Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Video game escapism
from a remarkably self-reflective author at IGN, not necessarily the place I'd expect it.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Why we need Aristotle and Aquinas pt 4
Having looked at current symptoms of the mechanistic thought process, it is finally time to look at why a rediscovery of Aristotelian and Thomistic (AT) metaphysics is desperately needed.
One of the key factors of AT metaphysics is that it proceeds from reality as it presents itself to us. It takes for granted that the things that reality presents to us are in fact real. This is distinct from mechanistic thought, which has the tendency to impose a view on reality to conform to a system.
The coffee cup on my desk is actually a coffee cup on my desk. I can actually see the coffee cup on my desk. What my eyes tell me is actually real. While these may seem trivial observations, they actually state quite profound insights.
What I perceive is reality first. The existence of objects and my perceptions of those objects are both real. They communicate the way things are, and as such I perceive truth. This means that sensory data is not only trustworthy in the general sense, but that they communicate reality as it is.
From this point AT develops metaphysical principles stemming from this primary source of reality. Form and matter, potential and actual, efficient and final causes. All stem from this connection with reality as presented.
Notice the distinction between this and what we see in modern thought. All of the principles of AT philosophy are derived from the concrete reality that such is supposed to describe. This is distinct from contemporary approaches to thinking, which more often than not impose a view on reality and then seek to have reality conform to the view.
The upshot of this is that unlike modern models of reality, AT metaphysics retains its grounding in the reality from which it derives. It does not impose a reality. It derives from the reality.
This emphasis on deriving a worldview from reality rather than imposing one on it via laboratory experiments is the fundamental distinction between medieval and modern thought. We would do well to rediscover this important connection between reality and how we describe it. And AT metaphysics would go a long way to reconnecting that bridge between reality and the human mind.
One of the key factors of AT metaphysics is that it proceeds from reality as it presents itself to us. It takes for granted that the things that reality presents to us are in fact real. This is distinct from mechanistic thought, which has the tendency to impose a view on reality to conform to a system.
The coffee cup on my desk is actually a coffee cup on my desk. I can actually see the coffee cup on my desk. What my eyes tell me is actually real. While these may seem trivial observations, they actually state quite profound insights.
What I perceive is reality first. The existence of objects and my perceptions of those objects are both real. They communicate the way things are, and as such I perceive truth. This means that sensory data is not only trustworthy in the general sense, but that they communicate reality as it is.
From this point AT develops metaphysical principles stemming from this primary source of reality. Form and matter, potential and actual, efficient and final causes. All stem from this connection with reality as presented.
Notice the distinction between this and what we see in modern thought. All of the principles of AT philosophy are derived from the concrete reality that such is supposed to describe. This is distinct from contemporary approaches to thinking, which more often than not impose a view on reality and then seek to have reality conform to the view.
The upshot of this is that unlike modern models of reality, AT metaphysics retains its grounding in the reality from which it derives. It does not impose a reality. It derives from the reality.
This emphasis on deriving a worldview from reality rather than imposing one on it via laboratory experiments is the fundamental distinction between medieval and modern thought. We would do well to rediscover this important connection between reality and how we describe it. And AT metaphysics would go a long way to reconnecting that bridge between reality and the human mind.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Caring about the truth
One of the more pressing questions facing Catholic efforts is the attitude against truth that prevails in our culture today. Not the fact that people reject Catholicism per se. But that people in general simply do not care if they are wrong about anything, let alone beliefs that they hold.
To understand this problem we need to back up a bit in history. More specifically the ancient world. In Paganism, by which I mean the myriad of religious and mythical traditions that were held at one point or another in the various cultures of the past. One thing that animates all of these is the importance of truth.
The ancient world was a harsh time. People didn't have the resources to screw around with ideas like "there is no objective truth" because the need to create food and not starve was an ever present reminder that life did not bow to the will. Reality was ever present and repeatedly beat into you the idea that there is such a thing as reality and it is the human that submits, not the universe.
That ever present notion of the truth haunts the religions of the past. That search for those truths, as much as for survival but also the importance of commitment to the truth animates the mythologies of our ancestors. Paganism understood the importance of truth, and the importance of finding it.
So when Christianity arrived the Pagans abandoned their Faith in pursuit of the truth. The religions of the past, exhausted of their potential to answer the mysteries of life, were discarded in favor of the fullness of Truth.
Modern man however has no interest in the Truth, having denied that such a thing exists (a contradictory position, but nonetheless). Without the commitment to truth, the modern position on any important issue is reduced to that of emotion, to the point of mistrusting reason and rational arguments. The stronger the emotion, the greater assurance modern man has of his position, regardless of the fact that the position itself is grounded neither in reason or common sense.
This presents a problem for evangelization efforts. Most efforts take as an assumption that people care about the truth. But when that commitment is not there this falls apart. Reason is useless against an irrational person. Truth is not important to someone who denies the importance of truth.
So the open ended question I pose is this: How does one teach a commitment to the truth? I believe the answer to the modern condition lies in answering this riddle.
