miscellany (3)

human nature, the threefold soul, natural law, and genetic identitarianism, etc...

on the Earth as a Cosmic Mountain:

The Earth itself embodies the Cosmic Mountain archetype in the same way as every individual mountain on its surface. In respect to the planet as a whole, the further toward the poles one travels, the more one will notice a rarefaction of plant life. The Arctic Circle is a sort of “tree-line” (i.e. that’s what we call the point on a mountainside above which a tree cannot grow…I’m in Alaska) of the Earth. North of the Arctic Circle, only tundra, shrubs, lichens, and tiny wildflowers can exist and the landscape bears a definitively “alpine” quality. This vision reveals the truth of the Hyperborean legends; the Gods dwell atop Mount Olympus. The mountain is the archetypal symbol of order in space while the tree is the archetypal symbol of order in respect to time. 

---

on human nature:

It seems clear that everyone is born with the capacity in potentia to feel and think in a uniquely human way. At the same time, it seems just as clear that the realization of these capacities is only accomplished through development and through the proper nurture. This involves parental care and exposure to human language, culture, intelligence and so on. It is clear that a child raised by wolves, pace Ovid, Plutarch, and Livy, would not really be human because such a one would be unable to successfully realize the potentialities latent in the human being by nature (perhaps this accounts for some of the more rawer elements of the Roman psyche). By the same token, however, neither would a disembodied spirit or “folk-soul” be human. This makes me think that human nature is something takes root only in the soil of genetic and social inheritance alike. We might even think of these as the Maternal and Paternal principles, archetypally. Put another way, like a flower that must be provided with both earthly elements and sunlight, so human nature can only emerge when the human organism is immersed in human culture. 

---

on Aquinas and natural law:

It is important to distinguish “nature” in the Classical and Medieval sense from its typical Modern usage. We retain a vestige of the traditional meaning and hence what the likes of Aquinas would have meant by the term when we use nature in the sense of “essence.” For instance, if I pose a question like “what is the nature of ethics?” I am not inquiring after flora and fauna and geology and wilderness. Instead, I am asking about the crux of the term’s meaning. The key to enter into the world-view of the medieval philosophers is to conceive of everything that exists as an image or icon of essences that were spoken into existence by the Logos of God. In principio, everything bears a direct relation to the ultimate good, both in its origin and its end. The former was sometimes referred to as “procession” from God and the latter as “reversion” toward God. These were symbolized by the Greek letters Α (alpha) and Ω (omega), respectively. Life, in its biographical and not merely biological sense, consists in harmonizing our existential lives with our essential ones as human beings wrought in imago Dei which is, “in the image of God.” 

Aquinas is known, among other things. for his attempts at a “grand synthesis” of Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine. Many people think of “the law of the jungle” when they hear “natural law,” but that’s not really right. The idea of natural law follows from the idea that there is a human essence that differentiates human beings from other beings, like bonobos or acorns. From the idea of a human essence, which is another way of saying “human nature” in this context, it further follows that there are certain goods that are unique to humans while other goods are unique to other beings. The religious element in Aquinas’ vision is not so different from the philosophical one. In fact, he explicitly states that natural law can be discerned through reason alone, as can the existence of God. He contrasts this to doctrines like “The Incarnation” and “The Trinity,” which cannot be discovered by reason but which must be disclosed through revelation. Returning to the vision of natural law, just as it is a Good for the acorn to become an oak, so it is Good for a human to embody the virtues. Note that just because it is Good for an acorn to become an oak does not mean that it is good for a human being to become an oak. But when they each pursue their own teloi (i.e. plural of telos, which is, being interpreted, “end,” or “goal”) they each participate in the order and economy of Creation. Furthermore, just as red is red and blue is blue, and red is not blue, and yet they are both colours, so the human goods and the arboreal goods, and all of the other goods, despite being different, nevertheless are all ultimately ordered under and oriented towards the original and ultimate Good, which is God. It will probably be clear that there is no substantial departure in Aquinas’ vision from the essential teachings of Plato. 

---

on the knowledge of the privation of knowledge:

The Socratic axiom states that “knowledge of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.” To wit, our awareness of out ignorance grows with our knowledge in the same way that the circumference of a circle—its boundary with the unknown—waxes in direct proportion to its diameter. This paradoxical relation between knowledge and its privation is obvious, however, because mortals’ lack of omniscience is a fact and failure to recognize this can only be called a lack of wisdom.

---

on the threefold soul:

Freud’s tripartite theory of the soul is largely just a scientific (or pseudo-scientific, if we follow Popper) reworking of the Classical conception of the soul that is present already in Plato’s dialogues. In the Republic, for instance, Plato lends imaginal elaboration to his theory of the soul according to the following scheme:

(1) the rational element or λογιστικόν (logistykon), symbolized by the form of a human

(2) the emotive element or θυμοειδές (thymoeides), symbolized by the form of a lion

(3) and the desiring element or ἐπιθυμητικόν (epithymetikon), symbolized by a many-headed monster or hydra

