N J

LOST PIECE
an undergraduate journal of letters

VOLUME II, ISSUE II

On A Darkling Plain
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

© Copyright, Lost Piece; All rights reserved.

No part of this journal may be used or reproduced by any means,

graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, record-
ing, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the
written permission of the Editor–In–Chief except in the case of brief
quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. The works included
in this journal are printed with explicit permission of their authors.

Lost Piece: An Undergraduate Journal of Letters

The University of Notre Dame
Center for Undergraduate Scholarly Engagement

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

LOST PIECE
an undergraduate journal of letters

VOLUME II, ISSUE II

On A Darkling Plain

Editor-in-Chief
Stephen Lechner

Editors
Raymond Korson
Josef Kuhn
Conor Rogers
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

Something of a Mission Statement

From the Editors

Lost Piece exists to facilitate undergraduate reading, discussion,

and writing of an intellectual nature beyond course curriculum
and without distraction from the grade point average.

Lost Piece seeks to help undergraduates to complement

and even unify what they learn in their classes with
their own personally driven intellectual pursuits.

The goal of Lost Piece is to combat mediocrity in all

things, and particularly in all things intellectual.

Lost Piece holds that the goods proper to intellec-

tual activity are ends in and of themselves and are to
be sought regardless of whatever recognitions may or
may not be extrinsically attached to such activity.

4
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

Table of Contents
Lost Piece: Volume II, Issue II

Something of a Mission Statement

From the Editors ..........................................................................4
Meet the Writers
Lost Piece ......................................................................................7
To an Overwhelming Question
Stephen Lechner ............................................................................9
Matchstick
Leah Coming ................................................................................13
The Abyss of Reason
Gabriel MacDonald ......................................................................15
Life Does Linger
Taylor Nutter ................................................................................23
God, Evil, and Evolution
Dylan Belton.................................................................................25
Ophelia
Christina Mastrucci ......................................................................39
Fiction and I
Nicolle Walking .............................................................................41
That Rare, Random Descent
Brittany Bergeson ..........................................................................45
Faith
James Schmidt ...............................................................................47
Sliced n’ Diced
Josef Kuhn .....................................................................................55
Stern Chase
John Ashley....................................................................................57
Sliced
Claire Kiernan .............................................................................61

5
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

Contribute to Lost Piece

Please consider writing—whether essay, poem, story, or what-have-

you—for the Fall 2011 Semester of Lost Piece. Write what you
think is pertinent to the life of a student, whatever that might be…

…Pose a question…

…Or offer an answer…

…Write at whatever length you need…

…But write well.

Submit your work to Steve Lechner

at slechner@nd.edu by April 30th.

6
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

Meet the Writers

These groups have contributed to the writing of the Fall 2010
Edition of Lost Piece. We encourage you, as an undergraduate,
to contribute your writing to future editions whether individu-
ally or as part of any such intellectual society. You can send
your writing and feedback to the editor at slechner@nd.edu. (

The Program of Istum:

Liberal Studies:
So it turns out that PLS
students don’t only like to talk
about such trivial things as
“free will” or “the meaning of
life” as approached through
the lens of certain Great
Books, but they also like,
even need, to engage ideas
wherever they can find them.
That’s why a few of them got
together to watch movies every
week, first as a social event
and later more as a discussion
group. They like to think they
are staying true to the spirit
of the word “seminar” (which
literally means “seedbed”) by
holding profound conversa-
tions on their own from which
they hope to bear the fruits of
new ideas, serious dialogue,
and lasting friendships.
7
(Also called That Thing) Three
years ago, a group of friends
decided to get together every
weekend to start a literary
society. Its members include
students from the Colleges of
Arts and Letters, Science, and
Engineering, but strangely
none from the college of
Business. They write, simply
put, despite the obvious fact
that they are only tyro writ-
ers, and they criticize each
other’s writing as best they
can. One of their goals is to
bring back the essay (which
literally means “an attempt”)
as a form of writing and as
a rhetorical work of art. The
group takes its name from
one of Cicero’s orations.
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

T: The Philosophy Club:

T is a group of undergradu- The Philosophy Club is
ates who meet together to a group of a few dozen
discuss issues of importance, undergraduates who enjoy
ranging from theology to arguing, using big words,
philosophy to current issues attempting to answer “life’s
in any and all fields. It is a great questions,” asking more
casually structured, socially questions, and arguing.
engaging event that welcomes
the opportunity to find both The Orestes Brownson Council:
common ground and a mul- As a club, OBC is focused
titude of opinions on topics. on better understanding
And they drink tea, too. the Catholic intellectual
tradition and its interaction
Mustard: with philosophy, politics,
Mustard is Notre Dame’s and culture. It takes its
undergraudate creative writing name from the American
club. They share their writing Catholic political thinker
with each other and offer who is buried in the crypt
constructive and friendly criti- of the Basilica of the Sacred
cism of their work at their 9:00 Heart, Orestes Brownson.
PM Wednesday meetings in
the Gold Room of La Fortune.
Writing is encouraged, though
not required for participa-
tion, and new members are
always welcome. Email
mustard@nd.edu for
more information.

8
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
To an Overwhelming Question
An Introduction
Stephen Lechner
Class of 2011
Editor-in-Chief
Here’s a story: tell me if I’ve
told it correctly. Once upon
a time, in a world called “The
West” there was a vast culture
of people which somehow,
not altogether clear as to how,
found itself believing in God.
At some point in time, a lot of
people in the West began to ask
whence they got that belief, and
for some reason, not altogether
clear as to what reason, a lot of
those people decided that they
didn’t like the answer they got
as to whence they got that belief
in God, so they decided to stop
believing in God. Then a mad-
man with a ferocious mustache
ran around the West holding
a lantern looking for God, and
when everyone told him that
there was none to look for, he
shouted that “God is dead, we
have killed him,” leaving many
people very confused. Many
people laughed at him and for
9
a long time nobody made much
of the poor fool, but eventually
people began to realize that if
God is not around, then there
is no obvious moral, political,
or otherwise social authority to
the world that they inhabit, and
no obvious reason to “suffer the
slings and arrows of outrageous
fortune.” Having lost God, they
all went ballistic—some went
into hiding in their upper rooms
and waited, perhaps, for the
wind to blow, others built little
castles which they named “the
world” and proclaimed them-
selves as “God of the world,”
and some took up lanterns and
ran off to search the highways
and byways to compel God to
come back to the West whether
he liked it or not. And that is
the state of the West today.
Make what you like of
this story, for it is just that, a
story, and stories are by their
nature fiction. Sometimes they
attempt to be “factual”—and
“factual” is a useful description
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
for certain stories—but if it’s
a person who’s telling it, then
a story is fiction and there is
nothing to be done about that.
“Abraham Lincoln was shot in
1865.” That’s fiction—if for no
other reason than that “1865”
cannot be anything other than
a subjective evaluation of time.
Somebody once decided that
“that should be the year 1865
A.D.” and everybody agreed
and still does agree with that
person. Of course “Abraham
Lincoln was shot in 1865” is
true, and anybody who says it
is not true should be told that
they are wrong, but whoever
said that fiction should not be
true does not know what fiction
is about. No one will deny that
The Little Prince is fiction, but
there is far more truth to that
story than there is to most any
history book printed today.
My intention in telling
this story is to present a
not-unusual account of our
own cultural passage from
10
Medievalism to Modernity to
Postmodernity. But what are
“Medievalism,” “Modernity,”
and “Postmodernity?” Like
“1865,” they are terms of
subjective evaluation, but unlike
“1865,” they are far less clearly
communicative. “Modernity”
and “Postmodernity” are
especially obscure. Their
meanings change depending on
their contexts—a philosopher
will use them in one way but a
political theorist, a sociologist,
and a literary scholar will each
use them in a very different
way. And this probably owes
to the terms themselves.
“Modern” is, properly speaking,
a synonym of “contemporary,”
though according to this
not-unusual story that I have
tried to present, “Modernity”
began sometime in the 16th
century and “Postmodernity”
began in the late 19th. If
Postmodernity started then,
are we living after what is
“post-contemporary?” And
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

what will happen when people modern not because they deny
decide to distinguish themselves God’s existence but because
from “Postmodern?” It seems they are comfortable with a life
we have spent our prefixes. without God;1 the same people
Some readers may protest, having gone ballistic are post-
“Why does one’s belief or disbe- modern not because they believe
lief in God define whether one in God, but because, whether
is modern or postmodern?” In they believe in God or not, they
fact, one’s belief or disbelief in are uncomfortable with a life
God does nothing of the kind. without God. Such a life leads
What I suggest defines someone them to what T. S. Eliot’s The
as either being modern or Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
postmodern is their response to called “an overwhelming ques-
their belief or disbelief in God. tion”—why? They are post-
The people in the West who modern because they have made
decide not to believe in God are Prufrock’s realization, that...
No! I am no prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the Prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.i

1 I don’t suppose, however, that we should just let the theist go on this one—it
may very well have been a wrong kind of theistic comfort at life with God, a
thing very difficult to prove, that inclined the modernist to disbelieve in God.

11
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

The pieces in this issue are

many and different, but they
are linked together by what
Matthew Arnold once described
as a “darkling plain.” These are
pieces that react, in some way or
another, to Modernity—a time
where humanity ruled supreme,
unchallenged by mystery, a time
of interesting and important
progress, a time of seeming
order and stability, but a time
that brought what was for
Arnold and Eliot a terrifying
emptiness. These pieces are
decidedly Postmodern, for
what is found in them is the
realization that ruling the world
is a big chore, and that who- or
i Eliot, T. S, The Love Song of J. Alfred
whatever may or may not be
Prufrock, in Collected Poems 1909-1962;
in charge, humanity is not in
Harcourt, Inc., New York, 1991, page
charge. That, at least, is my 7; It isn’t fair to reduce Prufrock’s
own subjective evaluation.( ‘overwhelming question’ to ‘why?’
Part of what makes it overhwleming
is that it is a difficult question to
formulate. But ‘why’ is an approach
to it. The whole poem, in fact, is an
attempt to pose the question, and thus
the poem is a very good exemple of a
postmodern reaction to the world.

12
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

Matchstick
A Poem
Leah Coming
Class of 2013
Mustard

I will not tell you that my aimless

vigil before the electric lamp provoked the anxiety

which was determined

by a child picking futilely at leprous sores.

I will tell you that I propped against the pole, a spectator

to the fulfillment of
the previous instant’s portent

and the streetlight nodded awake at

its accustomed time.

The pregnant certainty circulated

as lymph and humor through
the dirty pipes of a matchstick girl,
on her knees in immigrant streets

even as she whistled her exile

her craterous lips attested that
I’d be agonizing over how to say

13
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

I squeeze the prophesies out of every

patch of ground my feet compress.

I can’t reconcile this belief

that whatever happens is determined

with my unwavering investment in life.(

14
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
The Abyss of Reason
An Essay
Gabriel McDonald
Class of 2012
Philosophy Club
For the last three or four
hundred years, it has been
fashionable to consider all of
one’s beliefs the product of
reason. Were it not enough
that we human beings had to
go under the distinction of
rational animals, we now even
live in what Enlightenment
pop culture has dubbed the
“Age of Reason.” Though that
title properly only refers to that
period in history, starting some-
time in the 17th century, when
a class of bourgeois intellectuals
first concocted this notion
that no human belief is valid
unless it can be shown to stand
up to this nebulous concept
of “rationality,” this was really
only the beginning. The Age of
Reason has not ended, has in
fact only proliferated; what was
once just an upper-class fad has
now grown and infested every
segment of human society all
15
over the globe, and while many
consider this a great victory for
our species and for the cause of
establishing a utopian society in
which the poverty gap is elimi-
nated and niceness reigns su-
preme, the painful truth is that
this “triumph” of reason is, at
best, nothing new, and at worst,
the greatest disaster in human
history. Allow me to present
my reasons for saying this.
First, the obvious question:
What is “reason” and what
about it inspired our illustrious
Founding Fathers to worship it?
Put simply, reason is the process
by which we determine whether
a given set of statements can
be true. To give the most basic
example imaginable, we know
the statement “Dog ulterior
cavort” definitely cannot be true
because it’s not even a coherent
statement. To get slightly more
complex, we can take the two
statements “Il Gattopardo was
written by Luchino Visconti,”
and “Il Gattopardo was not
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
written by Luchino Visconti,”
and determine that, for all we
know, either statement could be
true, but they cannot both be
true.1 And how did our human
reason allot us such profound
knowledge of the universe? It’s
really quite simple: This little
gimmick—known as the Law
of Non-Contradiction—is built
into our language system. We
decided, by inventing language,
that we weren’t going to allow
people to assert something
and assert its negation at the
same time, because that would
just be confusing. It’s not like
we had to go out and hunt
down that knowledge on our
own, we gave ourselves that
knowledge thousands of years
ago, kind of as though we put
it in a time capsule for future
generations. How clever of us.
There are two important
things to note here. First,
reason—or “rationality,” if you
will—is an inherently linguistic
concept. It is a function of
language and not of the world
16
that our language is meant to
describe. Second—and this is
the real atom bomb—just as our
language is arbitrary, the laws of
reason are arbitrary too. Just as
we didn’t have to use the word
“squid” to describe an animal in
the genus architeuthis and could
just as easily have called it a
“parlor grand piano,” the syn-
tactical rules which tell us how
sentences must be set up and
which ones guarantee the truth
or falsity of which others, all
these are just as arbitrary. The
point of these rules is to have a
convenient way to infer a whole
bunch of other true statements
from just one statement. For ex-
ample, when Jacqueline tells us
that her car is red, we know that
it isn’t green, that it isn’t brown,
that it isn’t blue, and a plethora
of other facts about it without
having to do any research at
all. We didn’t have to allow
1 For those of you who were dy-
ing to know, the second is true. Il
Gattopardo was written by Giuseppe
di Lampedusa. Luchino Visconti
directed the 1963 film version.
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
ourselves such bold inferences,
but if we hadn’t our language
would be pretty pointless.
If all of this sounds to you
like a lot of stupid hogwash
that nobody cares about, you’re
probably right, but remember
that the decision to base human
knowledge on reason is often
compared to the invention of
the wheel when people discuss
its importance in the develop-
ment of human society. It’s
important to remember that,
while these principles may seem
so basic and obvious to us that it
feels like we knew them in utero
and didn’t need to have them
painstakingly explained to us
as I just attempted to do in the
last two paragraphs, they have
not always been unanimously
accepted. In ancient Greece,
it was common practice to
determine truth by finding out
who could shout their opinion
the loudest, or by just accept-
ing whatever the conquerors
claimed to be true, but then
a mischievous ne’er-do-well
17
named Socrates came along
and suggested that we all argue
using reason for a change, and
he was executed. But his legacy
lived on, and his commitment
to using reason in human
discourse eventually became
the norm, totally unthreatened
until Nietzsche showed up
more than two thousand years
later and said that Socrates
was actually a total jerk and we
should all go back to determin-
ing truth by seeing who shouts
the loudest. But fortunately
this idea was dismissed as the
ranting of a syphilitic nutjob
and reason has stayed in vogue.
It is important at this point
for me to clarify that, despite
my uncharitable remarks about
the Founding Fathers earlier,
I wholeheartedly agree that
Socrates’ rationalist project
was a big step forward for
humanity, and I am fully
committed to his goal of using
reason in all argumentation,
no matter what the subject
or who is arguing. But now
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
it comes time for me to draw
the fundamental distinction
between the Socratic rationalist
project and the Enlightenment
“rationalist” project.
Remember that all the
“rules” of logic, championed by
Socrates and later formalized by
Aristotle, despite their longev-
ity and the fact that none of
them have ever been seriously
contested, are fundamentally
arbitrary. This means that, while
we can use them to compare
statements against one another
and to juice further statements
out of one statement, it is
impossible to use reason to
conjure a “truth” right out of
thin air—with the exception
of totally vacuous truths like
the rules themselves. Aristotle
himself readily acknowledged
this and never claimed that any
of his logical rules or categories
by themselves could give anyone
knowledge, but could get you
off the ground if you start by
accepting some truths as given.
18
This sort of modesty was totally
alien to the gentlemen of the
Enlightenment, who were pre-
sumptuous enough to claim that
they could come to indisputable
truth about the universe by
means of reason alone. Though
they all inevitably failed to do
so in spectacular fashion, this
method of thought has inex-
plicably lingered and continues
to corrode society to this day.
It bears mentioning why
they thought they could build
this Tower of Babel in the first
place. The one-word answer:
Science. Advances in science at
the time of the Enlightenment
had done wonders as far as
giving people knowledge that
they were confident to declare
“objective,” much more so than
the dominant mode of think-
ing: Just believe whatever the
Church tells you. It is impera-
tive to remember that, contrary
to popular belief, Socratic
rationalism had not in any way
diminished at this time, and
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
people were still challenged to
employ reason in determining
their beliefs. For example, one
might argue for the existence of
God by saying that you should
believe in God because if you
don’t God will damn you to
hell. This argument may sound
like crap to us, the enlightened
of the 21st century, but if
you think about it, it is actu-
ally a perfectly well-reasoned
argument. The statement “You
should believe in God” does in
fact follow from the statement
“God will damn you to hell if
you don’t believe in Him.” The
only residual problem is where
you got that premise from. Back
during the times leading up to
the Enlightenment, higher-ups
in the Catholic Church were
more than happy to give the
hoi polloi all the “truths” they
wanted to use as premises for
their arguments. This system
worked splendidly for more
than a millennium and only
broke down because eventually
19
there came some people who
didn’t accept these truths.
The intelligentsia of the 17th
century, even the churchy ones,
didn’t like using the “truths”
they were given by the Pope and
his minions, because they found
another source that they liked
more: scientific experimenta-
tion. Rather than just accept
that the moon was perfectly
round because the Church hier-
archy, who believed everything
that St. Thomas Aquinas told
them, who believed everything
that Aristotle told him, said it
was, they figured it was more
reliable to just look at the
moon and manifestly see that
it is not perfectly round. I must
insist, however, that the only
thing making this method a
better source of “truth” than the
Church method is that people
were more inclined to accept
it. Certainly there were valid
reasons people were more will-
ing to accept it—it was based
on repeatable experiments, it
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
matched our sensory experi-
ences, it was more useful for
technological purposes,
etc.—but this did not neces-
sarily make it any truer, it only
made it more widely accepted.
Again I find nothing to
object to. I too prefer the
scientific method of mapping
the lunar surface to the “believe
whatever the 16th century
bishop tells you” method. The
problem comes when these
Enlightenment bastards
decided they could use this
scientific method to learn every
possible conceivable truth about
everything. This would be kind
of like if Toyota were to find a
hot chick who was so good at
attracting customers to a sports
car exhibition that they decided
to make her CEO of the entire
company. In their irrationality,
they somehow forgot that all
they had actually done was find
a better way to design wind-
mills, and here they thought
they had found the font of all
20
knowledge and immortality.
That was their first mistake. The
second was confusing “science”
with “rationality,” an absur-
dity which persists to this day.
Again, this was all a result of
their intoxicated overconfidence;
they were so convinced that this
new science thing was such an
incontestable source of truth
that they dubbed any refusal to
accept the “truths” of science
somehow as a logical fallacy.
The problem with this way
of thinking is that, while this
whole science thing is terrific at
answering questions like “Why
does the red Aurora Borealis
require colder temperatures
than the green?” and “What is
the atomic mass of a tungsten
atom?” when it comes to ques-
tions that most of us find more
pressing, questions like “Why
am I here?” “What does it mean
to be a good person?” and “Why
can’t you turn right at a red light
in Quebec?” science turns out to
be astonishingly inept. This did
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
not upset the Enlightenment
“thinkers” in the least. Since
they had already made the egre-
gious flaw of identifying their
scientism with “rationality” the
next (il)logical step would be
claiming that all truths, even
non-scientific ones, could be
derived from this same “rational
process” that they had invented.
The most shining example
of this can be found in Thomas
Jefferson’s wildly influential The
Declaration of Independence. In
it, he starts off right away by
deeming all the “truths” he is
about to proclaim “self-evident.”
This is the staple tactic of the
Enlightenment; since there
is absolutely no “scientific”
evidence for the existence (or
even coherence) of the concepts
he recklessly puts forward here,
the only possible way he can
make them fly is by declaring
them to be “self-evident.” That
is, since there is never anything
binding anyone to accept
something as a basic truth,
21
human beings being mentally
capable of refusing to believe
whatever they want, the only
way he could use these ideas as
the basis for his argument was
to claim that only ninnies reject
them, just as with the empiri-
cal truths of science. It was a
brilliant move, considering how
his ideas were so self-evident
that he was the first person in
history to come up with them,
and here, ironically, marks the
first time in human history that
irrationalism had become the
dominant mode of thinking.
What is the cost of all
this? The most important
consequence of this or any other
system of thought is its effect
on ethics. As I said from the
outset, the mildest outcome the
Enlightenment view of “ra-
tionalism” could possibly have
produced is that nothing im-
portant has changed. One could
argue that the ethical theorists
of the Enlightenment merely
used their new system to justify
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
ethical preconceptions and then
tweaked a few in order to adapt
it to modern conventions. Of
course, there’s no scientific
basis for any idea of morality
or ethics, so whenever anyone
goes around declaiming that
we all need to believe in science
and rationality and once we do
we’ll all start being nice to each
other, what he means is that we
all need to believe everything
he believes, beliefs which are
of course all self-evident when
examined under the light of
reason, and then everyone will
be happy. In this view, nothing
has changed, and today’s politi-
cal pundits are just carrying on
the old tradition of all societies
who have insisted that everyone
convert to their ethical system
because that’s what their God
wants everyone to do.
But perhaps I’m being too
nice to the Enlightenmentia.
Perhaps it’s not so innocuous
to try and base all our beliefs
about morality and justice
22
on this fictitious concept of
“scientific rationalism.” To base
such beliefs on God is perfectly
coherent, since the idea of God
is of a being who is actually
invested in human morality
and social justice. If no God
exists, it might not be in our
best interest to base our morals
on such an idea, but even then
it would be better than trying
to base them on an irrational
view of rationality, one which
not only has nothing to do
with ethics or morality but is
directly in conflict with them.
To do that would be to act just
like Wile E. Coyote, walking
out over this empty abyss of
reason, only able to stay in the
air because we’re all too stupid
to realize that there’s nothing
holding us up. I only hope we
can find a better support for
humanity before somebody
thinks to look down.(
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

Life Does Linger

A Poem
Taylor Nutter
Class of 2014
Philosophy Major

Life does linger it seems

Sometimes
Upon the frailty of an hour
Upon the creases cut of an old man’s face
Upon the petals fallen of a flower

Time does creep it seems

Sometimes
Upon the patter of a wave at shore
Upon the unseen glance of a stranger’s stare
Upon what lies behind a solitary door

But passion resounds sometimes

It seems
Upon temerity
Upon the one so meek, so mild
Upon the one who sees

It is the ephemeral
That seeps
Into eternity(

23
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

24
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
God, Evil, and Evolution
An Essay
Dylan Belton
Class of 2012
Philosophy Club
I have been thinking about
evolution. In fact I do quite a
bit of thinking about evolution,
as it is my intention to make a
career writing about its theolog-
ical implications. The question
I would like to address in this
reflective paper is this: are we
able to harmonize a Christian
view of suffering and beauty
with the evolutionary view of
creation where death and suf-
fering has played such a crucial
and prevalent role? There is a
tension here, and it is one that
cannot be swept under any rug,
for there is no rug big enough to
hide this specific problem. This
is, I believe, one of the many is-
sues raised by evolution that has
yet to be adequately addressed
by Christians. Indeed, a harmo-
nizing of the theory of evolution
with orthodox Christian
25
doctrine is an absolutely crucial
issue facing Christianity in the
21st century, and one that needs
to urgently be addressed by a
new generation of Christians
with the same fervency that
characterized the early Church
fathers as they defended the
faith against all odds. Let me
further add that I believe this
harmonization must be accom-
plished in order to stem the tide
of an ever-growing secularism
and diluted “spiritualism” that
is infecting modern Western
society with an astonishing
moral degeneration and general
mediocrity. With that said,
I must forewarn the reader
that this paper is more of a
reflection on the problem than
a systematic analysis, and will,
therefore, not offer a thorough
solution to the problem
highlighted. These are thorny
issues and I would not dare to
suppose that I am intellectually
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
capable of solving them.
Before getting started, it is
best that I make a few confes-
sions. I am not a Catholic; I am
not even sure if it is permissible
to call myself a Christian, for
at this point in time I find
myself unable to intellectu-
ally surrender to all of what
Aquinas called the Mysteries of
the Faith. I am revealing this
because I believe it to make all
the difference in the world; it
means that I am not approach-
ing this issue with what St.
Anselm called an experienced
faith, a faith that is lived and
breathed so that it quite literally
animates and shapes the very
manner by which one views the
universe. This no doubt serves
as a crucial disadvantage, as
I am indeed trying to grapple
with the question from an
“inside” perspective. I have
read enough theology to realize
that this may by all means be
26
a futile endeavor. But I will
nevertheless attempt it. I am so
profoundly and deeply moved by
the Christian image of God and
the Christian worldview that it
is in my eyes the only alternative
to the deeply and inherently
pessimistic and nihilistic natu-
ralist worldview that currently
holds sway in academia. This
essay, then, is not being written
in a tendentious spirit. In fact,
I believe the default position of
someone in my position is to
humbly accept the limitations
of my young and eager mind
and the fact that I am by all
means in a state of spiritual
infancy. The problem may not
be with the Christian response
but simply with my intellectual
and spiritual incapacity.
How Came the Problem?
Now that we have some
preliminaries out of the way,
I would like to begin by
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
addressing a specific claim
made in an article in a previous
edition of this publication.
Indeed, it was this claim that
served as the impetus for the
issue that this paper is an at-
tempt to highlight. It may seem
that I am veering a bit off topic,
but bear with me. I think that
by reviewing how it was that I
came to write this paper that
the reader will be able to grasp
more clearly the issue at hand.
In his piece “Everything
is Beautiful,” Ray Korson
made the following daring
statement: “everything is
objectively beautiful.”i What
could this mean? And why is it
that someone would hold this
position? The answer, it seems,
stems from an adherence to a
certain Christian metaphysical
framework—namely, a Thomist
metaphysical framework.
Korson provided the following
succinct summary of Saint
27
Thomas Aquinas’ take on the
abstract notion of beauty:
“all of creation shares the
property of beauty because it
shares the same creator, God,
who imparts the attribute of
being to all members of reality,
which partakes in the truth,
goodness, and beauty of being
as such.”ii The idea is that simply
by virtue of partaking in the
Being of God, all of creation is
imbued with beauty. This is, I
believe, the primary reason for
why one would make the bold
claim that Korson made and
just what it is meant to mean.
However, I was not satisfied.
My initial reaction to the
claim was this: the claim that
“everything is objectively
beautiful” can, as far as I can
see, be understood in two ways.
First, it could mean just what
it seems to mean at face value.
The dance of the falling autumn
leaves is beautiful; the doorknob
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
on my flat door is beautiful; the
suffering of innocent children
too. But this, I am sure, is not
what was meant. So perhaps
Korson meant something
more like this: there is such
a thing as objective beauty,
but it does not follow that
everything is beautiful. How
so? Think of “objective truth.”
The definition of something
being “objectively the case” is
that it does not depend on our
human perspective for making
it so. For example, propositions
are statements that we affirm
as being either true or false, so,
presumably, propositions are
objectively true or false. But we
can make a distinction within
the category of objectively true
propositions. Firstly, there are
necessarily true propositions. For
instance, that 2+2= 4, or that
no man is taller than himself, are
necessarily true: they are true
in all possible worlds. But there
28
are also propositions regarding
the actual world that we would
lump into the objectively true
category. For instance, that
Mount Everest is the world’s
highest peak, or that dinosaurs
roamed the earth millions of years
ago. Yet from the observation
that there are such a things as
objectively true propositions, it
does not follow that every propo-
sition is objectively true. Some
propositions are just flat out
false. The proposition Gandhi
was the cause of World War II is
certainly not objectively true.
Korson perhaps, then, has
something similar to that in
mind, although applied to the
concept of beauty. Perhaps we
should rather say that although
absolutely everything is not
objectively beautiful, there
is such a thing as objective
beauty and we simply have
to search deeper to find it.
Beauty will differ, of course,
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
in that beauty is a quality to be
found in a vast array of things.
We describe many objects in
the external world as being
beautiful (paintings, forests,
statues). We also describe
certain events as being beautiful.
An event could be anything
from a parent’s first look at
his or her newborn baby, to a
rousing performance of the first
movement of Beethoven’s 5th
symphony. There is some quality
to these objects or events that
moves us deeply; this quality,
I presume, is beauty. If one
agrees with Korson—and I
agree with him on this—then
it is not simply that we project
our own culturally constrained
subjective notions of beauty
onto these objects or events;
rather, it is that beauty is a
feature to be found in them that
we perceive. Or to put it in a
more Platonic tone, these objects
and events participate in Beauty.
29
The Problem
That was, then, my initial re-
sponse upon reading the paper.
It dawned on me, however, that
my response was inadequate
and that there is a deeper issue
at hand here. Recall that within
Aquinas’ metaphysical frame-
work, all of creation is deemed
beautiful merely by virtue of
its participation in the Being
of God. So how is it that one
can make a distinction between
things or events that are beauti-
ful and things or events that are
not? They are beautiful simply
by being things or events in the
actual world. So what are we to
do with the suffering of sentient
creatures? The suffering of a
sentient creature is, I take it, an
event of some sort; but it not an
event we are quick to place in
the category of beautiful. Yet if
everything is beautiful by virtue
of simply being, then the suffer-
ing of a sentient creature, as an
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
event, must be beautiful. But
we usually take the suffering
of a sentient creature not to
be an event possessing the
quality of beauty. Most of us,
I hope, are reluctant to watch
a suffering creature and call it
beautiful. These events strike
us as intrinsically not beauti-
ful. One could, of course,
simply concede that this vast
amount of sentient suffering
was, and is, beautiful. This
is perfectly fine, but it is
surely not a conclusion that
spontaneously flows out of
us. Nor, as we shall see, does
this response align with the
traditional Christian response.
So how are we to fit this
specific Christian conception
of beauty and suffering into
the evolutionary framework
where the death and suffering
of sentient creatures has been
so prevalent and essential to
the evolutionary processes?
Christianity has always
had a response to the issue
of suffering and its place in
the universe. The orthodox
Christian response has been
that death and suffering are
an unwelcome consequence of
sin; they are perversions of
the natural order that did
not feature in God’s initial
plan for creation. In Aquinas’
words: “the penalties, such as
hunger, thirst, death, and the
like, which we suffer sensibly
in this life flow from original
sin.”iii The early Christian
response to death was one of
pure hatred and disdain for
what was considered, through
Christ’s self-offering sacrifice,
a defeated foe. We find this
quite explicitly in the writings
of Athanasius, that champion
of Christian orthodoxy. In his
On the Incarnation of the Word,
Athanasius writes, “by the
Word made Man, death has
30
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
been destroyed and life raised
up anew.”iv The general idea is
that death and suffering are a
result of sin and to be overcome
once and for all when the
process of recreation has been
fulfilled. The biblical narrative
represents what in literature is
called a “U-shaped-comedy”
plot (comedy in the technical
sense, not the common usage
indicating humor). The plot
follows this pattern: Creation
(perfection)—>fall (suffering,
death, etc)—>election—>Christ
event—>renewed creation
(perfection). Imagine this
pattern in a “U” shape begin-
ning with creation and ending
in renewed creation. This is the
orthodox Christian picture of
creation and its explanation of
suffering, as I presently un-
derstand it. If one accepts this
view, then one could respond
that the suffering of sentient
creatures is a perversion of the
31
natural order and can therefore
not be deemed beautiful by
virtue of its being a perversion.
This is where the issue of
evolution becomes particularly
pertinent. Evolution paints a
radically different picture to the
U-shaped plot and renders the
notion of suffering and death as
a perversion quite untenable if
we take the Christian message
to be cosmic in scope. Evolution
flattens out the U and leaves
us with a zig-zagging line that
either represents a meaningful
desperate, dramatic striving and
struggling ascent toward greater
meaning and beauty as creation
draws ever nearer to a Divine
Omega-point, or it represents
a meaningless scribble moving
towards utter nothingness.
Creation certainly did not start
out with what we usually take
to be “perfection.” If there is
one thing that evolution has
shown us quite conclusively, it
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
is that the death and suffering
of sentient creatures has been
occurring for far far longer
than any of our pre-Darwinian
ancestors could have possibly
imagined (I am dulled by the
usual pessimistic tone that this
tale is usually recounted in,
but bare with me for now). The
suffering of sentient creatures
was in existence far before we
homo-sapiens arrived on the
scene, so it is not possible that
human sin was somehow the
cause of all suffering. Death
and suffering seem to not be a
perversion that entered creation
due to human sin into a state of
initial perfection. Indeed, the
death of “unfit” individual crea-
tures and species is what drives
the evolutionary process. This
historical prevalence and impor-
tance of death and suffering in
the evolutionary history of life
seems to render the traditional
Christian response to suffering
32
unsatisfactory. If this is correct,
then one cannot maintain that
death and suffering are not
beautiful because of their being
a perversion of the natural
order, for they appear to have
played a critical role in the de-
velopment and diversity of life.
Response
Now an obvious response
would be to simply note that I
am presently guilty (admittedly
so) of a grossly simplistic and
literal reading of the bible, and
that the ramifications of the
fall are clearly not cosmic in
scope. One could say that the
Christian narrative is one where
the only participants are man
and God, so that the death
and suffering that entered in
with sin clearly pertain strictly
to a unique form of human
suffering and death. One would
simply point out that there is
no tension here at all, for the
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
biblical narrative has nothing
to say at all about naturalistic
explanations of creation and the
suffering of non-human crea-
tures. There can be no conflict
between evolution and tradition
or the bible because, while the
former deals with the natural
world, the latter deals with the
human condition and salvation
as it pertains to mankind. I
would add (acting as my own
opponent here) that I have
neglected mentioning the great
apostle’s creed, or what is some-
times called the rule of faith,
i.e. the essential doctrines of the
faith. And if one turns to the
essential doctrines, one will find
nothing regarding the suffering
of all creatures or a detailed
account of creation. The bible
and the creeds are simply silent
on the matter, for, you might
say, they are dealing solely with
the human condition, salvation,
and mankind’s relation to God.
33
This is a fair answer and
in many ways solves a lot of
problems, and I would take
something of this approach to
the problem myself. But I would
like to point out a few things.
First, if creation is imbued
with beauty by virtue of its
participation in the being of
God and only human suffering
is to be deemed a perversion
of the natural order, then we
are still stuck maintaining
that the death and suffering of
all sentient life beside human
suffering and death is beautiful.
Again, this is perfectly fine,
but it is not something we seem
willing to affirm . Second,
take this passage from Saint
Paul: “we know that the whole
[of] creation has been groaning
in labor pains.”v Although
humans were no doubt at the
center of Paul’s understanding
of the Christian gospel, he
did understand salvation as
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
having universal implications.
The whole of creation is mov-
ing towards re-creation. This
seems to hint that the suffering
and death in all of life will be
wiped away. By shrinking the
Christian message into a purely
anthropocentric one, we extract
humans from a much larger
universal narrative drama that
has been, and is still, unfolding.
I am afraid that I cannot as
yet offer any systematic positive
contributions to this discussion,
as these are issues I am grap-
pling to come to terms with.
With that said, I would like to
present a few conjectures. These
are mere musings that I think
are worth pondering over. I will
be leaving the issue of beauty
aside, as it is beyond my ability
to even begin to deal with; I
will only offer some thoughts
on this issue of suffering.
Firstly, I think a point that
is quite easily forgotten in this
34
sort of discussion is that the
evolutionary history of life on
this planet has been more than
just a bloody and ruthless battle
for survival within, and among
rival, species. There has been,
and is, plenty of harmony and
cooperation within and between
species, especially as one
“ascends” the evolutionary tree
to the more complex creatures
that have reached what may
be called a higher level of
consciousness. I am sure that
we have all watched footage
of some mammal taking care
of its newborns, or of dolphins
playfully whisking through the
ocean waves. There is a playful
and harmonious element to
life that has arisen through
the evolutionary processes,
which gives us ample reason to
suppose that there is far more
at work than inter- and intra-
species carnage. I mention this
because there is this enormous
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
unwarranted tendency for us to
focus on the more sinister side
of the evolutionary process.
But back to Christianity.
This problem of suffering has
been, and still is, particularly
problematic for the Christian
who is committed to maintain-
ing that love is the defining
characteristic of God. This
brings the obvious and tedious
question of why it is that a God
of Love could allow such suf-
fering. I do not wish to address
this issue. It is a mystery we
simply have to live with. What
I want to highlight is the fact
that the Christian claim that
God is Love was, and remains,
not nearly as scandalous as the
Christian claim that God has
taken on the form of man, lived
among us as one who served
others, and suffered a gruesome
and humiliating death at the
hands of the beings whose very
existence He held in being. This
35
is surely the most scandalous
claim ever to have been uttered
by human lips. For many an
ancient (or modern) pagan,
the extreme and revolutionary
nature of this claim was and is
enough to render it laughable.
After almost 2000 years of
Christianity and 300 years of
Enlightenment intellectual
propaganda, all too many of us
moderns have lost all touch with
the scandal that is Christianity.
So what does this have to do
with evolution? Well, let me put
it like this: God suffered. God
identified Himself with the
suffering of sentient creatures.
In other words, we are not alone
in our suffering. I cannot say
much more about this, for it is
a mysterium tremendum. I ask
only that the reader reflect on
the claim that God suffered,
and what it could mean in the
context of evolution. I think it
perhaps holds the very key to
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
harmonizing the vast suffering
of sentient life and the Christian
image of a God of infinite Love.
The question, of course,
is how would this change
anything given the problem
with the traditional Christian
response to suffering? Did
Christ affirm the goodness or
beauty of suffering? Surely not.
Or is it simply a way to provide
humans with hope? Perhaps.
But this seems a little vapid.
It certainly does not appear to
get us out of the problem of
all of creation being beautiful
by virtue of being. These are
questions for another time.
In Closing
To many, the evolutionary
history of life on earth provides
knock-down proof that the
universe is void of meaning and
purpose, let alone beauty. This
is an intellectually bland and
spiritually shallow response.
36
It is within this evolutionary
framework that we must find
purpose. In On Christian
Doctrine, Saint Augustine made
clear that what was worthy in
paganism ought to be adopted
by Christianity in the service
of the faith.vi The wisdom of
the philosophers, for instance,
provided Christian thinkers
with an opportunity to shed
light on the faith. Christianity
cannot lose this mindset. Like
the wisdom of the ancient
philosophers, the findings of
modern science, especially when
it comes to evolution, must be
embraced and incorporated
into the Christian worldview.
Indeed, I would go so far as
to say that unless we manage
to sanctify this evolutionary
image of life, mankind is sure
to sink slowly and nonchalantly
into the swamp of nihilism
and a numb despair whilst this
planet marches forth on its
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

path toward cold lifelessness such an ominous tone, so let me

after our sun finally burns out. end on this quote taken from
It would be a sin to end on Darwin’s Origin of Species:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and
that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed
law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
But that is not quite the next passage from Isaiah
uplifting enough. I think 52:7 will do the trick:
How beautiful upon the mountains
Are the feet of the messenger who announces peace,
Who brings good news,
Who announces salvation,
Who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” (

iv Athanasius. On the Incarnation.

i Korson, Ray. “Everything
is Beautiful”. Lost Piece 1.II
(Oct 2010). Print. Page 26
ii Korson, Page 27
iii Aquinas, Thomas. Summa
Theologica, IIIª q. 1 a. 4 ad. 2
Trans. A Religious of C.S.M.V.
New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1944. Print, Page 37
v Romans 8:22, emphasis added
vi Augustine. On Christian
Doctrine. Book II, xl-xlii

37
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

38
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

Ophelia
A Poem
Christina Mastrucci
Class of 2011
English Major

on a Spartan cot her body breathes

that sleep of death.

on a bed of blood
her mortal coil shuffles, aching
to be healed, or else shed.

she feels simply too old to die.

though some say too young is the crime,
a greater age yields a greater grasp
on that unspoken, blacked out sky
we call dying.

humanist, existentialist,
idealist: her mind is climbing that mountain
(from which no traveler returns)
for a spark of understanding.

realist, empiricist,
nihilist: she finds no flame at the summit
(no undiscover’d country)
of something to call home.

ergo, to her, that home cannot exist.

what then is the brook by the willow
but a siren’s kiss?
39
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

yet she cannot rise to meet the water,

for her limbs fail her.
still she can see the charming brook
through her prison window.

if she does not see the flame, is there not a spark?

dualist: her doubt cannot persist;
she wants either the fire or the dark.

she must see it to believe it.

she must feel it to perceive it.
her mind, “if it explain not,
it says there is nothing to explain.” 1

it does not matter. no difference.

not even thoughts of endless depth
can keep her skin from crumbling.

“More water, nurse, more water.”

not even water can revive
a heart refusing to live.

