On Debate and Existence: Excerpts from Voegelin

In our capacity as political scientists, historians, or philosophers we all have had occasion at one time or another to engage in debate with ideologists – whether communists or intellectuals of a persuasion closer to home. And we have all discovered on such occasions that no agreement, or even an honest disagreement, could be reached, because the exchange of argument was disturbed by a profound difference of attitude with regard to all fundamental questions of human existence – with regard to the nature of man, to his place in the world, to his place in society and history, to his relation to God. Rational argument could not prevail because the partner to the discussion did not accept as binding for himself the matrix of reality in which all specific questions concerning our existence as human beings are ultimately rooted; he has overlaid the reality of existence with another mode of existence that Robert Musil has called the Second Reality. The argument could not achieve results, it had to falter and peter out, as it became increasingly clear that not argument was pitched against argument, but that behind the appearance of a rational debate their lurked the difference of two modes of existence, of existence in truth and existence in untruth. The universe of rational discourse collapses, we may say, when the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared.

Corollary: The difficulties of debate concern the fundamentals of existence. Debate with ideologists is quite possible in the areas of the natural sciences and of logic. The possibility of debate in these areas, which are peripheral to the sphere of the person, however, must not be taken as presaging the possibility in the future that areas central to the person…will also move into the zone of debate…. While such a possibility should not be flatly denied, it also should be realized that there is no empirical evidence on which such an expectation could be based….

The Second Realities which cause the breakdown of rational discourse are a comparatively recent phenomenon. They have grown during the modern centuries, roughly since 1500, until they have reached, in our own time, the proportions of a social and political force which in more gloomy moments may look strong enough to extinguish our civilization – unless, your course, you are an ideologist yourself and identify civilization with the victory of Second Reality. In order to distinguish the nature of the new growth, as well as to understand its consequences, we must go a little further back in time, to a period in which the universe of rational discourse was still intact because the first reality of existence was yet unquestioned. Only if we know, for the purpose of comparison, what the conditions of rational discourse are, shall we find our bearings in the contemporary clash with Second Realities. The best point of departure for the comparative analysis of the problem will be St. Thomas’ Summa contra Gentiles. The work was written as an exposition and defense of the truth of Christianity against the pagans, in particular against the Mohammedans. It was written in a period of intellectual turmoil through the contacts with Islam and Aristotelian philosophy, comparable in many respects to our own, with the important difference that a rational debate with the opponent was still possible or – we should say more cautiously – seemed still possible to Aquinas….

Truth about the constitution of being, of which human existence is a part, is not achieved in an intellectual vacuum, but in the permanent struggle with preanalytical notions of existence, as well as with erroneous analytical conceptions. The situation of debate thus is understood as an essential dimension of the existence that we recognize as ours; to one part, the quest for truth is the perpetual task if disengaging it from error, of refining its expression in contest with the inexhaustible ingenuity of error. Philosophy, as a consequence, is not a solitary but a social enterprise….

Aquinas, following Aristotle, considers it the task of the philosopher to consider the highest causes of all being…. There is talk about a first mover of the universe – who must be assumed to be an intellect – from whom emanates somehow an order of being that is at the same time an order of truth. Why should we be concerned with a prime mover and his properties? – you will ask. And does the matter really improve when Aquinas identifies the prime mover as a demonstration of the existence of God? At the risk of arousing the indignation of convinced Aristotelians and Thomists I must say that I consider such questions quite pertinent. The questions must be raised, for we do no longer live, as did Aristotle and Aquinas, at the center of a cosmos…. We can no longer express the truth of existence in the language of men who believed in such a cosmos, moved with all its content by a prime mover, with a chain of aitia, of causes, extending from existent to existent down to the most lowly ones. The symbolism of the closed cosmos, which informs the fundamental concepts of classic and scholastic metaphysics, has been superseded by the universe of modern physics and astronomy.

Nevertheless, if we admit all this, does it follow that Aristotelian and Thomist metaphysics must be thrown on the scrap heap of symbolisms that once had their moment of truth but now have become useless?

You will have anticipated that the answer will be negative. To be sure, a large part of the symbolism has become obsolete, but there is a solid core of truth in it that can be, and must be, salvaged by means of some surgery….

[I]f we remove…everything that smacks of cosmological symbolism, there remains as a piece de resistance the argument that a universe which contains intelligent beings cannot originate with a prima causa [first cause, prime mover] that is less than intelligent]….

