Individualism vs. Personality

The Soul of the East

In a West that declines as surely as the course of the sun, opponents of the incipient World State often define the modern situation as a dialectical struggle between collectivism on one side and individualism on the other. Usually “collectivism” is meant to define any manifestation of state power, be it fascism, communism, the liberal managerial state, or globalist technocracy, though many would expand the classification to include traditional religious institutions and even the family.

What is less clearly defined is “individualism”, a slippery term that means different things to different people. Popular opinion holds that “individualism” is the ability to choose and follow one’s desires for self-expression, be it spending one’s money how one prefers or something more trivial such as dying one’s hair blue.

When viewed from the perspective of a dialectical clash with collectivism, especially the state, the notion of individuality does take on a weightier…

View original post 671 more words


Careers and passions

I’ve noticed in social media and blogging that a lot of people that I come across who are theologically inclined tend to be engineers of some kind.

Myself, I work in accounting, but I graduated with a degree in philosophy and some undertakings in english and theology.

What about you?

Does Friendship with Christ equate to determining doctrine?

I Must Follow if I Can

In discussions on the Biblical and historic case for Roman Catholicism, friends and family almost always rest their position on their personal relationship with Jesus. It is defended so enthusiastically that I seriously wonder whether the next generation will not profess sola scriptura but rather sola my personal relationship with Jesus because He will lead me into all truth. Will the next generation even want the Bible?

This dynamic has made me wonder about what a personal relationship with Jesus should mean? Does having a personal relationship with Jesus automatically equate to knowing true doctrine?

Enter Robert Hugh Benson.

In his book The Friendship of Christ, he wrote about the danger and responsibility of attaining an intimacy with Christ. In chapter IV he wrote this.


RobertHughBensonOf course, since every advance in spiritual life has its corresponding dangers — since every step that we rise nearer to…

View original post 509 more words

Convergence on truths

It is interesting how those from the city of Athens come close, or even exceed, the writings of those in the city of Jerusalem.

Every now and then I’ll come across some writing from an acknowledged non-believer that is the epitome of some point within my own faith. At times, they write far clearer than anyone else has that is a confessed believer.

The will of the believer is directed toward the person of the witness, toward the warrantor. …volition has also the property of “wanting,” affirming, loving what already exists. …love is conceived as the primal act of the will, as the fundamental principle of all volition and the immanent source of every manifestation of the will.

The Thomist, On Faith

What inclines even me to believe in Christ’s resurrection? I play as it were with the thought.–If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like every human being. He is dead & decomposed. In that case he is a teacher, like any other & can no longer help; & we are once more orphaned & alone. And have to make do with wisdom & speculation. It is as though we are in a hell, where we can only dream & are shut out from heaven, roofed in as it were. But if I am to be REALLY redeemed,– I need certainty–not wisdom, dreams, speculation–and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what my heart, my soul, needs, not my speculative intellect. For my soul, with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, must be redeemed, not my abstract mind. Perhaps one may say: Only love can believe the Resurrection. Or: it is love that believes the Resurrection

The Analytic, Lecture on Ethics, Culture and Value

What is interesting to note is that The Thomist does not make the connection that it is precisely love that believes. In fact, he makes note that “we cannot quite call ‘love,’ though it partakes somewhat of love’s nature.” Yet the Analytic seems to make a logical leap to this conclusion.

When one truly desires truth, they seem to converge, even if they come from different places.

De facto arguments for/against religion

Only crazy people believe in God.

Only idiots disbelieve in God.


Both opinions are equally worthless and they are uttered by those who care not for truth. As such, the Christian who says such does not care for God, Who is truth, and the non-believer does not exercise intellectual rigor.


*De facto is used here in a joking sense

** I do not make an account of other religions, but the attitude remains the same.

What is the meaning of life?

When we ask ourselves “what is the meaning of life/world?” It is similar to asking the question, “what is the meaning of such-and-such-word?”

We do not understand what the word means. It is a collection of letters and sounds that has no meaning for us; it is something meaningless. By asking, “what is the meaning of the word ‘apple’?” We are not looking at the word itself, but rather for what it signifies. The word itself is a signifier that points toward something signified. Without this connection, words and meanings are lost to us.

In such a way, words always point towards something else. They do not point to themselves. I may say ‘apple,’ and everyone understands what an apple is. But suppose a non-English speaker is given this word. What is he to do with it? Nothing, for he cannot make the connection between the signifier and the signified.

So as we ask ourselves, “what is the meaning of life/world?” If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered (The Analytic, Tractatus 6.5).

In the general sense of the question, as one may pose it during some crisis in their life, the question cannot be answered or it may be answered in various ways, which is not an answer at all, for the true question to be asked is, “what is the meaning of my life?”viz. “What are my goals and ends?”

However for the philosopher to ask the question specifically, “what is the meaning of life?” we must look at it in an analytical way as we would look at the question, “what is the meaning of the word ‘apple?'” As we find that words point away from themselves to something signified, for what is signified is their meaning, so too then do we find that by asking what is the meaning of life/world, we cannot find the answer within it but rather outside of it.

viz. We are treating the meaning of the life and the world as a symbol of something signified. But to what do they point to?