Real True and True Good

We left off with a discussion of the two meanings of reality, the first being rather obvious unless obscured by MiniTrue or MiniEd (AKA journalism or tenure), which is to say, the extra-mental world presented to, and independent of, the senses, the newsroom, and the campus. 

In this context, the not-real is that which is merely thought, even though thought as such is also something real. A voice in my head tells me that our competitors -- all sub-Raccoon philosophies -- either regard thought as too real or not real enough, ideology at one end, scientism at the other, and Bob in the sweet spot between and above. (Literally in the dynamic between-space of the four quadrants, ←, ↑, →, and ↓.)

So, reality in the first sense is "the whole of being which is independent of thought" (Pieper). 

Reality in the second sense goes to the Aristotelian distinction between act and potency (even though, here again, potency is definitely not not-real, rather real in a special sense). In this context, reality means the realized potentiality. But this is always a matter of less or more, such that 

Every being is perfect insofar as it is realized, and imperfection lies in this, that its potentiality is not realized. 

Since only man has a kind of infinite potential, it would appear that perfection is always beyond our reach. You could even say that, in all of creation, only man can (and indeed must) be imperfect and certainly incomplete. Does this have something to do with Genesis 3? Or Gödel? 

Maybe and definitely, but let's complete our thoughts on the nature of human potential. It is teleological, in the sense that it is directed toward its own realization, so, just as the intellect is ordered to the realization of truth, the will is ordered to realization of the good. 

But the latter (rightness of action) is impossible in the absence of the former (truth of being): "Reality is the basis of the good," and "the good is that which is in accord with objective reality." 

Thus, we have to go back to the True -- which is to say, conformity to the Real -- in order to accomplish the good. There is a whole world of counter-examples we could cite, but I don't want to talk about progressives just yet. Our preliminary point is that 

The good lies indeed in the proper relation of action to the reason which truly understands, and so evil is indeed a kind of "logical" contradiction. 

Note that all of this depends first upon our real and objective contact with the world. Conversely, any Kantian inspired philosophy "does not reach the object," and so ethics loses its basis in objective reality. 

Objectivity. This is the sum of all heresies for the left, while for us it's the other way around: subjectivism, relativism, and egalitarian anarchy are the prime candidates for the stake. Perception is surely real, but it is not reality. A little perspective, please. Get over yourself!

If we can only have subjective opinions about the world, then it necessarily follows that action in general and ethics in particular are just arbitrary. A nihilist who wants to cut off his johnson is no different from any other woman. And what an insult to womankind! I'm old enough to remember when they only had "penis envy," not penis denial and destruction.   

To not see that this is utterly mad... one must be utterly mad, or so thoroughly indoctrinated that one might as well be a crudely programmed android -- like an NPC or something.

Even the man who denies that our willing and action are determined by knowledge is in his action dependent upon that which he thinks he knows; and all evil rests in some way upon an error, upon a supposed knowledge.

So, just as doing the good presupposes knowledge of the true, we must also say that truth itself is guided by its own ethical imperative, in that it is what we must know, so to speak. Although this is at once obvious, it is by no means self-evident to the howling mobocrazy, which is why it must be commanded -- Godsplained -- from without via those two commandments carved in stone and touching on idolatry and bearing false witness. 

For what is idolatry, metaphysically speaking? It is the substitution of a false absolute for the Absolute (of which there can be only be one, duh). But once this is done, then the lies flow out of it in a manner both unimpeded and largely unconscious. Again, Satan's heavy lifting is done, so he can take 'er easy and leave the rest to the preprogrammed NPCs. 

Example.

That is at once too easy and too time-consuming. You could consider Nazism's false absolute of race, or Marxism's false absolute of class struggle -- likewise, feminism and "patriarchy," Democrats and "white privilege," sodomites and "homophobia," what the DSM until yesterday called perversion and "transphobia," our very existence and "global warming," and victims in general and their imaginary oppressors. The struggle is real! because the oppressors are. If they aren't, then truly truly, the Democrat party is out of business.

All of these lies are by definition evil, for "The good of man lies in being according to reason, his evil in being against reason" (Thomas, in Pieper).

In a way, all of this is documented and detailed in the book we're reading, Homo Americanus, but the crock is running out, so let's just cite some brief extracts:

American newspeak [and news-speak!] does not reflect reality, it reflects the content of one's own mind, and if the mind becomes sick, the language becomes sick, too.

'Case you were wondering.  

 [The] ideological mind is by definition a troubled mind. It is troubled because it refuses to accept reality as it is...

For example, the conspiracy theorists who insist on believing that the 2020 election was somehow not rigged. 

Speaking of which, this is why, for example, those 51 deep state operatives who claimed the Biden laptop is Russian disinfo are still correct, it's reality that's fake; you could say that being an ideologue means never having to say I'm wrong. They give solipsism a bad name.