Matt Fradd
Spirituality/Belief • Books • Writing
This PWA community exists to facilitate an online community of PWA listeners and all lovers of philosophy and theology.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Pop-Cultured Catholic #7: George Lucas’ Surprisingly Christian Distinction Between Happiness (As Pleasure) and Joy

A few years ago, I happened to come across a beautifully written Star Wars video essay, which has been titled “The Importance of Luke Skywalker” and uploaded on the YouTube channel So Uncivilized. This 15-minute analysis gives great insight into why the character of Luke Skywalker has connected with many moviegoers and what makes his hero’s journey over the course of the Original Trilogy unique. That is, despite Luke seemingly starting out the same way as so many other protagonists in mythology and fantasy, who fit the basic hero archetype.

I am sharing the video essay's link here, and my analysis will mainly focus on one specific part of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlWSsZwLn0

To end his essay on a high note, the YouTuber blends in some abridged clips of George Lucas talking about the proper meaning of joy, which sounds surprisingly Christian, given his complex experiences and attitudes towards different world religions. Here is a transcript of his abridged version (the full clip will also be provided through an additional link below).

"I've discovered along the way that happiness, you live in two worlds here: 'happiness is pleasure' and 'happiness is joy'... Pleasure is short-lived, lasts an hour, lasts a minute, lasts a month, and it peaks and then goes down. It peaks very high. But the next time you want to get that same peak, you have to do it twice as much. You know, it's like drugs... On the other hand is joy. And joy is the thing that doesn't go as high as pleasure... but it stays with you. Joy is something you can recall... the secret is that, even though it's not as intense as the pleasure, the joy will last you a lot longer... people who get the pleasure, they keep saying 'Well, if I can just get richer and get more cars...'. You'll never relive the moment you got your first car. That's it. That's the highest peak... If you're trying to sustain that level of peak pleasure, you're doomed... Just accept the fact that it's here and it's gone, and maybe again it'll come back... Pleasure (sought only for itself) is purely self-centered. It's all about your pleasure... It's a selfish, self-centered emotion that's created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else or something else. And it's a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure, you're doomed. If you pursue joy, you'll find everlasting happiness. So with that, I'm gone. Bye bye."

When I first heard that summation by George Lucas, it reminded me so much of the wisdom I have heard from my Catholic influences. One slight difference in the use of terminology is that George is using "happiness" as an umbrella term for both "pleasure" and "joy", whereas many of the Catholic speakers I listened to tend to more exclusively mean "pleasure" (and/or positive emotional states) when they say "happiness". Nonetheless, the underlying meaning is still echoed.

One recent example I have come across was Bishop Robert Barron's sermon for August 4, 2024 titled "Everything in This World Passes Away". As he said before, Bishop Barron likens the world's created goods which bring pleasure to a great fireworks show that comes and goes, in the grand scheme of eternity. They are beautiful and ought to be appreciated, but they do not last forever nor can single-handedly provide the ultimate fulfillment. Barron also quotes the Gospels, where Jesus says "Do not work for food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life". When a person has the grace to give oneself faithfully to God and compassionately to the world on the former's behalf, they will have gained a greater sense of joy. And sometimes that sense of joy is strong enough for one to be at peace, even in the midst of heavy crosses, suffering, and martyrdom, where any sense of pleasure or superficial happiness is nowhere to be seen. If one chooses to remain in that state of grace and faithfully devoted to God and neighbor, then he already becomes similar to a soul in Purgatory, who may still be suffering some trials but can joyfully rest in the promise of salvation and the knowledge that his ultimate purpose for existing is being fulfilled.

While George Lucas has had a complex set of attitudes and experiences towards different religions, from Methodist Christianity to Buddhism, the ability of his Star Wars stories to resonate with me uniquely as a Catholic may lie in J.R.R. Tolkien's distinction between "allegory" and "applicability". Tolkien has stated that he typically avoids writing his works with the intention of it being a strict one-to-one allegory. Instead, "I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author". When the emphasis is more on allegory, there are much greater constraints for a story's characters and plot elements to neatly correspond with an identical pattern of another set of characters/situations/laws. Also, allegory is more dependent on the author's specific intent. Meanwhile, a story that strives more for general applicability allows each character or plot element to convey thoughts/ideas, about many different things at different times, plus give the reader more freedom to bring their perspective into it.

When viewed through the lens of applicability, Star Wars can uniquely resonate with me as a Catholic Christian, even if George Lucas' intent was more to pay homage to a wide array of different Western/Eastern religions, pop-cultural genres, historical events, and timeless universally recognizable truths, which could all speak of God to some extent whether directly or indirectly. My mother liked to point out how, if the Force in Star Wars were to be interpreted solely as a direct allegory for God, then one could easily run into some implications which fit a more New Age spirituality than a traditional Christian theology. However, if you read Star Wars as a story that is meant to be applicable to different things at different times, then the Force works as something which can occasionally remind us of our Christian faith in God, while also serving different purposes in the story at other times. Also, when the Star Wars movies and shows have parts like the following, we get many things which can resonate from a Christian perspective: Luke Skywalker having to trust in the Force's power/guidance; Emperor Palpatine emulating the Devil archetype; the Republic falling into corruption to become the Empire; the Republic and Jedi Order's use of dehumanized cloned soldiers as a means to an end which backfires; Anakin Skywalker's fall from grace into Darth Vader; various heroic self-sacrifices; and Luke's mercy which keeps him from becoming like Vader and leads to the latter's redemption. It has often been said to me that many of the great timeless works of art have captivated audiences, arguably because they speak of God and his ways, whether their authors consciously intended it or not. In the video essay I cited, the YouTuber also plays a clip of George Lucas stating this quote: "Because the core issues that I am dealing with are... if they were valid two thousand years ago, they've got to still be valid today, even though they're not in fashion. And I think we've gone for a few generations where a lot of those sort of more basic stories have fallen by the wayside".

While Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings has recently taken the Star Wars Original Trilogy's place as my favorite series of movies, the latter is still one of my favorites to this day. I used to rank Star Wars' OT as my favorite movie series of all time, while Peter Jackson's LotR Trilogy was my close second favorite. However, as I noticed the even greater array of intended Catholic applicability in Tolkien's work, I started to lean towards LotR more. Also, the definitive way(s) to experience Peter Jackson's LotR Trilogy is easy to understand and readily accessible, whereas the definitive way to experience the Star Wars Original Trilogy has been muddled by constant changes being made to each edition (some good, some bad, and some yielding mixed reactions) plus a lack of ways to easily access the theatrical cuts of those films. Despite this, I appreciate the impact that Star Wars' themes and morals had on my coming of age. Even the Prequel Trilogy, for all its flaws, had elements which deeply struck a chord with me a young Catholic. I would also liken it to Nickelodeon's "Avatar: The Last Airbender", regarding how applicable I found some of its messages and themes to my faith, even with how a lot of the franchise's raw world-building more directly references elements of Eastern religions.

God bless you all, may the Force be with you, and feel free to check out the two additional links:

“The Importance of Luke Skywalker”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlWSsZwLn0

"Joy vs Happiness (Quote) George Lucas, Academy of Achievement Speech, 2013"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFG25GLsrpU

"Everything in This World Passes Away - Bishop Barron's Sunday Sermon"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuDxtC0u4CM

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Boundaries in Conversation - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Hello! Ever unsure of where to spend your time? I was thinking about this recently apropos of responding to emails and engaging in conversations. I'm not sure that I've come up with tight conclusions yet, but I have at least begun to formulate some principles. I hope that it's helpful for you! Cheers!

00:24:04
Nine Years In - Taking Stock of My Priestly Life - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I was ordained on May 21, 2016 . . . as I celebrated an anniversary this past month, I prayed a bit about what the Lord has done, is doing, and might do in my life. What gives life? What deals death? And then, well, I pushed record. Here's what come out : )

00:19:22
Sneak Peek: Tammy Peterson

This Wednesday I'll release my interview with Tammy Peterson here on Locals. Thanks for being a member of Locals.

00:00:58
Simple NEW Lofi Song

Working on an entire album of lofi music. Here's one of those songs. Album should drop next week. THEN, a couple of weeks after that we hope to have our 24/7 stream up and running.

Simple NEW Lofi Song
December 01, 2022
Day 5 of Advent

THE ERROR OF ARIUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.

The...

Day 5 of Advent
November 27, 2022
Day 1 of Advent

RESTORATION OF MAN BY GOD THROUGH THE INCARNATION

We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.

But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who ...

