First Published: 2022 March 4
I almost forgot to blog today, and nearly fell asleep before doing so. My computer is nearly dead, and my mind is nearly shut down. Tomorrow I plan to write about a thought I had with bagpipes and funerals, which reminded me I needed to do this.
First Published: 2022 March 3
This week I will be smart and read the chapter to try to respond to the questions at the back, rather than freeform note-taking while I read1
What is the meaning of “a being”? What are its two distinct but inseparable elements?
How can we reach explicit reflective awareness of the “is” in being? Do all metaphysical systems agree on this focus on actual existence as the central core of all real beings?
What is meant by the “vocation of human beings” as endowed with intellect arising from the relation of intellect to being? In what sense can being still remain a “mystery” for us?
Explain the difference between “real being” and “mental being”? Examples of each? What is the key criterion for our distinguishing between the two?
Explain the fundamental importance of action as the self-manifestation of being if we are to have a “universe”? Could there be at least one completely inactive being?
Finite (all limited, created) real beings go out of themselves to relate themselves to others through action for two reasons: what are they? Does it make sense to speak, as Maritain does, of “the intrinsic generosity of being”?
In the philosophical vision of St. Thomas, action is the key to a realist epistemology, or theory of knowledge. Why? Why can it then be called a “relational realism”? Why does it also follow from this vantage point that all our human knowledge of real beings (at least in this life) must be incomplete, imperfect?
Why in this book do we take the person as the best model for what it means to be a real being? Compare briefly the ancient, medieval, and modern approaches to the philosophical study of being.
What is the point of choosing interpersonal dialogue as the preferred starting point for a metaphysical study of being? Why is it especially effective in refuting Kant’s attempt to block access to any realist theory of knowledge or metaphysics?
I think it might be helpful for me to try answering these questions both before and while/after reading the chapter, so that I can see how well my starting assumptions/things I have learned in the past line up with what the book claims.
So, my starting guesses as answers:
What is the meaning of “a being”?
My guess from the little bits of Thomistic/Scholastic Metaphysics that I’ve done is that a being is made up of the potential and action, so what they can become versus what they are.
What are its two distinct but inseparable elements?
Whoops, I assume same answer here.
How can we reach explicit reflective awareness of the “is” in being?
We can’t. We can approximate it though.
Do all metaphysical systems agree on this focus on actual existence as the central core of all real beings?
No, because lots of metaphysical systems explicitly disbelieve in actual existence
What is meant by the “vocation of human beings” as endowed with intellect arising from the relation of intellect to being?
I have no clue what this is asking, I’m excited to find out.
In what sense can being still remain a “mystery” for us?
We cannot know the full reality of life.
Explain the difference between “real being” and “mental being”?
I have literally no idea, once again.
Examples of each?
Explain the fundamental importance of action as the self-manifestation of being if we are to have a “universe”?
Without action, there is no way to have a universe, which is inherently in action.
Could there be at least one completely inactive being?
Logically: yes, if there can be a being with only action, then there should be one with no action. Practically: no because then it is not a thing.
Finite (all limited, created) real beings go out of themselves to relate themselves to others through action for two reasons: what are they?
Desire to know themselves. Desire to understand the Divine.
Does it make sense to speak, as Maritain does, of “the intrinsic generosity of being”?
Absolutely!2
In the philosophical vision of St. Thomas, action is the key to a realist epistemology, or theory of knowledge. Why?
Without action there is no way to interconvert.
Why can it then be called a “relational realism”?
Great question, thank you for asking.3
Why does it also follow from this vantage point that all our human knowledge of real beings (at least in this life) must be incomplete, imperfect?
Without being able to fully understand the relational aspects of something, there is no way to get perfect or complete knowledge.
Why in this book do we take the person as the best model for what it means to be a real being?
Thomas does.
Compare briefly the ancient, medieval, and modern approaches to the philosophical study of being.
Nope.
What is the point of choosing interpersonal dialogue as the preferred starting point for a metaphysical study of being?
Because Kant does not.
Why is it especially effective in refuting Kant’s attempt to block access to any realist theory of knowledge or metaphysics?
Kant assumes that we cannot know anything but ourselves, so starting with the knowledge that other people’s existence has meaning defeats it.
Time to read!
What is the meaning of “a being”?
Something which is. More precisely, that which is.
What are its two distinct but inseparable elements?
is, which is the fact of existence and essence. Or, the fact and the substance? Is meaning that it is, and that which meaning what it is.
How can we reach explicit reflective awareness of the “is” in being?
Explicit reflective awareness refers to the fact that it is a wonderful mystery that things are at all, let alone what they are. There are two approaches that the author suggests.
Downward exploration, where we seek deeper and more fundamental facts about a thing.
Outward exploration, where we seek to connect every thing to every other thing until we have a universe within our thoughts. I think at least, I am not totally sure what the goal is in outward exploration.
Do all metaphysical systems agree on this focus on actual existence as the central core of all real beings?
Nope. In many systems, the term being means limited essence or form, which means that the Divine, which exists outside of a bound form, must not be in existence. Since St. Thomas posits that existence in itself is the basis of being, the Divine fits within the meaning, and therefore actual existence treats all real beings.
What is meant by the “vocation of human beings” as endowed with intellect arising from the relation of intellect to being?
Our fundamental calling is to illuminate the universe and bring the unknown into the known.
In what sense can being still remain a “mystery” for us?
It kind of just felt like he said that was true without an argument, but it isn’t a particularly difficult concept for me. Human knowledge is inherently incomplete.
Explain the difference between “real being” and “mental being”?
Real beings exist. That is, they do not only exist in thought. E.g. being kind, being a man. Real beings can generate mental beings, but the reverse is not true.
Mental beings, by contrast, are only real as ideas, such as the past, future, dreams, abstractions, math, and conceptions of absence.
Examples of each?
See above.
Explain the fundamental importance of action as the self-manifestation of being if we are to have a “universe”?
St. Thomas believes that action is the primary distinguisher between the real and mental being. Additionally, it is only through action that real beings interact with each other, allowing the vocation of knowing to take place.
Could there be at least one completely inactive being?
Well, a mental being almost certainly. As a real being, there is no “practical” difference between that and no being. Therefore, it is equivalent to no being.
Finite (all limited, created) real beings go out of themselves to relate themselves to others through action for two reasons: what are they?
We are poor in that we are limited and imperfect
We are rich in that we exist and can share this imperfect knowledge with others
Does it make sense to speak, as Maritain does, of “the intrinsic generosity of being”?
Yeah, I think so. Especially if we agree with the concept of our vocation, there is an inherent need to connect.
In the philosophical vision of St. Thomas, action is the key to a realist epistemology, or theory of knowledge. Why?
We can only see things in the way that we interact as actors. As a result, there is no way to know without interaction. Additionally, action inherently reveals essence, and so provides knowledge.
Why can it then be called a “relational realism”?
Since we are seeing action as springing from essence, rather than essence itself, we can only learn through relation.
Why does it also follow from this vantage point that all our human knowledge of real beings (at least in this life) must be incomplete, imperfect?
Since we cannot see essence itself, we can only learn as through a veil. Additionally, no single act can fully express the nature of a finite being, and we cannot observe all things, both because of physical and mental blocks.
Why in this book do we take the person as the best model for what it means to be a real being?
I mean, in part because Aristotle did and our metaphysics grows from his. However, the argument is that, while our modern collective metaphysics may overprioritize the subjective experience, there is something integral to individual experience. That being said, there is still a concept that we as people share certain traits, and so the person balances these two, the subjective and objective.
Compare briefly the ancient, medieval, and modern approaches to the philosophical study of being.
The ancient focuses on the objective, ignoring the person. The medieval focuses on the centrality of shared human experience, the We. The modern focuses on the centrality of individual human experience, the I.
What is the point of choosing interpersonal dialogue as the preferred starting point for a metaphysical study of being?
Sharing the agreement of a faith-friendly view like Thomistic metaphysics is a harder hurdle than the acceptance of knowledge through relation with other humans.
Why is it especially effective in refuting Kant’s attempt to block access to any realist theory of knowledge or metaphysics?
Since we can communicate, there is an inherent contradiction to Kantian philosophy? I’m a little lost about what Kant argues, so a rebuttal of his argument doesn’t really help me that much.
First Published: 2022 February 23
Today is Ash Wednesday, which is a traditional day of fasting in the Catholic Church.1 Additionally, the Pope dedicated today as a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Ukraine. So, I found myself fasting today.
Something major that I’ve noticed about my fasting self is that I struggle to focus far more. I guess less so I struggle to focus and moreso that I struggle to begin working. Once I start working, I have been able to finish at least as much as normal, though maybe at a slower rate.
This gives me some interesting knowledge. Apparently if I am feeling unfocused and hazy in the future I should consider whether I’ve eaten enough recently.
Moving past my own experience of how fasting is less than ideal2 for my work life3, I do think that fasting helps me refocus my days. I haven’t done as good of a job today recentering myself when I feel hungry on faith, and I think that’s something that I can work about in the future. That’s something I could work on in the future I think, and it would probably make my life better for doing so.
First Published: 2022 March 1
New monthly reflection!
My goals were:
Blog daily
Compose a poem and music daily
Do the pushup/squat thing daily
Listen to BiaY Daily
Track my daily doings better in my journal
I think I made a blog every day which was great. I composed maybe five or ten days, which is still progress I think. I gave up on the pushup/squats, but I restarted yesterday! I listened maybe half the days in BiaY. I think I just entirely gave up on the journal.
So, apparently bad goals. New goals for the month of March:
Blog daily. I think this is still a helpful thing for me to do
Write music or poetry daily. I would like to do this, even if it is hard
Do the pushup/squat thing and stretch daily. I liked how I felt when I did this
Listen to BiaY Daily. I like making progress on it.
Reach 50000 words in my book. I’m currently at more than 20K, so this should be very doable.
That seems pretty decent!
First Published: 2022 February 23
Directions for this attempt at the chocolate cake recipe I used to compete in the competition series.1
Preheat Oven to 350F
Beat together:
3 Large Eggs
3 Large Egg Yolks
100 grams sugar
1 Capful Vanilla
Cinnamon
Melt 1.5 Sticks butter together until frothy,2 add 8 oz chocolate to that
Mix well, until chocolate is dissolved
Combine with liquids and 25g flour.
Pour into well-greased tin
Bake until edges pulling from side and middle seems done (8 minutes for cupcake, 16 for cake pan)
Let cool most of the way
Invert on a plate before fully cool
Why am I baking this, you might ask. Mostly because tomorrow is the last day of Ordinary Time, which feels like a good time to celebrate. That, and I haven’t baked in a few weeks which is sad.
First Published: 2022 February 27
Lule 6:44A “For every tree is known by its own fruit.”
Today is the last Sunday before Lent. I find the readings, and especially their connection, really powerful as we approach this next Liturgical phase.
The Gospel tells us that “A good tree does not bear rotten fruit, nor does a rotten tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. For people do not pick figs from thornbushes, nor do they gather grapes from brambles.”1 We are also told in the First Reading that “The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had,”2 From these two lines, I at least see that we see the care of a tree making it good or rotten.
When taking care of a tree, it feels tempting to give it more and constant sunshine, since that’s where its energy comes from. But, the nighttime is also essential to the growth of a tree. Night is when a plant does much of its growing apparently3, and it is essential to their growth and flowering. So, too, are the different periods in the Liturgical Year essential to our growth in faith.
A tree grows in the sunshine because it has the energy there and immediately available to grow. So too, do we grow in our days of feasting, seeing the Lord in his joy and goodness. But, at night time a tree grows to find the sunlight again. So too, do we grow in our days of fasting as we think on the many blessings we have been given, far in excess of what we deserve.
The homily I heard tonight made the claim that focusing on fixing temporal ills is ultimately meaningless, because the world will end.4 In the example, a man brings about world peace and dies, feeling satisfied. Two years later, an asteroid destroys the earth. The priest’s claim was that this shows the meaningless of earthly accomplishments, because everything he did was undone in a few years. I took the opposite message away, though. For the two years after his death, there was no hunger pulling people from Christ, no war ending lives needlessly. Even one moment free of needless hardship for one person makes temporal good worth it to me.
First Published: 2022 February 26
Today as I tried to write this post I felt a different sort of writer’s block than the other two times that I’ve had it for the blog. In both of those cases, I felt as though I had no ideas for what to write.
Today, that does not feel true for me. I have a couple of ideas for posts I could write, but they don’t feel like they belong here.
I read through an old post where I mentioned that I might want to write a musical piece featuring silly putty. I’m sure that writing about that could be interesting, but I don’t have silly putty with me to write the post. My group did all get slime for Valentine’s Day, so I guess I’m now within easy access of that, though I no longer plan to write that piece.
I thought about writing about the way my life is different than how I think of it. I never really consciously chose to move away from music in the way that I have, so it makes me really sad that music has become such a1 small part of my life. Thoughts have yet to percolate enough in my mind for the coffee of that idea to be worth drinking.2
I thought about reflecting on the way that I very much did not follow what I said I would do at the end of January, but that should really wait for the end of month reflection.
Finally, I thought about another update on the book I’m writing, but not a lot has really changed there, and I don’t really like this blog being a commentary on that writing as I do it. So, despite the 2923 non-footnoted words, I don’t really know what to say here. I guess I do find it interesting which of my posts get more and less footnoted. I have been relying less on footnotes in recent posts, which is either a good sign that I am maturing as a writer and no longer feel the need for gimmicks, or a sign that I’ve been mentally exhausted constantly. I’m personally really hoping it’s the former not the latter.
First Published: 2022 February 25
As I mentioned yesterday, I failed to read the chapter for the week. But, today is a new day, so let’s try again.
In the view of the author, philosophy is an attempt to connect human experience to the whole of creation. As such, it is less focused on generation of new experience, but rather the attempt to connect these experiences to broader truths. Metaphysics, then is focused on creating a unified view of reality from these discrete points.
That is, we try to find what properties and laws all things within the whole (universe) of creation follows. This definition apparently comes from Aristotle, who coined the term. Or, metaphysics is “the study of all beings precisely insofar as they are real”1.
As in chemistry,2, we cannot directly inspect everything. We must find what connects that which we can measure and find a way to apply this to the whole of reality. Apparently we can also make an argument for the existence of G-d. The argument belongs moreso in natural theology, but it is apparently an outcropping of this metaphysics?
In the Christian Tradition, we hold that there are two major ways the Most High speaks to us, the Book of Nature (creation) and the Book of Revelation (Revelation). As both are created by Him, apparent contradictions between natural reason and theology must mean that one of the two is in error. Metaphysics differs from religion, however, as metaphysics is solely concerned with the intellectual, rather than the assent and action to conform to the Lord’s plan.
As cultures are limited in their understanding, so too are metaphysical explanations limited. As with cultures, though, these explanations can be informed by all peoples’ interactions with Creation.
There are3 some common objections to the concept of metaphysics. One is that metaphysics has no distinct subject matter. Chemistry studies chemicals, biology life, and so forth, yet metaphysics claims to study everything. However, metaphysics studies from only a single frame of reference, which is how all things are like all other things. One important way that things are like other things is that they are at all, which is something that most fields of study take as implicitly true. Even as I read this, it is difficult for me to conceptualize the question the author poses: “How come there is a real universe at all?”4
The second argument is that we, as part of Creation, cannot understand Creation because we are within it. Personally, that argument falls flat for me without reading the response, because scientists often claim to study systems from models or parts, rather than the entirety of the system. I think that’s similar to what the author argues, though he says moreso that we are endowed generally with an ability to do this.
Third, people argue that either empiricism, Kantianism, or relativism are better models of the universe. Empiricism claims that we cannot know without deriving from experience. Hume was a proponent of this. Mostly the author just goes “this is a bad take, if we accept this then philosophy fails.”5 Kantiansim, from Kant, claims that external reality does not shape our personal experience, rather our personal experience creates external reality. The author points out that Kant’s claim fails because if each person is creating the external reality, then how does that work when two people interact? Relativism claims that there is nothing truly transcendental, rather only socially true. Again, math’s apparent universality would suggest this to be untrue to me, but the author rather just says that the argument is self-defeating.
In short, the author claims that objections to metaphysics themselves start with a metaphysical stance, such as that there are no universal truths. That is still a statement about the nature of all reality.
Moving past the defense, the author claims that we would not seek knowledge if it did not appear good. Though we cannot know fully, we still search to know more. And, as we may have the desire to know, reality matches us by allowing itself to be known, the so-called “intelligibility of being”. He claims that nothing has yet been shown to be unintelligible, but I think I remember something in math that claims the opposite. Then again, math does not deal with the real, so it is not truly a contradiction.
There is the principle of non contradiction, which claims that things cannot both be themselves and not themselves at the same time. That feels fairly definitional to me, which makes me wonder why you have to defend it.
There is also the principle of sufficient reason, which states that things which cannot themselves explain their existence must owe their existence to something else.6
So there are apparently questions at the end of each chapter. Maybe next week I’ll just respond to each question rather than live-blog my reading.
First Published: 2022 February 24
Last week I said that I would be using today’s post to write about Chapter One of a book. But, I forgot it at work when I went home for the day, so no post today. Apparently last time a whoops moment was the focus of the blog I deleted something. At least this isn’t that!
First Published: 2022 February 23
When I’m not in mentally draining situations I often forget how easily mentally drained I am, and what situations can drain me effectively. Today I had a reminder of what can cause it very easily. As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, I was very engrossed in a book yesterday. I almost finished it before I went to bed last night, which was a little more than an hour past my bed time, itself an hour past when I like to be off of my devices.
So there is one effective way to set myself up for mental exhaustion: going to bed late.
A second thing is that I procrastinated an assignment with a hard deadline of today until today. The homework was very mentally taxing, made more-so by the looming deadline I had while working. When I felt my mental strain start to build, I realized that I would not have time to finish the assignment before its due date.
Point two and three: Do mentally exhausting work and do not give yourself a break during it.
I also realized that I was missing some files that I really need, and I am still not totally sure where they went.
Point four: existential dread.
Finally, after I turned in my homework, I remembered that I have another, similar assignment due tomorrow.
Point five: knowing you will repeat it again. Anyways, I really hope that I will be better about keeping my schedule in mind in the future, because everything suffers in my life when I don’t take care of any part of it.