Saturday, April 11, 2020

Occam's Hammer & the Disintegration of Reality

Oh, hello. What am I doing? Just flipping through Thomistic Psychology, looking for a post. Or rather, groping around for the Idea that organizes all the passages I've highlighted.

That right there could be the idea: that man isn't just uniquely capable of abstraction, but then abstracting his abstractions into a meta-abstraction. This is why metaphysics isn't just possible but necessary. It is necessary because it is what we inevitably do. Therefore, we might as well do it well. But first we have to recognize we're doing it, which most thinkers refuse to do, especially for the past, oh, 700 years or so.

Why do the beast and blighted of modernity refuse to admit they are metaphysicians? Well, there are a number of reasons, some of which are almost coherent.

As to when it all started, Richard Weaver, in his consequential Ideas Have Consequences, blames the triumph of nominalism over realism, or Occam over Thomas, way back in the 14th century. According to Prof. Wiki, Occam is considered "the father of modern epistemology" by many modern idiots

because of his strongly argued position that only individuals exist, rather than supra-individual universals, essences, or forms, and that universals are the products of abstraction from individuals by the human mind and have no extra-mental existence.

So lacking in self-awareness was this Occam fellow that he didn't even realize that the philosophy of nominalism is itself an abstraction.

Imagine a fish who denies the existence of water becoming the most important thinker among fish. That's what happened to man: despite being founded on an overt denial of reality, this denial became the new foundation of western thought (or anti-thought, if you want to be literal).

Not coincidently, this is precisely when religion and theology went off the rails of reality, for Occam was also "a theological voluntarist who believed that if God had wanted to, he could have become incarnate as a donkey or an ox, or even as both a donkey and a man at the same time."

He is closer to Islamic than Christian metaphysics, because he is one of those folks who would say that God doesn't command certain things because they are right and good, but that they are right and good because God commands them. If God commanded abortion, or theft, or idolatry, then these would be good instead of immoral. There is no natural law written on our hearts, because abstract universals can't exist, and besides, we're so wrecked by original sin that we can't think straight anyway.

Oddly enough, just two days ago I ran across the same analysis in Barron's The Priority of Christ, except he's much more polite about it. He writes of how Occam's kooky voluntarism renders both God and man "self-contained, capricious, absolute, and finally irrational."

And of course, "Both Martin Luther and John Calvin were formed according to the principles of late-medieval nominalism," leading them to propound a foundational principle that makes God look more like a monster than a savior, in that he arbitrarily creates people only in order to damn them, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Which, among other difficulties, flies in the face of the principle that everything God creates is good.

Now, modern secularism is a lot of things, but it isn't un-Christian. Rather, it is anti-Christian, and could only have arisen in a thoroughly Christianized culture that denies its own ground, starting with Occam. I don't want to spend much more time on this subject, because this post is supposed to be about psychology, not the history of ideas, but Barron writes of how the turn away from realism redounds to

a not very convincing form of Christianity and the opponent to whom it naturally gave rise. Modernity and decadent Christianity are enemies in one sense, but in another sense, they are deeply connected to one another and mirror one another. In most of the disputes between Christianity and modernity, we have advocates of the prerogative of the voluntarist God facing down advocates of the voluntarist self (emphasis mine).

In short, the human world is reduced to will vs. will, and may the most ruthless win. The infinitely wider, deeper, and richer world of human intelligence and divine intelligibility is reduced to will and the power to enforce it.

This is precisely why Thomistic psychology was tossed aside in favor of modern superstition. If you want a perfect example of the insane and irrational advocacy of the voluntarist self, look no further than the website of the American Psychological Association, which tells us that "A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability."

If this is the case, then there's nothing wrong with a contented pedophile, a fulfilled psychopath, or successful terrorist. Who are we to judge? In a post-realist world there can be no objective right or wrong. Man has no reason for being -- no telos -- so it no longer matters if you do bad, so long as you feel good about it.

If everything is a function of will -- or is Just Your Opinion, Man -- then naturally we can not only choose a gender but invent one, and we have no basis on which to object.

For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.

There's no such thing as right or wrong, except it's wrong to judge someone's gender delusion. But what if doing so causes me no distress?

I can't even. Well, I could, but I need to get some work done.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

One of the best things about Bob Davila wasn’t just how handy he was, but his ability to clearly explain how things work and especially how regular guys could fix these things. Of course some stuff, such as evil rich people who enjoy breaking things, should be left up to spiritual professionals such as God himself.

This is what I told my sister who always tries to get me to go over there to fill in for her worthless husband who couldn’t fix his way out of a paper bag. The problem is she wants me to do all the work for free. Or gas money alone. Without Mr. Worthless even watching and learning. After she tried yet another round of guilt-shaming, this time with Bible quotes, I referred her to Davilas aphorisms about waiting for heaven to get unfixable things fixed. I hope she/they learns something.

julie said...

There's no such thing as right or wrong, except it's wrong to judge someone's gender delusion. But what if doing so causes me no distress?

[insert angry NPC meme here]

Anonymous said...

Hello Dr. Godwin and Panel:

From the post:

The American Psychological Association tells us that "A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability."

If this won't do as a definition, then what would?

I think it depends on if you conflate moral disability with the mental. You can have a mentally stable criminal, who is also morally (a whole different thing) deranged. This is how our system functions right now.

That solves the whole issue with Occam and modernism which you have cobbled up, right there.

Our world is far from an "anything goes" world. The transgendered individual is protected and allowed to seek full expression of their sexuality; even so, they must pay their income taxes and refrain from stealing things.

There are many, many laws on the books. Anything goes? Hardly anything goes.

So wake up and smell reality. You do not have a firm grasp, Godwin. Get out the house more. That's an order. Keep up with social distancing though.

Regards, Insufferable Boob

Anonymous said...

Happy Easter Sunday to all.

Here are some Easter PC tips for the PC challenged:

If you happen to meet a transgendered person while out and about, take care to address them by their preferred gender designation, even if the person obviously looks like a different gender. If you slip up (and you will), just say "oops, sorry about that." And move on.

When interacting with a gay person and they say they are married, remember in a gay couple lesbians are both wives and for men both are husbands. (I think that's right). A very butch lesbian can be called a husband. A transvestite gay male spouse who emphasizes the female appearance or clothing my sometimes prefer to be called the wife.

You follow the cues given by the gay married couple; however they refer to their spouse is how you should also.

Apply Occam's Razor profusely, William of Ockham won't mind. If you think she's gay, then the simplest explanation is, she IS gay. The answer is always: yep they're gay.

Fly the Rainbow banner high and proud! Easter has all the great pastel colors we love.

-Too sexy for my Shirt



Anonymous said...

So many diversions, so little time.

With less than 4% of the worlds population, the USA has a third of the worlds coronavirus infected. God is not pleased with us. I blame all of our gayness.

Van Harvey said...

"Imagine a fish who denies the existence of water becoming the most important thinker among fish. That's what happened to man: despite being founded on an overt denial of reality, this denial became the new foundation of western thought (or anti-thought, if you want to be literal)."

Now imagine all the books that could be written, codifying all the ways that what doesn't exist, determines how what does exist, must think about what isn't there, including itsoph. A sensible person kant quite conceive it, but you know the possibilities have to be unlimited, maybe innumerable... or at least legion.

Theme Song

Theme Song