Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tag: Theory of eternal truths

Levels of Human Action – Stages and Interplays of Human Reality

Photo: Chesswarehouse.com

Humans purposefully act every day and all the time. They act differently, however, every single time, as they are all immersed in a changing environment.[1] As such, all actions are different, at least, according to time, where ‘time’ here is intended as conventional and landscape-time (meaning, the natural flow of events).[2] Instead, from a human perspective, it is the action taken that determines the perception of time flow and the related awareness and meaning of time change.[3] This is a flat way to understand different types of actions, however, because the order in which actions are executed does not tell anything about their different nature, that is, the type of causal events they are immersed and part of in relation to some desired effect to be determined.

As Ludwig von Mises argued, human action is based on the premise of change: “Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into agency, is aiming at ends and goals (…) [human action] is a person’s conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life.”[4] Although all actions are taken according to specific dispositional belief, that is, according to a given intention formulable in a sentence in which the factual components indicate the desired state of affairs to be reached,[5] they can be classified according to what piece of reality they are intended to bring change.

Preconditions and Premises for Understandability of Human Actions

The best way to understand the different typologies of actions is to divide them into causal/effect categories. Any purposeful human action is rationally calculated in function of given desired effects intended to be reachable through a given intention to be fully translated into the realm of extension.[6] For understanding how humans act, it is necessary to assume that they know how they can make a meaningful difference in the world of the extension.[7] In other words, they assume that they can translate their intentions into proper action, where the action is causally determined by a correspondent state of the mind, whose factual determination is also the definition of the goal to be achieved through the action itself.[8] It is assumed that any mental state is part of a chain of causes whose result is action and its associated state of mind.[9]

A Rationalistic Conception of Mysticism

https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1593351

(1) We were not supposed to be born like beasts.

Particularization on (1)

(2) I was not supposed to be born like a beast.

Dante + Logic + Me


Introduction – Rational Mysticism and Theory of Eternal Truth

Since I formulated the first conception of the theory of the free creation of eternal truths,[1] I immediately realized that I was opening the door to a peculiar form of mysticism. This was not an appreciated opening, to be fair. Any rationalist is, by very nature, against any principle that gives up the capacity of reason to formulate its principles and derive its theorems. However, the theory appeared to be compatible with a specific version of mysticism when it comes to how the truths are, in fact, generated.

Already the name of the theory seems to be against the tastes of analytic philosophy. Moreover, it has a specific universal afflatus, which is usually lost in the current philosophical production. To be more precise, it is left to the continental philosophers, who are well known to be as general as vague. Digging into a topic such as mysticism will bury the theory under all the tastes of current analytic philosophers, among which I still place myself – though I am open to any form of deep thinking. The eternal truth theory wants to be what philosophy used to be: a universal view of the world from nowhere, a vision, an inspiration, but also a consistent conception of the world. This is not welcomed anymore, and I, myself, see why. Philosophy exhausted these kinds of approaches between Greek and modern philosophy when the archetypical visions of the world were formulated. From that moment on, after Nietzsche, let’s say what can be done is to refine the portion of those visions better and better. It is a process of continuous refinement and improvement, not of invention, so to speak.