Shared post

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?

Show me more content first

Mark Cobuzzi@AquinasPupilMC73

December 01, 2024

Pop-Cultured Catholic #21: Revisiting God’s Transcendence of Time and the Problem of Evil, Through the Ending of “Samurai Jack”

And here is the finale to my latest trio of posts, which brings together the themes of my “Interstellar” and “The Imitation Game” posts. Now it is time to enter the world of “Samurai Jack”. It is an acclaimed fantasy adventure cartoon by Genndy Tartakovsky, the same man behind the other fantasy cartoon I posted about called "Primal".

The main premise of “Samurai Jack” involves the titular samurai getting teleported into a dystopian future, then seeking to time travel back to Feudal Japan, so he can stop a shapeshifting demonic overlord Aku from taking over the world in the first place. In the first episode, a warrior emperor has beaten back Aku, named after the Japanese word for “evil” (悪) and bearing a face possibly inspired by hannya masks in Japanese theater. Aku had sadistically laid waste to the emperor’s kingdom, being invincible to all mortal weapons. The only available weapon that can truly harm Aku is the emperor’s mystical katana blade. Channeling the wielder’s righteousness, the sword has the power to purify and cleanse away dark powers, making it kryptonite to Aku, a manifestation of evil and corruption. But Aku has returned and managed to capture the emperor before he can grab the sword, leaving the empress with no choice but salvage the sword for their son and send him off around the world, where he trains until he is ready to wield the sword against Aku. When the grown samurai prince faces Aku, he is winning and about to finish off Aku for good. As a last ditch move, Aku opens a portal in time, which yanks the prince away into the distant future. When the samurai falls out the other side, he finds himself in a world where Aku reigns supreme and various monsters are allowed to thrive. This futuristic Earth is also full of robots, sci-fi weaponry, and even aliens. Quickly earning the nickname Jack by the future inhabitants, “Now the fool seeks to return to the past, and undo the future that is Aku!”.

Seasons 1-4 of “Samurai Jack” became a favorite show on Cartoon Network from 2001 to 2004, seamlessly blending multiple genres and tones to yield a wide variety of episodic adventures. The typical episode’s formula involves Jack hunting for a portal or artifact that can take him back in time, while Aku tries to foil Jack’s hunts, send assassins after him, and sometimes fight Jack himself. Along the way, Jack also takes time to help those who have been ravaged, enslaved, or cursed by Aku and other villains. This gains Jack many friends and allies over time. His greatest and most recurring one is a loudmouthed Scotsman warrior, armed with his own magic sword, a prosthetic machine gun leg, bagpipes, and an endless array of flowery insults. Aku fully delivers as the main villain. He is ruthless and powerful enough to commit atrocities played for serious drama, yet also goofy and hilarious, thanks in large part to a delightfully hammy vocal performance by the late Mako (Makoto Iwamatsu). Episodes range in tone from simple cool adventures to sincerely emotional tales, comedy scenarios, and even horror plots. One latter episode has Jack saving a little girl and her family, who are held captive by a demon. The haunted house’s demon is played unnervingly straight and one of the few villains with no ties to Aku. Finally, there are many stylistic uses of animation, yielding uniquely memorable fight scenes, environments, and bits of visual storytelling.

When the story resumes in Season 5, airing on Adult Swim after a thirteen-year hiatus, the tone takes a darker turn and the titular samurai is at his lowest point. Fifty years have passed since Jack’s abduction through time. As an unexpected side-effect, Jack is unable to age. But Aku has destroyed the last time portal Jack could have used. This has made him finally give in to rage, become unworthy of the sword, and lose possession of it. He is left to wander aimlessly, fighting with whatever weapons he can scrounge, haunted by visions of those he failed to save, and hoping Aku never learns that his sword is lost. Even Jack’s best friend, the Scotsman, is literally on his last legs and soon dies defiantly confronting Aku. Speaking of Aku, he is now voiced by Greg Baldwin and not doing too well himself. Aku knows Jack cannot age now, everyone he sends to kill Jack fails, and Aku has become too afraid to go after Jack himself, unaware that his sword is missing. So while Jack is on the brink of despair and contemplating seppuku, Aku is also at wits end. In a moment of comic relief, Aku even starts giving himself therapy sessions.

As Season 5 unfolds, Jack soon meets a new enemy that will change the course of his battle, Ashi, one of the “Daughters of Aku”. During Jack’s journey, one woman has founded an all-female cult dedicated to worshiping Aku. The one time Aku visits her cult, he leaves behind a cup of his essence and the High Priestess drinks it. She later gives birth to seven daughters, one of whom is named Ashi. Their mother indoctrinates and hellishly trains them for the purpose of killing Samurai Jack, as a dark mirror of Jack’s childhood training to destroy Aku. Once their mother deems them ready, the seven assassins are sent out on their hunt. Over the course of many skirmishes, Jack is nearly killed by the Daughters of Aku multiple times and struggles with having to now kill flesh-and-blood human beings. But the tide slowly shifts and Jack whittles the assassins down, leaving Ashi as the only one left.

