[Aquinasfan]

In the case of the Aristotelian and Thomist symbologies, Voegelin insists “there is a solid core of truth” in them – for they are works of the human intellect and spirit meditatively expressing the lived experience of human beings. In short, they are works concerning the human condition which, arguably, has not changed much over time. (Arguably, the only thing about man that really changes is the tools he uses….)

I think I like this guy.

There is no common ground of rational discourse with the thinker of Second Reality, for he has lost his capacity or will for self-transcendence, such that he can engage the world “outside his head.” In obviating the world “outside his head,” he moots all questions regarding its ordering cause. (“God is dead.”) Therefore, “the world is only what I think it is – it is the world inside my head.”

This is a willful, absolute flight from reality, an absolute refusal to apperceive what sane human beings have been thinking about for millennia. How does one “debate” with a person like this? What common ground can be found on which a debate could reasonably be based?

Which is very ironic because modernists claim to be "realists." In my experience, they have a lot in common with little children who cover their ears and scream when confronted with uncomfortable realities.

Despite all the protestations to the contrary, the modernist rejection of God has more to do with a desire to hold onto a particular sinful habit than anything else. Peter Kreeft argues convincingly that it's all about sin, particularly sexual sin. He cites Augustine's Confessions in this regard. Sinful modernists, postmodernists or whatevers are content with a state of perpetual doubt and moral relativism. Anything to keep the ball of doubt in play. And so, sadly, they remain slaves to their sins in the name of "freedom." Hopefully they will soon learn that slavery to sin is a false freedom, and that only the truth can set you free.

[betty boop]

...slavery to sin is a false freedom, and that only the truth can set you free.

Thank you so much, Aquinasfan, for your replies, and for the great links! I read the article from Peter Kreeft on the sexual basis of sin that was posted here a few months back, and thought it was an excellent analysis. I gather from the Confessions that St. Augustine had a bit of a "wild oats" problem himself, that caused him to postpone receiving the sacrament of baptism until he was in his forties (or something like that), which delay was a source of great anxiety to Monica, his mother. In the end, however, he became a saint and doctor of the Church. So certainly there is hope for sinners who sincerely repent. It has been said that every saint was a sinner once....

Thanks again, Aquinasfan, for writing.