1.0. Beseeching the active intellect for guidance, I set upon the task of drafting a model constitution for the internal regime of a fine human being, and begin with a statement of fundamental principles.
1.10. The fundamental longing of the internal regime of a human being is to interact with its surroundings.
1.11 Especially the objects of the longing for interaction are other human beings.
1.12. Albeit the objects of secondary longing, human interaction with non-human phenomena (for example, the sun, the air, the dirt, the water, the fire, the gods) are essential to the development of a fine internal regime.
1.20. In interactions with other humans, a human possessing a fine internal regime will recognize that each human is on the same level of creation, which being on the same level of creation is the fundamental law of equality of all humans.
3 comments:
How can a man rely on his own intellect safely? It only leads him to seek the things that are self-justified and self-serving, and while this is the nature of man, it is not the law of God. Therefore, your fundmental law here is meaningless. A self-critical analysis of it should reveal that it has all the flaws that I've mentioned prior.
Even the various philosophies of Western civilization's anicient Greek forefathers did not propose such a system as yours, except for perhaps the Sophists ("man is the measure of all things").
I'm not denying that your system represents man in his natural state. Instead I am saying that the fundamental law cannot be routed in such things. It must be rooted in the idea of perfect justice. How would human beings act if they acted rightly and perfectly in all situations? This should be the question.
It would be impossible to see this unless someone from outside of our system would come teach us a universal standard that the errors of the wandering heart of the individual man would be forced to confess as truth. A good example of this is from the Allegory of the Cave in Plato's Republic.
Therefore your starting point should not be in seeking your active intellect, which, by definition, is not suitable for the purposes of this search. Your search needs to be for a source of truth that exists outside of the limits of your mind.
Here is a way to start this search. The universality of justice mandates that this search not just not recognize the equality of human beings (how does this relate to ethnic/national pride and chosenness?), but that a true form of justice mandates that all of a man's actions produce harmony among all of the people in which he interacts.
Your system presented here, even with 1.20, does not guarantee this harmony if 1.10-1.12 are executed to the desires of the individual's own appetites without regard to the harmony of man with man, and, as much as you want to resist this, of man with God.
In summary, your fundamental law does not set a high enough standard for human conduct, because, in truth, the standard should be as such:
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live." (Luke 10:25-28)
Forbearance, I would suggest checking out some medieval texts and reconsider the notion that appealing to the "active intellect" constitutes an exhortation for man to rely on his own intellect.
If it comes across that I defend Catholic theology or medieval philosophies, then this would be in error. I look forward to the future, not back to the past.
Most of the errors of the Catholic church that emerged during the medieval period were rooted in an attempt at syncretism with Aristotlean philosophy. Aquinas thought he was safeguarding the Church with this new combination, but instead he was setting up the groundwork for the Reformers three centuries later.
I'm challenging the idea that the active intellect is safe for discovering philosophical truth. A mind tainted by sin and self-interest will always be biased against the truth.
A mind trapped in a material world is wholly inadequate to make conjectures about the reality of the universe.
I've often found that when a man seeks to claim to be enlightened by claiming faith in his personal philosophy that he is often simply trying to justify his actions that are not in accord with the law of God.
This may sound oversimplistic or Freudian, but I believe that this desire to discover a personal philosophy in defiance of the law of God could be as simple as a man not wanting to give up sexual immorality or drinking parties.
If a man cannot give up these transgressions for the far better reward of having a redeemed relationship with God, then this is pretty sad, but it is the state of human nature.
I'm not arguing against the use of human reason in the search for truth, but I am aruging against the use of human reason as a standard by which to judge right and wrong. The standard of truth belongs to God alone.
Post a Comment