When Jack safely subdues Ashi and tries to help her, they eventually go from being worst enemies to best partners. Jack is bewildered to see Ashi so brainwashed that she believes Aku is the universe’s benevolent creator and ruler, while the samurai is the evil one. Ashi rejects all of Jack’s attempts to teach her the truth and continues trying to kill him while shackled, even as the two are trapped in the gut of a colossal beast and Jack still keeps her alive. Ashi finally realizes the truth, after they escape the “belly of the whale” and she sees him gently handling a ladybug, while her mother would callously squish such "distractions". From there, Ashi comes to learn more about Jack, then repays the favor by helping him to overcome his inner demons and finally reclaim his sword. In the process, she even defies and slays her fanatical mother. Over the course of other adventures, Jack and Ashi’s camaraderie evolves, slowly budding into a romantic relationship.

Jack and Ashi’s relationship reaches its climax, when Aku receives outdated news of Jack losing his sword, then rushes out to confront him. When Aku encounters Ashi with Jack, he senses his own essence lying dormant inside her and takes advantage. Aku is able to awaken his powers in Ashi, possess her body, and turn her on Jack. With seemingly no way to free Ashi without killing her, Jack relapses back into despair and surrenders. Aku gloatingly broadcasts Jack’s capture and plans to have Ashi execute him as the world watches. Thankfully, all of the friends Jack has made in the earlier seasons come to Jack’s aid, including the Scotsman in ghost form. While Jack’s allies distract Aku, the samurai tries once more to free Ashi. When Ashi hears Jack utter that he loves her and she focuses on that, only then does Aku’s control over her weaken. As cliche as it is for the “power of love” to be a villain’s kryptonite, I can buy it here, finding it consistent with Jack’s sword harming Aku with “righteousness… the strength and power of the human spirit”. To their surprise, Ashi not only frees herself from Aku’s control, but also discovers she can wield Aku’s powers… including his ability to create time portals.

Using her powers as a literal Daughter of Aku, Ashi is able to take both Jack and herself back in time to finally stop Aku in past… but at a tragic cost. Jack and Ashi emerge from the time portal, mere moments after Aku originally flung Jack into the future. The samurai wastes no time finishing off the surprised and terrified Aku. Once and for all, Aku is destroyed, and Ashi feels his power leaving her. For a while, it looks like a clear happy ending, with Jack’s family and homeland saved, the dystopian future averted, plus Jack and Ashi preparing to wed. Unfortunately, Aku has the last laugh, for it appears the world of “Samurai Jack” operates on “Back to the Future” rules of time travel. During the wedding procession, Ashi suddenly collapses. When Jack rushes over and begs to know what’s wrong, Ashi can only reply, “Without Aku… I would have never… existed”. Ashi then fades away before Jack’s eyes, as the rest of the crowd shares his heartbreak. The show ends on a bittersweet note, with Jack sitting amongst the cherry blossoms and eying a ladybug that lands on him. The insect flutters away, reminding him of his fond memories with Ashi and her sacrifice.

When I first saw the ending, I found it a resonant and thought-provoking note to close on, which left me pondering for the next day. I remember calling it, when I predicted the show having one of two possible endings. I figured that one possible ending would be him going back in time to avert the future with Aku’s takeover, at the cost of Jack’s friends in the original future all no longer existing. The other possible ending I imagined would have Jack ultimately deciding not to return to the past, instead focusing on destroying Aku in the present, so the current timeline’s people can now experience a future without Aku. Surprisingly, I looked up that before the show’s revival, the creators toyed with the latter idea in a series of (now non-canon) comic books titled “Tales of the Wandering Warrior”. There, Jack resolves to do that.

The show’s ending made me imagine the Problem of Evil in another way, when I first combined it with my observations of “Interstellar”. In my “Interstellar” post, I focus on the scene with Matthew McConaughey’s character floating in the tesseract, which allows him to view his daughter’s bedroom at infinite points in time and send messages to her past self as the “ghost”. I have wondered if that scene is a taste of what it would be like to see everything through the eyes of God, who transcends time. There, the past, present, and future are all perceptible at once. With that in mind, is it possible that every time God chooses to act through divine intervention, it is the equivalent to Samurai Jack altering the timeline by going back to slay Aku in the past? That is, in the sense that God knows/sees every potential “Ashi”, whose very existence will be prevented by his intervention? While undoing Aku’s future reign no doubt saved countless lives and allowed countless new people to be born, the ending of “Samurai Jack” points out that there are also good people, whose existence was only possible because Aku’s reign happened in the first place. Those invested in Ashi’s character still found it an emotional gut-punch, when she fades away. Jack ends up with the power to transcend time, but does not feel the cost of meddling with it until he has already intervened. Would this give God similar reservations about directly intervening in his creation, versus leaving it to its own agency?

Things also got deeper, when I added my observations of “The Imitation Game”. There, Benedict Cumberbatch’s fictionalized portrayal of Alan Turing is eventually faced with ethical decisions, where he might need to allow certain attacks by the Nazis to come to pass, in order ensure greater victory in the long term. Speaking of Benedict Cumberbatch’s roles, I forgot to mention that even my very first “Pop-Cultured Catholic” post on the Avengers films references a scene in Infinity War, where his portrayal of Dr. Strange chooses to let the villain have his way in the short term, since it is the only way to enable the villain’s defeat in the long term. That is, after he examines 14 million possible futures… which is still nothing compared to being omniscient. Also in my post on “The Imitation Game”, I make a callback to George R.R. Martin‘s quote, that the battle between good and evil is chiefly fought within the human heart and not something to be decisively finished by a mere external fight. I used that to suggest God cannot instantly end the war between good and evil to the fullest he would want, merely by smiting evil forces, and he might still have to make similar decisions as Turing even with his omnipotence. With the themes of “Samurai Jack”, one is reminded of the fact that there are even people, whose very existence is only made possible by evil being allowed to have its way in the short term. For example, think about a refugee meeting someone in a foreign country, starting a family with them, and having one of their children accomplish wonders. This is yet another layer to the 4D Chess games that God is playing, every time he chooses when to intervene and how to answer every prayer.

While I do not claim to have definitively solved the Problem of Evil, my G.R.R. Martin post, these three latest posts, and the brief callback to my Avengers post might collectively be my best exploration into that conundrum’s possible answers. With the end of “Samurai Jack” marking its conclusion, I will be linking some clips from that show and its finale episode…

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Show me more content first

What else you may like…

Videos

Podcasts

Posts

Articles

Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.@frgregorypineop

June 23, 2025

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

Matt Fradd@Matt_Fradd

June 23, 2025

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

Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.@frgregorypineop

June 12, 2025

The Human Excellence that Technology Can Never Replace - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Squad, I've been thinking about AI lately. It's not that I understand the technology, though I am trying some, but that my limited understanding has given me occasion to think specifically about what is distinctive to the human person. And, it turns out, those distinctive notes are incredibly precious. In this video, I'm think about our call to conversation for intimacy . . . look forward to chatting with you there.

00:21:22

Matt Fradd@Matt_Fradd

April 16, 2024

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.

Matt Fradd@Matt_Fradd

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...

Matt Fradd@Matt_Fradd

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 ...

Bernadette@BernadetteG

3 hours ago

I need some prayers. I finished my book, finally. It took me seven years to write. It’s about my journey with latened hearing loss and how my faith sustained me. I submitted it to Ignatius Press. I will hear back in 3-6 months.
If they don’t publish it, I will try other Catholic publishers.

Bernadette@BernadetteG

20 hours ago

A straight up miracle happened and there is no way anyone will convince me otherwise! I am in Clearwater, Fl. I was in the Gulf with my aqua pack cochlear implants. I turned around and a wave hit me. I lost my processor. I lost all hope but started pleading with God. Mike refused to give up and keeps searching. I said the St. Anthony prayer three times. I begged God to let it wash up on shore. I was even trying to track it with the app!!

Suddenly, this man appears with it in his hand. I burst into tears, thanking him. He refused to take any cash as a reward. I hugged him and couldn’t stop saying thank you. That’s $10k I would have had to come up with on my own because the only thing I cannot do is lose them. It was totally my fault. I should have worn the clips they gave me for it. Anyway, miracles do happen. How else would someone find something so small in the Gulf?!

Mark Cobuzzi@AquinasPupilMC73

12 hours ago

I just came across this beautifully made animated short by Lukas Rooney on YouTube “Lost Sheep”. It definitely conveys the power of Christ’s metaphor, likening himself to a shepherd who goes to seemingly insane lengths and risks to set out for the one lost sheep out of the 100 in his flock:

Matt Fradd@Matt_Fradd

May 01, 2025

Welcome to Locals!

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

Here's what to expect:

Interviews one week early (before they hit Youtube)
The opportunity to ask my guests questions
Exclusive biweekly spiritual direction videos from Fr. Pine
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

Matt Fradd@Matt_Fradd

June 14, 2025

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

Matt Fradd@Matt_Fradd

June 01, 2025

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

Available on mobile and TV devices