Good Reads

Shrew as Serpents, Guileless as Doves

"Abel-dominant types see themselves as high-minded idealists, mystics, artists, and see the Cain types as crass, materialist philistines, as clever manipulators and game players who care nothing for truth and beauty, but only for a thing's cash value. The Cain types, who see themselves as worldly wise and sophisticated, see the Abel types as life's losers, naive hippies, rigid ideologues, easily manipulable fools with their heads in the clouds. William James in The Will to Believe talks about the same split in personality types in his description  as "hard-headed" realists and "soft-hearted" idealist psychological types. And so, Steinbeck suggests, the ideal is to be both--hard-headed serpents and soft-hearted doves."  

"The task for Cain types is to integrate the recessive part of them that is dove-like, and for Abel types to integrate the recessive part of them that is serpent like. Steinbeck's narrative suggests that the degree of our success or failure as moral beings depends on the degree to which each of us effects this integration...The fundamental moral task is not to surrender to one or the other side, but the struggle to live in the tension between them, and in doing so to effect their marriage."

Interesting reflection on the duality that exists within our own personas. Much of this rang true for me, being by nature more of an "Abel" type myself. Definitely worth a read.

Reflection

Upon returning to his senses and going home, the prodigal son asks to be treated as one of his father’s hired hands, effectively saying that he is no longer worthy to be called a “son.” The Father tells him that this is nonsense. He wants his son restored to “sonship,” with all the concomitant freedom, responsibility and dignity that comes with that office.

Do we not, even in returning to God, still seek to shirk the responsibility and weight of truly being “sons” or (daughters)? We want to be close, but not too close. We want goodness, but not transformation. The Father will have none of it. Returning home means reclaiming our place as sons - nothing less.

Be aware of that strong temptation to settle for too little. It masks itself in a false humility. True humility does not say “I am low,” but rather “Your Will be done.”

The Capital Vice

A recurring division makes itself apparent throughout the gospels. Humanity seems to be divided into those who recognize their guilt, and those who do not. The humble vs. the proud. This contrasts the vision we tend to have where humanity is divided into the learned and the stupid, the haves and the have-nots, or the blessed and the cursed. Christ turns many of our ideas (or maybe our illusions) on their heads, and this is one case.

Philosophers and seekers of religious truth often come upon great insights in their pursuit of the nobler things in life. They become wise – and they know it. There is a clear division between the learned and the ignorant. There is a distinction between the Pharisee and the lowly layman. The men who rise to these heights know they are in a certain sense better than the average person. They have achieved a position that most people do not ever achieve. They are right to pursue those noble truths and to spend their energy seeking God, but they make a critical error that blinds them to the most important truth of all.

It is possible to become intoxicated on a sense of superiority. Not only possible, but tremendously easy. We spend our lives making comparisons, ranking, judging. When we start to make real progress toward our goals, it does not take long before we subconsciously move ourselves up in rank against other men and women. When we make progress in the most important areas of life – the pursuit of wisdom, truth, and God – we rank ourselves highest of all. We know ourselves to be wise. Wiser than most men whom we think are simply too lazy, stupid or weak to achieve what we have.

Pride - the primordial sin. Evil seeps into even the greatest of our pursuits. According to the legend, pride is what caused us to fall. Pride keeps us fallen. Men who know themselves to be wise are above council. Men who are certain that they are better than most are not readily inclined to hear criticism. Their sense of self worth becomes tied up in their apparent moral perfection. The irony is that this mindset itself is an immense moral failing.

The proud man views humanity as being divided into the learned/wise/righteous on the one hand, and the ignorant/stupid/base on the other. He is isolated from common men. Not only this, but he disdains them. To hell with the mob, he thinks. They have created their own little hells - let them rot in them. I am above such a wasteful life as that, he thinks. Surely I will be rewarded for my greatness when all is said and done, even if the masses do not recognize it.

Yet Christ shatters this mindset to a thousand pieces. The most righteous man to ever walk this Earth - the Divine Himself – over an over again shows incredible mercy to lowly sinners. He dines with them, offers them forgiveness, and lays down his life for them. And the people who recognize his divinity and greatness are typically the common men and women despite their sinful lives and apparent ignorance. It is often the simple fisherman, the lowly harlot, and the hated tax collector who recognize Christ’s goodness first, and not the magistrates, religious authorities, and other powerful men of his day.

Humility is the common thread we see running through the character of each individual who accepts Christ. Pride is the common vice that keeps even the highly educated and the very wise from seeing the Truth they seek. Through Christ we are taught that the true dividing line between wisdom and righteousness on the one hand, and evil and vice on the other is not simply a matter of learning and religious observance (though these are an important part of a fully developed moral life) but more importantly the division between pride and humility.

Humility allows a man to see himself as a brother to those who are not as fortunate as he is. It allows him to feel pity and love for those who have not yet learned as much as he has, or who have not yet achieved the moral strength he has. More importantly, is allows him to see his own faults. No man is perfect, and no one achieves perfection in this life. We are forbidden to condemn any man as being beyond saving, because we do not know his heart, and we are not privy to his inner life. The only struggles we truly know are our own. Yet, while we may each struggle in our own way, we are all seeking the same goal. Every man labors in the pursuit of fulfillment. Every man hopes to someday find real happiness. Humility allows us to see others as partners in this pursuit, and not opponents. Through Christ, humanity becomes more like an extended family. Human brotherhood only truly exists under Divine Fatherhood.

Good Reads: January 22/2016

Alexander Pruss on Perdition
Interesting reflection. Very much paralleling my own (admittedly a bit inchoate) thoughts on the issue.


Mike Flynn on:
The Rise of Science
Whether the Scientific Revolution was Uniquely Western
Modern misleading narratives be damned. Real history is often much more complex than most people realize. And sometimes the facts are outright contrary to the simplistic myths we've been taught. 
Bonus points because the posts are presented in true Scholastic fashion.


Ask the Aged
In the quest for answers about the purpose of life, Karl Pillemer asks: "Why not begin with an activity as old as the human race: asking the advice of the oldest people you know? Because older people have one thing that the rest of us do not: they have lived their lives." Good piece. Check it out.

Intentionality and Materialism

“Tree.”

A word we use to describe a certain set of living organisms with similar qualities. The word “tree” is not itself a tree, obviously – it is merely a bunch of lines organized in a specific way - but it means the concept of “tree” to us (literate users of English). Those lines have no inherent meaning in and of themselves, they only gain this meaning when imbued with it by language users. That particular set of lines, organized in that particular way, comes to “point beyond” itself and to represent a concept. Philosophers call this “pointing beyond” intentionality.

“Δ”

Triangle? Or Delta connected electrical system? A letter in the Greek alphabet? A symbol representing change? This symbol can have any one of those meanings. Once again the fact of the matter is that it has absolutely no meaning in and of itself. just like the word “tree,” or any other physical symbol for that matter, it is not until a language user gives the symbol meaning that it comes to possess meaning, and it only possesses meaning insofar as it is given it by a language user. If every single human being on earth were to die in an orgy of nuclear warfare, symbols like “tree”, “Δ”, “+”, “=”, etc., would be nothing more than meaningless marks or patterns. They would not point beyond themselves toward anything else, because there would be no one doing the “pointing.”

So what? Mildly interesting (maybe) but what difference does this esoteric reflection make? Let’s take it a little further in order to find out.

How is it that a piece of matter (the symbol “tree” on your screen, say) which has no physical connection at all to the reality it points toward (an actual tree) comes to somehow be connected to it? We agree to use that symbol to represent trees, you might say. We have minds, and it is our minds that connect the symbol with the reality, thereby creating meaning where there was none. While true, this only pushes the problem back a stage and relocates it in the mind instead of the physical objects themselves. If, as many modern types would argue, our minds are nothing more than our brains (and therefore nothing more than the electrochemically charged meat inhabiting our skull cavities), then our thoughts must also be part of our brains and therefore be comprised of physical symbols and patterns inhering in a purely material system. Our thoughts would be of a higher-yet “language” or system of symbols. Rather than the electrical patterns that cause the symbols on your computer screen, they would be electrochemical patterns firing in the neural network in your brain. The problem, however, is that these are still physical symbols regardless of where they are located. Whether the pulses and patterns are displayed on a computer monitor, pass through copper wire, or express themselves in a neural network, they are still alike in being material patterns inhering in a physical system. Being physical symbols, they are utterly devoid of meaning until given it by an agent with intentionality. If our minds are purely physical, then they are inherently meaningless – any meaning that we think we create or experience must either be an illusion or it must come from some immaterial source. Those are our two options to end the explanatory regress.

