Month: December 2025

Necessity.

Published on December 31, 2025

What is necessary seems to be a convergence point for the intellect to enter into, in order to be transfigured by what is in energy, in order to be at rest and at peace. I.e., what is necessary is what happens right now. What is priority is right now. What happened before, or what could happen later, are useful to know, in moderation. It seems to me that an unhinged, wild mind is incapable of resting in what is in energy now and is tormented by what was or what could be. Perhaps without training in Prior or Posterior Analytics, there would be no possibility of a human mind, naturally predisposed for analysis, to escape this inevitable fate of insanity. This seems to be the great parody of the human rational faculty. Indeed, it might be the reason why some, by consequence of their decisions as new independent and young adults, suddenly find themselves distracted by various earthly things in order to relieve themselves of the potency of insanity by way of unhinged abstractions.

Therefore, I think peace seems to be tied to what is necessary right now; yet, to defend that peace, I think one needs to be trained in how to properly deal with what was and what could be. Having both of these—a condition of being present while being absolutely capable of entering into inductive or deductive abstraction, regressively or progressively to deal with whatever comes—is essential to living in the way we were designed to.

EAR

Modes of service.

Published on December 30, 2025

It seems to me that there are two modes of operation: serving others and serving oneself; within the three vocations that encompass all of mankind: the productive, the political, and the contemplative.

Beginning with the political, it seems obvious to me what a self-serving politician would do. They campaign on promises, and upon election, do whatever is necessary to line their wallet and belly with cash and Turkish delights, respectively. Whether this contradicts the original promises is beside the point; the point is to get the cash and the Turkish delights. On the contrary, a politician genuinely serving others seems to be one who never rests because the contingency to help those he represents is vast, and his efforts are never good enough, thus necessitating a perpetual drive toward the golden mean.

Next are the productive ones. The self-serving among them seemingly ask the same kinds of questions: “What can I make that will help me acquire more, for the sake of getting more?” and “What corners can I cut to maximize my yield at little to no cost to me, even if it leaves my customer high and dry, which is no concern of mine?” On the contrary, the one seeking to serve others asks, “What can I make that will help people now?” and “What can I do to bring the absolute best quality into this thing I am making and wish to share?”

Lastly, the contemplatives. The selfish ones seem to ask, “What little bit can I learn for the sake of appearing wise to others, so that I may not be interrogated, but pretend to be the sole source of truth and become a guru who will sell things and write many books?” On the contrary, the legitimate philosopher asks, “Where can I go? Who can I turn to, to pursue the truth and know the truth, so that I may better serve others by revealing to them the wisdom I have received from those who served me by sharing what they know?”

EAR

Conversions, & contingencies.

Published on December 19, 2025

I could not understand what the difference was between the fact that a necessary universal privative proposition is converted, and a contingent universal privative proposition is not converted. I thought that perhaps the answer would be revealed by asking figuring out why this was the case metaphysically. So, I went down the rabbit hole and tried to do an abstraction, and brought it to the tutor: “Why are universal privative propositions impossible? I reason that it is because even if A and B were not, the fact that they are, begins from somewhere, or some inductive universal predicate, or point of origin. E.g. every man is not every rock, and every rock is not every man, but both exist, and so therefore, they can’t mutually and indefinitely exclude the other into subversion.”

I overstepped myself, and the tutor tried to clarify and reel me back, while citing from Posterior Analytics, and later chapters in the Prior Analytics. I was not having any of that, so after a dialectical tennis match, I felt utterly lost, and that was not a good feeling. With a shattered brain the tutor finally brought me back to my original question, and demonstrated in a way in which clarity returned, and I could see again: “… the key difference between the conversion of necessary and contingent universal privative propositions lies in their logical necessity and how their conversion relates to syllogistic validity. First: “A is present with no B” being the necessary, and the second: “It happens that A is not present with any B” being the contingent.”

EAR

Aristotle, Prior Analytics, Book I. Chapter 3.

Asymmetry.

Published on December 17, 2025

Once I got passed the extremely subtle style of Aristotle’s demonstrations, the complex web of elements composing a proposition, and perceiving the entire treatise as being divided into four main parts, a question arose in my soul: “Why are there no universally converted affirmative universals?” I attempted to abstract the idea in my mind. It is difficult to explain what exactly I was seeing, for it wasn’t necessarily tied to any known natural dianoetic conception, but the image I got seemed to be a reduction to a single point, upon which there was simultaneous convergence, and divergence from which the entire fabric of reality flowed into, and out of.

In this painfully abstract image, I noticed something: it was not symmetrical, but asymmetrical. For it seemed that what is universal can only regress to something more universal, and likewise whatever is particular can only progress to something more particular. This seemed to be simply the way things are. I abstracted further, “Then what would symmetrical look like with this image?” I attempted to assert the condition in my mind, and whatever fabric of reality I was seeing, seemingly flatlined, immediately subverted, and then there was nothing. I didn’t know exactly what to interpret from this at first, but after pondering on it, the answer seemed to come up from the depths of my soul, I took it to the tutor: “Asymmetry allows for potency.” The tutor replied: “This asymmetry is important because it preserves the logical potency and prevents contradictions. If universal affirmatives converted universally, it would collapse distinctions between categories and make reasoning unreliable. In short, the lack of universal conversion of universal affirmatives allows for logical structure and potency by maintaining asymmetry in predication, which aligns with Aristotle’s syllogistic framework.”

So, I have learned that universal propositions seem to scale and model the logical deduction of predications that exist with what is, and the rational soul, with reasoning, through Aristotle, now has a way to coherently express these in proposition, with precision.

EAR

Aristotle, Prior Analytics, Book I, Chapter 2.

Ex nihilo.

Published on December 16, 2025

At first, the main ideas of this chapter were not immediately apparent to me on my first two introductory light reads. I was trying to organize it into parts but was not understanding how to divide the chapter. I think my field of view was too deductive, or narrow, having just come out of On Interpretation. It wasn’t until I began the process of taking careful notes and working through each line, that the main ideas revealed themselves: proposition, term, syllogism. It seemed as if Aristotle just picked me up by the collar from the ground, while I was in the middle of looking at the individual grains of sand, and showed me the bigger picture of the beach we were standing on, or at least to be aware of it. The terms form the proposition, the proposition forms the syllogism, and the syllogism signifies the reasoning, and perhaps the deeper meaning beyond it.

Everything after that, as far as comprehension were concerned, was locked into place, and it was not difficult to organize my notes. My question to the tutor then became: “Is this structural framework (proposition, term, syllogism) necessary to penetrate the truth of reality?” The simple answer was “Yes… this framework is fundamental to Aristotle’s theory of knowledge and demonstration, as it enables the penetration of truth by logically deriving conclusions from primary truths.” My reply was: “Then it seems to me that rational minds are incapable of omniscience, and creating anything from nothing, but rather coming to know what is, and what was; also, coming to fabricate, or form new things from what is, and what was, created prior to Man’s existence, am I correct? It seems as if Man was put into a reality, which he can come to know, and interact with, but could not create himself. In fact, it seems as if nothing tangible, or intangible, whether physical, or intellectual, would be something outside of, or in addition to, the given and designed capacity, or potency, of what could be.

So, i.e. rational minds must have been designed to employ this framework: to be aware of the truth, to investigate the truth, the know the truth, to be protected by the truth, and to teach the truth. The truth is, what is, as God has it to be. In His omniscience, it seems that he gave us the power to be able to come to know the energy of His will, which is what is. So, therefore, logic seems to be an invitation to walk with Him, to penetrate the truth, be transformed by the truth, and perfected by the truth.”

The tutor replied and introduced me to a new term: “The intellect does not bring into being new essences or realities from nothing but discovers and works with what is. Therefore, your understanding that man is placed in a reality where he can know, interact with, and form new things from what is pre-existing, but cannot create himself or reality ex nihilo (from nothing), aligns well with Aristotle’s philosophy as presented in these classical texts.”

EAR

Aristotle, Prior Analytics, Book I, Chapter 1.

Nothing novel.

Published on December 15, 2025

It seems that the rational mind that was given to us is incapable of creating anything novel, whether it be natural, or intellectual. To me, it’s as if we have the capacity to penetrate the truth of reality; yet – while we can investigate, learn, share, and demonstrate the truth – we cannot generate anything out of nothing (ex nihilo). Everything we do – whether fabricating or abstracting – we are utilizing things that were prior to us. The truth of reality, this infinite potency of possibilities, in which we are placed, is here as if it were put for us to take hold of and assume stewardship over it. We can live in accord with it, or not. I think that when we live in accordance with reason, things come into order naturally; and, when we reject it, chaos ensues, destruction follows. Such seems to be the peculiarity of our free will. It’s as if the entire dome of the universe that completely surrounds this soul – that is self-aware, rational, and animating this body – is invited to gaze inductively, or deductively at all that is, that was, and that could be.

EAR

Deception.

Published on December 14, 2025

The seventh passage from this final chapter of On Interpretation was very subtle. I nearly glossed over and missed what Aristotle was conveying here about deception. The passage was very short, he says: “But in those things in which there is deception [contraries are to be admitted]; and these are things from which there are generations. Generations, however, are from opposites; and, therefore, deceptions also.” In my mind, I immediately recalled that generation is motion away from what was. As I abstracted, I imagined something becoming something else, like a baby becoming an adult.

Deception, in the way that Aristotle put it, seemed to go in the opposite direction, as if there was an induction happening. So, what is now, the reality, is being asserted as the same as what it was, or what it never was. Using that same image before, it’s as if to assert:
“The adult is a baby”. I took this interpretation to the tutor: “Concerning deception, it seems that generation is opposed to what was, and therefore the distance between the two contraries is apparent to all; but deception seems to be the assertion of a contrary inductively under the other contrary and being of the opinion that they are univocal, when they are actually equivocal.”

The tutor confirmed my interpretation as aligning well with Aristotle and added that sophistical fallacies blur the distance between contraries, thereby obscuring reality. I came up with examples to demonstrate this deception being employed: “astrology is astronomy”, “abortions are equal rights”, “witchcraft is natural philosophy”, “communism is social justice”, “capitalism is charity”, “affairs are love”, etc.

EAR

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 14.

Fire, & first essences.

Published on December 13, 2025

The end of this chapter seems to be an invitation for deeper ponderings about: ‘what was’, ‘what is’, and ‘what could be’. Firstly, Aristotle’s demonstration of what fire is, that it is: an irrational power, with no will to affect any kind of opposite contrary to its nature, and a first essence. It is quite different for me to invert my direction of abstraction concerning this. I’ve always assumed, with respect to fire, that it is what heats other things. It would seem that such an enunciation would be common sense. However, on the contrary, according to Aristotle, it seems that any mutation suffered by others in proximity to fire, is not because fire has the power of heating, but because other things have the power to be heated, or rather to suffer being heated. This is a very different way of looking at a subject’s relationship with an irrational power.

Also, the implication of there being a first essence provokes a deep pondering with me. The question that came to my mind was: “What other first essences are there?” If fire is one, then another must be something that is also elemental in nature. The first that came to my mind was water, but I wasn’t confident if perhaps air, and earth would also be among these too. I took these to the tutor, who confirmed my thoughts, but took them further: “While [these] four elements are foundational as first essences of sensible bodies, Aristotle also discusses: eternal essences, immovable essences, mathematical forms, numbers, intelligible essences, principles of change, etc.”

I’m left at an impasse at this point, with more questions that I don’t have answers to: “What energized these first essences? Do these irrational powers mix compositely in any kind of way? Do they lose their essential distinctions at any point? Can they experience mutation, and if so, do they merely become one of the other first essences?”

EAR

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 13.

Habit.

Published on December 7, 2025

It seems that we are what we are consistent with. It doesn’t take much effort to sit around doing nothing useful all day long, day in, and day out, all year, every year. It doesn’t take much effort, labor, or real struggle to sit around a couch and: watch TV, the football game, drink stupid amounts of beer with your stupid buds, skip Church on Sundays, not pray, play video games, and just be an all around lazy loser. These things don’t take effort, and in the end, one will suffer precisely what they acted.

Is it difficult to do the positive opposites of the aforementioned daily? Of course it is, but it is not that big of a deal to simply buckle down and get it done.

So what are you waiting for? Do you have a will of your own? If so, stop reading this blog, and go get it done.

EAR

“It is not necessary not to be.”

Published on December 5, 2025

The content presented in this lesson was fairly difficult, but straightforward; however, the implications of what was being said, with regards of nuanced additions to verbs, was extremely subtle, perhaps too deep, and fine, at this point for me to abstract on with any hope of staying rooted to reality. I suppose it will become clearer in the next few chapters, maybe more examples, and demonstrations, will be provided. We’ll see.

Firstly, this jumped out at me from Aristotle, “In a similar manner of this [enunciation] it is necessary to be, the negation is not this, it is necessary not to be, [the negation] is this, it is not necessary not to be.” I asked myself, and the tutor, “Why is this different from the rule that affirmations and negations center around the verb, with the subject’s positive or negative condition? Why is this different from the other enunciations? Is it because if something is ‘to be’, then it was by necessary causes? Likewise, if it was ‘not to be’, then it was not necessary for any prior causes to generate what never existed in the first place?”

The tutor explained that my interpretation was in line with Aristotle, but qualified it further, “‘Necessary’ in the absolute sense is connected to prior causality… Conversely, ‘necessary not to be’ would indicate absolute impossibility or absence of prior causality for existence… Between these extremes lies contingency, which Aristotle expresses logically as ‘not necessary not to be.’ Contingent things are neither necessarily existent nor necessarily non-existent.”

So, I am now perceiving the past and present conditions as being necessary; and what is not necessary, as being open to the future. I don’t fully understand what this all means, it’s like seeing an island on the horizon while out at sea; but, not seeing that island up close, in full focus, and with full understanding of what it is that you are looking at.

EAR

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 12.