Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

[Belinda]

Alizia, Thomas Nagel wrote:

Yet humans have the special capacity to step back and survey themselves, and the lives to which they are committed... Without developing the illusion that they are able to escape from their highly specific and idiosyncratic position, they can view it sub specie aeternitatis—and the view is at once sobering and comical.

I'd like to use Nagel's phrase "their highly specific and idiosyncratic position" to make another attempt to describe what "this world" means to me.

It's also true as I gather that you'ld agree, that humans can do what Nagel says they can do.

The thoughts subspecie aeternitatis are good ideas because it's only ideas subspecie aeternitatis that approximate absolute goodness and absolute justice. It matters little whether or not the thinker or the prayer includes the personal God or a suitable diagram. Metaphysics do matter to individuals as they are intimately bound up with value. The idea of a personal God is a childish rendering of Platonism plus Cartesian dualism, and is an aid to prayer like Roman Catholics sometimes regard sacred statues and pictures, and like Many Catholics and Protestants regard church buildings.

Of course, we all have feet of clay. Manifest 'worlds' exist so we must assume that they necessarily exist, in the same way we must assume that that we cannot know every way of being. Perhaps there are other ways of being besides a) sub specie aeternitatis and b) manifest worlds.I believe that we should be grateful that we possibly of all the animals are the animals that can at least view eternity albeit dimly.

Alizia, do you use the word 'metaphysics' in the sense of theory of being?

[Alizia]

In other words, the reason we have a "secular" realm is because of Christian theology. Islam, as you note, recognizes no such zone. Instead, it has the "land of peace and submission" zone, and the "land of the hated heretics" zone: dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb. (literally, "houses" of "submission" and "war") The message could not be clearer from Islam: submit to us, or we will make war on you until you are gone. They have no third realm, the realm of "secularism" that they are prepared to allow to exist. That would just be another bit of dar-al-harb.

The way I see things this (so-called) 'invasion' is occurring as a result of the loss of 'Christian definitions'. The invasion (now without quotes) is a result of the loss of European nerve and also 'fibre'. Fibre means a strong relationship to a certain metaphysics. And the terrestrial form of that metaphysics are the structures of society, but I would say especially those structures that are religious: that have to do with the fundamental and foundational definitions of value & meaning. If we lose our own -- we are now losing our own -- what we are will be 'replaced' as the alarmists say: we will be superseded is how I will say it.

European Recover is -- this I assert -- a necessary, a vital, category.

In my view we have to notice, recognize and label the 'structures' that will rush in, that are rusing in, as we 'lose our nerve' and no longer can defend ourselves from a sound, structured, meaningful metaphysical base. This is required in order to be 'fully human'. Without a solid base in a true metaphysics, one becomes 'partial', divided, open to attack: one begins to dissolve:

late Middle English (also in the sense ‘break down into component parts’): from Latin dissolvere, from dis- ‘apart’ + solvere ‘loosen or solve’

So, this is the base reason why I started this thread: this is my area of interest, and my are of profound confusion and uncertainty!

[Alizia]

Alizia, Thomas Nagel wrote:

Yet humans have the special capacity to step back and survey themselves, and the lives to which they are committed... Without developing the illusion that they are able to escape from their highly specific and idiosyncratic position, they can view it sub specie aeternitatis — and the view is at once sobering and comical.

I'd like to use Nagel's phrase "their highly specific and idiosyncratic position" to make another attempt to describe what "this world" means to me.

It's also true as I gather that you'd agree, that humans can do what Nagel says they can do.

The thoughts subspecie aeternitatis are good thoughts.

I think I understand. Because I tend to poke and prod I would like more information: what does this mean for you? And what does it mean for 'me & you'. (Ourselves as pluralities).

[Alizia]

The thoughts subspecie aeternitatis are good ideas because it's only ideas subspecie aeternitatis that approximate absolute goodness and absolute justice. It matters little whether or not the thinker or the prayer includes the personal God or a suitable diagram. Metaphysics do matter to individuals as they are intimately bound up with value. The idea of a personal God is a childish rendering of Platonism plus Cartesian dualism, and is an aid to prayer like Roman Catholics sometimes regard sacred statues and pictures, and like Many Catholics and Protestants regard church buildings.

Of course, we all have feet of clay. Manifest 'worlds' exist so we must assume that they necessarily exist, in the same way we must assume that that we cannot know every way of being. Perhaps there are other ways of being besides a) sub specie aeternitatis and b) manifest worlds.I believe that we should be grateful that we possibly of all the animals are the animals that can at least view eternity albeit dimly.

Alizia, do you use the word 'metaphysics' in the sense of theory of being?

I found the following. Uncertain if these will help us here!

"When I have a leisure moment, you will generally find me curled up with Spinoza's latest."

P. G. Wodehouse

Sub specie aeternitatis:

“[Lat.] (considered) in relation to the one eternal Substance; without consideration of local or temporal conditions. 20c. Spinoza Ethics (1677) V xxxi: sub aeternitatis specie.”

Stuart Hampshire:

“All our ordinary time-determinations, our tenses and temporal predicates such as ‘past’ and ‘present’ are merely ‘aides to the imagination’ (auxilio imaginationis’), and they will not occur in expressions of the highest level of knowledge; for at the highest level of knowledge Nature is presented sub specie aeternitatis; Nature must be understood not as a temporal sequence of events, but as a logical sequence of modifications necessarily connected with each other. … it is a timeless, logical necessity that the order of nature should be what it is…”

— Spinoza, Harmondsworth, 1951, p. 174

H.A. Wolfson:

“Imagination sees things only in their fragmentary and unrelated condition, or it puts together ‘diverse confused ideas which belong to diverse things and operations of nature.’ It is the imagination, too, through which ‘we look upon things as contingent with reference to both the past and the future.’ But reason (ratio) … sees things in their necessary and eternal aspect …
These necessary and eternal aspects of things, Spinoza proceeds to say, are the immediate infinite modes: motion and rest under extension, and absolutely infinite intellect under thought. These infinite modes, again, are what Spinoza calls ‘fixed and eternal things’ ” … without which one cannot conceive of individual things.

— The Philosophy of Spinoza, Cleveland, 1958, ii, p. 161

[Alizia]

Alizia, do you use the word 'metaphysics' in the sense of theory of being?

My definition is a little . . . uncertain. It might be a bit idiosyncratic. It might even be 'childish'.

It means for me higher order of being (God, non-physical entity), but also the 'structure' (as I would call it) that is -- that must be in my view -- bound up with Manifestation. That means that before the world was, all of its 'possibilities' were encoded, as it were, in its manifestation.

The 'structure' of all things must have been patterned before manifestation gave everything shape. That 'structure' is in essence 'metaphysics'. We can only gain a sense of it through unusual intuitive and intellectual action. (This is 'viewing things through a darkened glass' in my understanding).

In Chinese thought I once read something to the effect that Nature does not think, and yet 'everything flows into its proper form'. I see 'Being" as something that flowed into its proper form. It happened, it occurred, and it did so because (ultimately) there is a directing intelligence. That is to say, 'the possibility' of what can be.

These statements make sense to me, I have no idea if they make sense to anyone else or if it sound like gibberish.

[Immanuel Can]

European Recover is -- this I assert -- a necessary, a vital, category.

That would be plausible to argue only if a thing called "Europe" -- a monoculture, a mon-language, and single nation -- had every exited. "Europe" is actually a collective noun, a glossing over of persistent differences that make singular national identity impossible.

You might put the same argument as, "Now we have to create a real 'Europe' for the first time," and we might discuss that on its own merits; but to say "recover" is to misrepresent history. There was, and still is, no single "Europe" but the continent itself.

[Alizia]

I think we have been over this before!

“This our European structure, built upon the noble foundations of classical antiquity, was formed through, exists by, is consonant to, and will stand only in the mold of, the Catholic Church. Europe will return to the Faith, or she will perish. The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith.”

― Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith

I use this idea, with significant modifications. I would also make every effort to include those who are of 'pagan' orientation. But the term is valid, and the term is needed.

You might put the same argument as, "Now we have to create a real 'Europe' for the first time," and we might discuss that on its own merits; but to say "recover" is to misrepresent history. There was, and still is, no single "Europe" but the continent itself.

I could work within that, with modifications of course.

...but to say "recover" is to misrepresent history. There was, and still is, no single "Europe" but the continent itself.

You assert that it is. I respect your opinion. But your opinion is opinion, not necessarily fact (nor truth). True, there is no unified Europe as a Federation. But I use the term as an 'idea': the idea of Europe. European-ness. It now takes on meaning -- and must, if you will, be 'given entity', as a defensive measure: necessary & vital.

If you have some alternative or modification, let me know!

[Immanuel Can]

I think we have been over this before!

“This our European structure, built upon the noble foundations of classical antiquity, was formed through, exists by, is consonant to, and will stand only in the mold of, the Catholic Church. Europe will return to the Faith, or she will perish. The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith.”

― Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith

If Belloc is right, then "Europe" means "Catholic Church." Nothing more and nothing else. "Europe is the faith...and...will stand only in the mold of the Catholic Church," he says.

Are you happy with that?

...but to say "recover" is to misrepresent history. There was, and still is, no single "Europe" but the continent itself.

You assert that it is. I respect your opinion. But your opinion is opinion, not necessarily fact (nor truth).

It may be my opinion, but I think it's fair to say it's not just my opinion. In this case, it also happens to be the truth.

And you can see it is, because this "Europe" entity isn't unified by anything...language, culture, economics, religion, interests, ideology, or even by political forces. It's a collage of warring factions, some of which are presently collocated under the EU banner but continue to fight against each other, some of which are outside it altogether, and some of which are sort of in it now but are leaving it swiftly.

[Alizia]

If Belloc is right, then "Europe" means "Catholic Church." Nothing more and nothing else. "Europe is the faith...and...will stand only in the mold of the Catholic Church," he says.

Are you happy with that?

Belloc is, was, a zealot-of-sorts. Europe will never be 'Catholic' (again) as he might have wished. Therefore, if I speak of 'renovation' of Europe, and if I am concerned for Europe (and you do not seem to care, perhaps you can explain), it must come about through spiritual renovation. But, I will have to accept the presence of you (as Protestant and non-Catholic: i.e. as opposed to Catholicism as I am sure you are, and I am not particularly concerned about this) and also people like Lana (from the YouTube video) who are not only opposed to Catholicism, but define themselves as non-Christian, and those who may continue to 'identify as Catholic'. Also, I will not ask you about or ask you to defend your 'heretical' position vis-a-vis Catholicism. Out of respect. It is your business. And I must lear to work with everyone.

But, unlike you, I feel a need to conceive of 'Europe' and to build spiritual solidarity among people of Europe and of European descent. I can explain all of this. Importantly, I do not think you care to arrive at those definitions. I suspect that your definitions are 'Christian universalist'. You might even go to China (or some other far-flung place) to do missionary work. For whatever reason, your Christian definitions are now extending beyond Europe. Mine, in contradistinction, contract toward Europe (as I am defining it).

If you wish to talk about these things, fine. I have a good deal to say about them. It is the reason I opened up this thread under the aegis of a difficult group of assertions. So far, no one seems to have captured what this is and why it is difficult and dangerous.

Finally, Belloc may indeed have meant 'Catholic Church' but he might also, were he viewing the situation now, have recommended many other different things in leiu of the present situation. But on one thing he was right (IMO): "Europe will return to the Faith, or she will perish. The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith."

I have offered, just today, extended definitions of what this can mean, what it could mean.

I think Belloc makes a true statement, in spirit. I know that some on this thread will despise that I say this (or agree with Belloc). I think it can be taken to mean a more flexible relationship about what 'faith' is to be, what it can be. You likely have a far more fixed idea of this and all your own views and plans. Fine.

But why do you wish to haggle with me over these points? Can't the larger definitions be made? Can't the most important things be named? (I think I know where you are going to go with this but I will refrain from assuming I do know!)

And you can see it is, because this "Europe" entity isn't unified by anything...language, culture, economics, religion, interests, ideology, or even by political forces. It's a collage of warring factions, some of which are presently collocated under the EU banner but continue to fight against each other, some of which are outside it altogether, and some of which are sort of in it now but are leaving it swiftly.

What is your purpose here? I say that a spiritual and historical connectedness is there, it exists, it can be developed and improved, and there is a reason to do so! And is far more real than what might exist between a European and an Eskimo or a village African. I believe that such unity should be recovered. Or built if it did not sufficiently exist before. I will work with anyone who has a creative will. Even atheists. What is your purpose in undercutting this desire, this hope? Can you please explain? I'd rather not imagine why. Please, you tell me.

[Immanuel Can]

I am concerned for Europe (and you do not seem to care, perhaps you can explain),

I do care. But I do not think the answers are political. Rather, to quote a very wise woman,

"it must come about through spiritual renovation."

I think she's dead right about that: the answers are in the personal regeneration of the hearts of individuals, not in mere collective force.

The benefits of Christianity to the West have not come because of collectivism or "Christendom," per se. They've come because individual people genuinely believed in Christianity, and then allowed it to shape their ethics and activities. There's no other solution.

I will not ask you about or ask you to defend your 'heretical' position vis-a-vis Catholicism. Out of respect. It is your business. And I must lear to work with everyone.

I don't mind if you do. I don't think people should be ashamed of what they believe. But I'm not really a heretic, you know...at least, not by any standard that matters. And I also am happy to speak to everyone -- at least, everyone who is civil and interesting -- regardless of their beliefs.

I suspect that your definitions are 'Christian universalist'.

Not even a bit, actually.

I think Belloc makes a true statement, in spirit. I know that some on this thread will despise that I say this (or agree with Belloc). I think it can be taken to mean a more flexible relationship about what 'faith' is to be, what it can be. You likely have a far more fixed idea of this and all your own views and plans. Fine.

I have thought a great deal about what "faith" really is, actually. And I would say that my views are not so much "flexible" as "developed and developing." One thing faith is for sure: it's a commitment of personal trust, a commitment of self, which admits no hold-backs. Kierkegaard had this right: it's not faith by itself that saves: it's Who you have your faith in.

But why do you wish to haggle with me over these points? Can't the larger definitions be made? Can't the most important things be named? (I think I know where you are going to go with this but I will refrain from assuming I do know!)

I think that one of the great mistakes of the modern mindset is always to look to larger collectives and more power to solve vexed social questions. And each time that strategy fails, the modern mind says, "Yeah, but the next one will work, finally." And it never does. That's because human nature isn't changing: and we cannot change that constant by merely giving it more power and another chance to try.

It's like The Who sings in the end of, "Won't Get Fooled Again:"

"Meet the new boss /
Same as the old boss."

I believe that such unity should be recovered. Or built if it did not sufficiently exist before. I will work with anyone who has a creative will. Even atheists. What is your purpose in undercutting this desire, this hope? Can you please explain? I'd rather not imagine why. Please, you tell me.

For the reasons above. We'll never really change history until we change ourselves.

Jordan Peterson has a line that he trots out from time to time, and it makes the political activist types grind their teeth. He says, "Clean up your room before you try to clean up the world." That's real wisdom: if I can't even keep my little life in order, then what makes me qualified to cast forth great plans for the renovation of the politics of the world?

On the other hand, if I can get myself in order, there's just a chance I might be some use to somebody in a larger sphere. So what I could do is take care of my own faults first, and then see if I can help one other person, and if that all goes well, see if I could help a few more...and if I'm successful on all those levels, then hey, maybe I am fit to help shape Europe. But maybe not: few people are.

Still, I'm going to do more good in the world by sorting myself out than by talking about what other people need to do to sort their political situation out. I may get to the big issues, maybe; but if I screw it up, at least I'll screw it up on the small scale first, and harm only myself or only a few people. But give me big power, and maybe I'll make wild misjudgments and kill millions, even with the best of intentions...who knows?

So I'm not waiting for the revival of "Europe" to save me, or my civilization. Some things are best left in the biggest hands.

[Belinda]

Alizia, it seems we have been talking at cross purposes regarding the meaning of 'metaphysics'.

[Alizia]

I do not think there is a way to separate the political from the social, or really from any other category. All is intertwined.

Spiritual renovation can be viewed, and defined, in various ways. Philosophically, I am interested in defining it. And I am also interested in addressing -- or at the least beginning to understand better -- what is going on socially and politically in our cultures.

The benefits of Christianity to the West have not come because of collectivism or "Christendom," per se. They've come because individual people genuinely believed in Christianity, and then allowed it to shape their ethics and activities. There's no other solution.

Whether people 'genuinely believe' in Christianity, or if they only somewhat believe in it, and even if they live in a shadow-version of post-Christianity, as most do, it does not change the fact that Europe is facing some serious issues. I submitted Jayda's case because it seems poignant to me. I would like to know how others think about this. What are your comments on her situation? What she is facing? That she spent months in solitary confinement 'with her Bible and with God' seems quite interesting to me. I wonder what that was about? What she thought about, how she sees herself and her mission.

Re: Catholicism vs Protestantism: an interesting conversation could ensue, no doubt, and you could explain your Catholic-critical position (as I assume you have). But that would be a sub-topic. What interests me is a response -- if one will be given -- to what is going on in our present. And I opened this conversation (thread) trying to bring up the so-called 'Extreme' Right and their ideas about the European situation. (They are called 'extreme' but I do not see them in that way at all).

You surely must notice if you pay attention to the blogs, to YouTube and to the larger discussion going on, the social conflicts, the neo-totalitarianism of the so-called Left-Progressives, that there are people who are thinking deeply about things?

If you are not a Christian Universalist, how would you define yourself? I am deliberately trying to be a European Christian. I have a reason for thinking in specific terms. If you are interested, that can be talked about.

I have thought a great deal about what "faith" really is, actually. And I would say that my views are not so much "flexible" as "developed and developing." One thing faith is for sure: it's a commitment of personal trust, a commitment of self, which admits no hold-backs. Kierkegaard had this right: it's not faith by itself that saves: it's Who you have your faith in.

Similarly, I am trying to understand what my own faith-commitment is. But especially in the context I am trying to contemplate in this thread.

On the other hand, if I can get myself in order, there's just a chance I might be some use to somebody in a larger sphere. So what I could do is take care of my own faults first, and then see if I can help one other person, and if that all goes well, see if I could help a few more...and if I'm successful on all those levels, then hey, maybe I am fit to help shape Europe. But maybe not: few people are.

That may be so, but I do not think the issues and problems that (for example) Jayda sees herself as facing, only have to do with 'taking care of our own faults'. So, you seem to be speaking of interior work. It is a different domain than that of 'meta-politics'.

So I'm not waiting for the revival of "Europe" to save me, or my civilization. Some things are best left in the biggest hands.

Perhaps you will notice that I did not make an effort to establish that Europe (with or without quotes!) would 'save me' or anyone. I see it as an integral project. And I do mean each nation of Europe, and European peoples all together. I see a great deal of interchange going on as the Conservative or Traditional Right seeks to communicate with all the people open to it. Spain, France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Holland: in these and many other countries people are talking. We are attempting to examine and be capable of defining 'what is going on', what happened to us (the outcome of decadent processes) and what the solution might be, if one exists.

I also submit here this interesting conversation. Tim Kelly speaking with John Bruce Leonard of Arktos Press about The Liberal Mirage.

Whether people here have the time to listen through I am not certain. But it touches on highly relevant ideas and goes to the center of the problems faced. (Tim Kelly is a 'practicing Catholic', for what that is worth).

"John Bruce Leonard is the Editor-in-Chief of Arktos. He studied philosophy, letters, and languages in a university curriculum based exclusively on the great books of the Western Tradition. After earning his degree in Liberal Arts John relocated to Italy, where he nourishes his ever-living preoccupation with the heritage and the future of Europe."

Here is his page at Arktos and there is a list of articles he's written. The Problem of Christianity I have not read, but intend to.

Comments welcome.

[Alizia]

I don't know a great deal about David Horowitz. I do know that he is a famous American Conservative who was, according to himself, a radical of some sort. I could easily critique his mis-conceptions about Catholicism and his 'errors' (as we are wont to say), but what interests me is the bulk of his ideas here, and his general argument. I accept it, mostly.

A talk on The War to Destroy Christian America

It is worth listening to. Comments are of course welcome. The whole purpose being to discuss these things, even if there is disagreement.

[Alizia]

Alizia, it seems we have been talking at cross purposes regarding the meaning of 'metaphysics'.

If you explain more I will understand. I am not sure what you mean. What was your purpose? What do you think mine was?

[Belinda]

Alizia, it seems we have been talking at cross purposes regarding the meaning of 'metaphysics'.

If you explain more I will understand. I am not sure what you mean. What was your purpose? What do you think mine was?

I assumed that we were both using 'metaphysics' as the division of academic philosophy which is about 1) ontology i.e. theories of what might exist and 2) epistemology i.e. theories about what we can know.

It now seems to me that you use 'metaphysics' in the popular sense of 'supernatural'. I presumed that you would base your arguments on the standard basic theories of existence.
That post of yours with several quotations bearing on 'sub specie aeternitatis' interested me and I enjoyed reading it. I could not have understood or enjoyed it unless I knew the standard basic theories of existence.