Let’s recap:

1. Physical symbols have no meaning inherent to them.
2. A mind is required to give meaning to otherwise meaningless symbols.
3. The mind is nothing more than a purely material system (the brain) and as a result our thoughts can be nothing more than physical patterns in that purely material system.
4. If our minds and thoughts are purely physical patterns, then they have no meaning in and of themselves.
5. A mind is required to give those physical patterns meaning.
6. Therefore the mind must somehow exist over and above the physical brain, or any purely material system for that matter.

We cannot give a purely material explanation for intentionality, since no material symbol can have a definite meaning in and of itself. We cannot locate meaning in the mind, and then propose that the mind can be explained on purely material terms, without eliminating meaning (and while we are at it, the mind as well. Intentionality is only one example of this problem. Our ability to perform determinate functions is another, and our ability to grasp universals yet another. All of these are crucial aspects of what we call “the mind.”)

As a result some philosophers argue that the mind must be something more than mere matter. I say something more, because the material part of us obviously plays a crucial role. Brain damaged persons display this. The point to emphasize, however, is simply that matter cannot explain the mind by itself. Whatever our understanding of the brain ends up being in the long run, it cannot be identical with the mind as the mind cannot be purely material.

Accepting that the mind is more than just matter is not the only option, as noted above. Some opt to argue instead that meaning is an illusion, and therefore poses no problem for a materialist worldview. Minds are nothing more than matter, they argue, and therefore it is intentionality and meaning that must give way to the truth of materialism. Intentionality (along with grasping universals and performing determinate functions) is eliminated, and therefore so is the mind. In the clash between two incompatibles – materialism and intentionality – it is intentionality that must be jettisoned, not materialism. This is, however (as far as I can tell) a self destructive and mad position. Intentionality is indispensable in any attempt to even formulate the eliminativist position. Eliminating the mind rather than attempting to explain it leaves us without the capacity to reason your way to and formulate your position in the first place.

Marc Barnes on Combating ISIS

Frankly, I’ve grown tired of the whole ISIS issue. Not that I think it unimportant, but rather the same set of answers are being thrown around - answers that deeply misunderstand the very nature of the Islamic faith, and religious belief in general. We cannot bomb ISIS into submission, at least not for long. You cannot just “nuke” the middle east. Becoming monsters in order to defeat monsters seems like a Pyrrhic victory at best. You can, of course, limit immigration from these countries as well as interaction with them, but even these are not long term solutions. In any case, the ideas being thrown around were largely one of two things: naïve, or burning with little more than raw hatred.

This morning, however, I came across a refreshing and inspiring post by Marc Barnes. You can find it here. He tackles the issue from a Roman Catholic perspective. It is an example of that combination of unapologetic honesty and hope that first attracted me to the Catholic intellectual life (though what has kept me interested despite my vacillating beliefs over the years has been the work of intellectuals like Edward Feser). Barnes points out what we often overlook – you cannot truly defeat a belief system through conventional warfare. You can defeat an army in this way, but not a theology. (Practicing) Catholics, Marc states, are in a unique place to enter into dialogue with Islamic extremists:

“The Catholic is in an odd position in relation to ISIS. Reading their magazine — a simultaneously horrendous and boring exercise — I find myself in moments of agreement. Their narrative of “strangeness” resonates with the Catholic living in the post-Christian West:  “Strangeness is a condition that the Muslim living in the West cannot escape as long as he remains amongst the crusaders. He is a stranger amongst Christians and liberals. He is a stranger amongst fornicators and sodomites. He is a stranger amongst drunkards and druggies. He is a stranger in his faith and deeds, as his sincerity and submission is towards Allah alone.”

