Reality Dysphoria Syndrome: Philosophy and Its Alternatives

That notion into which all our conceptions are resolved is being; in short, something either is or is not the case -- not just in our heads, but in the extra-mental world. Thus, intelligible being must be the beginning and end of all philosophy.

Was that so hard? 

When I say "philosophy and its alternatives," what I mean is that any true philosophy must be a philosophy of being. If it isn't, then not only is it not a philosophy, it's not even really anything, because it's certainly not about our knowledge of reality: "Being, the most universal notion, is presupposed by all other notions," and the first principle we derive from it is "Being is being; non-being is non-being."

I know: crazy! 

But all the real craziness -- both retail and wholesale, individual and cultural, clinical and tenured -- is founded on the denial of this principle: of the intelligibility of being to our intelligence, or that being is fungible to truth. 

Example. Might as well begin at the beginning of modern (which is to say, anti-realist) philosophy, with Descartes. More to the point, I'm reading an essay called The Thomist Critique of the Cartesian Cogito -- the old "I think therefore I am."

Now, the whole point of Descartes's famous gag was to arrive at a principle that presupposes no others, i.e., to found his hyper-skeptical philosophy on the solid rock of what assumes nothing and cannot be denied.

How's that going?

Turns out that I think therefore I am indeed assumes a prior principle -- specifically of non-contradiction -- otherwise Descartes "could think and, nonetheless, not exist, if it were possible that one and the same thing could be and not be." 

Among other principles, the cogito assumes that "whatever thinks is" and that "it is impossible that one and the same thing simultaneously be and not be." Seems almost embarrassing to have to remind Descartes that he cannot (for example) simultaneously be and not be Descartes, and that his famous cogito simply assumes the premise that "Whatever thinks, is," which could not be the case were the principle of identity not true. 

Schuon says much the same thing:

In the Cogito ergo sum all is lost, since consciousness of being is subordinated to the experience of thought; when being is thus blurred it carries thought downwards with it, for if it is necessary to prove being, it is necessary also to prove the efficacy of the intelligence, hence the validity of its conclusions, the soundness of the ergo. 

So, let's get real (and at the Real): "once the principle of contradiction [AKA identity] has been placed in doubt," then the cogito might just as well mean I think therefore I do not think, or I exist and therefore do not exist. In short, it holds "only if it is contradictory to think and not think at the same time."

I'm not a trained philosopher. What am I missing here? If thought is not ordered to being, then he's only affirming a tautology at best: I think, therefore I think. At best, because it could also mean I think therefore I don't think, or, I think therefore someone else is thinking.

And according to Schuon,

the modern idealists do not wish to admit anything but a subjective form of evidence because, for them, the intellect knows itself before knowing being.

But once you deny the link between intellect and being, there's no getting back to being, and you are no longer engaging in what we call philosophy, rather, one of its many alternatives and counterfeits, e.g,, misosophy (hatred of wisdom), philodoxy (love of opinion), cranio-rectal exploration, etc.

Real philosophy is the philosophy of the Real, otherwise it's some version of ontological auto-proctology.

Now, "to be intelligent," writes Schuon, "is to be realistic."

I know: crazy!

But "On the whole, modern philosophy is the codification of an acquired infirmity" -- an infirmity apparently contracted from Descartes, but which I suspect goes back to the real patient zero (Adam), and which has taken many forms throughout history, for example, the radical nominalism that continues to plague these anti-intellectual times. This “esoterism of stupidity” is quite literally the "suicide of reason."

It is only too evident that mental effort does not automatically give rise to the perception of the real; the most capable mind may be the vehicle of the grossest error (Schuon).

Thus "The paradoxical phenomenon of even a 'brilliant' intelligence being the vehicle of error."  

For example, nominalism affirms that there are no essences, rather, only conventional names for things; thus "man" and "woman" conform to no male or female nature, so a man might as well be a woman, a terrorist a freedom fighter, objectivity racist, etc.  

"I think." Do I? I guess sometimes, but more often than not, it's just "thoughts are." I have no idea where they come from, nor do I really know what this "I" is. What about the "therefore"? What can we really say?

Thoughts float in and they float out, into and out of some sort of sensorium of consciousness we conventionally call "I," therefore... what?

We need to dig down a little deeper into this whole subject, but that's enough words for today...