Let’s call these logos, thymos, and epthymia, respectively, for short. The purpose of Plato’s metaphor is to indicate that a proper order or relationship amongst these three elements of the soul is the key to a good life. In brief, the rational soul or logos fulfills its function by identifying ends that are good and educating the the epithymia in its desires while ordering the emotional soul or thymos to repel any obstacles to their realization. In other words, the lion and the many-headed beast are meant to serve the man. Cormac Jones elucidates the true nature of these dynamics, which Plato intimated and strove to depict, but did perhaps not fully comprehend:

Thinking of epithymia and thymos in terms of attraction and repulsion — which struck me as completely correct — blew open doors for me in my mind, and all of a sudden I could see a host of connections. I’m not going to be able to write about all of them at once, but let me at least give a couple insights. Thinking of thymos in terms of a repulsive power is major. When you are sitting on your couch and craving ice cream, it’s the epithymetic faculty that does the craving, that locks its powers of attraction onto the object of its desire. It’s your thymic faculty, however, whose job it is then to repulse all the obstacles between you and the object of your desire. If there is distance between you and your freezer, your thymos repulses that obstacle by getting up and overcoming that distance. Your thymos thereby is the provider. Your logos, meanwhile, is supposed to be overseeing this whole volitional process… but you know, sometimes in this passionate life, things just don’t work out that way. The undertow of desire can pull the logos under and make it serve its whims. Or the madness of anger, the drive to repulse all obstacles for the sake of supremacy over others, may likewise subjugate the logos to achieve this aim alone.

As Plato attempt to illustrate in the dialogue, internal conflict is the result of disorder amongst these dynamics of the soul. The Republic largely consists in an extended conceit in which the state or republic is made to represent the soul. Thus, the condition of internal coherence, or “justice,” is represented by a harmonious republic while internal disorder is represented, in turn, by tyranny and civil war. 

A similarly threefold concept of the soul is also present in Paul’s letters in the New Testament, where he speaks of anthropos somatikos, anthropos psychikos, and anthropos pneumatikos. These terms can be roughly translated as “carnal man,” “psychic” or “soul man,” and “spiritual man,” despite that we lack very clear concepts of any of those words in our time. What, for instance, is the difference between the soul and the spirit, according to the popular conception? Perhaps Freud has taken a step towards regaining some of the significance of these concepts. It is possible to see the birth of psychoanalysis as the reversal of a trend toward reductionism that had seen the 3-part man become the 2-part man (i.e. beginning from the 8^th Ecumenical Council or 4th Council of Constantinople in 869 AD¹ and continuing with the Early Modern thinkers like Descartes) become purely biological man (i.e. beginning with Darwin’s The Descent of Man in 1871).² Many people today still speak in this way, when they, for instance, equate “human nature” with “the human genome,” or invoke evolutionary biology to explain ever facet of human life. Perhaps we will begin to see a richer concept of the human being in our lifetimes. I would be happy to see such a development and I try to contribute in the ways that I am able.³

---

on genealogical identitarianism:

It is not uncommon the hear the refrain, presumably substantiated by research into the human genome of the last several decades, that “everyone is about 99.9% identical, according to science.” To say that “everyone is about 99.9% identical according to science” is a conclusion that follows from the premise that “identity” is equivalent to “the genome” in the same way that “water” is identical to “H₂O” and that “Venus” is equivalent both to the “Morning Star” and the evening one. But is this really true? By the same logic, every human would be approximately 70% identical to a peach and anything without a genome would simply have no identity altogether. In an attempt to think this through, I find I cannot. But again, the notion of our virtual identity with every other human being is predicated on having first taken for granted the premise that the genome is the same thing as identity. It seems to me that the latter cannot possibly be true and hence I see no reason to accept the former, pace the illustrious scientists who take this equation as axiomatic. When it comes down to it, biologists serve as credible authorities within the specialty of their fields. But by the same token, they often fail to serve as credible authorities outside of those same fields. For this reason, I have no reservations about rejecting a conclusion that a nonsensical argument advances.

On the contrary to the theory of genetic determinism, it seems clear to me that because actual human beings are clearly not 99.9% identical to one another and not 70% identical to a fruit tree in spite of these genetic ratios, therefore the basis of identity must be sought elsewhere than the genome. This is not to say that genetics is wrong per se, but only that it is a mistake —an instance of the genetic fallacy—to extrapolate conclusions from within that field to questions that lie beyond it. 

---

1. Article 11:

Though the old and new Testament teach that a man or woman has one rational and intellectual soul, and all the fathers and doctors of the church, who are spokesmen of God, express the same opinion, some have descended to such a depth of irreligion, through paying attention to the speculations of evil people, that they shamelessly teach as a dogma that a human being has two souls, and keep trying to prove their heresy by irrational means using a wisdom that has been made foolishness.

Therefore this holy and universal synod is hastening to uproot this wicked theory now growing like some loathsome form of weed. Carrying in its hand the winnowing fork of truth, with the intention of consigning all the chaff to inextinguishable fire, and making clean the threshing floor of Christ, in ringing tones it declares anathema the inventors and perpetrators of such impiety and all those holding similar views; it also declares and promulgates that nobody at all should hold or preserve in any way the written teaching of the authors of this impiety. If however anyone presumes to act in a way contrary to this holy and great synod, let him be anathema and an outcast from the faith and way of life of Christians

2. Forthcoming: a critique of Darwinian evolutionary theory of philosophical and scientific grounds.

3. I attempted a sketch of threefold life here: