"A Conspiratorial Philosopher"
“A Conspiratorial Philosopher” is the most appropriate title which flashed across my mind for two reasons: 1. I taught college philosophy for ten years; 2. My students would very often accuse me of being a “conspiracy theorist.” Considering these reasons, some additional points need to be made: Of all the natural sciences, mathematics, chemistry, biology, geology, et alia, there is one science which stands preeminently above the others - Philosophy. The reason is simple: All the natural sciences study causes, but philosophy studies the Cause of causes, or as the schoolmen say, Causa causarum Deus est, “God is the Cause of causes.”
As for conspiracy, it is from the Latin, con-spiro, “to breathe together.” There are three necessary components to any conspiracy: 1. It is done in secret; 2. It involves at least two people; 3. There is evil intent. By definition, any time these three components are present, there is a conspiracy. There are three types of people who believe in conspiracies: 1. Those who believe that everything is a conspiracy (and these people are fools); 2. Those who believe that nothing is a conspiracy (these too are fools); 3. Those who believe in some conspiracies (and these are the sane, rational people). The sane person should ask himself, “There is no doubt that conspiracies exist, the question is, what is and what is not a conspiracy?” To illustrate this point I will relate a true story from one of my prior philosophy classes:
One day I was teaching a philosophy class, and, it occurred to me to write a syllogism on the marker-board which looked something like this:
Major: All murderers are people who ought not to be trusted
minor: Cindy Mae is a murderer
Therefore: Cindy Mae is a person who ought not to be trusted
One of my students, a lady in the front row, asked the question, “Mr. Shepherd, what is the definition of ‘murder’?” She had a cellphone, and I asked her to pull up an online dictionary, giving me the definition. She complied: “Murder,” she said, “is the intentional killing of an innocent living thing.” I said, “Many of the dictionaries have been changed, and the people who have changed them are either malicious or ignorant; and many of them, I believe, are malicious.” I continued, “I have a living tree in my back yard, and when I go home I intend to cut it down with a chainsaw. According to this online definition I am a murderer? Yes or no?” I told them, the definition of murder is, “The intentional killing of an innocent human life.” They immediately realized the truth of the definition which naturally caused them to ask the question, “Why is the dictionary definition woefully inadequate?” The truth of the matter is, many of the dictionary authors have changed the definitions of certain important words. They have done these things willfully and with full knowledge. They are conspirators!
At this point we introduce a poll into the article:
As was already mentioned, I taught philosophy for a number of years. The question is almost always asked by student and non-student alike, Who is your favorite philosopher? Fair enough. I say without hesitation, Orestes Brownson (1803-76). The problem with Brownson is, not only have non-philosophers not heard of Brownson; the majority of philosophy PhD’s have never heard of him either. He is the most voluminous American author, and probably the most voluminous in all of history. I post a picture of Brownson’s Quarterly Review, which ran from 1844-76 (the dark volumes):
Brownson was the co-founder of Notre Dame and a famous Catholic convert. He converted at the age of forty-one and the late bishop of New York, John “the Dagger” Hughes, said of him, “Brownson, while yet a catechumen, knew more theology than I, and I was considered a great theologian.” Brownson’s friends once invited him out to lunch and he dominated conversation for two hours. They said amongst themselves, “We will invite Brownson out to dinner again, but we will research something he knows nothing about.” They researched Greenland. Brownson had just written an article about Greenland in his Review. After having been invited a second time to lunch, Brownson dominated conversation for over an hour and his friends resolved to never invite him out again. So much for Brownson.
Lastly, by way of introduction, my students would invariably ask me, “Mr. Shepherd, what prompted you to teach philosophy.” “The money,” I would tell them, “it was definitely the money.” My last year teaching, in 2017, I taught eight classes at two different colleges. I made $14,900 that year. It was definitely the money!