On Hidden Spiritual Propositions

The modern-day philosophical landscape is confused. One of its largest issues is that of treating sentences as isolated bits of information.

This conversation leads into multiple paths, but for now I want to focus on hidden spiritual propositions couched in ordinary statements.

To further expand upon my first paragraph, I mean to say that people now think they can neatly split up philosophy into epistemology, metaphysics, and the like; each philosophical field is neatly compartmentalized and wholly separate from the other.

This is demonstrably nonsense. To make claims about epistemology necessarily entails claims about metaphysics. These metaphysical claims, though, are so deeply hidden that it is hard to discern them from a sentence alone. A concrete example is the phrase, “I know x”. This sentence seems concerned only with knowledge, but “I” is a metaphysical claim as it is stating there are a) people, b) people with the ability to know. Furthermore, “know” entails that knowledge exists, which is of course a metaphysical claim. Arguably, and this is something I believe: ethics are involved. Truthful knowledge clearly implies that others ought to know and you ought to follow the truth. I believe it to be a “final cause” of truth.

I digress. Entailment is an inbuilt feature, not a bug. Curiously, discourse regarding entailment tends to find its end at metaphysics, the so-called “first philosophy”.

If our metaphysics includes the existence of persons, then it follows that persons must be accounted for. This is where we enter into tricky territory. The first question is, “what are we?”. The answer to this question will inform all other answers when accounting for the world.

Christianity answers that we are Images of God. Our internal world is not composed of meaningless emotions and delusions, but instead we can be conduits to the spiritual world, communing with God. We possess reason and the ability to shape reality. We are of infinite inherent value. It is within where we find the Kingdom of God (Luke 17:20-21). So, the answer to the question of what we are is going to influence ones philosophy down the chain of beliefs. My core claim is this: to deny the unique spirituality of humanity is indeed a spiritual proposition, and it will fundamentally corrupt ones worldview.

To demonstrate my point, one can survey many avenues of utterances. Take a Marxist slogan about workers. One may ask, “what is a worker?”. A worker is a person occupied with work. Two interesting words are doing a lot of heavy lifting: “person”, and “work”. So, what is a person? The dialogue will continue to it’s natural metaphysical bottoming-out point, which is that persons are a collection of atoms made up of dust. Nothing special. We are simply just material. This can be dressed up in a number of ways, such as saying we are beautiful, or we are social creatures, or we provide utility; but the point remains: when pushed far enough, the answer will always be that we are still just material. “A pig with lipstick is still a pig”, the adage goes. So, then, what concerns a collection of atoms? Working with other atoms, Marxists suppose; “work” is creating textiles, heavy labour, and other earthy endeavours. Anything transcendent is off the table. See how the definition of person then dictates the definition of work? What good is the priestly, monastic, or spiritual life? The Marxist would say there is no inherent work being done there.

I want to pivot here from speaking about Marxism to Materialism, because the underlying problem has been discovered in Marxism through this sleuthing, which is Materialism. Let’s now zoom out further to demonstrate that this viewpoint isn’t isolated to Marxism, but rather makes up the substratum of society. Marxism is a flavour of Materialism, and so is scientism, naturalism, nihilism and “average personism”. Examining every school of belief’s slogan is possible but unrealistic, so instead I am mapping out the blueprint to figuring out how anyone can figure out the hidden spiritual proposition of a given worldview: ask what that worldview considers a person to be. Is the human dignity we so desperately yearn for recognized? Is spirituality neglected or embraced? Do spiritual affairs constitute work? Herein lies the key to figuring out a contaminated worldview.

All Materialist perspectives — from the dark abyss of nihilism to the future-predicting scientism — are tainted by their misunderstanding of humanity. Or, more strongly stated: their incorrect propositions about spirituality. The denial of spirituality is precisely why nihilism is the prevailing mood of the youth. There’s nothing stopping people from asking themselves, “what’s the point of it all?”, and “why care for the future if I don’t live on?”. What’s scarier is the lack of freedom in laterally choosing an answer to these questions because these questions require spiritual answers, and this domain is in toto fenced off because spirituality is denied. Wrong answers, then, mean wrong questions. The naturally depressing answer that most come away with is that we are economic units, easily replaceable and valued in light of our job title or salary. Material goods are valued above all else because that’s all we’ve got until we — as hairless apes shouting vibrations at each other on a floating rock — die.

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matt. 6:21)

The conclusions that modern thought draws are all going to be tainted by its denial of spirituality. Sometimes it will be obviously displayed at the surface of thought, and other times only upon close inspection. What is important to note is that in both cases, the deepest pockets of their inner “web of beliefs” are corrupted. Unequivocally and univocally, despite how different each camp superficially presents, all camps and flavours of Materialism are preoccupied with material goods as their end, despite how diametrically opposed the different camps can appear on the surface.

That’s why most options of thought afforded to us today are unfulfilling: they’re running on false spiritual propositions. Hence why the world feels so soulless and dead. We are told a false story: we’re just our money. Or our gender. Or our worldly position. Any attempt to fiddle around with spirituality is deemed appropriate only for the irrational and senseless.

This doesn’t work. We need to understand that every single claim about the world is going to entail claims about our spirituality. These are inescapable. To deny spirituality is as insane as denying eyesight while using it; human spirits are denying themselves dignity, feel depressed, and then say they have no spirit to feel with. The result is death; societal, physical, spiritual, emotional, and mental.