Day 1 of Advent
How to Cast Your Anxieties Upon God

In these turbulent times, unlike any humanity has ever faced, it's easy to feel overwhelmed.

It's not that you are weak; rather, it's that you simply were not made for the brokenness of this fallen world. For the 24-hour news cycle; constant distraction; geopolitical instability; social and cultural upheaval; technological acceleration.

This relentless onslaught of external pressures and internal anxieties makes it more crucial than ever to heed St. Peter's words: "Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you" (1 Peter 5:7). This isn't merely a suggestion; it's a vital invitation to repeatedly embrace Jesus as our refuge, for without Him, we risk being utterly overcome.

Here's how you can do that:

Father, I give everyone and everything to you. I know that I can't save the world, I can't even carry it. It is too much for me but it is not too much for you. Jesus, I give everyone and everything to you [name the people and things that are causing you anxiety]. I know that, ...

Meme it or Lose it. ⛪️ 🙏🏼😂

post photo preview

Quote of the Day
"Young people need the light of watchful guides to lead them on the path of salvation."
St. John Baptist de la Salle

Today's Meditation
“Heaven is the birth-place and home of love. Its blessed inhabitants love much, love forever, and love only what is worthy of love. Joseph, however, was blessed by anticipation, for he passed all his days in the exercise of divine love, and lived a life of love upon earth. The Evangelists do not record a single word of this great saint; he observed, indeed, a marvelous silence. Not, however, an ungracious silence. The silence of ordinary men, as well as their irrepressible flow of words, is often merely selfish. But Joseph’s silence and his speech were alike prompted and regulated by the law of charity … His words, indeed, were never superfluous, for they had their source in love, but they were also ruled by his will, not forced from him as the expression of his feelings.”
—Edward Healy Thompson, p. 362

Daily Verse
"For God did not give us...

post photo preview
post photo preview
Welcome to Locals!

A big and hearty welcome to all who have joined our Locals community!

Here's what to expect:

  1.  Interviews one week early (before they hit Youtube)
  2. The opportunity to ask my guests questions
  3. Exclusive biweekly spiritual direction videos from Fr. Pine
  4. Access to video courses such as:
  • 7 part series on St. Augustine's Confessions by Dr Chad Engelland (here).
  • 5 Part series on Salvation History by Dr Andrew Swafford (here).
  • 5 Part series on Flannery O'Connor by Fr Damian Ferrence (here).
  • 6 Part series on Love and Responsibility by Christopher West & Matt Fradd (here).
  • 5 Part Series o Aquinas' 5 ways by Dr. Ed Feser (here).

5. Occasional livestreams with me.

6. Knowing that you're supporting the work of Pints With Aquinas.

Thanks!

Read full Article
post photo preview
Life is very, very simple, actually.

There is a lot going on. We are confused about many things. Embarrassed that we are confused. Pretend not to be. Have a few soundbites we can rely on when the conversation turns to Trump or the state of the Church or what is going on in Israel and Gaza or the AI revolution. We hope they don’t press us because we know enough to answer two or three questions before they will hit bedrock and we will have nothing.

All of this can lead us to believe the lie that life is complicated. And since we cannot figure it out, we should either quit, or numb, or pretend, or run ourselves ragged trying to understand everything we think we should understand.

And yet life is simple. Very, very simple. There is very little to figure out.

Love what is good. Hate what is evil. But how? When I have willingly habituated myself to do the opposite. Pray. Repent. Keep turning away from distractions. Don’t hate yourself for failing. Hope in the good God who is better than you think He is. Who cares for you more than you think He does.

What are your duties? Do them with joy and attention. Don’t hate yourself when you fail at this. Pray. Repent. Have a sense of humor about your littleness. You are incredibly loved after all, remember?

Turn away from what is useless and petty and vulgar and think about what is excellent.

Say “Your will be done” 100 times a day, especially when things are bad or seem meaningless. Your headache. Your bad night sleep. The house you can’t seem to get around to tidying.

Be patient and gentle with stupid people who can’t seem to make themselves love or want to love what is good, yourself first and foremost.

Jesus, help me want to want to love you. Help me want to want to hate anything opposed to you or your kingdom.

Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Read full Article
post photo preview
Is Knowledge Possible (No ... And Yes)

I want to begin by admitting that I’m an amateur when it comes to epistemology. I do have a master’s degree in philosophy, but epistemology wasn’t my area of focus. Some of you reading this will know more about the subject than I do. And to be honest, I’m a little nervous about the comments. There’s a good chance that if you engage with what I’m about to say in any real depth, I won’t understand you and it will be my fault that I don’t.

