What is Metaphysics & Why Is It A Valid Means Of Describing Reality?

[JDaniel]

How does this relate to what I quoted from the *Summa *(q.16, art. 2), not the De veritate? Do you think that what you have written here should be taken to “overrule” my *Summa *quote and to establish that Aquinas teaches that human knowledge is *not *first to be found in the intellect dividing and composing?

Excellent question, Betterave. I think, in a sense, it does not, but, in another sense it does. One the the main propositions of the direction of the confrontation of the mind by ens is that it must be prior to Truth and knowledge. “Truth”, and, perhaps, “knowledge”, are things that derive from being and have “being” in themselves so that there can be no change in the nature of the ens confronted. If a thing is not, there is nothing that Truth (or “knowledge”) can pertain to. So, what Aquinas suggests is that truth is first an emanation of God’s being, then an emanation from our being, as there is a scalar difference here. And, it is the apprehension of the being in question that is initially confronted, from which truth is then considered by dividing and composing, resulting in a knowledge of the being confronted. A sentence may convey the Truth, but, it cannot guaranty it. Thus, God and soul are prerequisites of that which is the True. Without them, we merely have consensus - even if consensus is possible.

Truth, and the true, are most importantly, for St. Thomas, a matter of the souls of God and men dealing directly with that-which-is. For God, there is but one “truth” of (an) ens; for men, there is but one truth as well (due to the souls of men), but, it can be multiple, in its forms, because of the multiplicity of these lesser souls (of men) viewing being imperfectly at times.

Think about it: without that which is immutable concerning Truth and the true, they cannot be predicated of that-which-is in any meaningful way that will stand to reflect that-which-is. All that men can say is that “I believe it to be thus,” and, others, to say, “I believe it to be different.”

I read these passages (especially Fr. Dewan’s) as commentaries on what I quoted and said that don’t contradict what I wrote and said. How do you read them?

Pretty much the same way you did, with the slight alteration of what is important from the above.

jd, metaphysics is not about making dogmatic declarations about the intellectual intuitions of the Truth you’ve had that unfortunately can’t be put into propositional form. There’s plenty to be said about Truth, but surely nothing (metaphysically interesting) to be said about it in non-propositional form? How would that even make sense? Metaphysics is also essentially dialogical, especially here (CAF), so it’s silly to simply assert propositions that will obviously make no sense to your interlocutor, given her conceptual framework.

Of course. I was simply (playfully) mocking your “sincere” admiration for my interlocutor.


jd

 

[JDaniel]

…like when he asked me whether or not the table I’m sitting at is true. That doesn’t even sound like a question to me. Doesn’t he need to assert something about the table before talking about truth?

Why?

What you are saying is that some sort of “truism” must first be known, or stated, about an ens PRIOR to the existence of the ens. Then, and only then, does Truth, or the true, have any impact on the ens.

Not so. That-which-is must be prior to being spoken of, whether regarding truth or falsity. That it is is the first Truth about it that is apprehended (by the senses) without any prior judgment whatsoever. It is an “addition” to its being NOT a summary judgmeent or knowledge deriving from it. If it exists after we are gone, it has being in itself. Its being is in no way dependent upon our presences.

I can understand “God is love,” but what does it mean to say that God is truth? I don’t know how to make sense of asking whether the assertion that God is truth is true.

Please read my reply to Betterave’s great questions. Rather, the question should be, “If God is not Truth, what is?” If God is not Truth, Truth is nothing more than some watered- down version of the opinion of 1/6.5 billionth of the population. And, truth is naught but a game played by those possessing the greatest communication skills.

jd

 

[Leela]

Why?

What you are saying is that some sort of “truism” must first be known, or stated, about an ens PRIOR to the existence of the ens. Then, and only then, does Truth, or the true, have any impact on the ens.

All I am saying is that before I can say whether I think what you are saying is true, you haveto say something.

Not so. That-which-is must be prior to being spoken of, whether regarding truth or falsity. That it is is the first Truth about it that is apprehended (by the senses) without any prior judgment whatsoever. It is an “addition” to its being NOT a summary judgmeent or knowledge deriving from it. If it exists after we are gone, it has being in itself. Its being is in no way dependent upon our presences.

Please read my reply to Betterave’s great questions. Rather, the question should be, “If God is not Truth, what is?” If God is not Truth, Truth is nothing more than some watered- down version of the opinion of 1/6.5 billionth of the population. And, truth is naught but a game played by those possessing the greatest communication skills.

jd

By your use of the capoital T in Truth, I take your question to be “If God is not the essence of Truth, what is the essence of Truth?” I don’t think of truth as having an essence at all. I don’t think there is very much to be said about truth apart from the things that we say are true, and I don’t think that any particluar true statement is any more the essence of truth than any other true statement.

The conversation you mention concerning truth that is occuring among 7 billion people at this very moment is not so much much about what Truth is but rather about which statements are true. This conversation is the practice of justification rather than, as you seem to be taking me as asserting, the essence of truth. You seem to think that without postulating a God to make true statements true then truth would just reduce to justification. For me it is enough to think of reality as making true statements true without personifying reality and giving it superhuman powers.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

All I am saying is that before I can say whether I think what you are saying is true, you haveto say something.

By your use of the capoital T in Truth, I take your question to be “If God is not the essence of Truth, what is the essence of Truth?” I don’t think of truth as having an essence at all. I don’t think there is very much to be said about truth apart from the things that we say are true, and I don’t think that any particluar true statement is any more the essence of truth than any other true statement.

The conversation you mention concerning truth that is occuring among 7 billion people at this very moment is not so much much about what Truth is but rather about which statements are true. This conversation is the practice of justification rather than, as you seem to be taking me as asserting, the essence of truth. You seem to think that without postulating a God to make true statements true then truth would just reduce to justification. For me it is enough to think of reality as making true statements true without personifying reality and giving it superhuman powers.

Best,
Leela

IMHO, you are quite wrong.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t think of truth as having an essence at all. I don’t think there is very much to be said about truth apart from the things that we say are true, and I don’t think that any particular true statement is any more the essence of truth than any other true statement.

Truth is being. Being is an action of reality. Some beings are potentially true/real simply because it is already true that there is such thing as a being/reality which gives it that potentiality. But that which is potentially true is not that which makes things true. There is no truth in nothing. There is no being or reality in that which is not real. Thus there is an ultimate truth which is the cause and sustainer of all potential truths. It is a being that is neither potentially real or potentially unreal. It is eternal act. It is that which simply is. It is truth. This is what we understand to be God.

But in order to understand this arguement, and why it is factually true, you would have to understand metaphysics and the meaning of being. You cannot be somebody whom takes existence for granted.

 

[Betterave]

Excellent question, Betterave. I think, in a sense, it does not, but, in another sense it does. One the the main propositions of the direction of the confrontation of the mind by ens is that it must be prior to Truth and knowledge. “Truth”, and, perhaps, “knowledge”, are things that derive from being and have “being” in themselves so that there can be no change in the nature of the ens confronted. If a thing is not, there is nothing that Truth (or “knowledge”) can pertain to. So, what Aquinas suggests is that truth is first an emanation of God’s being, then an emanation from our being, as there is a scalar difference here. And, it is the apprehension of the being in question that is initially confronted, from which truth is then considered by dividing and composing, resulting in a knowledge of the being confronted. A sentence may convey the Truth, but, it cannot guaranty it. Thus, God and soul are prerequisites of that which is the True. Without them, we merely have consensus - even if consensus is possible.

Truth, and the true, are most importantly, for St. Thomas, a matter of the souls of God and men dealing directly with that-which-is. For God, there is but one “truth” of (an) ens; for men, there is but one truth as well (due to the souls of men), but, it can be multiple, in its forms, because of the multiplicity of these lesser souls (of men) viewing being imperfectly at times.

Think about it: without that which is immutable concerning Truth and the true, they cannot be predicated of that-which-is in any meaningful way that will stand to reflect that-which-is. All that men can say is that “I believe it to be thus,” and, others, to say, “I believe it to be different.”

Okay, I think I follow: soul is the condition of the possibility of truth, God is the condition of the possibility of Truth - but don’t you grant that your propositions (and presumptively that of every other person on earth) are the expressions of a finite soul’s encounter with being and apprehension of truth? Such propositions are the basis of our conversations about what is true. But they are true, not True. None of our propositions is True - the True is not propositional, it is simple and infinite - you can’t possibly grasp it, you’re not God. You also haven’t clearly explained why the soul’s apprehension of truth should be supposed to break down without there being Truth.

 

[JDaniel]

Okay, I think I follow: soul is the condition of the possibility of truth, God is the condition of the possibility of Truth - but don’t you grant that your propositions (and presumptively that of every other person on earth) are the expressions of a finite soul’s encounter with being and apprehension of truth? Such propositions are the basis of our conversations about what is true. But they are true, not True. None of our propositions is True - the True is not propositional, it is simple and infinite - you can’t possibly grasp it, you’re not God. You also haven’t clearly explained why the soul’s apprehension of truth should be supposed to break down without there being Truth.

Whew! You’re tough! First, Truth, as a proper noun, or, a noun, (the name of a person, place, or thing) must have Being. It must be [a] being in order for it to have any sufficiency for well-mannered mankind. By that I mean, even though it speaks to all of mankind, with identical confidence into their souls, some of mankind is “abberated” to one degree or another and will fail to grasp it. To the well-mannered, Truth is the confrontation of ens by ens. It is the first instantaneous “picture” of the objective ens that our souls, and, thence our minds, apprehends. It is not the picture of the thing’s properties, rather, it is the picture of the object’s reality. We can discuss the fullness of its properties only once we recognize its existence.

So, what exactly is that-which-is-simple-and-infinite? Is it the knowledge of a thing’s properties? Is it “correct and sufficient information” about a thing’s properties? Is it a presumption that things are not illusory? Is it the consensus of human beings? Or, is it much more substantial?

In order for Truth to be that which we identify with God, i.e., “simple and infinite”, it cannot be simply a comparative. Whenever we use the future perfect tense about something or some event, we are, in fact, affirming its being. In the absence of people, in a future time, the future perfect compels its being. The factical remains infinitely and simply even if the universe entropies completely.

Can’t finish tonight. Too tired. I’ll be back.

jd