Optional Reality

To admit the existence of errors is to confess the reality of free will. --Dávila

Which should settle the matter once and for all: if it is possible that the determinist could be wrong in denying the existence of free will, then he has thereby proven its existence.

Recall from yesterday's post our list of the five undeniable features of common sense, which may be reduced to five terms: things, self, others, freedom, and God. Or, intelligibility, intelligence, intersubjectivity, responsibility, and Foundation (or Source, Principle, Ground, Absolute, End, et al).

Now, precisely because of item #4, we are, ironically, free to reject items 1, 2, 3, and 5. In fact, the whole durn history of philosophy comes down to an a priori rejection of one or more of these principles.

Take #1, for example, the existence of things. A normal person takes this for granted, but not philosophers who begin, say, with the existence of doubt. They might point to the stick in water that appears bent, and generalize this to cast doubt on our perception of things. 

Thus, we can never be sure if the thing we perceive is the thing as it is. There is nothing we cannot doubt, which led Descartes to conclude that the only indubitable thing is item #2, the I that is. Then, the things (#1) become a function of the self (#2), and we're in a rabbit hole of subjectivism from which there is no escape. In other words, once I Am is divorced from It Is, there is no way to rejoin them in wholly matterimany. 

While Descartes thought he had arrived at the first principle, his principle actually assumes a number of other principles, for example, non-contradiction. For if it is true to say "I think, therefore I am," then it is false to affirm its contrary. 

But more broadly, he assumes the efficacy of intelligence to arrive at the principle of reality, but what justification is there for this? Ultimately Descartes must posit the God who would not deceive us, so he brings in #5 in an ad hoc way.

It's all in that little word "therefore." Therefore implies a correct judgment, which is to say, a truth of being. It reminds me of what Garrigou-Lagrange says about the soul of judgment being "it is." 

In other words, a thing either is or it is not; every argument, philosophical or otherwise, ultimately reduces to whether or not something really exists and is therefore "really real." But in order to render such a judgement, the things themselves must be really real before we judge them to be so. Again: things first, the self and its judgments second. Allow Schuon to elaborate:

Instead of cogito ergo sum, one ought to say: sum quia est esse, “I am because Being is”; “because” and not “therefore.” The certitude that we exist would be impossible without absolute, hence necessary, Being, which inspires both our existence and our certitude; Being and Consciousness: these are the two roots of our reality.

Being first, consciousness second. But if we follow the steps outlined in yesterday's post, we see how the two are eventually seen to be one (or at least not-two), in that being rejoins God, even though in reality it has never departed from him. Of course, 

it is not our personal thought which preceded the world, but it was -- or is -- absolute Consciousness, of which our thought is precisely a distant reflection; our thought which reminds us -- and proves to us -- that in the beginning was the Spirit. Nothing is more absurd than to have intelligence derive from matter, hence the greater from the lesser; the evolutionary leap from matter to intelligence is from every point of view the most inconceivable thing that could be.

So yes, we start with the principle that Things Are. But it doesn't mean that the self that knows -- and thereby transcends -- these things can be derived from them. For one things, we couldn't know them unless there were a real underlying unity between knower and known. We cannot know a thing about a thing that is fundamentally unconnected to us.

As Garrigou-Lagrange reminds us, "the first operation of the intellect" -- the operation we always do and cannot help doing -- is "simple intellectual apprehension." According to Thomas, 

The gaze of our intellect is fixed first upon the natures of sensible things.... To understand is a kind reading into the interior.... For sense knowledge is occupied with sensible, exterior qualities, whereas intellective knowledge penetrates all the way to the essence of the thing (emphasis mine).

Ultimately, "the object of the intellect is that which is," AKA being. Sounds like a modest claim, but to say that being both is, and is intelligible, is probably the most profound -- and surprising -- thing one could say about the world, for the implications are literally endless. 

Again, the question is, do things (#1) make sense? Or does sense (#2) make things? Sounds like a joke, but for Kantians what we call things are just consequences of our own psychic categories. But for common sense realism, it is the things themselves that truly make sense, i.e., disclose their real natures to the intellect.

After all, if they don't, then the world is but a projection of our own neuropsychology, which eventually leads to the barbarous idea that perception is reality. 

But if perception is reality, then there is no reality, precisely. To even say reality is to affirm the existence of something distinct from our own perceptions, and will still be there when we look away.

But again, common sense dictates that reality is indeed optional, since we are free to reject it. Which you already knew, since we have a major political party dedicated to the proposition that all truths are created equal, and if everything is true, nothing is.

This is an allegorical painting depicting a contrast between two philosophical ideas. The left side of the canvas features a serene human figure, possibly meditating, seated upon a massive, ancient, stone-like foundation labeled "Being" with chiseled, classical lettering. A radiant, golden light source descends from the top of the frame, directly illuminating the figure's open mind or forehead, symbolizing the reception of external truth. The light forms intricate, glowing patterns as it interacts with the figure's intellect. 

On the right side, a second figure is shown trapped within a complex, self-contained, and swirling loop of abstract thought, resembling a chaotic, intricate knot or a Mobius strip, labeled "Consciousness." This loop appears to be constructed from translucent, flowing lines of light and shadow, suggesting a continuous, introspective process. 

In the central foreground, between the two figures, a stylized key made of glowing intellect energy floats above a clearly defined, realistic object, like a polished apple or a simple wooden block. The key is positioned as if about to descend and unlock the essence of this object, which is depicted with sharp details and distinct form, visually separate from the subjective perception of the figures. The background features a subtle gradient, with the left side having warm, ethereal tones and the right side having cooler, more introspective hues, further emphasizing the contrast.