Okay, with that admission out of the way…

 

We've long assumed that knowledge requires three criteria: (1) belief, (2) truth, and (3) justification. In other words, to know something is to believe it, for it to be true, and to have good reason for believing it. That’s the classical definition: justified true belief (JTB).

And just real quick, if you’re wondering why knowledge can’t be defined by just the first two criteria, it’s because believing something that happens to be true is more like getting lucky than knowledge. Imagine I say it’s raining in Adelaide, but I have no reason for thinking so. I didn’t check my weather app or ask anyone who lives there. If it turns out that it is raining, I was right, but only by chance. That’s not knowledge. To genuinely know something, you need more than belief and truth, you need a reason for thinking it’s true. You need justification.

Okay …

Along Comes Gettier

Now, for a long time, this three-part definition held up well. But then, in 1963, Edmund Gettier came along and broke everything in three pages. You can read that paper here.

Gettier presented scenarios where someone has a belief that is both true and justified, yet we still hesitate to call it knowledge. Why? Because the belief turns out to be true by accident.

One of the most well-known examples (though not from Gettier himself but often used to illustrate his point) is the case of the stopped clock. A man glances at a clock that has stopped working, sees that it says 2:00, and forms the belief that it is 2:00. And it just so happens to be 2:00. His belief is true. He used a normally reliable method, checking the time on a clock. And yet, the method failed. The belief was correct purely by coincidence.

Can We Save “Knowledge”

Now, some have tried to save the classical definition by saying, “Well, that wasn’t really justified. The clock was broken, so the belief was faulty from the start.” But that kind of move just shifts the problem. If we start redefining justification every time we hit a weird case, we risk making it so strict that it no longer resembles what anyone would call a “justified belief.”

Others, like Alvin Goldman, proposed ditching the concept of justification entirely. Maybe knowledge isn’t about having reasons, but about using processes that generally lead to truth. This is called reliabilism: if your belief comes from a trustworthy process (like vision, memory, or scientific inference) it counts as knowledge.

But again, the clock case poses a problem. Even if the process is usually reliable, it clearly failed here. So are we back to calling this knowledge, even though it was true by luck?

Still others have suggested that knowledge is less about having the right reasons or processes, and more about the person doing the knowing. This is what’s known as virtue epistemology: the idea that knowledge is a kind of intellectual success rooted in intellectual virtue: careful thinking, honesty, openness to evidence. On this view, knowing isn’t about checking boxes; it’s about doing something well. Like an archer hitting the bullseyes, not by accident, but through skill.

That’s compelling. But even here, questions linger. How do we measure intellectual virtue? And isn’t it still possible to do everything right and end up wrong—or to be wrong for the right reasons and still, somehow, stumble into truth?

An (Initially) Unsettling Realization

Which brings me to a more unsettling thought.

If a belief like “it’s 2:00” can be true, feel justified, come from a reliable process, and still be the product of a broken clock—what else might we be getting wrong without realizing it? Maybe the deeper problem is that we can always be deceived. Even our best faculties (sight, memory, reason etc.) can betray us. And if that’s the case, maybe knowledge (at least in the strong, philosophical sense) is impossible. Or if not impossible, impossible to know if and when you have it.

David Hume once said, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” That strikes me as a sane and honest approach. The question isn’t whether I can be absolutely certain about what I believe, but whether I have good reasons for believing it—and whether I’m open to changing my mind if those reasons fall apart.

Some might find it unsettling—even scandalous—that we can’t achieve a God’s-eye view of the world. But honestly, what’s strange isn’t that we can’t see things with perfect clarity. It’s that we ever thought we should.

Maybe that’s why I find myself leaning toward fallibilism—the view that we can still know things, even while admitting we might be wrong. That kind of knowledge isn’t rigid or absolute, but humble and revisable. And that, to me, feels much closer to the way real life works.

So no, I’m not sure we need to cling too tightly to the word knowledge, at least not in the abstract, capital-K sense. What matters more is the posture we take toward the truth. That we pursue it carefully, honestly, and with a readiness to revise our beliefs when the evidence calls for it.

At least, that’s what I think I know.

 
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals