Tag: Philosophy

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

Roots.

Published on November 27, 2025

‘Home’, is where the roots are, but the question is: “is it the roots you lay down now, or the ones you left?”

So, then, where is home? Is it now, or what was? Can home be that which one reclaims? Or, is what one reclaims a mere shadow, or vague memory, hollowed out, and echoing the events that were left?

What is wise in this? To continue laying down roots where one finds himself? For it seems to be the most prudent. St. Benedict demonstrates this in his rule. Yet, would it not be wise to assess where one is, reason that it could be better, and move on to a better opportunity?

Starting fresh seems to signal detachment, and remaining where one is seems to signal stability.

I am faced with this question, as I commence my vacation in my childhood home where I no longer live, and cannot call it my home, though it once was my home, and those that I knew are either gone or fading away, as time continues turning on and on.

I’ve experienced this before, returning here to a place that I once called home; and, the nostalgia, the charm, and all of the feelings attached with that, was like watching a camera come into focus. What was hazy, is now clear, and what remains is not what one expected. However, I was young, and foolish then, but I have come far since then, would it not be different this time?

To return to my roots again?

EAR

The machine? An opportunity.

Published on November 26, 2025

I noticed this morning, how everyone didn’t notice me, although we were all driving along, seemingly hooked up to the machine. The machine seems to be, what ever is apparent to you and me. A job, a career, a ladder to climb, not the one from St. John the Divine, but a different kind of one, that while you climb, you are actually going down, down, down somewhere that’s actually nowhere to be found.

I suppose some drive and live for money, some for power, some for fame, and some for an ivory tower. It seemed sad to me, to know, that only God knows, each soul on his way to these. How often does He call out their name, and none of them seem to notice, hear, or care? I shudder at the thought of this, to think that one does not see, the big machine running everything.

But I don’t see it as a machine, but as an opportunity, to break free from its mindless routine, of rat racing in perpetuity. The machine is like Mount Tabor, to overcome through the Lord, and not end up asking like Solomon: “For whom do I labor?”

“For wisdom”, I answer, “to run with Aristotle, up to the top where I can have a mind, purified, and ready for His kingdom.” So, along I drive with the others around me. I hope that they will wake up and see, the machine is not routine at all, but another, better, eternal, wonderful, opportunity.

EAR

A life without reason.

Published on November 25, 2025

I am struggling to recall the state of my intellect prior to taking up the labor of classical reasoning. Even as I try to recall, essentially, where my mindset was 6 months ago, I can’t help but perceive those images with a newfound logic that sits with me now. It is as if I had this clarity, all along, but I know that was never the case.

I suppose, if I were to illustrate the change, I would express it like this:

It’s like having once been on a little tiny boat, cast adrift upon dark waters, in the maelstrom of life, perceiving there are others who are undergoing the same, but no one seems to be aware of the same; and then, by God’s grace, ending up washed ashore on an island with dense fog.

On that beach, the training begins, to know there is land to stand on, sand to touch, and things to see: to learn, to know, and to perceive. There is much wrestling with all there is to know on this beach, of which the sands seems infinite, at least now you are aware, that there was a beach to begin with.

Having begun with Porphyry, teaching you how to fish, and with Aristotle how to hunt, asking things like, “What is this?” Then, after much suffering, and pain, you begin to look less at the maelstrom you left, and yearn to know where to end.

You can’t go back, you must go forward, and so you train, and train, and train, until one day, finally, the dense fog lifts, and you see the Mountain.

There are others too, who are further along than you, but that’s okay, because you all know how to pray; and, along the way, you see, many other places to ponder and stay. Many forests, rivers, caves, swamps, ravines, cliffs, trails, and deserts to see, while climbing up to that magnificent summit. To at the top, one day, being able to shout, “I was, and am, saved by Jesus, but now, my mind is free!!!”

The fog has only just now lifted for me, and I see the Mountain, and so now I begin my climb, an adventure of a lifetime, to follow those who came, and went, before me.

