March 4th, 2014
God created both us and our world in such a way that there is a certain fit or match between the world and our cognitive faculties. This is the adequation of the intellect to reality (adequation intellectus ad rem). The main premise to adequation intellectus ad rem is that there is an onto-relationship between our cognitive or intellectual faculties and reality that enables us to know something about the world, God, and ourselves. This immanent rationality inherent to reality is not God, but it does cry aloud for God if only because the immanent rationality in nature does not provide us with any explanation of itself.
In reality all entities are ontologically connected or interrelated in the field in which they are found. If this is true then the relation is the most significant thing to know regarding an object. Thus, to know entities as they actually are is to know what they are in their relation “webs”. Thomas Torrance termed this as onto-relations, which points more to the entity or reality, as it is what it is as a result of its constitutive relations.
read more »
November 7th, 2013
Pleasures are to last forever in some form or another. According to Lewis, a pleasure is full grown only when it is remembered. This full knowledge and complete fruition of pleasure will only be in the fulfillment of one’s telos. This lapse in knowledge, the separation between the subject and object (the epistemic gap between the subject and the object of desire that full one’s pleasures) is removed in heaven. In Narnia, The Last Battle is the battle of the real forms—a draw to a close between this epistemic gap. Digory, looking at the new Narnia, seeing that it is a fuller, more real version of the old Narnia, comments that, “It’s all in Plato, all in Plato.” Lewis’ Platonism is one in which ideas becomes concrete forms. In heaven, Lewis says, is where heaven is a place where subject and object come together: thought and form become one when subject experiences object.
read more »
July 17th, 2013
One of the obscure claims by those who have been influenced by the postmodern tradition is the claim that history is not objective–at least, it cannot be objectively known. History can and is only reported from a bias perspective, thus it cannot be trusted as truly objective. It’s along the line of thought that winners write history.
So, here’s the question, “Can we actually know the past?”
read more »