Replace “Muslim” with “Catholic,” and “Allah” with “Christ” and you’ve the rough content of a sermon of a grumpy Jesuit preaching detachment from the world — the choice of Christ’s standard over and against the standard of the Devil. Of course, there is something less of an obsession with human purity, something more of mercy, but nevertheless, the committed Catholic can, like it or not, sympathize with the ISIS-member’s primary spiritual frustrations.

The Catholic, like the ISIS-member, holds The Divine Will as an absolute value, one worth sacrificing the worldly values of peace, security, pleasure, and life over. The Catholic, like the ISIS-member, cannot adhere to the basic tenets of liberalism. He lives as a stranger in the age, believing in a Truth that is not one option among many, a Truth that is not merely “tolerated” by the State, a Truth which orders all things – not simply his private, individual existence. The Catholic, furthermore, is increasingly aware of the incompatibility of Catholicism with a liberalism which (increasingly) limits what the Catholic is allowed to do (or not do) when the teachings of the Church conflict with the more primordial doctrines of “tolerance” and “individualism.”

Thus, where secular government has nothing to say, the Catholic has a lot to say. My disagreement with ISIS is not a mute head-bash between watery liberalism and medieval Islam — it is a disagreement over content. I do not disagree that the divine is an absolute value, I disagree with the nature of that divinity. I do not disagree that the Divine Will demands obedience, only that the content of the Divine Will is radically different. I do not disagree, even, that the Secular Age is bankrupt. I disagree on what to do about it.

The Catholic is in a position to meet, online and otherwise, a false vision of Jesus Christ (a warrior who will save Islam from the anti-Messiah, killing him in Jerusalem and leading the Muslim army to victory) with a true vision of Jesus Christ (the Son of God, whose kingdom is not of this world and whose victory lies not in dealing death, but in dying for the salvation of all). The Catholic, before the process of radicalization has taken hold, can introduce a concept of God who is Love, and not simply Law; Father, and not simply Dictator; a God who desires communion with his creatures in freedom – not in force and fear.”

Barnes writes exceedingly well for someone his age. This post is particularly insightful. Read the whole thing, even if you aren’t Catholic or don’t care for religion. It might help you to gain a better understanding of where the differences and similarities really lie between the two major faiths in our world. And if you are like me, it might just remind you to keep hope alive in this sometimes dark and desperate life.

Why Every Man Should Study Classical Culture

From the Art of Manliness:

Why Every Man Should Study Classical Culture

Excerpts:

“When the famous Great Books curriculum was created in the 1930s at the University of Chicago, its purpose was to acquaint students with the primary source texts that had played a fundamental role in shaping Western thought and culture. University president Robert M. Hutchins wanted Americans to be able to take part in what he called “the Great Conversation.” For him, this universal dialogue was made up of the deep discussions which form around the philosophical pursuit of Truth, which began with the ancient Greeks and continues today.

Topics of the Great Conversation concern the Big Ideas that philosophers, theologians, and artists have been mulling over for thousands of years. What is justice? What is true friendship? What is love? What is honor? How do you live a good life?

Like any discussion that you take part in, to actively participate in the Great Conversation, you need to have an idea of what’s already been said; you don’t want to be the guy who jumps in and blurts out things that make no sense. Lots of people today are willing to state their opinion on the Big Ideas in life without having taken the time to study the threads of discussion that have come before them. They think they’re contributing to the conversation, but they come off like anyone who jumps into a discussion without bothering to get filled in on what’s already been said — their thoughts are fragmentary, out-of-turn, needlessly repetitive, and lacking in context.

Getting “filled in” on the Great Conversation requires you to go back and read the ancient classics. For example, to understand any philosophers from the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th centuries, you first have to achieve an understanding of the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. No philosophy exists in a vacuum; rather, all philosophers have been having an extended conversation with each other for thousands of years, whether explicitly or implicitly. And the origin of this conversation traces back to ancient Athens. Once you’ve got this foundation down, from there you can see how successive philosophers have added, transformed, and rebutted what came out of that city-state. And then, at last, you can start making your own constructive contributions to the Great Conversation.”