EAR

Juggling.

Published on November 24, 2025

It seems that all men are afflicted with the bane of priorities. How many balls can be juggled? Which ball is the most important not to drop? Should one move forward, stay still, alter orientation, or go backwards, while juggling? Is one still juggling many, even when he thinks he is juggling many, though someone else points out to him, that he is only juggling one, with everything else he thought he was juggling, lieth on the ground? Is this juggling?

The temptation seems to be, once one knows that his order of juggling was, and still is, disordered, then the temptation to stop juggling, and only juggle one, intensifies. Or, perhaps man is given these particular balls to juggle, and is told these are what’s necessary, and to juggle them as best you can, and if you can do so, then you will grow as a man.

Then maybe, we are called not to pour all of our attention into one ball, and not the one in our hand, or the other, but the one, or ones, that we acted upon, and are floating mid-air. For can a juggler truly, really, perceive all the balls simultaneously in the air?

Deduction, & Induction.

Published on November 23, 2025

This lesson was fairly straightforward as I analyzed the different logical forms of enunciations, their oppositions, etc. However, as I proceeded toward the end of the chapter, the following question came to my mind: “Is there not a universally assumed universal enunciation that is logical and true?” I stopped what I was doing and attempted to abstract in different ways to find my own example. However, it seemed like the moment I put the term “every”, or “all” in front of the subject, the logical coherence, of what I was about to assert with respect to the theoretical predicate, fell apart in pieces. I tried many different things: “Every cloud is grey. False, some clouds are white.”, “Every bird flies. False, some birds can’t fly.”, “Every star gives light. False, some stars are dead.”, and it went on, and on. Finally, I came to the only thing I could think of, “all demons are evil”. I took to this to the tutor, who responded, “evil is the privation of something originally good; therefore, demons were once angels, created for good, who then deprived themselves of their originally good nature. This is a nuanced inquiry that belongs to St. Thomas Aquinas rather than Aristotle.”

I responded: “Then, there is no universally assumed universal enunciation that is true. It’s impossible to demonstrate an example, and nothing works.” The tutor answered:

“That is not true, for example: all men are mortal.”

This is true, all men are indeed mortal. Then it hit me, I suddenly realized that this whole time, I was trying to universally assume particulars to universals, which is obviously irrational; because, if something is particular, then surely it can be assumed that what is particular is infinite in potentiality. So, then my mind switched to inductive abstractions, and I saw the difference: “Every man is a substance. True.”, “Every tree is a living body. True.”, “Every intellect, and every angel is incorporeal. True, and true.”

“A wise heart shall acquire knowledge: and the ear of the wise seeketh instruction.” – Proverbs 18:15

In XC, with Sts. Sebastian, Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great & Bartolo Longo,

Eddie

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 11.

To be, or not to be.

Published on November 22, 2025

This was a mind-bending chapter, that seemed to stretch my intellect above, beyond, and through my prior limitations, and comprehensions.

Firstly, the question, “What is the relationship, or distinctions, between: ‘What is?’, and ‘What could have been?'” It seemed to me that, ‘What is?’, is what is in the present condition, what is apparent now, the state in which a thing finds itself in the current moment. E.g. the fact that right now, I’m actively typing out this sentence by acting upon the keyboard. The question, “What could have been?”, presented an image in my mind of something that is inherent within each respective thing, but never realizing its potential. E.g. a man given gifts, and talents for a particular vocation, and never actually assuming that vocation. I took this question, and my interpretive examples, to the tutor who put the difference, between the two existential questions, into two simple terms:

“Actuality, and Potentiality.“

It makes sense now, what is actual, is what is now; and, what is potential, or what could be, is what something can become.

Finally, the last question was a mystery to me: “If the future is not known, then why does tense, idea, and expectation exist in a rational mind?” This was difficult for me to understand, would it not be more simple, perhaps less anxious to not have to deliberate about the future? Would there not be peace, and liberty in that? Or perhaps that is what it means to be irrational, to not be concerned with anything outside the present moment. Perhaps my own personal interaction with ‘what could be’ is disordered, due to my lack of reasoning to deliberate about the future logically. The tutor gave me the answer:

“The human mind, has the potentiality for posterior analytics.”

I don’t know what ‘posterior analytics’ means, but I look forward to learning how to do it. This gives me a lot of hope, and consolation for the future.

“I say, for instance, it is necessary, indeed, that there will be or will not be a naval engagement to-morrow, yet it is not necessary that there should be a naval engagement nor, nor that there should not be. It is necessary, however, that it should either be or not be.” – Aristotle

In XC, with Sts. Sebastian, Thomas Aquinas, & Bartolo Longo,

Eddie

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 10.

Enunciations, & distinctions; case-by-case.

Published on November 19, 2025

It seems that Aristotle is teaching us to be ever more sensitive to precision with enunciations. I suppose it all depends on what exactly we are speaking of. E.g. if I were to assert “Philosophers are wise; therefore, these two particular philosophers, are both wise.”, while looking at Aristotle, and say, Francis Bacon. Then it seems that we cannot ascertain the truth, or falsity, of such a general enunciation, about two particular people, by simple reasoning alone. I think Aristotle is teaching us to treat each enunciation on a case-by-case basis.

Let us then look at each philosopher particularly and rephrase each enunciation: “Aristotle is wise vs. Aristotle is not wise.”, and “Francis Bacon is wise vs. Francis Bacon is not wise.” Now we have two distinct enunciations where we can investigate the affirmation, and negation, for the truth, or falsity for each particular philosopher. It doesn’t seem like we would have ever come to each respective premise, for each subject, to start our investigation, had we just made our prior general enunciation, and simply left it at that. I suppose that if we are going to speak universally about things, then let it be universal in nature, and not assuming particular subjects can be assumed into a universal premise without distinction.

Still, concerning Aristotle, & Bacon, The Organon, & the Novum Organum: the following scripture verse comes to my mind concerning these two contrary philosophers:

“A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (Matthew 7:18-20)

In XC, with Sts. Sebastian, & Bartolo Longo,

Eddie

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 8.

Universals, & quantifiers.

Published on November 18, 2025

There were many things from this lesson that were new. Things that seemed like we were splitting hairs on: e.g. universals enunciated universally, or not universally, affirmation being opposed to negation contradictorily, or contrarily, the impossibility of overlapping simultaneity between these conditions, and infinite inductive regression from a universal to what is universally predicated of it, etc. Yet, I think the most humbling part of this chapter, is realizing, very quickly, of the limitation of man’s mind to know what is, or is not, inherent within a universal without a quantifier preceding it.

Without the terms “every”, “some”, “none”, etc. preceding the universal subject, and the inherent attribute being examined, it seems that man cannot make a rational, coherent, precise, and definitive determination regarding the truth, or falsity, of any enunciation made by anyone, including ourselves. For example, to say: “Man is tall”, is immediately opposed in our minds by: “Man is not tall”; yet, neither idea can be confirmed, or denied. Both have a certain degree of truth in them, but may also not be true, depending on the context; but, to enunciate the universal without a quantifier seems to open up a door to nowhere. This principle, of a universal not being enunciated universally, seems to beg the man to speak rightly of things that can be known by the reason that has been given to him by God. Our Lord, and Savior, Jesus Christ’s exhortation to us on this, hits harder now, than it did upon my first reading of it:

“But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” (Matthew 5:37)

As I go further with this, I’m getting the impression that logic is not for the sloppy, or the faint of heart, this was a very difficult chapter to work through and humiliating to grapple with. The following verses keep coming to mind the further I go with Aristotle:

“For the thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our counsels uncertain. For the corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind that museth upon many things. And hardly do we guess aright at the things that are upon the earth: and with labour do we find the things that are before us. But the things that are in heaven, who shall search out?” (Wisdom of Solomon 9:14-16)

EAR

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 7.