Choice vs. Reason

Kelli Ann - Holy Spirit

Kelli Ann - Holy Spirit

It is sometimes said that no one has a sufficient imagination or memory to be a consistent liar. A corollary is: Integrity is characteristic of any true explanation. A mark of the Church is that it is one, not only in charity (the act of the will), but one in the internal integrity of the faith and the integrity of the faith with the truths of philosophy (the act of reason).

In this essay I intend: (1) To illustrate this intellectual integrity by the example of the distinctions between the natures of entities and their individual existences, elucidated by philosophy and revelation; (2) to illustrate a modern dissolution of the integrity of reason by the ascendency of pure will power and (3) to echo the warning of Benedict XVI that the modern attack of pure will at the expense of the integrity of reason is both external and internal to the civilization whose foundation is the Greco Logos or Reason in its Judeo-Christian revelation.

The Intellectual Integrity of Truth, One Example

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson rightly noted that all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights among which are life and liberty. Humans are created equal in nature. This is possible because of the distinction between human nature and human beings.

It does not vitiate this truth that Jefferson’s actions, as is typical of humans, were morally inconsistent with his stated ideals. Jefferson owned slaves in mercenary and sexual bondage.

All humans have an equal and identical substantial form. They are of the same nature. Then how can there be more than one human? Humans are a composite of two principles, one intelligible principle, that of human nature, and one principle of particularity or individuation. That principle is matter, which makes possible the existence of many individuals of the same nature, each of slightly different characteristics. All humans are the same and equal in nature and therefore in dignity, but differ in their individual existence and characteristics, which are not equal.

The equality of human nature is reinforced by revelation, in which we recognize Jesus as fully human in nature and fully divine in person and in nature. As fully human he is the expiation of all human sin.

From revelation we know of the existence of angels, who are pure spirits. They cannot be individually distinct from one another by matter like humans. They are distinct from one another by differing from one another by nature. Yet, like humans, each angel’s substance is distinct from his existence.

From both philosophy and revelation, we know that God is one in nature and in existence. Unlike angels and humans, in God there is no distinction between his substance and existence. Therefore, there can be only one God, I am who am.

These relationships of nature and existence, known through philosophy and revelation, display the integrity of truth.

An Ascendency of Will over Intellect, One Example

The rationality of sex exists in the rationality of sexual biological reproduction. In western civilization this was expressed in courtship directed toward prospective marriage and the raising of a family.

The rationality of sex is no longer recognized. Courtship was replaced with the purely voluntary building from scratch of an innovative relationship. This too has now been replaced with simply hooking up.

There can be no sexual morals, because sex has no rational component. It is entirely willful. It is recognized as legitimate by the willful consent of the participating adults. Today I heard an advertisement for a spray cleaner on TV stating, “Accidents do happen. How do you think the kids got here?”

The Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of traditional marriage. How can the Court possibly uphold traditional marriage, when sex is inherently irrational? Marriage is solely a question of will, a contract defined by the desires of the consenting participants.

Warning by Benedict XVI of the Attack on Reason

Benedict XVI began his Regensburg address by noting that it is the persuasion of reason, not the threat of violence, which leads to.

In contrast to God within the Judeo-Christian revelation, Allah is completely inscrutable to the human mind. In Islam, the will of Allah for humans can be known only through the revelation given to the prophet, not through the rationality of created nature. What appears to humans to be rationally self-contradictory, need not be so to Allah.

Submission to Allah is by will with no role for reason. Submission to the revealed will of Allah by force is not unreasonable. The power of will, divorced from reason is violence. This exaltation of the will over reason, due to the inscrutability of Allah, is the basis for the present external attack on civilization.

The body of Benedict XVI’s talk at Regensburg University, traced the exaltation of the will over reason within western thought beginning in the late Middle Ages. He labeled this the dehelenization of western thought.

This insidious attack on reason from within civilization, if not reversed by conversion, will prove far more devastating than any outside attack. This internal attack is evident in morals which are divorced from reason. It is evident in the dominant philosophy of scientism, which claims that rationality consists solely in measurement.

Measurement is the comparison of the characteristics of things by size and shape. In scientism, the natures of things are inscrutable. Where comparison by size and shape alone is rational, the size of volitional force governs the relationships among men and nations.

Conclusion

We call acts of  violence by surprise and the treat of such acts, terrorism. We view the current wave of terrorism as an irrational tactic external to our civilization. We should recognize the current wave of terrorism as the embodiment of a philosophy or faith, which recognizes no rationale in nature, thereby freeing the will from reason.

More urgently, we should be concerned about our predominant philosophy, which is the scientism of measurement, the denial of any rationale in nature, but size and shape. In social affairs, this translates into the size of force. Scientism implicitly severs the will from reason, thereby unleashing ‘the tyranny of relativism’, which is more formidable than any external threat.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

10 thoughts on “Choice vs. Reason”

  1. Pingback: Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time | St. John

  2. Pingback: Why Would Anyone Be a Nun? Doc. Shows - BigPulpit.com

  3. ” The rationality of sex exists in the rationality of sexual biological reproduction. In western civilization this was expressed in courtship directed toward prospective marriage and the raising of a family.”

    If this is so, then the rationality of the 6th and 9th commandments abrogates marriage since it presupposes likelihood of a fatal attraction, leading to its loss of integrity.

    1. I thought violating the 6th and 9th commandments was the loss of personal integrity. As I recall, a person described as honest in the plays of Shakespeare was being described as faithful to one’s spouse. Similarly, Chaucer used the word, avowatry, not adultery.

    2. ” I thought violating the 6th and 9th commandments was the loss of personal integrity.”

      Of course this is true – but not my contention. If I am reading this right you took sex,
      assigned it to a rightful institution that has integrity but which is flawed from within due to a propensity to fail. You took sex and ran that motivational drive into a wall labeled the “hookup culture. Since we’re talking rationality as a blend of reason and will, this encumbers another concept left unexplained. Human nature is composed of the four motivational drives – to eat, to fear, to be aggressive and to be sexual. This emerging culture, labeled relativistic, though definitely juvenile in development at this time in history, displays the seeds of very rational thought. What religion has done to the sexual drive is compartmentalized ( ) it as a separate entity. The proof is in how it treats it in relation to the other three. Unnecessary eating becomes wrong for all the right reason. Irrational fear leads to psychotic ills. Unnatural aggression is an intrinsic evil. Yet, in moderation, these drives are healthy and very necessary.They protect and sustain us. Not so, says religion when it comes to sex. It has a rightful place and if not used in that context it is evil -.so don’t do it. Now imagine that injunction placed on any of the other three drives ? Marriage is taking a beating today because the very nature of mature sexual relations is in question. We are a sexually immature species who are grappling with the other drives. Our fears, anger and how we sustain ourselves as our bodies were meant to be –Gen 2: 16 “ I give you every seed bearing plant to be your food, to you it shall be meat.” My last reference in relation to the overall topic is Matt 19 when Jesus’ disciples said to Him “ If the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to marry” Jesus’ replied “ Not all can accept this teaching …let him accept it who can.”

    3. What drew me to this post is the word ‘reason’. And so in anticipation of all
      the flak it may generate I will try to use that faculty in a way that better defines my rational. The motivational drive called the libido has had, as its purported protector, a rigid institution of marriage whose universal foe is adultery.
      Gone unnoticed, in religions quest to corral sex, are other quite lethal snares that almost insure that this institution is extremely susceptible to devastation
      from within. At one time the bridal night was attended by crowds waiting for the groom to toss down a bloody sheet as proof of integrity. Fast forward less than a century to the present year and we have the first inkling that sex for a male is quite different than a female. To show how much baggage goes into this ideal institution that is supposed to houses sex, I would make two points. 1. How many countless marriages were fraught with frigidity as a carryover from a time when the pleasure of coitus for a man was always guaranteed as opposed to the wife – simply due to a profound ignorance on the part of men as to how sex works for a woman. It took a generation of liberated woman to make the point that intimacy works both ways.
      2. What cannot be measured within the institution of marriage – although is quite easily detected outside that state – is maturity. A fine post on marriages “meant to be” was recently highlighted on this site. To show how odds work
      in favor of experience is simple. The love of your life at age 16 culminating in marriage at 19 are primordially different than someone you meet at 19 and
      marry at 23, or meet at 26 and marry at 29, or date at 31 and wed at 34. Show me the maturity level of the average couple raising a family at 21 as
      opposed to 35 and you can graph the odds of success. Pope Francis, in his unfailing wisdom to read the times, is reaching out to couples who forsake
      the institution of marriage for what they believe is the invaluable experience
      of first hand knowledge. The two foes of this arrangement are STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. One is preventable by testing the other by ( hopefully) some form of NFP. Bottom line is that sex is not the culprit here or the savior there. It is the function of an extremely complicated area of the brain know as the hypothalamus. Though mankind’s will seems to defy reason at times, in the end it breaks new ground that advances our understanding of who and where we are as the beloved species of our Creator. Thus I come to the end of this thread for me as the defense ( of my rational brain) rests..

    4. “if not used in that context it (sex) is evil -.so don’t do it. Now imagine that injunction placed on any of the other three drives ?”

      Sex is not evil. Both the Faith and philosophy say the misuse of sex is evil just like the misuse of our other emotions.

  4. And here the “tyranny of relativism” is the point of the spear of “liberal absolutism” – a phrase I just read in First Things. It is also the tyranny of toleration-we will tolerate everything, except those things we find to be intolerable. Great article-thank you, Bob. Guy McClung, San Antonio

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.