The Philosophy Now Forum

Says Père Garrigou-Lagrange:

“Although the term naturalism is frequently used with the same signification as rationalism, it rather designates the foundation of rationalism. For naturalism is properly the negation of the possibility of the elevation of our nature to the supernatural order, and rationalism is the application of this doctrine to human reason as liberalism is its application to human liberty.

“Hence rationalism has its proximate foundation in naturalism, just as on the other hand, the virtue of faith is founded in grace. If naturalism signifies not merely the denial of the possibility of knowing the order of supernatural truth, but the denial of the very existence of that order, then it has its foundation in pantheism.

“In order that no truth should be above the powers of our rational nature, our nature must be identified with the divine nature.”

Men imbued with the naturalistic attitude will insist that the highest social organization is the individual state or the whole group of states tending to coalesce into the World-State.They will aim at eliminating every vestige of the supernatural life from social organization. For those who are aware of the importance for the world of respect for the rights of God and who understand the meaning of the Redemption, naturalism is the forerunner of decay and death.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 3:49 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 3:32 pm I'm not a dualist.

I don't think a soul can exist without a body or a body exist without a soul. It's one unified package. So there is nothing to "transcend".

Morality is part of the natural order, not separate or contrary to it. That's demonstrated by the fact that animals have morals.
Instinct, desire and selfishness are limiting. Morality shows how to exceed those limits. You desire a marshmallow but by waiting, you can get more than one.

I understand. You therefore locate yourself within a “naturalistic” perspective. Why bother even to define “soul”? You really only mean brain or mind, right?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 3:57 pm See, if we get clear here it is not hard to see that IC and I, because of metaphysical or spiritual commitments (recognitions), cannot accept the naturalistic view of life.

Men imbued with the naturalistic attitude will insist that the highest social organization is the individual state or the whole group of states tending to coalesce into the World-State.They will aim at eliminating every vestige of the supernatural life from social organization. For those who are aware of the importance for the world of respect for the rights of God and who understand the meaning of the Redemption, naturalism is the forerunner of decay and death.

Phyllo wrote:Soul" is an abstraction as is "mind".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:16 pm That's not my reason for rejecting Naturalism. I reject Naturalism because it's obviously reductional, inadequate to describe the phenomena we experience in life -- including the intelligence, rationality and personhood involved in the present discussion.

And so do you, though you don't seem to realize you do.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:17 pm What are "the rights of God"?

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:17 pm What is "the meaning of the Redemption"?

Then I assume the term “God” has no meaning, except as a tremendous abstraction?

It is curious then how your view, as in the paragraphs above, does become pantheistic.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:34 pm [I don't know why one would think of 'pantheism' unless one is a theist and sees that as the only model.

AJ wrote:Christ liberates man from “the here-below” (the fallen world) for life in a world beyond, constructed one might say of imperishable, divine substance. Or do I have it wrong?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:28 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:17 pm What are "the rights of God"?

Well, if man has rights. Say ‘natural rights’, would not God (the originator, the creator) have rights as well?

Why would you define God as having no rights over his creations?

Within a strict theology, God certainly is understood to have rights. Though the very notion seems to us strangely absurd.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:34 pm [I don't know why one would think of 'pantheism' unless one is a theist and sees that as the only model.

Because there is no division between soul and body, as you said. If there is ‘divinity’ it is similarly inherent. Thus pantheistic.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:42 pm But if God is supernatural, what are the 'natural rights' of God or the 'supernatural rights' of God.

What does it even mean if God is above it all?

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 4:43 pm Neither divine nor non-divine.