The focus in the media for the past couple of weeks has been on the Pro-life activists coming to South Bend and Notre Dame to protest Obama’s visit. Yes, NDResponse has been mentioned, but the focus in the media for the past couple of weeks has been on the Pro-life activists coming to South Bend and Notre Dame to protest Obama’s visit. Sorry to be redundant, but I feel your pain. From Randall Terry and his groupies of radicals to other activist groups, they are not necessarily in my good graces. Now I myself am a Pro-life activist. I went to the March for Life 2009 in Washington, and was sincerely impressed and inspired.

            All right…before I go on, I have to say this. True, the Life issues are the most important, and I could get into that, but won’t at this time. The main point is that this is more than the abortion/embryonic stem cell issue, and in fact I’d say almost a different issue all together. And this is where the outside radicals get kind of over the top.

            Yes, Obama is Pro-choice. Yes, he is for embryonic stem cell research. Yes, we as Catholics disapprove and do not want to condone his political views on such subjects, but why specifically do we not want him at the University of Notre Dame giving commencement speeches and receiving degrees? Because the bishops said so, duh, to use a somewhat colloquial term. Yes, the reason they don’t want him there is because of these issues, but for goodness sake, they don’t want him there.

            This is a Catholic issue, it really doesn’t extend out of the realms of the Church, because why would any one else care if we listened to our bishops? Except out of some sort of misplaced regard for obedience to authority or order. Or maybe they just feel sorry for us poor shepherdless Catholics. Didn’t some pope say that the Church was Apostolic, namely under the guidance of the Apostles and their successors? Or is that one of the Marks of the Church found in the Nicene Creed?

            The main thing is that as a Catholic University, Notre Dame is part of the Church and ought to act like it. Some say that they don’t need outsiders defining their mission, and I’d agree if they were talking about Randall Terry, but if they’re talking about the Church, they’re sadly mistaken since they’re kind of in  the Church, thus their mission should be that of the Church.

            A Catholic University should bring the light of the Truth of Christ to the world as only a University can, but if they can’t even follow the Magisterium, where the heck are they going to come up with the Truth of Christ? They can’t share that which they don’t have themselves. In fact, I’d almost go as far as to say that this is a schismatic move, breaking from the hierarchy just as Luther did. What do we need popes and bishops for? I dunno, ask Jesus. He’s the one that built his Church on fallible humans.

            So what if the bishops, as fallible humans, are wrong? Well, I ask you, what if? How are you supposed to know? Are you going to doubt, or trust Jesus when he put these men in charge that they will guide us along the right paths and that things will turn out. I put my faith in the bishops and so I don’t want Obama at ND giving speeches and getting degrees. The bishops say no, so I say NO.

 

Go IRISH!!!!!

Humour and Teasing

Yes, I know I used the British spelling...it's become a habit.

This post is about the value, or "un-value" of Humour and Teasing. First Humour.

Humour is a necessity of Life. Life is so serious sometimes, as it ought to be, but without humour, we weak humans would be like horses without Rolling Green Meadows to run in, or Cacti without thorns...well maybe not, but like Cacti and thorns, we would not survive for very long against certain predators. One of which is Nihilism, wherein Nothing means anything. No Nihilism has its own brand of humour, but it is of a bitter nature. Real humour is joyful, not spiteful or mean, or bitter, which brings us to teasing. It has been said that Teasing is mean, and should not be tolerated, but I think that if teasing is good natured and not spiteful mean or bitter, it can greatly aid in showing affection to one's friends.

==Paul

Kristen Lavransdatter

So, on Friday, our homeschool group has Literature Club, and the Book for the Month is Kristen Lavransdatter, the Trilogy of Epic Proportions. I am not entirely done with the Book, which is sadly unfortunate. I wish I were for two reasons. 1. so that I can more thoroughly understand and contribute to the discussion, and 2. (more importantly) because I don't really care for the book at all. I don't exactly know why, maybe it's because the apparent "hero" is a jerk-face...could be. Although technically, he's not supposed to be admirable...I guess, just handsome, and I guess you're supposed to get around to liking him and forgiving him eventually...or maybe it's just a "journey" story where the main characters have to become Good...

Anyhow, I really have no interest on reading about a couple who a) sinned gravely, b)went against the customs of their country, c) went rather blatantly about their business as if nothing had happened and are now getting punished for it...but ONLY internally...ugh all this emotional turmoil. Not that I mind that, it's just that nobody seems to be regretting anything.

Anyhow, the biggest problem I have is with Erlend Nikalausson who is the biggest baby and immature jerk ever, and I don't really care too much what happens to him.

The best characters are: Arne (who dies in the first book) and Simon (who is Kristen's Betrothed before Erlend comes along) and Gunnulf (Erlend's Brother who is a priest) and Brother Edvin...