“Thus the nature both of the man and of the woman has been preordained by the will of heaven to live a common life. For they are distinguished in that the powers which they possess are not applicable to purposes in all cases identical, but in some respects their functions are opposed to one another though they all tend to the same end.”
Aristotle, Oeconomica
The ancients tended to have confidence in nature. They looked to discover what they had been given, as their experience indicated that the fundamental design of things is quite sound.
The distinction between male and female was probably the most obvious feature of the natural design, even if entailing more than its share of challenges in practice.
Like the need for daily sustenance, gender differentiation was simply given. The demanding aspects of feeding themselves, it turns out, gave occasion for the exercise of truly human life, knitting together a household community. Similarly, the gender differentiation of man and woman was something to be worked with and to be worked on, together.
Never easy, this differentiation challenges a person, a relationship, and a community at their very core, and it gives color and shape to most every aspect of human life. To lose sight of one’s masculinity or femininity—something to which we all are prone—is to lose sight of color and shape of what it means to be me.
In these latter days of human civilization, we are all tempted in countless ways to leave behind what we experience as the limitations of our bodily existence. So many of the technologies that are literally pressed upon us masquerade as a desirable solution, for what turns out was not in fact a problem or even a weakness. We cannot be surprised when our youth do not think in terms of receiving the gift, and the challenge, of the various aspects of their bodily existence.
The wise always begin with what is given, with what cannot, or should not be changed. Such an approach never ultimately disappoints. Each of us can look again to what nature has given, perhaps beginning with what being a man or a woman really entails. We might be surprised by what we find in this difference, and the difference it makes.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), student of Plato, tutor of Alexander the Great, has been considered by many to be the greatest ancient philosopher. The work cited, ‘Oeconomica,’ is attributed to him, but might have been authored by his students.
Image: Judith Leyster (1609-1660), Dutch, ‘The Proposition’
Husband, father, and professor of Philosophy. LifeCraft springs from one conviction: there is an ancient wisdom about how to live the good life in our homes, with our families; and it is worth our time to hearken to it. Let’s rediscover it together. Learn more.
Tremendous information John! The Author of all things our Father reveals himself through both the feminine and the masculine would you agree? Blessings Tim
Tim, I certainly do agree. And I’m convinced we will discover more than we have yet realized, in the astounding differentiation of male and female. Thanks.
Thank you so much for this! “The wise always begin with what is given, with what cannot, or should not be changed.” What a great phrase to use when problem-solving.
You are very welcome, Hope!
A very good post. And, I am sad to have to say, a brave one. Glad you teach where you can say it. We need more of you and more Catholic schools.
Thank you, Tom.
Why did you choose that painting?
Julia, Thanks for asking. First of all I liked the title: The Happy Family. And the image seemed to capture that well. What I see in this image is a good reminder to me to remember to put first things first in the household,… and that happiness does not require much in the way of possessions. Thanks again for asking.
Julia, Oops, sorry about that. I thought you were asking about the image for the post on Wealth: Seeking Only What’s Needed. As regards THIS image here, I simply thought that this image captured nicely something of the masculine and the feminine in the bodily demeanor of the man and the woman.
I do not find the art criticism on this particular piece of art to be in accordance with your position at all. In fact, they are rather contrary. I was a bit jolted by the stark difference actually. I find the symbolism in the painting to run totally against your viewpoint. I wondered if I was the only one, but after some research I have found I certainly am not. The painting gives us many reasons to wonder if something sinister is afoot.
Julia, There is always a danger that the art I have chosen will convey something contrary to what I had hoped. Perhaps that is the case in this instance. If the image seems to say something different from the text, I ask you to please give the text the greater weight. ON CLOSER LOOK, I think I see what you are saying. If that is money in his hand, then you are absolutely right. I completely missed that–the problem of failing eyes. Many apologies to you and all readers! I’ll change this image… Thanks for pointing this out!