The second operation must extend to the prime mover itself. We must distinguish between the symbolic construction and the reality to which it refers; and we must be aware of the curious relations between the firmness of conviction that such a reality exists and the credibility of the construct. If the motivating experiences are known to the reader and shared by him, the construct will appear satisfactory and credible; if the experiences are not shared…the construct will become incredible…. Aristotle could indulge in his construction with assurance because the experiences which motivate the symbolism were taken for granted by everybody without close scrutiny; and Aquinas, in addition to living in the same uncritical safety of experience, could as a Christian theologian blend the truth of the prime mover into the truth of revelation. Today the validity of the symbol, and with its validity the reality to which it refers, is in doubt, because the experiences which motivated its creation for their adequate expression have slipped from the public consciousness….

The immediate experiences presupposed in Aristotelian metaphysics are not difficult to find in the classic sources…. [W]e find ourselves referred back to nothing more formidable than the experiences of finiteness and creatureliness in our existence, of being creatures of a day as the poets call man, of being born and bound to die, of dissatisfaction with a state experienced as imperfect, of apprehension of a perfection that is not of this world but is the privilege of the gods, of possible fulfillment in a state beyond this world…. [W]e can see philosophy emerging from the immediate experiences as an attempt to illuminate existence….

Human existence, it appears, is not opaque to itself, but illuminated by intellect (Aquinas) or nous (Aristotle). This intellect is as much part of human existence as it is the instrument of its interpretation. In the exegesis of existence intellect discovers itself in the structure of existence; ontologically speaking, human existence has noetic structure. The intellect discovers itself, furthermore, as a force transcending its own existence; by virtue of the intellect, existence not only is not opaque, but actually reaches out beyond itself in various directions in search of knowledge. Aristotle opens his Metaphysics with the sentence: “All men by nature desire to know.”…

With regard to things, the desire to know raises the questions of their origin, both with regard to their existence…and their essence [nature]. In both respects, Aristotle’s etiological demonstration arrives ultimately at the eternal, immaterial prima causa as the origin of existing things. If we now shift the accent back from the construct of doubtful validity to the experiences that motivated its construction, and search for a modern terminology of greater adequacy, we find it offering itself in the two great metaphysical questions formulated by Leibnitz in his Principes de la nature et de la grace, in the questions: (1) Why is there something, why not nothing? and (2) Why is something as it is, and not different? These two questions are, in my opinion, the core of true experience which motivates metaphysical constructions of the Aristotelian and Thomist type. However, since obviously no answer to these questions will be capable of verification or falsification, the philosopher will be less interested in this or that symbolism pretending to furnish the “true” answer than in the questions themselves. For the questions arise authentically when reason is applied to the experiential confrontation of man with existent things in this world; and it is the questions that the philosopher must keep alive in order to guard the truth of his own existence and well as that of his fellowmen against the construction of a Second Reality which disregards this fundamental structure of existence and pretends that the questions are illegitimate or illusionary….

Man discovers his existence as illuminated from with by Intellect or Nous. Intellect is the instrument of self-interpretation as much as it is part of the structure interpreted. It furthermore turned out that Intellect can transcend existence in various directions in search of knowledge…. By virtue of the noetic structure of his existence…man discovers himself as being not a world unto himself, but an existent among others; he experiences a field of existents of which he is a part. Moreover, in discovering himself in his limitation as part in a field of existents, he discovers himself as not being the maker of this field of existents or any part of it. Experience acquires its poignant meaning through the experience of not being self-generated but having its origin outside itself. Through illumination and transcendence, understood as properties of the Intellect…human existence thus finds itself in the situation from which the questions concerning origin and end of existence will arise….

But where is the origin and end of existence to be found? As a preliminary to the answer we must interpret the phenomenon of questioning itself; and for this purpose we must add to illumination and transcendence two further properties of the Intellect,…ideation and reasoning. Through illumination and transcendence existence has come into view as an existent thing in a field of existent things. Through the ideational property of the Intellect it is possible to generalize the discovered characteristics of existence into a nature of existence, to create an idea of existence, and to arrive at a proposition that origin and end of existence are to be found in one existent thing no more than in another. To be not the origin and end of itself is generically the nature of existent things. With this proposition we have reached the experiential basis for extensive demonstrations of both Aristotle and Aquinas that the infinite regress in search of an origin can have no valid result; the postulate of the peras, of the limit, is the symbolism by which both thinkers acknowledge the truth that origin and end of existence is not to be found by ranging indefinitely over the field of existent things. But if it is not to be found in the field of existent things, where is it to be found? To this question, Intellect, by virtue of its reasoning power, will answer that it is to be found in something beyond the field of existent things, in something to which the predicate of existence is applied by courtesy of analogy.…

To what purpose should an understanding of existence be expanded into the symbolic forms of metaphysics of the Aristotelian or Thomist type? What purpose could be served by the prime mover, converted by Aquinas into proofs for the existence of God, especially since they prove nothing that is not known before the proof is undertaken? I have tried to show that the knowledge of the something that “exists” beyond existence is inherent to the noetic structure of existence. And this result is confirmed by Aristotelian and Thomist demonstrations in which the postulate of the peras, whenever it is formulated, is richly studded with the suspicious adverbial expressions of evidently, obviously, clearly, which indicate that the premise of the argument is not derived from any demonstration, but that the prime mover which emerges from the demonstration has in fact been smuggled in with the unproven premise…. [T]here seems to suggest itself the possiblity that demonstrations of this type are a myth of the Logos offered by the Intellect as a gift of veneration to the constitution of being….

I have…used the expression truth of existence. We can now define it as the awareness of the fundamental structure of existence together with the willingness to accept it as the conditio humana [human condition]. Correspondingly we shall define untruth of existence as a revolt against the conditio humana and the attempt to overlay its reality by the construction of a Second Reality….

We have traced the problem of truth in reality as it appears in the strange-sounding formulations of Aquinas and Aristotle to its origin in the noetic structure of existence. We shall now resume the problem of debate as it presented itself to Aquinas.

The Summa contra Gentiles defends the truth of faith against the pagans. But how can one do that, if the prospective partner to the debate will not accept the argument from Scripture?… It is difficult to argue the truth of faith against the Gentiles, [Aquinas] admits, because they do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture by whiich they may be convinced of their error. And then he continues: “Thus, against the Jews we were able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Mohammedans and pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent.”…

The passage formulates succinctly the problem of debate in the thirteenth century and, together with it, by implication the profound difference which characterizes the situation of debate in our own time. For every debate concerning the truth of specific propositions presupposes a background of unquestioned topoi held in common by the partners to debate…. In a debate with the Jews the unquestioned topoi are furnished by the Old Testament; in a debate with heretics, by the New Testament. But where do we find them in a debate with the Gentiles? It seems to me no accident when in the answer to this question Aquinas shifts from the earlier language of Intellect to the language of Reason, without further explaining the shift…. If Aquinas believes that he can rely on the power of Reason to force the assent of the Gentiles, he tacitly assumes that the reasoning of the Gentiles will operate within the same noetic structure of existence as his own – a quite justified assumption in view of the fact that the Mohammedan thinkers were the very transmitters of Aristotle to the Westerners. For obviously – that is, obviously to us – the logical operations of Intellect qua Reason will arrive at widely different results, if Reason has cut loose from the condicio humana. The unquestioned topoi which Thomas has in common with the Gentiles of his time, to whom he addresses his argument, so unquestioned that he does not even formulate them but can just take them for granted, are the topoi of existence. He can justly assume that his opponents are just as much interested as he is in the why and how of existence, in the questions of the nature of man, of divine nature, of the orientation of man towards his end, of just order in the actions of man and society, and so forth.

These however are precisely the assumptions that we can no longer make in the situation of debate in our time. Going over again the list of Aquinas, we must say that we cannot argue by the Old Testament, nor by the New Testament, nor by Reason. Not even by Reason, because rational argument presupposes the community of true existence; we are forced one step further down to cope with the opponent (even the word debate is difficult to apply) on the level of existential truth. The speculations of classic and scholastic metaphysics are edifices of reason erected on the experiential basis of existence in truth; they are useless in a meeting with edifices of reason erected on a different experiential basis. Nevertheless, we cannot withdraw into these edifices and let the world go by, for in that case we would be remiss in our duty of “debate.” The “debate” has, therefore, to assume the forms of (1) a careful analysis of the noetic structure of existence and (2) an analysis of Second Realities with regard to both their constructs and the motivating structure of existence in untruth. “Debate” in this form is hardly a matter of reasoning (though it remains one of the Intellect), but rather of the analysis of existence preceding rational constructions; it is medical in character in that it has to diagnose the syndromes of untrue existence and by their noetic structure to initiate, if possible, a healing process.

It doesn't take much too realize that your response to bb is insufficient for a people.

I don't claim to be a messiah, to have answers suitable for all societies and cultures. Not even for this one. We all find the answers that work for us personally. People who tell you that they have such answers are usually selling something.

And yet here you are to play with questions saying certainty matters and then it doesn't bother you.

Some things can be established with reasonable certainty. Some things can't. The fact that uncertainty exists in some places doesn't bother me. Why should it?

Moreover, your "too deus ex machina for me" is not the view of the common man.

Yes. But that doesn't bother me either. Suppose it were the view of "the common man"? Would that cause you to change your mind about it?

I can't be anything other than what I am - can you?

Rather it is a sophisticated divertissement and conjuration of the ghosts of Freud and Feuerbach.

LOL. Would it help if I explicitly rejected Feuerbach too? And Freud, Hegel, Engels, Adorno, Horkheimer, Etzioni, Sartre...shall I go on? ;)

I grab bits and pieces here and there. It does not follow that I am in some opposing "camp" from the fact that I do not accept Voegelin in his entirety. Nor does it follow that I am a "something"-ist because I find a thing of worth in that something. If I say that Marx was right about 19'th century capitalism being rather brutal, does that make me a Marxist?

We already recognize your penchant for Descartes.

"We"? I cannot help but get the impression that "we" is busily trying to classify me, so that "we" might put me in a nice little box with a neat little label on the front.

So be it. If "we" is more comfortable having me fit into some sort of taxonomic order, then my suggestion that I don't fit comfortably into any category is unlikely to stop "we" from trying ;)

You forgot Durkheim. : o

I trust you can forgive the classification. It was only meant to see your tipping of the hat to the common man for what it was.

And that is why I read your last significant post to bb not without some grief. It doesn't take much too realize that your response to bb is insufficient for a people. And yet here you are to play with questions saying certainty matters and then it doesn't bother you. Moreover, your "too deus ex machina for me" is not the view of the common man. Rather it is a sophisticated divertissement and conjuration of the ghosts of Freud and Feuerbach.

Behind the courtesy to the common man we all recognize the common man's assent to revelation. And apart from the infatuation of the common man (this, too, has a long-standing tradition) their naive perception is one in a milieu created by larger figures. And this is exampled by you, as one who is able to carry on this conversation with their very thoughts.

If one begins with simple axioms and builds a conceptual structure that demonstrably corresponds with significant and complex aspects of reality, I would say that that is sufficient proof that truth exists and that we have some means to apprehend it. All of science presumes the Universe is orderly and proceeds to discern it. The effort has been hugely successful.

The origin of that order is, however, not touched by Science's means. One may assume the obvious, as has the vast bulk of humanity, that there is an omnipotent intelligence behind (within?) the Universe.

There is, as well, a non-rational or emotional element to the discernment of truth, much ignored by the scientists, and that is monumentally significant flashes of insight, in which incredibly complex mathematical structures come fully formed to mind, to be later laboriously deconstructed and made accessible. They "intrude" with incredible force upon the lives of the individuals experiencing them. Both Poincare and Nash are examples (now reading A Beautiful Mind).

To assume life is pointless because we cannot conceive of some or many of the deeper aspects of reality sells both God and Man short. Our limitations do not define God but we are not without some siginificant capacity.

My 2 cents ...

Perhaps you should look in the mirror to find the sanctimonious smart ass on this thread.

Perhaps I should, tpaine. Since you recommend the exercise as potentially profitable to me.

I get the feeling from you sometimes, tpaine, that you really would like to understand what Voegelin is saying, and it's frustrating to you that you do not. FWIW, I don't believe this has anything to do with lack of intelligence on your part. I think it has to do with the main point of this essay -- that when we do not share a common universe of discourse, based on a common experiential basis, it is difficult (at best), and may be impossible, for people to understand each other.

One could say, "well, that's just the way it is. Get over it." I could easily get over it, except for the fact that IMHO there is a widening cultural divide, in our nation and in the world, between factions that we could designate as those who are on the side of life and basic human dignity, and those who are on the side of "progress" and human utility. WRT the latter, it's as if man were trying to escape from the human condition itself. The former camp (which includes the great philosophers of open existence, classical and modern) is trying to convey to the latter that such a thing is impossible.

In short, the former camp is vitally concerned with issues relating to the "sphere of the person"; the latter camp often appears to regard the "sphere of the person" as a fiction, quite often an "inconvenient" one. Thus, the need to "re-educate" the human individual to the requirements of the new order that the truly "progressive" thinker wishes to see come about. Which seems to involve the acceptance of nihilism as the "reasonable" doctrine to live by.

Obviously, the two sides do not share a common universe of discourse. They are thus virtually incapable of communication, let alone debate.

I was thinking last night that I really should try to write a short outline of what Voegelin is saying in this essay, since you stated you'd like to have a brief, succinct summary. But I imagine if you truly believe I am a "sanctimonious smart ass," then my effort (it would need to be considerable to pull off such a thing) would probably be doomed from the outset as yet another "exercise in futility."

Peace.

You forgot Durkheim.

Him too. ;)

We do. And I do recognize it as being true that this is the general trend of human belief. However, that fact, in and of itself, carries no weight for me - I can no more subject my beliefs to a popular vote than you can. One may certainly derive some comfort from knowing that the conclusions one has reached have also been reached by many others. I cannot fault anyone for feeling that way, and I would hardly deny the importance of that belief to those who hold it. And I readily admit to occasional discomfort at the thought that I appear to be traveling in a different direction from most.

But then I look again at the proffered alternatives, and I realize that none of them is particularly satisfying to me. Choosing another path allows me, for example, to neatly sidestep the sorts of paradoxes that are usually chalked up to "God's mysterious will". It comes with a price of its own, of course, but then again, we all have our crosses to bear ;)

And this is exampled by you, as one who is able to carry on this conversation with their very thoughts.

The fact that I can do as I do is necessarily predicated on others doing as they have done. In a sense, I am a product of everyone that has come before me, and so I owe a certain debt to them - if nothing else, a modicum of respect, at least. I may have no use for religion, but that does not mean that I am prepared to reduce God to a mere object of faith, a simple extension of man, as Feuerbach did. Some days, I think to myself that the fact that we live in a universe that is apparently accessible to reason, and the fact that we are (occasionally) capable of reason, are together more than mere coincidence. But then, other days, I realize that the fishes probably don't see things that way, so maybe it's an accident after all.

Reason does a wonderful job of telling us how things are, but it cannot tell us, so far as I can see, why things are the way they are. Only faith can provide some sort of answer to those questions, so I find faith where I can. The resulting mish-mash is probably silly to some, alarming to others, and incoherent to still others. They may all be correct, in some sense. Then again, I don't feel compelled to evangelize - it works for me, and that's enough ;)

Which leads one to ask, is there really only one God-truth after all? If so, how do we know which one it is?

One universe = One God. Therefore, one "God-truth." For millennia, human beings have tried to articulate it. As I said, this is a "work in progress," an open question. To refuse to engage it is to destroy one's own humanity. JMHO FWIW.

The asymptotic quality of human consciousness is a condition of human existence; that is, to physically incarnated human being. The spiritual dimension of a man, however, extends beyond the asymptote. For man is more than physically incarnated being.

This has been the great insight of mankind down the ages, West and East.

This also happens to be the "inconvenient fact" that totalizing nihilists driven by the will to power would most like us to forget. It makes for easier prey....

I have re-read your post twice now, and I cannot find anything of substance to disagree with. Which may seem strange ;)

One may assume the obvious, as has the vast bulk of humanity, that there is an omnipotent intelligence behind (within?) the Universe.

I tend to think "behind" rather than "within". But I could be wrong.

I don't know of any good biographies off the top of my head, but if that sort of thing interests you - and I find it interesting as well - then you should look into the life and work of Srinivasa Ramanujan. Hildegard of Bingen I can explain satisfactorily. Ramanujan presents rather more difficulty, although the fact that he was surprisingly wrong about some things makes it a bit easier. ;)

You said:
" Of course, you do not believe in God. And so this entire conversation is not merely superfluous, but utterly devoid of meaning to you...."
Perhaps you should look in the mirror to find the sanctimonious smart ass on this thread.

Perhaps I should, tpaine. Since you recommend the exercise as potentially profitable to me. I get the feeling from you sometimes, tpaine, that you really would like to understand what Voegelin is saying, and it's frustrating to you that you do not.

Nope, V. doesn't frustate me at all, as I believe he's an intellectual fraud.

FWIW, I don't believe this has anything to do with lack of intelligence on your part.

Big of you betty. -- I bet you can't see that man behind the curtain either.

I think it has to do with the main point of this essay -- that when we do not share a common universe of discourse, based on a common experiential basis, it is difficult (at best), and may be impossible, for people to understand each other.

As I said before, if that simplistic truism is the 'main point' here, it proves my point that V. is a hack.

And one of the points I've made previously in our ongoing discussions of philosophy is that your views help in creating these factions.

WRT the latter, it's as if man were trying to escape from the human condition itself. The former camp (which includes the great philosophers of open existence, classical and modern) is trying to convey to the latter that such a thing is impossible.

Ahhh yesss... I see. - You are on the side of truth, justice, the american way, -- and therefore your opponents are not. - Correct?

Meaningless, generalizations betty.

Obviously, the two sides do not share a common universe of discourse. They are thus virtually incapable of communication, let alone debate.

Your, & V's insistence that there must be two sides to reality, IS the debate on this thread, and imo, an intellectualy phony issue.

Whatever.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.