Before circling back to The Philosophy of Being, I read something this morning that parallels Gödel's bottom-line insight into his own theorems, that
there are forms of Reason that bypass reason, and yet are perfectly reasonable and comprehensible.
(Warren, https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2021/08/13/what-does-god-say/?utm_source=The+Catholic+Thing+Daily&utm_campaign=8d2a82a351-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_07_01_02_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_769a14e16a-8d2a82a351-244304881.)
It seems that a lot of folks conclude the precise opposite: that the theorems imply that we are forever confined to our own formal systems, with no possibility of knowing the "truth." Well, Gödel may have been crazy but he wasn't stupid: he knew there are truths that are surely true despite being unprovable.
Which brings to mind a wisecrack by Schuon to the effect that things aren't true because they are logical but logical because true; in other words, truth is a priori, and logic is just an indirect means of demonstrating it. But it is hardly the only possible demonstration, for (among other reasons) some of the most important truths are self-evident.
This is why we begin with doubt, or skepticism, or the senses, but we do not end there, for the intellect is ordered to reality, not to ignorance. Nevertheless, the majority of readers well understand how modern philosophy so easily degenerates
into an existentialism in which logic is no more than a blind, unreal activity, and which can rightly be described as an “esoterism of stupidity.” When unintelligence -- “worldly” intelligence -- joins with passion to prostitute logic, it is impossible to escape a mental Satanism which destroys the very basis of intelligence and truth.
Thus we see how modern philosophies -- which are at least wrong -- culminate in a contemporary postmodern insanity that isn't even wrong.
Which is again why it is so fruitless to argue with postmodern progressives. For them, truth and reality are entirely beside the point. We understand them (insofar as it is possible to understand absurdity) while they never stop proving that they have no idea what we're talking about.
The craziness is pervasive here where I live in Blue Heaven, right down to our local weekly rag, the Agoura Acorn. Check out this doozy from a couple days ago: "We cannot employ colorblind ideology in a society that is far from it." Which is like saying "we cannot incarcerate murderers in a society with so many murders."
Which they also believe, come to think of it. Which only demonstrates how
logic can either operate in accordance with an intellection or on the contrary put itself at the disposal of an error, so that philosophy can become the vehicle of just about anything (ibid.).
Yes, anything -- for if you believe men can get pregnant and give birth, there is nothing you can't believe. Likewise, if you believe math is racist or that reading standards discriminate against Africans, you're waaaaaay out there where the Buses of Reason don't run.
Not only does man have direct contact with truth, but this is because the very substance of the intellect is truth (i.e., the image of God yada yada). However,
when man has no “visionary” -- as opposed to discursive -- knowledge of Being, and when he thinks only with his brain instead of “seeing” with the “heart,” all his logic will be useless to him, since he starts from an initial blindness....
The fact that the philosophic mode of thought is centered on logic and not directly on intuition [falsely] implies that intuition is left at the mercy of logic’s needs (ibid.).
Back to the essay by Warren. Which I haven't actually read yet -- only the first sentence. So, wait a moment while I finish it, and with any luck it will confirm the celestial hunchwork outlined above.
Okay, this is way over the line. What's with the unchecked aggression? THE SUPREME COURT HAS ROUNDLY REJECTED PRIOR RESTRAINT!
A jackhammer, or a buzz saw, or an electric guitar, can make a noise, but not music. Indeed, the development of "rock music," and further degeneration beyond punk, represents something different again: I would rather not give it a name.
I'll give it a name -- indeed, I'll give it seven names, the seven sacred I Wannas of Joey Ramone:
I Just Wanna Have Something To Do
I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend
I Don't Wanna Grow Up
I Wanna Live
I Wanna Be Sedated
I Wanna be Well
Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue
Warren is out of his element. True, God is the guest of silence. But not only silence. For while it is true that 99% of everything is garbage, this applies equally to the electric guitar as it does to theology, art, literature, blogjammin', whatever.
My only point -- Gödel's point, rather -- is this, and we'll have to put off The Philosophy of Being until the next post:
even in our most technical, rule-bound thinking -- that is, mathematics -- we are engaging in truth-discovering processes that can't be reduced to the mechanical procedures programmed into computers....
Gödel's theorems don't demonstrate the limits of the human mind, but rather the limits of computational models of the human mind (basically, models that reduce all thinking to rule-following). They don't leave us stranded in postmodern uncertainty but rather negate a particular reductive theory of the mind (Rebecca Goldstein).
That's all I wanted to say. FINISHING MY COFFEE now.
No comments:
Post a Comment