“It’s the only class I took at Harvard where people would call each other out for not having done the reading.” Harvard students are lining up to take Hum 10: “Applications (essays required) shot up 40% this fall with 180 incoming freshmen vying for 90 spots.” “The class is definitely not for padding the GPA. Students read a hefty book a week and write regular essays. There is no pass/fail option. Digital devices are verboten, and attendance is taken in every lecture (pink slips for those who arrive late).” “In their applications and in interviews, students expressed the urge to be forced to tackle classics they otherwise wouldn’t read, the need to combat frayed attention spans and the desire for an antidote to The Machine. Several mentioned with disdain that people who aren’t in the class wondered why they didn’t ‘just Chat the books,’ i.e., use AI.”

Thought I was looking at the Empyrean for a second

You know how much I dislike the George R. R. "Can't Finish a Book to Save my Life" Martin "there are no heroes, everyone is morally grey" trope. You can err in the other direction, though, and make the hero just too pure. When a hero falls, I mean really falls, and does something he'll regret for the rest of his life, something he can never take back nor truly make up for, it can become an enduring lesson in moral humility and make him strong. St. Peter, in his darkest hour, denied Christ. This doesn't make him Judas. It makes him, after going through the fire, the prince of all the Saints. I think it makes Harry a deeper character if he has done a thing he can never take back, something he has to live with for the rest of his life. It also makes more sense in the Draconia AU because it creates a degree of balance: she has done some heinous stuff. It's complicated, of course, from her upbringing, her family's expectations, Voldemort's threats and manipulations. But she still did it. Sectumsempra gives Harry a perspective where he can more naturally forgive her for the various things she's done, because he also has done something he feels to be unforgivable. There's a lot of talk in the books about Unforgivable Curses, but this is primarily a legal category in HP. They are not actually treated as "curses which are absolutely evil and no non-evil person would ever use them," because that's simply not what the are. Harry uses 2 of the 3 in book 7, and it isn't treated as a big deal or as compromising his moral character deeply. They're tools. The AK curse is just a gun. They're neutral. It all depends on how you use them and why. Sectumsempra is morally neutral too. It wasn't the casting, it was the consequences. In the Draconia/SS timeline, Harry isn't even morally unjustified in casting the damned thing. She is in the middle of throwing a Crutiatus at him, which certainly justifies a Sectumsempra if you know what it does, and justifies a spell that you don't know what it does too. (I am setting aside that in the Draconia/SS timeline, although she TRIES to cast a Crucio at Harry, she fails, because she can't do it: she doesn't hate him enough to WANT him to suffer. This is true and important, but HE doesn't know that. It happens too fast. He only hears her start with "Cruci—".) On the surface, Harry hasn't even done anything strictly wrong — stupid and reckless? maybe. But wouldn't you use an unknown spell if it was all you had when someone's aiming a torture curse at you? People could even tell him this. That he was justified. That he didn't do anything wrong here. He's a hero. But Harry knows he did something wrong, something unforgivable. He can't take it back. He can only resolve never to do something like that again, no matter what. He will not hide behind "It was technically justified, because it was self-defense. Her injuries, while unfortunate and more than I meant to do, don't really reflect badly on me." One of the serious deficiencies in the Harry Potter books is that there isn't very much of a redemption arc. There's Snape, but his loyalties and decisions are complicated. It isn't a clear and decisive turn away from the darkness. Draconia can do that. She can really repent. That has weight. Harry needs to be able to meet her there too. And that means he has to understand what it is to have done something unforgivable, and ask for forgiveness anyway. Preferably done something unforgivable to her. "Preferably" in terms of the story, the narrative. Contrary to that twatwaffle who was calling the SS scene "torture porn," you don't do this Draconia or to Harry because we enjoy their suffering. You do it because stories are about human beings, and sin and redemption are at the core of that. You do this to these two so that later on they can truly unite, the two of them holding a single wand and destroy the dark lord. You do Sectumsempra so you can have Two Hearts, One Wand. You show them HERE, at their lowest points, so when you see them much later, married and surrounded by at least 8 kids, you can appreciate more deeply what that MEANS.

Job market so good even the philosophers are getting hired

5 books I recommend without hesitation.

Nobody has ever finished a book they downloaded as a PDF.

*Buys ten books* *reads three of them* *sees how many awesome new books are out and buys eight more* *repeat forever until house explodes*

Cincinnatus, being asked to leave his farm to save Rome again.

I believe this will be considered one of the most important videos in US history from this time.

Finally noticed this painting donated to my parish, just gorgeous ❤️ Happy Sunday!

If I hear one more person say “baptism doesn’t matter because the thief on the cross” I may grow skin again! People. Jesus commanded you to get baptized. Do it. Yes, there are circumstances which prevent baptism, kind of like, say, being nailed to a cross? But if you’re NOT nailed to the cross, you don’t have that excuse. Every Christian who can be baptized should be baptized. Yes. I know, baptism alone doesn’t save you. But Peter talked about baptism saving because it is a piece of your journey in the Christian walk with Jesus. I understand the misnomer that some people think baptism saves them, so they don’t have to do anything else. Yes, that’s totally wrong. But I hear so many people proudly declare that they don’t need to be baptized that I fear we’ve made light of an ancient and holy sacrament of the Church. Don’t make excuses: do it. I assure you that Jesus does not care about your list of technicalities; He asked you to be baptized. Don’t confuse baby Christians; encourage them to be baptized. Just make sure they know baptism alone doesn’t save you. Baptism kickstarts your Christian walk in obedience to Jesus.

Rich Young Man: "Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Jesus: "Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." Sola Scriptura Guy: "Don't listen to him! He may be God, but He's preaching works-based salvation! You must not listen to this man!"