September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« The Nature of Moral Obligations: Moral Guilt | Main | Religions Are Not All Basically the Same »

July 10, 2015

Comments

Are there any naturalists who argue that we have moral obligations to inanimate objects? I've never heard of that before. Morality only applies among persons. You're arguing up the wrong tree here.

Another question: How can theism account for the social aspect of morality? Is it just because God said by fiat to love your neighbor, or is there also some cause-and-effect logic?

The reason I ask is because naturalistic morality has a clear and simple explanation. Morality is social because cooperation is the best way for us to achieve our goal of survival.

John,


You ask, “Are there any naturalists who argue that we have moral obligations to inanimate objects? I've never heard of that before.”


You go on, “Morality only applies among persons.”


But just the other day, you stated that the laws which apply to people are the same laws that apply to everything, “Why just between persons? We have laws of nature that apply everywhere to everything, and then we have these special laws that only apply to persons. Couldn't moral laws just be a subset of the laws of nature?”


That statement has you placing Moral Laws (Persons) as a part of All-Laws (Physics/Physical Universe) and you have hence equated the two in kind, that is to say, in category. You then go on to make it worse for yourself by appealing to your paradigm’s sociability (which some call evolutionary morality), to the singular value system in which trees and man and rabbit and earth and sky just do sum to the singular unsighted cul-de-sac of biological evolution branching ever outward.


There again you collapse the moral category into the only, single, category which Naturalism affords you even as you try to assert that said category of laws only applies to evolved animals (man).


You don’t like the OP for zooming that lens inward to “tree” over there and “animal” over here, and so you zoom the lens outward to “animal cooperation” and think that by describing said cooperation (in what just is an artificially isolated fashion) you’ve made either an ontological distinction or a category distinction.


But you haven’t done either one.


Naturalism has only one set of “laws”. It is you who is making the category error amid Tree/Animal.


You ask, “Fiat or Cause/Effect”.


Answer: Neither. You can’t argue against Christianity by hinting at Non-Christian truth predicates.


You state: “Morality is social because cooperation is the best way for us to achieve our goal of survival.”


You’re wrong for two reasons.


First: You’re appealing to feelings and begging the question amid those feelings. Evolution’s value system has lots of feelings that carry-forward genomic perpetuation, some of which you’ll want to call immoral, and, so, we await your equivocation as you zoom in on “some” of those feelings and begin begging the question on why they are “good” even as you leave out “other” feelings and again beg the question on why those are “bad”.


Before moving on to the second reason you are wrong, here is a closer look at where this first error carries you as you try to assert that Naturalism can and has invented something other than the amoral:


"The West’s liberal ideals in a secular/atheist framework are practically mysticism. This idea of a “fundamental human right” in an evolutionary context is, as Bentham stated, “nonsense on stilts.” This is going beyond the otherwise-humble claims of the skeptic that morality is just a thing we have built into us, and is good for our evolutionary benefit. That’s fine, I can handle that and say “Ok well, good luck!” But then they go on to appeal to some concept of equality among individuals, which is utterly and perfectly contradictory to the fitness paradigm of the evolutionary future which we are bound to. The question to the skeptic is, how can you assert equality into a future that you anticipate will involve conditions requiring unfitness of certain types of individuals in the species? How can you begin to guess that our current, or ANY, pursuit of happiness is the scientifically verified insurance of survival and fitness for the species in the context of fundamental human rights and equality? I certainly don’t advocate judging the truth of a claim based on its consequences. However, for all the times that I am accused of cognitive dissonance, which I may be guilty of, I cannot imagine living under the volume of cognitive dissonance in saying incidental meat robots called humans have “fundamental human rights” while KNOWING those human rights could cause conditions that would be evolutionarily disastrous.” (GM)


Second: Evolution’s value system values genomic perpetuation.


Period.


Hence we await your equivocation and your question begging.


The eons-old deeply embedded neuro-biological sexual-psychological constructs of homosapien which sum to rape (on the one hand) and sexual slavery (on the other hand) find the evolved construct of reason chasing after many things therein. Factually, reason *can* and reason *factually* does chase therein, and facts matter. You don’t like those facts, but, they are there expressly at the hands of your paradigm’s value system. Higher contributions to offspring benefit the species therein as we come upon feelings in, say, sex slavery. Happiness and satisfaction emerge – in the sex slave. It’s a descriptive worth putting out there as it is informative on the wide-open-arms of evolution’s value-system. The young female Homosapein is submerged and she is one day in a place of reasoning such that she will risk her own life to defend her faithful owner, as, in her milieu all those series of Internally Naturally Occurring Clusters of evolved feelings which evolution gave to Homosapein bounce off of this or that series of External Naturally Occurring Clusters of external facts and generate internal feelings and drives which foster behavior beneficial to genomic perpetuation when and if her faithful provider/owner is threatened. Her feelings and her reasoning then chase the good (whatever “good” means) of faithfulness, of flourishing, of happiness, of the satisfaction of a job well done, of providing for her loved ones, of deep feelings of human connection.


Your paradigm's sociability invents, selects, nurtures, retains, refines, and values the eons-old, deeply embedded neuro-biological sexual-psychological constructs of homosapien which sum to that sexual slavery and which sum to rape.


You don’t like calling rape “Good” but that is only because you’re allowing your Christianized conscience to carry you into question begging.

But you shouldn’t. A few reasons why:


“Others have made similar points about the low value placed on science and about the profound misunderstanding of science in some academic circles. Indeed, it has been suggested that “most of the influential work in the social sciences is ideological” (Leslie 1990, p. 896). Whether or not this is true of the social sciences as a whole, there is evidence that many of the rape-prevention strategies proposed during the past three decades relied upon explanations of rape based more on ideology than on scientific evidence. Reviewing social scientists’ writings on human sexual coercion published in the period 1982–1992, the psychologists Del Thiessen and Robert Young (1994, p. 60) conclude that “the messages seem more political than scientific.” Similarly, we find that the majority of the researchers on whose theories today’s attempts to solve the problem of rape are based remain uninformed about the most powerful scientific theory concerning living things: the theory of evolution by Darwinian selection. As a result, many of the social scientists’ proposals for dealing with rape are based on assumptions about human behavior that have been without theoretical justification since 1859, when Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species was published. Some say that the rape researchers’ ignorance of evolutionary principles is unimportant because the solutions to rape offered by evolutionarily informed researchers are, as the biologist and women’s studies professor Zuleyma Tang-Martinez (1996, p. 122) puts it, “all solutions that could have been arrived at by a feminist psychosocial analysis, without invoking evolutionary biology.” This claim is incorrect. Not only does an evolutionary approach generate new knowledge that could be used to decrease the incidence of rape; some of the proposals put forth by individuals uninformed by evolutionary theory may actually increase it……

Most people don’t know much about why humans have the desires, emotions, and values that they have, including those that cause rape. This is because most people lack any understanding of the ultimate (that is, evolutionary) causes of why humans are the way they are. This lack of understanding has severely limited people’s knowledge of the exact proximate (immediate) causes of rape, thus limiting the ability of concerned people to change the behavior. For 25 years, attempts to prevent rape have not only failed to be informed by an evolutionary approach; they have been based on explanations designed to make ideological statements rather than to be consistent with scientific knowledge of human behavior. One cannot understand evolutionary explanations of rape, much less evaluate them, without a solid grasp of evolutionary theory. Failure to appreciate this point has caused much valuable time to be wasted on misplaced attacks on evolutionary explanations. Assuming that the main interest of most readers of this book is the subject of rape rather than evolutionary theory per se, we now present some questions about rape that an evolutionary approach can answer:


• Why are males the rapists and females (usually) the victims?
• Why is rape a horrendous experience for the victim?
• Why does the mental trauma of rape vary with the victim’s age and marital status?

• Why does the mental trauma of rape vary with the types of sex acts?
• Why does the mental trauma of rape vary with the degree of visible physical injuries to the victim, but in a direction one might not expect?

• Why do young males rape more often than older males?
• Why are young women more often the victims of rape than older women or girls (i.e., pre-pubertal females)?

• Why is rape more frequent in some situations, such as war, than in others?
• Why does rape occur in all known cultures?
• Why are some instances of rape punished in all known cultures?
• Why are people (especially husbands) often suspicious of an individual’s claim to have been raped?

• Why is rape often treated as a crime against the victim’s husband?
• Why have attempts to reform rape laws met with only limited success?
• Why does rape exist in many, but not all, species?
• Why does rape still occur among humans?
• How can rape be prevented?

‘The question “What is man?” is probably the most profound that can be asked by man. It has always been central to any system of philosophy or of theology. We know that it has been asked by the most learned humans 2000 years ago, and it is just possible that it was being asked by the most brilliant australopithecines 2 million years ago. The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely. —Simpson 1966, p. 472”” (From A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion)


Another collection of data concludes:


“Overall, because during most of human evolution that young women have been protected by their parents from being raped, there may have been insufficient evolutionary pressures on them to evolve anti-rape mechanisms good enough to protect them in a free-mate-choice world. Across human cultures, certain men under certain conditions adopt a forced-sex mating strategy. This paper supports the hypothesis that this strategy constitutes a behavioral expression of an innate mechanism that increases fitness by enabling men to circumvent parental and female choice and exploit low-cost reproductive opportunities. This argument is consistent with anthropological and historical evidence which indicates that there were recurrent fitness benefits for men who adopted this strategy.”

Also:

Such innate neuro-biological constructs are not only obviously beneficial to the yield of offspring, thus benefiting the species, but they are also mechanistically resistant to decay given that they bypass several layers of delays, pauses, and mechanistic frustrations which arise by both biological and environmental pauses. Such mechanisms resistant to both biological and environmental delays grant several other, peculiar, advantages.


Your Christianized conscience is clearly behind your own question begging as you equivocate on feelings in your own paradigm’s means and ends.

Your paradigm's sociability values the eons-old, deeply embedded neuro-biological sexual-psychological constructs of homosapien which sum to rape. Since you don’t embrace that, since you reject that, we can, and do, justifiably count you as intellectually dishonest.

You have only one category of laws with which to work, and, so, on top of question begging you are also making unsophisticated and unjustifiable category errors. Your Christianized conscience has you wanting to just separate “Man” from “Evolution” as you try to answer the question, “What is Man?


Your economics can’t afford that.

Ever.

I wasn't stating but just asking. But anyway, let's go ahead and suppose that moral laws are just a subset of the laws of nature. No problem - we call "moral" those natural laws as they apply to persons, particularly persons as they strive toward their common, immutable goal.

Aside from that, I really appreciate your nice long comments, scbrownlhrm. Often I can't quite figure out what you're saying, but I try to read everything. In a few places you seem to assume things about me that aren't necessarily true, such as that I'm influenced by western values or have a Christianized conscience. What about my Japanese cultural heritage? Surely that influences me too.

I wonder why few other Christian commenters are participating in this series of posts about morality. Maybe you think scbrownlhrm has adequately answered all my questions. Am I just too slow to understand?

John,


You stated: “We call "moral" those natural laws as they apply to persons, particularly persons as they strive toward their common, immutable goal.”


You posit an immutable goal, perhaps even a universal teleology, which seems to precede, subsume, and outdistance time and matter. Or may exist within time and matter. Or something. You haven’t defined it yet. Is your metaphysical grounding of this immutable goal from a Christian, Atheist/Naturalist, Japanese, or some other body of presuppositions? Can you elaborate?


Mechanistic natural selection values rape, as discussed. Do you too call it Good?


The reason I ask is that the OP described the Christian conclusions. You offer a lot of, “But why can’t it be X instead of Y?"


Good question. You’ve not shown us why “Y” works. You just posit an immutable goal. That’s fine. But if you want to discuss our X, which we know you know something about, then be up front about your Y. You’ve not shown us your work on your immutable goal.


You asked, “What about my Japanese cultural heritage?”


Again, you posit an immutable goal, perhaps even a universal teleology, which seems to precede, subsume, and outdistance time and matter. Or may exist within time and matter. Or something. You haven’t defined it yet. Is your metaphysical grounding of this immutable goal from a Christian, Atheist/Naturalist, Japanese, or some other body of presuppositions? Can you elaborate?


Again: The reason I ask is that the OP’s described the Christian conclusions. You offer a lot of, “But why can’t it be X instead of Y?"


Again: Good question. You’ve not shown us why “Y” works. You just posit an immutable goal. That’s fine. But if you want to discuss our X, which we know you know something about, then be up front about your Y. You’ve not shown us your work on your immutable goal.


Is your metaphysical grounding of this immutable goal from a Christian, Atheist/Naturalist, Japanese, or some other body of presuppositions? Can you elaborate?

On the OP's question of "Sociability", it is Christianity's curious claim that The Necessary immutably houses love's relational contours there amid love's unavoidable "I/You".

Even more peculiar, the Christian claim is that The Necessary immutably houses love's relational contours there in a Singularity. That is to say, in love's (unavoidable) "Singular-Us".

The following is nothing more than an attempt to dive into "Trinity" and take a look around:

As noted elsewhere, Feser comments, “In particular, we might say that since the natural end or final cause of reason is to know the causes of things, and the ultimate cause of things is God, the ultimate end of reason is to know God.”

We arrive, speaking of Good and of Evil, of Ought and or the Moral Paradigm, then, at the (necessarily) ultimate end of all moral lines: that ceaseless reciprocity housed within love.

The ultimate cause (in the Necessary) of all moral lines (in the Contingent) emerges, and such cannot be (on pain of incoherence) some lesser something other than what sums to non-contingent, immutable love. We find then that the ultimate end of all moral reasoning just does then carry us to that which must immutably constitute not only the necessary essence of “Being Itself”, but, such Being Itself as that which carries us, inescapably, to an immutable composition which satisfies the necessary essence of “Love Itself”, that is to say, the necessary constitution of “Relation’s Reciprocity”.

The very content of all such semantics reduce, in whatever permutation or combination we attempt, to the fundamental shape of those express contours amid Personhood/Being as reason chases down the factual nature of our experience of the inescapable facts saturating the totality of possibility that is our perceptual field. Such carries us to the undeniable experience of “existing”, that is to say, to our experience of being such that (it just is the case) that one cannot even begin to talk of “me” or of “self” or of “in here” but for the referent that is the “you” or the “other” or the “out there”, and so on in all directions. It is, on point of fact, that all such lines arrive upon us as a singularity there in what just is our singular experience of being constituted of, on point of fact, the singularity that is the “I/You” or the “In/Out” or the “Self/Other”, that is to say, the singular “Us”.

Should reason deny those three (undeniable) vertices of “Personhood/Being” constituted of the totality of (three) vertices in the singularity which (factually) sums within “Self / Other / Us”, should reason deny that triune experience of existing, then reason shall therein deny the undeniable.

The fundamental shape that is being’s three vertices grounds The-Real such that we are ushered forward, outward, to an uncanny fact that such an ontological singularity is expressly constituted of nothing less than all feasible fusions within the triune geography of “Personhood/Being” as the factual vertices of “Self / Other / Us” emerge both within all possible moral incantations and also within all possible notions within the experience of existing, that is to say, within the experience of being. In all cases, such topography sums to the metaphysically necessary at the end of the line. Else the pains of incoherence.

Recall that we are speaking here of the metaphysical necessities of an actuality, of a concrete and objective reality, of an ontology of moral facts.

All moral ontology thus far, short of non-contingent, immutable love, fails to end (full stop) in “Person / Being” as all such lines are ipso facto (void of love’s immutable paradigm) entirely arbitrary and mutable and contingent – and thus all moral ontology ends equally arbitrary and mutable and contingent, such that all “Moral Reasoning” is then, factually speaking, intuiting no real thing at all.


The Moral Ontology of love’s categorical reciprocity in the triune God solves this.

It’s uncanny.


None of us, not the Christian or Sam Harris or anyone at all in all our moral incantations, can evade the ontology of Personhood/Being that is that rather peculiar sort which finds there in Being Itself the very fabric and fullness of love’s ceaseless reciprocity amid the metaphysical singularity of “Self / Other / Us”. All three such “vertices of being” are found in every moral statement we make – by necessity. An ominous fact presents itself to us in that none of us can evade the ontology of “Self / Other / Us” in the Christian God nor can any of us evade all such vertices in any possible moral semantics as all such intonations are never found, not even once, void of those three necessary, inescapable, vertices of “Personhood/Being”.

That God, that The Necessary, should be love does, then, if all of Man’s “in part right” and all of Man’s “in part wrong” motions within Mankind’s brutally repeatable moral experience are to any degree factual, emerge as the only possible End to the Story. To paraphrase Feser: “In particular, we might say that since the natural end or final cause of reason is to know the causes of things, and in this case the cause of all moral facts, it is factually the case then that the ultimate cause of things is God, and in this case the ultimate cause of all moral facts is the immutable love of the Necessary Being such that we cannot escape then the fact that the ultimate end of reason is to know the God Who is love, that ceaseless reciprocity within the triune topography of immutable love of the Necessary Being.

Trinity becomes, as reason makes her demands, unavoidable.

Logic’s demand for lucidity carries us, all of us, all of mankind, into morality’s factual contours, and, where that leaves off we come then to the stuff of the “Self-Revealing God” (J. Pemberton) as Trinity/Christianity carries us into those three inescapable vertices of Personhood/Being. This objective and verifiable – and singularly triune – Archetype comes into view as the undeniable Exemplar casually and undeniably emerges pan-history and pan-world in all moral codes and objectively delineates – subsumes – justifies – all moral contours.

“What purport to be new systems or ……ideologies…… all consist of fragments from the [whole] itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the [whole] and to it alone such validity as they possess……… the human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary color in the spectrum..” (C.S. Lewis) Indeed, when “Parts” are taken from “Being’s Whole”, that is to say, from the three vertices of being, that is to say, from the triune topography “Self / Other / Us” and, by that privation, that isolation, are swollen to madness, we discover that, in fact, Mankind never has invented a new moral value in the history of the world. When the “Whole” just is “Reality”, that is to say, when the “Whole” of Being Itself just is the three undeniable vertices of “Self / Other / Us” then all “Parts” thusly wrenched from said “Whole” just do sum to “Self / I” to the extreme, or to “You / Other” to the extreme, or to “We / Us” to the extreme such that any one contour or claim upon reality just does to some degree sacrifice some portion of the other – neither ever able to attain seamless reciprocity with all the others. Indeed, without the “Whole Itself”, that is to say, without the “Necessary” (God), the Contingent (Man) finds that it is (literally, factually) impossible to find said seamlessness, as said seamlessness just is not the contingent.

As Lewis alluded to, contours of our reality which are thusly swollen to madness by that Privation, that Isolation, still depend on the Whole for all possible meaning-making as, again, no moral incantation, in any permutation or combination, houses any meaning-making in itself as it just is the case that no one can even begin to talk of “me” or of “self” or of “in here” but for the referent that is the “you” or the “other” or the “out there”, and so on in all directions. It is, on point of fact, that all such lines arrive upon us as a singularity there in what just is our singular experience of being constituted of, on point of fact, the singularity that is the “I/You” or the “In/Out” or the “Self/Other”, that is to say, the singular “Us”.

The Triune God actualizes within the created order as that peculiarly objective Exemplar of Being Itself, and, of Personhood Itself, and, of all Moral Contours whatsoever and we find there love's ceaseless reciprocity within the immutable contours of “Self / Other / Us”. It is an even more auspicious fact that we do not find the Christian’s Triune God, say, “….visiting the created order….”. Not at all. Rather we find the necessary seamlessness amid Necessity/Contingency so painfully lacking in all other moral paradigms, that is to say, we find the Triune God filling all in all. That is to say, the very something which every last moral statement reasons towards is in fact transposed into the created order as in Christianity, and in no other genre, it is expressly the peculiar business of transposition in and through Logos which actualizes within the contingent order as the enigmatic semantics of nothing less than amalgamation / incarnation fatefully unfold within the ontology of God-In-Man and of Man-In-God. Objective Morality finds – thereby – love's inescapable landscape as the categorical paradigm there at the end of all things.

We find in all these things that the unalterable description of the experience of being then, when we shift to this other, separate, topic of morality again repeats itself over in all that just is the Moral Landscape. Love’s ceaseless reciprocity within the vertices of Trinity just is the very Exemplar of “Personhood/Being” there in the Moral Landscape of, once again repeating itself, the undeniable “Self / Other / Us”.

Reason chases down all vectors of Being and of Person and of love’s Ought and discovers but a single paradigm as all facts converge in the fundamental shape of Reality.

Reason is now free to chase after her proper ends and we now find truth to the observation that, pan-history, all the other “parts” never quite summed to “put it all together”. The Self-Revealing God, however, offends us with His Singular-Us in that providential Protoevangelium as Trinity, love’s fateful Exemplar, being’s enigmatic Archetype, relentlessly fills Time and Physicality – to their bitter ends. Christ reveals the Triune God such that we can declare that reason alone amid logic’s lucidity carries us, unavoidably, to the fundamental shape of Reality. Else we must deny the undeniable on two distinct fronts, that of our undeniable experience of being and, also, that of our undeniable moral landscape.

Reason chases after truth, after the factual, fundamental shape of reality and finds….. Christ.

That is to say:

Unless and until reality confronts reason with an immutable *grain* – with a fundamental *shape*, then reason stands justified in and by her own essence such that her searching out any particular grain, shape, or crevice which she deems worthy sums to morally reasonable motion. Indifference alone confronts reason inside of Naturalism’s immutable grain, inside its fundamental shape, and thus we find her – reason – as a voice unto herself with no voice to counter, no voice to confront her such that reality cannot find the morally un-reasonable. Feser alludes to such isolation, such ontological silence in the pains of such a chain of metaphysical IOU’s, “If a series of hypothetical imperatives is to have rationally binding force, it has to trace ultimately to some imperative at the head of the line that has categorical force.”

Unless and until the relentless contours of immutable love confront reason as the unavoidable fact, as the immutable grain, as the fundamental shape of the categorical paradigm there at the end of all things, unless and until that, it is the case that reason hears only herself, as reality finds only the voicelessness of Indifference confronting Reason. Therein, it is factually the case that Reason hears only herself, such that the definition of the morally un-reasonable becomes un-intelligible.

We find, then, our focus not on substance per se, but, rather, on paradigmatic start/stop points per se. Should (natural) Reason find love’s categorical paradigm at the end of the line, then indeed God fashions one paradigm (Dust, Contingent, Mutable) such that (natural) Reason perceives quite another paradigm in the Immutable Love of the Necessary Being. Whereas, if (natural) Reason hears only the sound of her own voice (on the one hand) and the voicelessness of Indifference (on the other hand), then Hume is correct:

Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. ‘Tis not contrary to reason for me to chuse my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. ‘Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg'd lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for the latter.” (Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3.6).

The fundamental shape of reality finds nothing which confronts Reason, leaving Reason justified of her own Self, her own essence. Hume's intellectual honesty on that interface of (natural) Reason "in-here" with the factual shape of reality "out-there" is refreshing.

However, once love confronts reason as that fateful paradigm – the fundamental shape of reality – the unavoidable fact, then, and only then, Reason is (factually) found free to chase after some other shape elsewhere though she shall be, then, the factual contradiction of Reality.

Short of the immutable love of the Triune it is factually the case that the fundamental shape of reality begins and ends with Indifference and that fact fatally chips away all of philosophical naturalism’s (PN’s) paradigmatic claims to the ontological real estate of objective morality. Reason remains confronted by Indifference and Indifference alone there as the factual and fundamental shape of PN’s metaphysical start/stop points and thus we find her – reason – therein as a voice unto herself – the fundamental shape of Fact, of Reality, wholly unable to confront her. It is only when the Paradigm streaming from the immutable love of the Necessary Being confronts reason with Himself as the inescapable grain of actuality – the fundamental shape of reality – that reason is (factually) found (factually) free to (factually) chase after some other shape elsewhere though she shall be, then, the (factual) contradiction of Reality.

However, the fundamental, factual shape of reality sums to the contours of love’s ceaseless reciprocity amid the three unavoidable vertices of being which themselves constitute the landscape of “Self / Other / Us”, and, on point of fact that presents the singular paradigm which has the ontological wherewithal to factually confront reason.

The Self-Revealing God actualizes within Time and Physicality as reason seamlessly discovers Personhood’s and Being’s and Love’s three undeniable vertices in Actuality’s Archetype Who is Himself the end of the line, the factual, fundamental shape of Actuality. In and by Christ we are transposed to the express epicenter that is the fundamental shape of The-Real as Truth and Grace thereby confront Reason such that Reason is now (factually) free to chase after her true and final felicity, and, also, Reason is (factually) found (factually) free to (factually) chase after some other shape elsewhere though she shall be, then, the (factual) contradiction of Reality.

Both Reason and our undeniable human experience – our undeniable experience of being – seamlessly carry us to Christ. Or, perhaps, it is more precise to put it the other way around such that, on point of fact, Christ seamlessly carries us vis-à-vis the eyes both of Reason and of our undeniable human experience – our undeniable experience of being – to the factual shape of Actuality – to the factual shape of the Necessary.

Either way it is the case that if one wanted to know what reality “looks like” then one would “see” all such vectors both in and by Christ.


The comments to this entry are closed.