This is precisely why the answer to “what we are” is so important. Every philosophical, religious, economic and political belief is answering it, and their answers must account for the whole human condition. The move to deny spirituality is a move in the domain of spirituality. Escaping spirituality is impossible in a worldview that accounts for and deals with humanity. Handwaving, discrediting, and gaslighting are valid logical moves in the same sense as moving a pawn one square forward is, but these reactions are thoroughly incorrect, inadequate, and destructive.

When we are dealing with and talking about complex systems of thought, from Conservatism to Liberalism; Socialism to Capitalism; Analytical to Continental, no matter how fascinating and promising they seem at the surface level, their answer about spirituality has to be investigated. You can think about a worldview as being like a funnel in reverse: skinny at the bottom, with a few foundational answers, but as the system moves forwards the foundational principles work themselves out and expand in width and volume; all of these answers, though, can be tracked down to the few foundational answers that have the potential to enlighten or darken the whole set of beliefs.

With all of this said, it’s fair to ask about where to go from these thoughts. To reflect upon the vantage point established by this article, it seems fair to say that spirituality is necessary and unavoidable for a worldview to account for, and that the denial of it constructs a worldview wherein humanity is excluded; worldviews without an account of humanity are failed worldviews.

My proposal is that we all personally, in our hearts, recognize ourselves for what we are: spiritual beings. We are intrinsically interested in the transcendent and sublime; we are not reduced to raw material, but instead we interpret it. We have a creative will that wishes to participate and co-create in Creation. From there, we must understand that we are Images of God. Our dignity is bestowed unto us due to our nature. We are valued because we have inherent worth, not because of external factors. We Christians have to internalize the Gospel account of what we are and what is within us; we are not merely dopamine and receptors, but the Kingdom of God. Practicable from this article is a tool in the form of a heuristic used to discern worldviews, but also a justification for and encouragement to embrace what we are. We have great reason, as Christians, to stick to these beliefs and never err from them. Our Lord told us what we are, and it speaks to us deeply because we find correspondence with His words within; we have very real reason and justification to hold onto these words and realize them. We are Images of God with a value both extreme and inherent, and this belief must be held tightly so that we can live full lives, ever present with Christ our God.

But now I wonder something. What, exactly, informs one’s metaphysics? Why would we stop the entailment discussion at metaphysics?

We seem to acknowledge the existence of people. People have deep and fascinating internal lives. So, how do philosophies address this internal state of humanity?

Contemporary philosophy largely handwaves it. It will be acknowledged, but not as something good. Usually it’s discarded as something like “our silly emotions fool us”. I find this fascinating. Firstly, our internal lives are incredible and predictive of our behaviour. Sad people cry. Happy people smile. Miserable people stripped of hope seek to end it all.

Contemporary skepticism/empiricism/scientism subscribers will often handwave these internal states. I find this incredibly obvious in the case of Empiricism, which is the belief that all knowledge comes only through the senses. This philosophy, then, is reaching further then metaphysics. I’ll explain why.

This belief shuts down the possibility of knowledge from other ways humans have

always gathered knowledge. Empiricism’s hidden spiritual propositions are made manifest now more than ever; by proclaiming that information comes only through the sensenes, it seems to say “You ought not take mathematical truths as truth”; it also says, “You ought not take spirituality as true”.

To affirm the existence of people, and then fail to make an account of experiences those people encounter, seems highly descriptive of a failed philosophical experiment. Why are sources of knowledge that people desperately seek complttely stripped of dignity? I find it no coincidence that those under Soviet persecution became deeply miserable; they were stripped of their religiousity. I also find it no coincidence that contemporary Western folk have a spirit of nihilism. Most, in my opinion, are checked out, and I find that the root of this is in the nihilism pushed onto us.

If we agree with entailment, then you ought to make a solid account of 8 billion people on earth. If you choose to shut out a certain field of experience and label those who pursue it as crazed, you have failed to account for humanity; handwaving something as “just” feelings or “illusory” does not excuse you from justification.

My critique doesn’t end here. I’ve got a suspicion that metaphysics is informed by ones spiritual state.

Contemporary, secular talks about identity are largely informed by David Hume’s skepticism. Hume is famed for his shocking revelation that humans don’t really have a unified “us” within. We are amalgamations and bits and pieces and parts. No unified person, apparently. This is riveting. This is scary, even. It’s treated as gospel even. Contemporary society roars and raves about this: there’s no gender inside of you, you can remove parts here and there, don’t bother looking inside; pop pills instead.

Hume’s skepticism at the time to shock European thinkers. Still does. He’s a bastion, apparently.

The best part is that it’s completely ridiculous. Anyone with the smallest amount of spiritual experience can see that Hume decided to look inside for the first time in his 30 years and then he wrote treatesies on why skepticism is true. The other European thinkers were too focused on the mind and not on the heart to be able to properly respond, sadly.

Hume should be treated as a spiritual neophyte who walked out of the door after taking one step. He made deeply spiritual propositions, and from his thoughts we still have modern day skeptical thinkers in his tradition.

That means the tradition he gave so much to is soulless. Souls are convincing others that they have no souls. The Empiricsm tradition, which follows in the footsteps of Hume, in all of its earthy, boots-on-the-ground attitude, is a failed spiritual tradition.

Want your answers about induction and whatnot? Become spiritual.