Skip to content

Tag: Metaphysics

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.

“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.

To serve.

Published on December 3, 2025

Service, seems to be that very thing which diverts one’s attention away from oneself, and to another. It also seems to be the very thing which safeguards one from becoming self-absorbed, prideful, and vain. Thus, I think it also makes sense, for a rational man, to learn reasoning. For is it not by reasoning, that we begin to think not of ourselves, but of others; and indeed, the greater picture by which we are a part of? Surely, all of creation can be investigated, and be given our attention by our reasoning.

It seems that the lack of logic, the lack of cultivating the intellect, leaves one to do nothing else than to become trapped in one’s own concerns, and thoughts. Therefore, I reason that sharpening the intellect predisposes a rational mind to perceive the larger picture, and give another the charity, dignity, and benefit of the doubt, that he deserves as a fellow person. It appears that there are only two ways this can come about: extraordinary grace from God, or the ordinary labor of philosophy.

EAR

Things.

Published on December 2, 2025

I do not understand the attachment to things. To me, it seems like things are tied with contingency; i.e: ‘if I hold on to this thing, then I may have the opportunity to do, or be, this other relative thing later.’ However, is it not the point of life, to actively do now what it is that you may, or may not, do tomorrow? For if it is not necessary for us not to be someday, why not be that which is necessary to be, right now?

Perhaps that is the great lie of our society today: e.g. acquisition all that you can now, and you will have time for wisdom later. No, the time for wisdom is now. Why end up at the end of life, with a whole lot of things, to which are attached many memories, of those many verbs in past tense: “Could’ve”, “should’ve”, “would’ve”, etc., only to sit there and wonder, “what could have been?”

That idea disturbs me, and perhaps that is precisely the point. The things we hide behind, seem to distract us from the bigger question posited here.

EAR

The hinge.

Published on November 29, 2025

In this chapter, Aristotle speaks of the primary substance being a composite of predicates, the essences of which are apparent of the subject, and while each can be affirmed of the substance individually, they retain their distinction essentially; and, while the particulars are accidental to the substance itself, they are, like the predicates, distinct from other particulars, and not accidental to each other. 

What is the implication here? It seems that we keep returning to what was taught in the Categories, that nothing holds, or makes any sense without the primary substance. I think Aristotle is implying that if we are talking of essential things, then we are merely defining the subject in question, but if we are talking of particular things, then we are describing that same subject in motion. None of the particulars seem to make any sense without the subject, and certainly truth cannot be found without the noun. Likewise, none of the essentials seem to make sense without a subject either. I tried to abstract and imagine these predicates, and particulars, detached from the primary substance, and simply could not do it. My intellect is unable to see the genus animal without thinking of a species within it; and, I cannot imagine an attribute, like running, being removed from some kind of substance to animate the action. Inductively starting from the particulars leads to infinite possibilities, and deductively starting from the predicates leads to an indefinite mess of forms that are not distinct.

My mind is seeing the substance as a kind of hinge, or convergence point where the defining predicates, and describing particulars, seem to exist instantaneously as the substance does:

They don’t seem to flow into, or flow out from the substance. What is generated, or corrupted of the substance seems to existentially, and directly, effect both predicates and particulars. As we speak of these things, I reason that interpreting what is apparent of what we speak of, is knowing rightly what can be said of it, or about it.

E.g. “What is this animal? A Tiger. Where is it? In the wild. Doing what? Hunting for prey. When did you see it? Yesterday. So, now we have something to ascertain the truth of viz. ‘yesterday, we saw a tiger in the wild, hunting for prey’. If you subvert the tiger, then ‘yesterday’, ‘wild’, ‘hunting for prey’ are no longer apparent and subverted.

EAR

Aristotle, On Interpretation. Chapter 11.

Schism.

Published on November 28, 2025

Schism, of its very nature, seems to beget schism, irrationality, and unreasonable, paradoxical absurdity. How can the left hand, and the right, be in schism with each other, while the rest of the body is in communion, simultaneously with the very same two hands being in schism, and remain to say, with a straight face: “we are One”. Makes no sense.

In fact, it is a weak witness for the claim that the body is One, whole, complete and true. Schism, literally means division. To excommunicate, is to remove one from the body, i.e. to put one in schism.

So, we have two hands, in schism, excommunicating each other, while the rest of the body, oblivious to the fact that the two hands which have removed each other from the body, in the name of the very same body, asserting that they are in communion with the very same removed hands, being parts removed, and not parts of the whole, all the while the rest of the body insists the hands are not removed, but One with them.

If this does not demonstrate violating the law of non-contradiction, I don’t know what does. Absurd. On the contrary, what I see is pretty simple, and much more reasonable to comprehend:

Many parts, blind to the fact that they are indeed parts, and not One, of which they pretend to be, and deceive themselves to subsist in the same, through which, by the merit of their disillusionment about being One, cut each other off from the One, in the name of the One, when they are not One at all, but indeed many, different parts. Many of which, due to the accidents of history, stand completely ignorant, and unaware they are actually truly separated from the whole, true, absolute, and universal One. This very universal One, which obviously has the authority to admit, or refuse, membership into its Oneness, calls to those who are not One, to stop playing around, and become of whole again with the One.

While the One, this true One, sees the foolishness of the parts that believe they are One, that are separated from it, opens its arms to receive the foolish parts back into its whole, and protect them from this absurd blind self destruction. Yet, schism begets schism, blindness, equivocation, irrationalities, and foolishness that is contrary to reason.

EAR