Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Another interesting development, from the point of view of this blog and you dear readers occurred over the Easter Holiday. Please read the above screen grab. And please note the operative term… or rather FrancisTerm is: “idol of truth”.

So today, your humble blogger would like to speak to you dear and loyal readers about  EPISTEMOLOGY and also bring ONTOLOGY onto your radar screens. The reason behind the below is that it might be a good idea to explain the Jungian concept of SYNCHRONICITY, since Jung is all the rage in the Catholic media and blogo-sphere these days.

Thanks to Dr. Jordan Peterson naturally, and here are just the latest two examples (see here for “Bad” Dr. P – not Catholic enough, and here for “Good” Dr. P – abortion is wrong ).

But before we can do SYNCHRONICITY, we need to set to table, so to speak. We won’t get there today, but stick with me and the pieces will start to fall into place.

So let’s get cracking…

As usual we begin with a few definitions. First, as my dear readers know, your humble blogger defines EPISTEMOLOGY as the study of the nature of TRUTH. Since this is a regular theme here, I will not go into further detail, but a good review of this subject matter can be found in one of our recent posts titled: Of Self-Evident Proofs…

Moving onto ONTOLOGY, the definition that will be used on this blog is: the study of the nature of REALITY.

Here is a partial definition from Wikipedia: (see here)

Ontology (introduced in 1606) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.[1] Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

Going down further in the definition, we learn the following:

In modern terms, the formal study of reality itself is in the domain of the physical sciences, while the study of personal “reality” is left to psychology.

Yet, as we can observe, the above definition is not complete. Therefore the Deus ex Machina blog will present a comprehensive definition of ONTOLOGY below:

The formal study of NATURAL REALITY is the domain of the physical sciences, the formal study of SUPERNATURAL (metaphysical) REALITY is the domain of theology and the study of our ability to understand the two collectively exhaustive sub-sets of OBJECTIVE REALITY is psychology. 

The reason for the above definition is that it will allow the readers of this blog to clearly differentiate the material that they are encountering and segregate that information flow into proper categories. By a clear understanding of how a given piece of information fits into the larger whole, one can better understand, and process the information while identifying the errors that could creep in along the way.

So let’s look at the screen grab at the top of the page and try to identify into which of the sub-sets this information fits.

First, what we know about the ONTOLOGY of Truth is that it exists in NATURE in and of itself. The definition that best describes what constitutes ONTOLOGICAL TRUTH, and one which never was official abrogated by the post-conciliar church comes by way of Aristotle, namely:

“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”

A better understanding of TRUTH was developed in what is known as the “Correspondence theory of TRUTH” which basically states that:

Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact—(…). But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified)

In other words, Truth is directly related to REALITY itself, i.e. expresses a RELATIONSHIP created by God himself.

Ontologically speaking, in Catholic doctrine (theology) and in the social sciences (psychology), TRUTH is expressed as that which the Greeks termed the LOGOS.

In other words, the pre-Christian Greeks were able to identify and define this PHENOMENON, which they termed the LOGOS, to be something which is “synchronized” (in the Jungian sense) with the Catholic term TRUTH.

In turn, the Catholic understanding of the LOGOS comes to us from the Holy Gospel according to John 1:1-5:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Holy Gospel according to John (1:14) goes on to teach the following:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So what we see in the above passage is the Greek concept of the LOGOS being identified in the personification of Our Lord, by the Christians.

And here is that relevant passage:

“Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” [John 14:6]

Quickly summarizing, what we see is a “synchronized” process whereby the Greeks and the Christians came to the understanding of the same ONTOLOGICAL PHENOMENON that existed in the NATURAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium.

So when we speak about the “TRUTH”, we are referring to the Greek Logos when we speak scientifically (psychologically) and to Our Lord Jesus Christ when we speak theologically.

It would then follow that that which is known as the “TRUTH” is something that exists in REALITY and is independent of any particular scientific method or even a metaphysical belief system.

Which then raises the question, can there be such a thing as an “idol of truth” in OBJECTIVE REALITY?

The answer is YES.

If one were speaking in a theological sense and would be referring to the ONTOLOGICAL REALITY underlying the term “idol of truth”, one would be referring to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

But yet in the screen grab above, the following can be read:

“… the idol the pope is pushing over and breaking is what he calls the “idol of truth”.

I will leave off for today with this apparent contradiction and the famous quote from Pontius Pilote, namely: (John 18:37,38)

Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice. [38] Pilate saith to him: What is truth?

It would appear that Francis has “progressed” the Catholic Faithful to Anno Domini 33 and not only is confused about what and Who is the TRUTH, but now has us all asking: “What is truth?”

EPILOGUE:

Your humble blogger is leading up to the analysis of the below video, but needs to define some framework issues before we get into it.

The video is DYNAMITE on so many levels, so please be patient and it will pay off…

PS Try to spot the other identifiable future “protestant convert” to Catholicism?