Skip to content

Tag: Universe

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

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.