“It’s getting dark.” but it is day.

the shade falls down around her
as she gazes, one last time,
at the light dancing on painted stars —

and the words expire from that tired soul 1 Bram Stoker’s
who only yearns to be born.( Dracula

40
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
Fiction and I: Coffee and Cigarettes
A Play
Nicolle Walkling
Class of 2011
Program of Liberal Studies
The date is December 16, 2010.
The setting? A poorly lit corner
of an almost empty café. The air
hangs thick and warm with the
smell of espresso. Nicolle sits down
at the small table, weary. Fiction
looks up from its mochaccino.
Fiction: What’s wrong, Nicolle?
Nicolle: Oh, just finals week.
The biannual barrage of tests
and papers, the endless memori-
zation of facts that I will surely
forget in a month or two, the
pairing of caffeine binges and
sleep deprivation driving me
surely ever closer to madness—
Fiction: You know you
don’t really talk like that.
Nicolle: I know. How
have you been?
Fiction: That’s what I wanted
to talk to you about today.
I’ve just been feeling, oh I
don’t know, neglected. By
you. Maybe neglected isn’t the
right word…I’m just confused
41
about our relationship.
Nicolle: What do you mean?
You know I like you. Adore
you even! I mean, just look
at how long we’ve been
together! The Boxcar Kids
back in elementary school—
Fiction: Boxcar Children.
Nicolle: Whatever. Boxcar
Children. But do you re-
member that historical fiction
period that I went through
in junior high? Oh, and all
of that Lord of the Rings fan
fiction I wrote in high school?
Fiction: How could I forget?
You learned Elvish! Such
dedication. But that’s where
my insecurities come in now.
Where is your dedication?
Nicolle: You know I’m
afraid of commitment.
Fiction: Oh God, based solely
on the number of ‘phases’ we’ve
been through, I know that.
Also, on a somewhat related
note, no more experimental
surrealist phases, okay? That
was some freaky shit.
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
Nicolle: You know I can’t
promise that. And you
were totally into it.
Fiction sighs heavily,
looks distressed.
Fiction: Basically, what I’m
asking is this: what do you
want out of this relationship?
Nicolle: That’s a big question.
Fiction: It’s an im-
portant question.
Nicolle: Okay, okay. I
guess I want you to always
be there for me—
Fiction: I am always
there for you.
Nicolle: Um, I wasn’t finished!
I’ve barely begun, really. I want
you to be there for me, to be
the one to whom I can relay
my fears, my doubts, my joys,
and my dilemmas regarding the
shortcomings and strengths of
humanity. I want you to help
me work out these ideas, to help
me present them to the world
in hopes that others might
also recognize and celebrate
our inextricably intertwined,
42
shared human experience.
Fiction: Well that’s fair enough,
but isn’t that what you use
your Twitter account for?
Nicolle: Oh, shut up. You
know I only use Twitter to
keep track of what’s relevant
in the pop culture world,
which, by the way, is still part
of that shared human experi-
ence I was talking about.
Fiction: Pop culture? So
now you’re going to use me
to make others understand
the joys and tribulations of
Lady Gaga? Oh, great.
Nicolle: That’s not exactly
what I was going for, but that’s
not a bad idea. No, but to get
back to what I was saying, I
want you to explore the human
experience with me, the world
with me. And I don’t care
how we do it. Modernized
fairy tales exploring gender
roles? Awesome! Postmodern
pastiches depicting loneli-
ness in the suburbs? Sounds
great! Small town mentalities
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
scrutinized in stream-of-con-
sciousness narratives? Let’s
do it. I want us to try it all.
Fiction: This seems like
a very lofty goal.
Nicolle: All I want to do in
life is make good things and
love everyone. Easy-peasy.
Fiction: Um, okay?
Nicolle: Never mind.
Fiction: No no, I think I under-
stand what you’re saying. I need
to be there to help you express
yourself and your ideas about
the world around you. And
you intend to do this in any
sort of form that aligns to your
personal whims at the time.
Nicolle: Yeah, basically.
Fiction: I can do that, but I
also have a request of you. If
you want to get something out
of me in this relationship, you
have to give something too.
Nicolle sighs heavily,
looks distressed.
Nicolle: Okay, shoot.
What is it?
Fiction: I want for you to
43
spend more time on me. You
love writing, I know you do.
Remember all those afternoons
in London when you would
sit in the grass at St. James’
Park and write for hours in
your notebook? Those are
some of your fondest memories
of last year! But think about
how much time you’ve wasted
lately poking mindlessly around
all corners of the Internet or
listening to Tom Waits instead
of developing that idea about
the girl cutting her hair in the
mirror. I like that idea. You’re
not going to become a better
writer if you don’t dedicate a
significant amount of time to
me. You know I’m right.
Nicolle: You are right, but
you know I love Tom Waits.
Can’t I listen to him and
write at the same time?
Fiction: This isn’t an
open relationship.
Nicolle: Wait—I’ve got a great
idea: the girl in the mirror
idea but in the style of a Tom
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

Waits spoken word piece: bleak,

disturbing imagery paired
with colloquial phrasing and
rhythmic sentence structure.
Fiction: Oh, I like it.
Nicolle: I knew you would.
Fiction: Okay, fine. Music has
a welcome place in our relation-
ship, as do the visual arts.
Nicolle: And pop culture?
Fiction: Only if I’m al-
lowed to grumble about
it from time to time.
Nicolle: Deal. I’m glad we
had this talk, Fiction.
Fiction: I am too. I feel much
better about the direction in
which we’re heading. Want
to grab a smoke after this?
Nicolle: You know
I don’t smoke.
Fiction: In this story you do.
Nicolle: I love you, Fiction.
Fiction: I like you too, Nicolle.
Nicolle and Fiction exit the café,
pulling cigarettes and lighters from
their coat pockets as they go.(

44
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

That Rare, Random Descent

(I think I made you up inside my head)
A Poem
Brittany Bergeson
Class of 2011
Mustard

45
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

46
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
Faith
An Essay
James Schmidt
Class of 2013
Istum
If you are curious about
what someone is doing
usually a good way
to satisfy that curiosity is to
look at them. So I peer around
my desk and find that my
roommate has his book open
in front of him and his face
is oriented toward it. I say,
without much thinking about
it at all, that he is reading. But
what about actions that are
primarily or essentially mental
phenomena? He may be look-
ing off into space (whatever
that means, since what he is
looking at is obviously not
space), but I would not say he
is ‘looking off into space.’ At
least if I did, it would not be
an accurate account of what
he is doing. What he is doing
is gathering his thoughts for a
paper or recalling the delightful
dinner he had with that girl
last evening. In those cases
perhaps the best thing to do
is ask: ‘what are you doing?’
47
‘Thinking.’ ‘Well obviously, I
didn’t really think you were
just staring off into space…
What are you thinking about?’
After all, the object of which
one is thinking determines the
kind of thinking he is doing.1
So let’s say the mental action
in question is prayer. I want
to look at it in a manner that is
accessible to people who do not
think prayer is what pray-ers
think it is. If we ask someone
what he is doing he may say
‘I am praying,’ but the very
question I am calling to mind
is ‘What is that?’ To which
he will probably say ‘talking to
God’ and this answer is the one
I want to examine, even if we
do not accept that he really is
talking to God or that there is
such a thing that someone can
talk to (in the first case we could
merely think him a hypocrite
or babbler without denying
the existence of the perceived
1 I find the connection between
the object of our actions and our
actions very interesting. I hope to
pursue the question at some point.
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
object). In that case, we would
not describe what he is doing as
‘talking to God’ but as ‘talking’
together with ‘thinking that
what he is talking to is God.’
So if I am conversing with a
friend part of what drives me is
the belief that he is here. But
you is here, and so that ques-
tion doesn’t play a role in my
inquiry. But when someone is
talking, it is usually directed at
someone and the person talking
should be able to say something
about who it is directed to.
No doubt we see a diffi-
culty because my talking to you
doesn’t involve any questioning
that I am indeed talking to you.
But talking to God is different
because talking to him is not
only something that atheists
doubt the authenticity of, it is
one that seemingly believers
have no ostensible way to
validate. So if someone asks,
‘Who are you talking to?’ I will
pull my friend’s arm and say
‘Look here.’ The same cannot
be done with God. I suppose
part of the reason is because
48
of the way one talks to him. I
asked a friend what prayer is
and he told me that we set up
a projection of what we believe
to be God in our mind and
talk to that. I think it is a good
description,2 except that those
who believe in God would not
say they are talking to a projec-
tion but that we are talking to
God. So how can we reconcile
the statement, ‘I am talking to
myself,’ (which is manifestly
not God) with the statement,
‘I am talking to God?’ They
seem to utterly contradict. This
is an interesting problem, but I
think the apparent contradic-
tion is a superficial one and one
that is practically unavoidable
in common language. Say a
person is sawing a plank and
also making a squeaky noise
with the saw.3 He is not doing
2 It is the one I want to use to
bridge the gap between an atheist
and someone who thinks he is really
talking to God, because I think it is a
description that both can agree with.
3 I take this example from
Anscombe’s Intention, and the
spirit of it, namely an action posited
under certain descriptions.
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
these two things separately,
but we need not describe both
together in order to describe
what he is doing. He is sawing
a plank. Whatever else he
may be doing in sawing the
plank is not the critical issue
at hand when we ask ‘What
is he doing?’ Let me return
to the original question with
another an example.4 Suppose
you are talking to a friend on
the phone. The description you
will probably give of what you
are doing is just that: talking
to a friend. But I say that is
not all you are doing: you are
holding something in your hand
and you are speaking words
into some inanimate object- a
phone- which receives your
words, transmits them, and spits
them out somewhere else. But
it happens in such a way that
I don’t really quibble with you
when you say you are talking to
a friend, even though, properly
speaking, what you are talking
to is hopefully not your friend.
Presumably the example is
meant to show the plausibility
49
that a projection in our mind
can serve- in the way a phone
can- as an intermediary for
our communication with God.
Now the important question
becomes how I can justify that
such an intermediary must be
used in order to communicate
with God. With a friend over
the phone, you can in theory,
validate his existence by e.g.
going over to his house. In ad-
dition you probably didn’t begin
your friendship by calling him
up; you met him. For now I will
just deal with the justification
for the use of intermediary. For
a person who prays, the claim
is that God can be validated by
experience. Now this is awfully
peculiar because it cannot be
done in the same way that I
pull my friend over to you and
say ‘Here he is!’ But that just
means that the validation, if it
is anything, is a different kind
of validation. For example,
4 I owe the use of this ex-
ample to a friend, though I am
not sure he knew at the time the
significance to be found in it.
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
you live in Chicago and I say
‘you should meet my friend Joe’
(I do not live in Chicago). I
cannot pull him over and show
him to you. The best I can
do is tell you where to go and
whether you do that or not is
your prerogative. Since talking
to God takes place with your
projection of him in your mind,
the best I can do is tell you how
to get to it. What happens, in
theory, is that that projection
is validated in the prayer.
This too is strange since
the thing to be validated must
to some degree already be
affirmed. It is not that case
with my friend. I say ‘I have
a friend’ and you say ‘I do not
believe you.’ Then I say ‘Fuck
you, here he is.’ But say it is
midnight and I come to you in
your room and say, ‘You’ll never
believe who I saw just now at
the library: Taylor Swift!’ The
only way you can verify what I
said is to go there yourself. But
it is midnight and you are tired
so the only reason you would
go is if you have a reasonable
50
amount of certainty that I am
not messing around with you.
That certainty (in what I say)
is really a certainly that she
really is at the library. So it
is not always ridiculous that a
certain level of trust in a claim
is needed in order to validate it.
I say a certain level but I do not
know what that level is. If you
asked a praying Christian, ‘Do
you believe that you are really
talking to God?’ they would
probably say ‘yes,’ but I have
no idea if they would say that
they know it. And I agree that
saying something can be a very
different thing from being right
while saying it; I know plenty of
people who make claims that I
think are straight up stupid. But
that is irrelevant: I am saying
that if it can be known, then
the way it is to be known is by
trying it out, which admittedly
involves a bit of pre-knowledge
belief in the thing to be
validated, and the only way my
claim can be validated (if it can
be) is by doing what I say, not
thinking about it. Luckily for
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
me, this also means that my
argument cannot be invalidated
(probably because if you failed
I could say try harder... I have
a feeling something like this
was going on in Plato’s cave
analogy: ‘You couldn’t see
the Good? That must mean
you aren’t a philosopher!’)
Even if this is true, it is
entirely appropriate to ask why
it should be that way. After
all, if there is an infinitely
powerful being, he could have
made the world in a way such
that his existence needs no
antecedent belief to be known.
I don’t doubt this for a mo-
ment. And I see this as a great
problem in the philosophy about
Christianity: if it is true (as I
believe it is) then why didn’t he
make it in that way. It seems
there is an impasse at this
point, because I certainly do
not have the answer, though an
answer to this question probably
would be the very thing that
would convince people faith is
something worth having. I will
try to approach the problem
51
from a human perspective.
Say that you have grown to
love someone (so not e.g. your
parents or siblings) and at some
point in your relationship you
express this love, for example
by saying ‘I love you.’ We could
call this a ‘critical point:’ the
response to that expression
determines everything. It could
be something like, ‘I love you
too’ or ‘I, on the other hand,
do not love you’ or, perhaps,
‘But how do I know that you
love me?’ Perhaps you can try
to prove it5 by taking over the
world for that person, but it is
pretty easy to see the difficulty
of proving such a claim in the
way that you would e.g. prove a
mathematical proposition. The
best you can do is offer evidence
5 For an interesting reflection on this
idea I encourage my reader to read
or see the play Proof. Some people
think it is about a crazy mathemati-
cian or a mathematical proof. My
opinion is that it is actually about
the basis of assent to the truth of a
claim, which in this case, is trust in
a person, and the basis of that…
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
for the claim but even then…
For example you say, ‘I will
be faithful to you for the rest
of my life,’ and your fidelity
up to this point is offered as
evidence for the claim. Maybe
it is evidence, but I think a very
poor kind of evidence (though
I guess better than if you had
cheated already), since the way
you will be in ten years is very
difficult to determine (I mean
impossible) by the way you are
now. This fact should cause
people to question what level of
knowledge they should have in
a person before they get mar-
ried. I have heard people justify
cohabitation for this reason by
saying that only by it can you
have sufficient knowledge of
the person you are dedicating
yourself to. It is interesting to
note that the success of mar-
riages is found more on the
side of those who don’t make
use of such verification. And
I think the reason is because
such verification simply cannot
be found. To think that it can
is to deceive oneself about the
52
basis of human relationships.
The basis of them is trust in a
person; trust, not knowledge,
that that person will not
betray you. But they very well
could, and that is the thing
that makes vulnerability such
a painful thing to deal with
when it is exploited. But it is
the vulnerability that makes the
acceptance of their trusting sur-
render mean something. If you
say ‘I love you’ and I say ‘Ah yes,
of course you do. I know this
because ‘x.’ Therefore, I love you
too’ my response to you is not a
response to you, it is a response
to my mathematical deliberation
over x. If a person withholds
giving or receiving love for or
from another until they have
mathematical certitude about
the security of that investment
(of their ‘self ’), that person is
going to live a solitude that
borders the loneliness of hell.6
6 In the Pope’s book Introduction to
Christianity, he sets up the machinery
to establish this conclusion, that love
is impossible without faith. He does
it much more elegantly and thor-
oughly, but it is also more theological.
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

Mathematicians are crazy

people and it would do well
for humanity to keep math
caged up in its box (perhaps
mathematicians too!), and
limit the expectations for that
level of certitude only to those
things from which we can
reasonably expect it. To fail
in this with respect to human
relationships would be to miss
sight of what they are ultimately
about. My impression is there
is something like this going
on with divine faith. The only
questionable thing is that my
faith in my friend is faith about
his character, which is based- as
least in its early stages- upon
my history with him, a history
that has no doubt about his
existence. The question I have
not covered is why existence [of
God] is one of those things
about which we are supposed to
also have faith. On this point
I have nothing to say now.(

53
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

54
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

Sliced n’ Diced
(don’t we love our salads and plastic surgery)
A Poem
Josef Kuhn
Class of 2011
Program of Liberal Studies

The state of the Arts

and Sciences today
is sliced up
diced up.

Pick your occupation

from the slate
Dr. Chef will prepare it for you
just wait
for your weekend
vacation on a plate
prescribed vocation
spread-eagled Man
in a circle
laid out on a dissection table.

No, I
don’t want to be sliced up
diced up.

Mix
your colors.

Emancipate
your palate!

55
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

But
Reality demands it
Practicality demands it
Modernity demands it
University demands it
Economy demands it
Taxonomy demands it
The Progress
and Wealth of Nations
brigands it.

