Ancient modernism is predicated on two assertions: That there is an external world which can be known directly, and that there is a spiritual reality which can be known only by the mediation of divine revelation. The first assertion is in turn based on two premises: That we, by experience, are able to apprehend and comprehend the physical realities to which we all are subject; and, that divine revelation tells us God created matter intentionally and placed man within it, to interact with and to exert influence over.
Some will protest that this is circular reasoning. How can the first assertion include an essential element of the second assertion without begging the question? The fact is, every philosophical position that is logically and practically cohesive is similarly interrelated. If the two foundational assertions were wholly independent, how could the structure stand? It would collapse like a building built on two foundations and insufficiently joined.
It is actually the second assertion that is primary. Left by himself, man can only produce absurd stories as to his origins, his telos, and his nature. Dropped as if by chance into the cosmos (as he perceives it), man is able only to postulate answers to his deepest questions based on chance, going so far in some cases as to declare the universe and everything in it without meaning, as though human civilization and the world of external realities exist simply because they exist, and that everything we suppose has inherent meaning is no more than a construct.
The only rational proposition is that something outside man produced him, along with everything else that exists. Did this origin point in turn have an origin? To suppose so is irrational: an infinite regression of origin points is as meaningless as a single cosmic chance. A number of mediatory points between the "original originator" and the world as we know it is similarly absurd, mainly because it's an unneccessary postulation, and secondarily because a force powerful enough to originate the cosmos wouldn't need intermediaries to accomplish the work.
Is this overly simplistic? Only if one's presuppositions have led one to the conclusion that there is no all-powerful God who controls all things in infinite wisdom and power. Complexity of the philosophical kind is only really requisite once the obvious and simple solutions have been relegated to the realm of impossibility. But in that case, any potential for philosophical freedom or exploration is also abolished: to limit possible explanations to the synthetic and complex is to abandon the philosophical project before it's even begun by setting for it arbitrary and inviolable boundaries.
Ironically, these are exactly the parameters set by those most vocal about the necessity of free thought, those whose idea of intellectual integrity is defined by the ability to think entirely outside structures, even as they limit themselves to the most tyrannical of philosophical frameworks. Ancient modern thinkers, on the other hand, allow for true intellectual liberty by asserting the knowableness of the cosmos and its God, by asserting the finitude of man's ability to comprehend, and by asserting the latitude within those two parameters for developing unique and creative ideas.
The pillar of ancient modern epistemology, then, is the understanding that man is not the originator of knowledge or truth but its discoverer by the grace of God. If we believe this, we necessarily believe that the world of external realities is knowable, that it is created by God, and that God Himself has spoken to us indirectly through this creation and directly through His Word.
Without such a foundation, the pursuit of knowledge or wisdom is fruitless, without ultimate meaning (or at least, without discernible ultimate meaning) and therefore mere nihilism. Ancient modernism rejects both this nihilism and its underlying materialism for a world of material and spiritual truth predicated on the creative purposes of the God of the Universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment