One is a action, the other is a thing. You can label it process or search, but either way, the search for something cannot be the thing itself.
So it's not circular reasoning, it's not reasoning at all.
So it's not circular reasoning, it's not reasoning at all.
Then think of it like joy. If joy is your goal you won't find it. If you lose yourself then you have found it : )
Of course not, metmom. On the other hand, it is the "thing itself" — universal truth, or more precisely the idea of universal truth — that motivates and "draws" the "action," i.e., the quest of/by a lover of Truth.
Or so it seems to me. It really is difficult to speak of such things. Plato, however, was superb on such issues. He characterized the "drawing action," the helkein, as divine action, as "divine 'pull'," to which human nous (i.e., mind, consciousness) can respond. That's when the zetesis, i.e., quest, can begin.
Natural Law embodies such ideas. It posits relations between two fundamental domains, the natural world and our formal models of it. Or as Robert Rosen put it, there is a modeling relationship between "causal entailment in a natural system and syntactic entailment in a formal one"; e.g., a scientific theory or model. Or to put it yet another way, Natural law asserts there is a fundamental relation between the "ambiance" (i.e., the natural world) and the cognitive self:
Natural Law makes two separate assertions about the self and its ambience:The ambience is ever changing; plus our observational position is finite. Thus "complete" knowledge of the ambiance can never be attained. Thus the poignancy of the quest....
1. The succession of events or phenomena that we perceive in the ambience is not entirely arbitrary or whimsical; there are relations (e.g., causal relations) manifest in the world of phenomena.Science depends in equal parts on these two separate prongs of Natural Law. The first, which says something about the ambience, asserts that it is in some sense orderly enough to manifest relations or laws. Clearly, if this is not so, there can be no science, also no natural language, and most likely, no sanity either. So it is, for most of us at any rate, not too great an exercise of faith to believe this.2. The relations between phenomena that we have just posited are, at least in part, capable of being perceived and grasped by the human mind, i.e., by the cognitive self.
The scientist's quest is to bring the two domains of Natural Law into correspondence. A philosopher might say he is seeking a vision of the Logos, a Christian, an epiphany of God. At bottom, all three are motivated to search for the Truth of reality according to their best lights.
To me, the "best lights" criterion is simply honest response to the divine pull.... FWIW