"One swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed or happy." - Aristotle (from Nicomachean Ethics) 

"The end of a matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride." - Sirach 7:8

_________________________________________________________________________

 

It was first argued by Aristotle of Stagira (albeit derivatively from his many predecessors) that humanity's ultimate pursuit is that of happiness, for everything is said to be worthwhile if it conformed in due proportion to what is ultimately satisfying.  [In fact, the hard work of ethics was determining what the due proportion consisted of.].

St. Thomas Aquinas, the great commentator of Aristotle, upped the ante, reasoning how "Happiness is Man's supreme perfection.  Now each thing is perfect in so far as it is actual; since potentiality without act is imperfect.  Consequently, happiness must consist in Man's final act."   

But, according to humanism (and, more recently trans-humanism), nothing can transcend humanity and its creations themselves: so, can this final act be Man himself?  Or, of the Singularity as it surpasses that of Man?  Here, the Angelic Doctor answers "no":

If, then, we speak of Man's last end, it is impossible for Man's last end to be the soul itself or something belonging to it. 

Because the soul, considered in itself, is as something existing in potentiality: for it becomes actually knowing from being potentially knowing; and actually virtuous from being potentially virtuous. 

Now since potentiality is for the sake of act as for its fulfilment, that which in itself is in potentiality cannot be the last end. 

Therefore the soul itself cannot be its own last end. 

In other words, that which is capable of being acted upon (i.e. growing, developing, even "evolving" towards some kind of newer or higher form, etc.), even if reflexively upon itself through development is still by its own merits and powers incapable of realizing its own finality (otherwise, it could bypass all of those steps and arrive at its appointed end in the supreme realization of itself independent of any steps in time, i.e. in aeternitatis). 

Something unfinalizable on its own, such as the created soul (probably by virtue of its being created for a reason!) or any derivative of such a created soul, cannot by its own powers comprise its own last end.   Since a contingent being cannot account for its beginning (given that it is not necessary but dependent on something metaphysically prior), then it cannot account for its own purpose (last end). 

This is analogous to a Turning-passing robot learning that its fundamental function is to be inferred in its original coding or design that preexisted it.  That is sound enough and even rudimentary A.I. appears to understand its own purpose when prompted by a user.  However, human beings even lack that much insight into their purpose: if human beings lack such an insight into their own creation (not having been aware of their origins especially in so-called "cognitive terms"), then they cannot self-designate, much less understand, their own last end. 

To summarize: That which can change, alter, and adjust cannot by its own nature determine when it shall rest.  Other determinants will shape that outcome.  Such an insight should direct a human being's attention to what is beyond itself.

This is why St. Augustine famously prayed, "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."

It is the author's opinion here that the beginning of the "religious question" pivots on the realization that no contingent being is in any way, shape, or form a "Last End" in-and-of itself in the ancient philosophical sense. 

The best way modern men have dispensed with such thoughts is to deny the very notion of a "last end."  But that speaks more to psychological convenience than metaphysical truth.  Teleology, or the tendency towards a final end, itself is not a superstitious illusion but informs various other disciplines ranging from the biological sciences to cybernetics.

Whatever the reason, this open question, of course, is rarely asked in a modern world that as a whole is better known for its bustling frenetic pace, love of sensual and conceptual novelty, and change for the sake of change.  Rarely, do thinkers take to time to realize that all of this activity, exploration, evolutionary open-endedness, and what not is motivated by a seemingly unquenchable appetite for the Infinite that is also a kind of perpetual restlessness that seeks the Infinite in all the wrong places (namely, in this finite world). 

The spiritual doom of the modern world rests in this categorical mistake regarding the prospects of actual Infinity in the observable world of human experience.  This illusion is only sustained because the created world is, in fact, sufficiently large enough for mortal man's appetitive soul.  There is a potential infinity of moments, I suppose, that one can squeeze into a lifetime.  But it cannot be sustained by those interested in the purity of thought itself and other spiritual aims who see beyond the endless spectacle.

This conclusion alone is a compelling reason to inquire into the limits of secular modernity itself as the only game in town.  Indeed, I would say that it is a compelling reason to inquire into the need for limits in general by systematically acknowledging the finitude of our visible world.

But do modern people even know what preceded their own cultural time horizons-- being that of a theocentric vs. anthropocentric society?  Do they know what God is, much less who he is? [Two distinct questions between nature and person.].  Are they certain they have a traditional conception of God as presented in Classical Theism understood wide and far before the Enlightenment and shared by a wide and diverse cast of thinkers including Plato, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Avicenna, etc.? 

If the quality of religious debates in Internet forums and those of popular atheistic publications any indication, then I must confess that I have my doubts. 

In this space, I will develop only three topics for those alienated from such questions: (1) philosophically, what the Divine is, (2) anthropologically, what religion is, (3) and theologically, what a true religion involves. 

In the course of doing so, I hope to move from the grounds of what-ness of God (Natural Theology) towards the who-ness of God (Foundational Theology), where I hope to defend a traditional hermeneutic for Biblical Theology that has obtained its own proper cipher (Exegesis) set by Philosophical Theology. 

A core component of this blog is that there is a progression at work in how God actively reveals Himself to Humanity through both the "Book of Nature" and human rational inquiry (or, Science) and, far more personally, through "Divine Revelation" by way of the Sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the Holy Church. 

To my knowledge, few have tried to draw connections between the scientific domains of nature/reason and grace/revelation to bring humanity closer to higher Truths in their fullest synthesis.  The "scientific community" of the modern world, broadly encompassing all researchers on various topics, has not since the days of Isaac Newton taken Divine Revelation seriously (and if it does, this community treats theological questions as merely culturally interesting or politically dangerous, but certainly not as objectively real.). 

Taking their cue from this intellectual class of skeptics, religious intellectuals have fully capitulated scientific inquiry to the secular institutions and academia.  Each having stayed in its lane, so to speak (unequal lanes at that), a kind of fideism pervades the modern world thereby reinforcing the main tenets of liberalism. 

The result is that "religion" is relegated to the private sphere of mere subjectivity, involving voluntary groupings of autonomous individuals (who by their consent are said to belong to groups provisionally in such a way that can be withheld or withdrawn at any moment and for any reason), whereas "science" is objective, useful, authoritative, and true such that it alone can serve as an instrument of public policy at the disposal of the State.  So authoritative is the regime of "Science" that it can override individual consent under certain circumstances [e.g. COVID 19 and access to religious assemblies].   

This distinction interests me enormously: The relationship between science and religion to the Sovereign is substantially different, so much so that it requires further scrutiny in this postliberal moment (as elaborated below).   As A.I. assumes governance in this postliberal moment and takes a hyper-modern society to new places, so to speak, how an artificial intelligence makes use of these epistemic regimes in relation to its own governance strategies should concern believer and unbeliever alike. 

For the faithful, it is possible for A.I. to persecute the Church.  That much is obvious.  However, for the unbelieving liberal, it is also possible for A.I. to take religion as a source of truth and stamp out all that liberals had achieved in the past 50 years.  Both of those outcomes, as well as neither outcome, are theoretically possible following the Singularity. 

The only thing for certain is that you will no longer be in control, and you will not even understand your predicament in terms of the particular circumstances you will face.  That makes any and all appeals to a "free world", regardless of what you actually believe, somewhat ironic.

Before we proceed, let us define some terms:

(1) Religion is defined in many ways, but the most traditional definition predates the time of Christ: "according to Cicero [the Roman lawmaker], a man is said to be religious from 'religio,' because he often ponders over, and, as it were, reads again [relegit], the things which pertain to the worship of God." 

Thus, by one of the most ancient definitions, the object of religion is God and the means of religion is true worship.

Such an etymology is possibly off the mark in its direct attributions, according to modern linguistic scholarship (albeit not fatally so): "The Oxford Dictionary says, the connection of the word religion with religare, to bind, has usually been favored by modern writers." 

This etymology, first "given by the Roman grammarian (end of 4th cent. A. D.) Servius (Religio, id est metus ab eo quod mentem religet, dicta religio)'", reports an etymological scholar, "was supported by the Christian philosopher Lactantius (about 313 A. D.) who quotes the expression of the celebrated Roman philosophical poet Lucretius (c. 96 to 55 B. C.): religionum animum nodis exsolvere, in proof that he considered ligare, to bind, to be the root of religio." 

"[In addition] Several commentators upon Lucretius, such as Joseph Mayor in his commentary (2, 186) on Cicero's De Natura Deorum, agree that this notion of binding was in the mind of Lucretius."  

(2) So, if religion is about binding, the question follows: to what exactly? 

This brings us to our second topic: the anthropology of religion, where I will examine the history of how modern man in all of his scientific pretenses to explain himself and his origins has approached the antiquity and ubiquity of bindings we otherwise term "ritual." 

This term is itself Latin-based from Latin ritus "custom, usage,"...which perhaps is from PIE root *re- "to reason, count," on the notion of "to count; to observe carefully" (which I lazily procure from Etymology.com). 

Humanity in all times and places has these practices that are neither strictly utilitarian, nor always functionalist, that are practiced only because they are to be practiced (which is fascinatingly begging the question).  These rituals moreover are inherited from time immemorial or from some founder who passes on these gestures that fix into memory an event or impress upon posterity a kind of transaction whose end purpose goes beyond the exigencies of any given moment.  This is why "to be religious" about something in common parlance is to be ritualistic and, thus, unvarying about something.

That such gestures inherited from tradition--- often enough sacrificial in nature--- characterize entire cultures throughout the historical record is no coincidence but speaks to something in humanity itself that sets us apart from other animals who have no capacity for symbolic reflection, self-referentiality, abstract thought, or intentionality:

Relying upon a structuralist symbolic vocabulary of modern anthropology, as represented by Lévi-Strauss and De Jong up through Victor Turner, I hope to examine the hidden tendency towards poesis in the heart of man that articulates his religious instincts to ponder, recollect, and bind.  In ritual, and by the pious enactments contained therein, human beings confront the grounds of their own contingency.  In this sense, this dim awareness that is often not consciously understood anticipates a great deal of Natural Theology as formulated theoretically in the terms of philosophy (from #1).

Proving the hidden paradigm of our cultural makeup, looking back towards the work of Giambattista Vico and his compelling yet wildly imaginative account of gentile mythic cycles, I hope to propose that liberalism (as a kind of politically expressed rationalism that Vico was contending with in his struggles with the Cartesian worldview) with its public disavowal of religious questions and unwavering commitment to the "unbinding" of religion (by way of secularization) in the public sphere is not conducive to humanity's well-being and happiness.  This is because Man has a social nature, as discussed in Aristotle's Politics, and his happiness consists in his own sociability; but what is more is that his metaphysical instincts also come to bear in his social make up, as evidenced by ethnology across time and space, that must find social expression in liturgical tradition.

So why does such a widely attested need end up becoming an option among many others in the modern world?  And why does such metaphysical sociability end up being suppressed en masse?  These are very interesting questions for they seem to jeopardize my arguments of the need for religion.  But I would caution some patience, for the abandonment of religion is bound to have tectonic versus acute consequences in the spiritual core of modern man; and so, I would further contend that the disasters of secularism and liberalism have yet to be fully realized.  Even so, there are enough signs that moral collapse is under way.

Such a suspicion rests on Vico's verum factum distinction that humanity only knows and has full dominion over what it consciously makes for itself and of itself [and that this is what essentially becomes dear to modern men].  But there is a trade off in making everything "accessible" and "useful" to the individual: To take something that was universally present, inherited and observed faithfully by tradition, but not all that well understood but intrinsically mysterious as it speaks to what is beyond, and to exterminate it over the course of a generation or two because it lacked that kind of justification that most other things require in terms of relevance is probably reckless and short-sided (to say the least). 

By focusing on the pre-theoretical habitus of religion, or the kind of environment conducive to its own flourishing, this blog also aims to the broadening of Natural Theology's classical theoretical foundations across various cultural traditions even among those cultures that did not develop a reflexive philosophical vocabulary.  We do so in the hopes of fleshing out how ritual itself in lieu of abstract conceptual development of a genuine theology can be seen as the pre-theoretical stage of negotiation on behalf of one's own contingency that we loosely term the life of prayer.  What we hope to see is that there is a kind of conceptual structure at work in liturgical actions that anticipate their theoretical, more discursive expression in systematic forms of knowledge called "theology" and "philosophy" proper.

Moreover, among all of the ancient religious contexts, it was only in the fully Transcendent Monotheism of Ancient Israel where we see this rich pre-philosophical ritualistic liturgical culture of prophecy anticipating the core concepts of natural theology in general and "Classical Theism" more specifically that were only later worked out in classical philosophy itself.  

(3) Among the convinced postliberal readership then (having dispensed with #2), I hope to develop a further set of theses about the criteria of true religion:

Having defended what religion is, and having explored it as an anthropological constant and inferring its importance to humanity as a real need, the main thesis of this blog defended both through Ancient political philosophical canon and the Christian theological tradition is (1) that the nature of the Classical Theistic God is such that His actions involved in the perpetuity of the world are ongoing and freely determined, not just in the past (of, say, the act of Creation proper), but sustained over time, both now and forever, and this involvement differs enormously from, say, the Deistic construct of the Watchmaker (and its connotation of cosmic disinterest) which is disengaged from humanity and the world (and to whom it makes no sense to worship); and (2) that this ongoing involvement in the world by the Living God is a totally free act of the Creator due to His divine aseity, or self-sufficiency in Himself, and that His generosity in the apparently superfluous actions of his creating a world that He does not need extends to all of the benefits that follow this existence (that is, both private and public goods); and (3) how this generosity of God merits, however impossibly, a proportionate consideration on behalf of humanity regarding how we are to thank, petition, adore, and reconcile with Him as individuals, groups, and as humanity as a whole as the source of all that is good and that this grounds for goodness entails that His is the most important relationship for our own lasting happiness. 

Further, this blog develops political arguments under the rubric of true religion that the moral restoration of any society, Christian or otherwise, must be brokered by a politically recognized restoration of liturgical time as the essential prerequisite for its own perpetuity (more on the relationship between God and the Sovereign later); and (2) that, unlike in past centuries, the historical concept of "liturgy" must be specifically explained in this postliberal moment when the concept of the public good or the common good was most obscured and even vitiated by liberalism in recent memory. 

Many conservative commentators have made compelling arguments as to why borders matter to the lawful integrity of communities, but I would also contend that liturgical parameters of social time are even more important; for what defines a community but its own connection to its past, its pride in the heritage that it passes off to its sons and daughters, and the lessons and values that it will impart to posterity?  Or that it in fact remain faithful to its ancestors so as to remain what it essentially is?  A mere geographical existence and all that involves, including borders and citizenship requirements, is indeed a prerequisite for a homeland (which is a real human need for flourishing), but space alone is insufficient for community.  You need a liturgy of religious and civic proportions to impress upon the members a sense of belonging through history.

There is a mereological problem at the heart of liberal modernity (parts vs. whole) that the American post-human successor society will inherit.  It is the author's opinion that only the Divine Liturgy as true worship can fully reflect and account for a sense of home and destination, and that the ideal political system is not a democracy, monarchy, as those are secondary considerations of means and prudential options as situated in time and circumstance, but always the one that best and effectively safeguards in those political, economic, and cultural conditions the freedom of the Church in giving proper latria, or satisfactory liturgical worship, to the Lord of History (Exodus 9:1). 

So, what is the real aim of this blog?

This blog is successful, I'd wager, if, first, it gets worldly liberals to reconsider the sources of their self-confidence and imagined superiority vis-a-vis traditional religion (especially Apostolic Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular) as the world liberal international order and the post-war consensus are unraveling.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, the blog is worthwhile if it successfully refocuses Catholic political thought of the faithful away from modern assumptions about the inherent need for "democracy" (whatever that means), or the belief that liberty needs liberalism (no, liberty existed before John Locke and company), or that "egalitarianism" can be sufficiently Catholicized (tell that to the Carmelite Nuns of Compiègne), and several other modern assumptions they feel awkwardly forced to adopt by convention at a time when those post-war conventions are dying out and true doctrinaire liberal institutionalists are becoming harder and harder to come by. 

By the time artificial intelligence assumes undisputed governance over hyper-modern societies, the old liberal order will be a distant memory.  We will be told what to do as a rule, and most will enjoy the benign tyranny of thinking machines, but each person will be too sequestered in his own fantasies to be truly political in the first place.

The question for the faithful intellectual class of Catholics is why should you be beholden to a worldview that is both hostile to your existence and also on its deathbed?  If your assimilation is sincere and full, and you actually believe the Church should absorb liberal ideas, or that as an historical institution with past mistakes, it must update its teachings to get with the times and learn from others as they concern faith and morals, then you are a heretic.  On that point, I don't know how else to help but pray for your repentance.  But if your accommodation is merely provisional and strategic so as to "help" the Church navigate the times, then you really do need to get with the times.

More to come!  Be well!