Back
back in the
age of Man
in shacks, or before shacks
the Noble Savage
dreamt by ceiling painters
back in the day of lions
CuisineArt
chunked chicken
did not exist.
The flesh was roasted,
the body eaten whole.

(Renaissance Man may be a myth.)

But you could yet exist—

56
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
Stern Chase
A Story
John Ashley
Class of 2011
Philosophy Club
It’s a terrifyingly bright day.
The sun blazes like a white-hot
quarter. And they’re coming.
But they shouldn’t be. They
don’t come out during the day.
They don’t come out during
the day! They’re supposed to
stay under the ground. Why
can’t they behave, like good
little terrors of the night?
I walk, more quickly. Sweat
pops out on my forearms. I stay
out of the shadows. That’s where
they hide, now. First, they
lurked in the tunnels, in the
sewers, places where no sunlight
could be found. Then the dead
of a new moon night was good
enough for them. Then any
night, dark, stormy, or clear.
Now the shadows cast at noon.
I turn the corner, onto the
square. It’s desolate. Everyone’s
elsewhere. Somewhere. Not
here, where they should be.
57
My mind trips, stumbles.
I fall to the ground.
I can see them, but just,
in the corners of the corners
of my eyes. So faint, but
just there enough to throw
normality off the rails, like
a long-lasting nausea, a vile
stench for the mind’s nose.
I get up, recover. Deep
breaths. Balance returns. I
don’t move and screw my
eyes shut. I open them again.
They’re gone. Gone! I want to
shout and scream, but don’t.
That might bring them back.
I realize, then, that I will not
survive till tomorrow, unless
I take action. I have to run.
And more than run. Flee.
Escape this town-gone-mad.
I start walking again, stick-
ing to the middle of streets
weirdly empty of cars, taking
the most well-lit if not most
direct way back to my house.
My mind firms in resolve, at
times even daring to suppose
that they couldn’t have been
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N
following me. After all, they
don’t come out during the day.
They just don’t. And the one
time that they did...my mind
retches at the memory, and
I think I pass out. Just for a
moment, though, and I’m still
in the middle of the street.
The forces of my sanity blow
their horns, sounding a regroup,
and then a counter-charge.
Plans start to form. I’ll pack
quickly, get in the car, and drive
out. As quickly as I can, and
good luck to Sheriff Fort if she
tries to stop me. If she’s in his
pocket. In their pocket. Who
knows? But she did stop David,
took his license and keys for...
something. And I’ll be safe, too.
It’s bright day, not night. I won’t
end up like Rick and Molly, at
the base of the seaside road...
I walk past the church, then,
and look up out of—what?
Reflex? Curiosity? But it undoes
me. The church is bright, empty
except for the preacher leaning
on the wall. He looks at me and
58
smiles, like a hound. He raises
a hand in greeting. It seems like
the gesture that ends the world.
I run.
And I see them. They’re
following me. Following him.
The preacher starts walking,
still smiling his demon’s smile.
I despair. I nearly stop.
The temptation that oblivion,
though inevitable, might
be painless, is strong.
Overwhelming. I want to end it.
Resolve, a candle against
the dark, propels me. Not
by his hand. Not on their
terms. I will not go will-
ingly to their torments.
I run faster.
The houses of Lyman’s
Crossing blur past me. I’m
running so fast; I shouldn’t
be able to run this fast. No
one should. Logic: my mind
is trying to block them out.
Suddenly, my house.
Sanctuary. I bolt inside, close
the front door, then close all the
doors and windows. They can’t
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J
get past without breaking in.
And I’ll be prepared for that.
I collapse in a huddle on
the kitchen floor. I still have
time. I run to my room, grab
a pack, and start throwing
stuff into it. My life, in its
most precious and memorable
parts, goes into the bag. My
life cannot hold any longer.
It is falling in around me.
The knock is a cannon blast.
It shell-shocks me, and I cower
against the wall. It comes again,
and I hear a distant sound, like
keening speech. Doom knocks
thrice, and I see the end before
me; not in glory or in glorious
sacrifice, but in dismal defeat.
I stagger to the kitchen and
take a knife from a drawer. It is
time to stand. I go to the front
door. Through a window, I see
that clouds have come suddenly,
overcasting the day. I see the
preacher at my doorstep, and
them, behind him, fading into
discernibility. I cannot make
sense of them. Only a mad
59
poet could do so. Their sight is
a blast of disgust, and I duck
out of sight of the window.
The preacher knocks
for a fourth time as I
come to the door.
I open it. He stands
there, still smiling that
wolfhound smile of his.
“Are you alright, Rob?” He
starts to extend his hand.
I snarl and slash at him
with the knife. A thick
line of red drips across his
face. The smile is gone.
Shock and fury replace it.
I stab him full in the chest,
and he totters backward. They
shriek and barrel forward, just
as I slam the door and fall back
against it. Outside, the sky
purples and blacks. The door
bucks as they slam into it. I
run back, into the kitchen.
The front of my house
explodes away, the pieces
falling up into the sky. They
begin their attack, growling in
a tongue that burns my mind
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

to hear it. But it is too late from my days at the college in

for such things. My end has the green wood. A fragment of
come. As I steel myself for it, I poetry comes with it, wafting
remember, oddly, an afternoon words to soothe my wounds.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
The jaws of death snap,
scant feet from my refuge.
They slouch toward me, now
things grown to unnatural size,
things which should not be.
I bolt up from my hiding
place, and gaze upon them in
their insanity. My mind begins
to shred, and I see the preacher,
standing, smiling, blood on his
face and darkening his shirt.
I shout my war cry, and
charge. Oblivion comes,
spreading through my limbs
and chest and head, numbing.
Darkness, then, and nothing. A
last thought: I have triumphed.
Then a shriek in the shadows.(

60
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

Sliced
A Poem
Claire Kiernan
Class of 2011
English Major

Whether the Grecians took a slice Four times a-day,

or only twice,
We know not;
we do know, however, that one worthy Prince James the seconde,
a fancy man of fancier speeches,
was slayne by the slice of a great peece of artillerie,
which by ouercharging chanced to breake
A Slice of the Alps,
which came
down
upon him,
and buried him quite.

Tell me:
What happens when you make
a substitution of a homogeneous slice of life for the old theatrical sandwich
of sentiment and comic
relief?
You get this—
a costume picture, not a slice-of-life drama,
but here is how you can mend it:
You must haue also a brasen slice
to scrape away the sugar from the hanging bason,
that unnecessary masquerade of ornate diction.

61
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

Here you can succeed where good Prince James failed:

With this flat slice of iron,
A long piece of Wood
(cut after the manner of a Slice which Deary-women use about their Butter)
loosen the skin of these excessive words
from within the flesh.
Your slice (a left-hander’s) will move to a right-hander’s backhand,
and that’s convenient
for slitting open your sentences
and trimming away the fat.

The Pellican hath a beake broade and flat,

much like the slice of Apothecaries and Surgions with which they spread
their plaisters.
Boats do slice,
where Ploughes did slide of late.
And look at that man yonder,
He stands‥.snipping and slicing at the sheepskin in his mouth.
All have discovered the secret to the
sleek shape of a silver tongue.

Be that man,
The one of whom people say,
“He would haue sliced his body of words
into as many parts as there be dayes in a year.”

It is only through their skin

With scourges slyce’t,
must the bare bones of words be seen. (
62
 an undergraduate journal of letters
N J

LOST PIECE
an undergraduate journal of letters

VOLUME II, ISSUE II

On A Darkling Plain

63
 LOST PIECE: Volume II - Issue II
J N

Colophon:

This journal is compiled entirely from the

works of undergraduate scholars at
The University of Notre Dame.

The editors of Lost Piece: An Undergraduate Journal of Letters

are indebted to Dr. Cecilia Lucero for her invaluable assistance on
behalf of The Center for Undergraduate Scholarly Engagement.

The editors also extend thanks to the

Dean’s Fellows, directed by Assistant Dean Joseph Stanfiel
And the Keough-Naughton Institute for Irish Studies,
directed by Dr. Christopher Fox.

Stephen Lechner, Editor-in-Chief

Raymond Korson, Josef Kuhn, and Conor Rogers, Editors

Lost Piece was designed in Adobe InDesign, CS5;

its body copy is set in 12 pt Adobe Caslon Pro.
This publication was compiled by Stephen Lechner, ’11, slechner@nd.edu
The Cover, front and back, was designed by
Nathalia Silvestre, ’14, nsilvest@nd.edu

64