*****

“Reading the classics can be hard. The texts often require you to gird up your intellectual loins if you really want to understand and comprehend them. But with that mental exertion comes a strengthening and disciplining of the mind that carries over to other aspects of your life.

One reason I read the classics is because they serve as my intellectual sharpening stone, keeping my mind keen and sharp.”


These are just two of the reasons given for taking up the study of classical thought. Check it out.

When Righteous Wrath Goes Bad

“They burned their own corn to set fire to the church; they smashed their own tools to smash it; any stick was good enough to beat it with, though it were the last stick of their own dismembered furniture. We do not admire, we hardly excuse, the fanatic who wrecks this world for love of the other. But what are we to say of the fanatic who wrecks this world out of hatred of the other?

And yet the thing hangs in the heavens unhurt. Its opponents only succeed in destroying all that they themselves justly hold dear. They do not destroy orthodoxy; they only destroy political and common sense.” 

- G.K. Chesterton, Chapter VIII of “Orthodoxy”

Chesterton is speaking here about the lengths some people will go to in order to attack the belief system of the traditional church, specifically Catholicism. There are individuals who begin by attacking the church (“orthodoxy”) for the sake of liberty or justice or some other ideal, but who eventually end up denying justice and liberty in order to attack the church. Their obsessive hatred leads them to sacrifice even their own ideals in order that they might destroy the object of their wrath.

I’ve noticed a parallel with this recently, but the object of wrath in this instance was not the Roman Catholic Church. Rather it was political conservatism.

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve seen posts and pictures defending the “right” of Muslim women in western nations to wear Burkas (veils). In each case these were put forward by individuals who, as far as I can tell, were fairly left-leaning politically. Now, one should find this surprising. People of leftist persuasion usually champion themselves as defenders of women’s rights, against the “conservative” and “old-fashioned” values of traditional western culture. Women should be fully independent of any sort of patriarchal system that would put limits on their personal/sexual/reproductive freedom, they argue.

Yet, in spite of this, they defend a cultural practice that is linked to the extreme denigration of women. There is perhaps no major religious/cultural force in the world that holds women in contempt more than that of Islam. How in the world can these people defend a woman’s “right” to be treated as a shameful object, a mere piece of property? I’ll tell you how. Because it’s a way to further oppose the political conservatism they hold in utter contempt. For the last couple of years Stephen Harper (cue the theme song for the Galactic Empire) and other conservative leaders and intellectuals have openly opposed some of the cultural practices of Islam. They have attempted to take steps to limit some of these practices. And of course, they’ve met opposition from individuals who, if anyone other than an evil conservative had put forward these motions, would back them fully in the name of women’s rights and freedoms.

It seems they are willing to sacrifice even their most cherished ideals, if only they might continue to oppose the greatest threat they see to humanity – political conservatism. At this point one begins to wonder, do they have any positive vision to offer the world? Is there no place that the two can meet and agree? Has the debate devolved into “whatever they stand for, I stand for the opposite?”…“Multiculturalism and women’s rights have clashed into one another and been found incompatible, now what do we do? We see what “side” the enemy takes, then oppose them because they are bad and wrong all the time. That’s what we do.” That’s the easy way to feel like a crusader for justice without having to do the hard work of figuring out just what justice really is.

Of course, I’m not ragging on all lefties. I am more right-leaning myself, but many individuals of the opposite political persuasion are genuinely nice, well-meaning people (though I still hold that they are mistaken about some of their views). The people I am intending to beat on, however, are the loudmouths with oppositional defiance disorder. That type of attitude destroys rational debate and leads to the dumbing down of public discourse.

I guess the lesson is that one should be careful not to fall into the same trap! The wise man must remind himself daily that he is never, ever above any particular fault – especially one in which he is emotionally invested (perhaps emotionally compromised is a better phrase). Don’t let your righteous anger become an unrighteous prejudice.

  

Good Reads: November 23rd

Mike Flynn on stem cells and (not so) mysterious media silence:

http://tofspot.blogspot.ca/2015/11/missing-inaction.html


Edward Feser on Papal Fallibility:
An often badly misunderstood topic. Feser provides an informative overview.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html

Malcolm Pollack on the Syrian Refugee Dilemma

http://malcolmpollack.com/2015/11/22/the-refugee-question-further-thoughts/

As always, the commentary on social media is of typical fashion. Either you are for immigration, peace, love, sharing, progressiveness and all that warm fuzzy stuff, OR you are labelled a cold-hearted, xenophobic, racist, ignorant hillbilly if you so much as question whether or not mass immigration from certain parts of the world is a good idea. Social media is garbage. Well, that's unfair I suppose. It's just a tool for individuals to share their thoughts. It's depressing to see the level of ignorance exhibited by a significant portion of the population, however. Anyway, I digress.

At this point I am undecided on the Syrian Refugee issue, but lean toward a more cautious approach and a limiting of immigration from that part of the world, largely for the reasons Pollack outlines in this post. My Christian commitments require a certain degree of charity, of course, but this charity must be guided by a consideration of the relevant goods involved - including those of the welfare of my home country and fellow countrymen, as well as the long term development of the culture in which I live. There never seem to be any easy answers!

I would like to think a better solution would involve bringing over orphaned children and finding them homes with Canadian and American families, or setting up some sort of relief program on foreign soil. But what do I know? Maybe those aren't workable solutions.

Universals and Realism: Plato’s Theory of Forms

While Plato’s Theory of Forms ultimately faces intractable problems, it raises interesting questions. Specifically, it is an excellent introduction to the idea of “universals.” What follows is a very condensed summary (skipping over certain bits and pieces) of the instructive outline Edward Feser presents in The Last Superstition.

Consider an object of our ordinary, everyday experience, like a triangle. Better yet, consider a set of triangles. Some are written on paper, some are displayed on a computer monitor, another one is written in the sand. Some are written in blue ink, some red, some are made up of black pixels, and the one written in the sand is just made up of the impressions left by someone’s finger. We call every one of these things “triangles”. Why? What do they have in common that warrants us classifying them all as the same, despite being different individual objects? In the case of triangles, it is the fact that they are closed-plane two-dimensional geometric figures made up of three straight lines. All of the aforementioned triangles, despite being different colours and sizes and being displayed on completely different mediums, have these essential features in common. Let us call that set of essential features “triangularity.” Each particular triangle instantiates (is an instance of, or represents) “triangularity.” That is what is common to each of those triangles, and it is why we label them all with the same name. Simple enough? Now this is where things get interesting.

Consider now how each particular triangle is going to have features that are not essential to triangularity. Being red or blue, big or small, written on paper or scrawled in sand - each of these is not a necessary part of triangularity. Each of these particular triangles will also be missing features that are an essential part of triangularity. The triangle drawn in the sand will likely have crooked lines and breaks in the figure. Even the triangles drawn on paper may have imperfectly closed corners or crooked lines. The triangle displayed on the monitor is likely to be the most perfect of all, but even it will not be comprised of truly straight lines, as closer inspection will always reveal imperfections (in this case due to the fact that the lines are actually comprised of pixels). Every physical triangle we ever encounter is going to have features that are not a part of triangularity, and is going to be missing features that are an essential part of triangularity.

What follows from this, according to Plato, is that whenever we grasp the essence or nature of triangularity, what we are grasping is not something material or physical. No particular physical triangle can actually be triangularity for the reasons outlined above. For example, let us consider a triangle drawn on paper with red ink. Is the colour red a necessary part of triangularity? Nope. Is being drawn on paper a necessary part of triangularity? Nope. Is the triangle going to be comprised of perfectly straight lines? Again, no. Any particular, physical triangle we consider cannot, in principle, actually be triangularity itself. Yet, if triangularity itself didn’t in some sense exist, then we would have no reason to consider all of those different objects as being similar in any way at all. “Triangularity” as an ideal must exist over and above any particular triangle in order for us to be able to relate and compare all of those objects to some common reality.

It follows, therefore, that triangularity not only must exist, but also that it cannot be material or physical. For if it were material or physical, then it would be a particular object in a particular place and time, and therefore could not have the universal applicability it does. Triangularity must be something immaterial. It is also what could be called a “universal”, as opposed to being particular. It is the “universal” that is instantiated by particular triangles, applying to each one of them universally but not being exactly the same as any particular one. Triangularity as we have just described it is what Plato would call a “Form.” Triangles are not the only things that instantiate forms. Trees, dogs, human beings, justice, virtue, etc., are all what they are insofar as they instantiate the form over and above the particular instance.

Plato’s Forms are not material. But their existence is not limited merely to the mental realm either. While we grasp them with our intellect, they have an existence that transcends our own. We don’t invent them - we discover them. The truths that flow from the essence of being a triangle (or a human being, dog, chemical compound, etc.) are what they are, and we cannot change them. We cannot one day decide that triangles will now have four sides while having all angles add up to 180 degrees. Logically impossible. We cannot decide that human beings will now have 56 chromosomes instead of 46. Even if we could create such a thing, it wouldn’t be the same species anymore, and therefore would be the instantiation of a different form. The forms existed before we did, and will exist after we’re gone.

So if these forms are not material, and if they are not merely mental, then what/where the hell are they? Plato situates them in a “third realm” of abstract objects. When we grasp the essence of anything – dogs, trees, justice, beauty, etc. – we are grasping something that is universal, extra-mental and immaterial. We are grasping the “form” of that thing. This third realm, being comprised entirely of immaterial objects, is essentially nowhere. Being somewhere implies spatial location, which implies a material presence (forms are immaterial) and being in a particular place at a particular time (forms are universal).

According to Plato, the forms, though beyond our mere senses (being grasped via the intellect), are more real than the material things which instantiate them. The form of the “good” has a unique and especially elevated place among the other forms. This is due to the fact that any particular instantiation of a form is going to be a better or worse one depending on how well it conforms to the ideal (Consider two triangles, for example. One drawn slowly and carefully, and one drawn quickly and sloppily. One will be a better triangle than the other.) The form of the good permeates everything in a certain sense. This is farther than we needed to go for my purposes, however. Enough said for now.

  

Plato’s theory faced objections (see the “Third Man Argument”), and was therefore refined and modified by subsequent thinkers. For philosophers like Aristotle, whose approach to the existence of universals is said to be much more “sober and down-to-earth,” there are no forms as Plato would understand them. Universals do not have an independent existence in a third realm. Rather they exist only in the things that instantiate them, and in the intellect that grasps them. Augustine held the view that the universals we grasp pre-exist in the mind of God. I suppose his view is somewhere between Aristotle’s and Plato’s; the forms do not have an independent existence of their own, but still exist outside of the things themselves and outside of our intellects – in the intellect of God. I am not all that familiar with the details of his view, however, so I won’t comment any further. Regardless, each one of them holds that the “forms” or “universals” we grasp with our intellect must have some sort of real existence. If they did not truly exist, then there would be nothing tying together the various objects of our experience. We would have no way to account for the fact that many different objects can in a certain sense be “one.” There would be no reason to call those objects “triangles”, “human beings”, etc., if there were not a universal that each particular object was instantiating.

I mentioned at the outset that the Theory of Forms is a good introduction to the idea of “universals.” Philosophers who believe that universals have a real existence (whether Platonic or otherwise) are called “Realists.” Those who deny the real existence of universals are called “Nominalists.” The line of reasoning involved here is foundational for many topics in philosophy. The intellectual activity of the mind – more specifically the use of propositions in logic and mathematics – is a phenomenon that many philosophers argue cannot be understood in terms of purely material operations. Mathematicians who take an interest in the philosophical underpinnings of their discipline often lean toward some version of Platonic Realism as well. Within the field of Ethics, an understanding of universals is one of the building blocks required for the Natural Law and Virtue Ethics theories of morality.

If you are going to study philosophy, even as nothing more than an amateur such as myself, you are best to start at the beginning! Understanding a conversation that has spanned millennia will be much easier if you start where at all started – with the Greeks. Only then will you get a grasp of what the philosophers of the middle ages were saying, and only then will the significance of the debates between moderns and the classical/scholastic philosophers be adequately appreciated.