To understand this problem we need to back up a bit in history. More specifically the ancient world. In Paganism, by which I mean the myriad of religious and mythical traditions that were held at one point or another in the various cultures of the past. One thing that animates all of these is the importance of truth.
The ancient world was a harsh time. People didn't have the resources to screw around with ideas like "there is no objective truth" because the need to create food and not starve was an ever present reminder that life did not bow to the will. Reality was ever present and repeatedly beat into you the idea that there is such a thing as reality and it is the human that submits, not the universe.
That ever present notion of the truth haunts the religions of the past. That search for those truths, as much as for survival but also the importance of commitment to the truth animates the mythologies of our ancestors. Paganism understood the importance of truth, and the importance of finding it.
So when Christianity arrived the Pagans abandoned their Faith in pursuit of the truth. The religions of the past, exhausted of their potential to answer the mysteries of life, were discarded in favor of the fullness of Truth.
Modern man however has no interest in the Truth, having denied that such a thing exists (a contradictory position, but nonetheless). Without the commitment to truth, the modern position on any important issue is reduced to that of emotion, to the point of mistrusting reason and rational arguments. The stronger the emotion, the greater assurance modern man has of his position, regardless of the fact that the position itself is grounded neither in reason or common sense.
This presents a problem for evangelization efforts. Most efforts take as an assumption that people care about the truth. But when that commitment is not there this falls apart. Reason is useless against an irrational person. Truth is not important to someone who denies the importance of truth.
So the open ended question I pose is this: How does one teach a commitment to the truth? I believe the answer to the modern condition lies in answering this riddle.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Why we need Aristotle and Aquinas pt 3
In the previous article on this subject I listed several experiences that while anecdotal, provide what I think are specific examples of a general problem for moderns. The problem lies in that there is a disconnect between the rational abstractions we use and the underlying reality that those abstractions represent. This manifests itself in several ways, such as the anecdotes I listed in my last post on this subject.
One of the worst cases is the tendency to "concretize the abstract" according to Dr. Edward Feser. In this case, The person has taken an abstraction of a particular reality and turned it into the reality. This is particularly true among materialist atheists, who routinely beg the question during their defenses of these views.
Another symptom is what I would call "the reality disconnect". In this case the abstract model that one learns loses its connection to the underlying reality that the model is supposed to be an abstraction of. This occurs in its most obvious form in academic test settings, where answers provided to test questions are not only wrong but so wrong the professor is left wondering how the student did not know how wrong he was.
Both of these are the result of the denial of objective truth. In the first case reality is constrained to the model that the individual mind can handle, and thus a warped view of reality is projected. In the second case the model is all that there is, and the disconnect is due to the inability to connect the abstraction with the reality. Both fail to deal with reality as is, and attempts to narrow reality in order to simplify the thought process.
I think largely this is due to the skeptical nature of modern thought. Not in the sense of critical thought. But the hyper-critical nature of modern philosophy. The denial of objective truth and the ability to know such truth has severed our thoughts from reality.
A lot of this stems from Descartes' modernist philosophy and the subsequent mechanistic philosophies of modern thought. Viewing the world through a lens that searches for utility rather than truth, the goal of modern philosophy is not to seek the truth but to utilize the physical world. While this is useful from the scientific perspective, it is virtually useless when evaluating universal truth one way or another.
So now that we have laid out the issues with modern thought and the consequences of those thoughts, how does Aquinas come to the rescue? That we will finally answer in the next post.
One of the worst cases is the tendency to "concretize the abstract" according to Dr. Edward Feser. In this case, The person has taken an abstraction of a particular reality and turned it into the reality. This is particularly true among materialist atheists, who routinely beg the question during their defenses of these views.
Another symptom is what I would call "the reality disconnect". In this case the abstract model that one learns loses its connection to the underlying reality that the model is supposed to be an abstraction of. This occurs in its most obvious form in academic test settings, where answers provided to test questions are not only wrong but so wrong the professor is left wondering how the student did not know how wrong he was.
Both of these are the result of the denial of objective truth. In the first case reality is constrained to the model that the individual mind can handle, and thus a warped view of reality is projected. In the second case the model is all that there is, and the disconnect is due to the inability to connect the abstraction with the reality. Both fail to deal with reality as is, and attempts to narrow reality in order to simplify the thought process.
I think largely this is due to the skeptical nature of modern thought. Not in the sense of critical thought. But the hyper-critical nature of modern philosophy. The denial of objective truth and the ability to know such truth has severed our thoughts from reality.
A lot of this stems from Descartes' modernist philosophy and the subsequent mechanistic philosophies of modern thought. Viewing the world through a lens that searches for utility rather than truth, the goal of modern philosophy is not to seek the truth but to utilize the physical world. While this is useful from the scientific perspective, it is virtually useless when evaluating universal truth one way or another.
So now that we have laid out the issues with modern thought and the consequences of those thoughts, how does Aquinas come to the rescue? That we will finally answer in the next post.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)