I recently started looking into nihilism… but then I realised it was pointless. For some, that joke is enough to expose the absurdity and illogic of a philosophy that holds that there is no meaning or purpose behind our actions, our world, or our universe. Yet nihilism has held tremendous power over many public intellectuals. Albert Camus comes to mind — he wondrously mused that nihilism opens a world where “everything is possible.” Cormac McCarthy in turn asserted: “The point is there ain’t no point.” Flannery O’Connor noted: “If you live today, you breath in nihilism … it’s the gas you breathe. If I hadn’t had the Church to fight it with or to tell me the necessity of fighting it, I would be the stinkingest logical positivist you ever saw right now.”
A cursory knowledge of philosophical truth is valuable for Catholics, making them capable of explaining why there is indeed meaning and purpose not only to our own existences, but to everything we see and experience. Certainly such knowledge serves an apologetic function. Yet it also confirms in the mind of the believer that his or her faith rests on solid intellectual ground, that it is indeed reasonable. One who well understood this was Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., the French twentieth-century Thomist theologian who influenced, among others, a young Karol Wojtyła. Garrigou-Lagrange’s The Order of Things: The Realism of the Principle of Finality recently translated by professor of philosophy and moral theology Matthew K. Minerd, offers an excellent aid to those seeking logical clarity to bolster their faith in a deeply illogical world.
There are many foundational philosophical concepts worthy of memorization. Two that Garrigou-Lagrange expends great energy helping us understand are the principles of noncontradiction and finality. Both, the French Thomist argues, are required for making sense of ourselves and the world. Both are also self-evident. In an age increasingly skeptical and indifferent to faith, it is vital we be able to comprehend and effectively articulate them.
The Principle of Noncontradiction
The principle of noncontradiction, argues Garrigou-Lagrange, is the “fundamental law of thought and reality.” This law holds that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same way at the same time. In other words, the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. I cannot claim to be of Polish descent and not of Polish descent, and you cannot claim at this very moment to be both reading and not reading this sentence. Minerd defines the moderate realism endorsed by Garrigou-Lagrange in this way: “being is not non-being; that which is is and cannot at the same not be. There is more in that which is than in that which becomes and does not yet exist.”
To reject the law of noncontradiction results in embracing nonsensical absurdities, such as claiming that you are John and also not John, from Detroit and also not from Detroit, breathing and also not breathing. Those who attempt such silliness, argues Garrigou-Lagrange, cannot be “taken seriously for a long time. They have become sick willingly. They have fallen into mental illness and would have us believe that it is wisdom.”
Moreover, without the principle of contradiction, we couldn’t even assert Descartes’ famous phrase, cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am.” We couldn’t even say “there is thought,” because it could be that thought is identical with non-thought. “This is the doctrinal nihilism that leads one to moral nihilism,” explains Garrigou-Lagrange. To paraphrase Dostoyevsky, without the principle of noncontradiction, everything is permissible. Without the law of noncontradiction words lack meaning; desire and hatred, which are oriented towards the opposing realities of good and the evil, cease to exist. Try to make a logical argument without recourse to the principle of noncontradiction. It’s simply impossible.
Another way of articulating this is to say that there is an essential difference between becoming and non-becoming, or being. This difference matters in reference to the argument for God’s existence based on motion, or change. Garrigous-Lagrange explains: “If a first source of action did not exist at the summit of this subordination, no subordinate causality would exist and neither would any effect. Therefore, there must be a supreme agent that has no need of being premoved and, thus, its own action.” In other words, that being and becoming are ontologically different necessitates the reality of a being that is pure act, who doesn’t become. Such a being is a supreme agent that is “Being Itself, Pure Act.” This is Aquinas’s “First Way.”
Finality
Teleology, or finality, is the principle that “all that is done is done in view of an end,” or, phrased slightly differently, “every agent acts for its end.” Aristotle affirms this idea in his Metaphysics, while Aquinas affirms it in both the Summa Theologiae and his De potentia. We see finality at work in nature that has its own intentions. Acorns tend to form oak trees. Birds build nests in which to lay eggs. Eyes are for seeing, ears for hearing. Garrigou-Lagrange argues that finality is self-evident, because we inherently and automatically perceive that things are for something.
Indeed, without finality, nothing has any intrinsic value, nor can one determine what is good, fitting, useful, or delightful. Even the fact that we employ the word “chance” — the accidental cause of something that rarely occurs, outside the intention of nature or of man — suggests that we implicitly understand there is such a thing as order and finality. Explains Garrigou-Lagrange: “If you reduce everything essential to the accidental, you destroy every nature — that of water, air, and fire. All that then remains are chance encounters and nothing which could undergo such encounters. We must choose between radical absurdity and finality.” Put more bluntly, if there is no finality and everything is accidental, nothing would exist.
Finality also illuminates the difference between humans and other animals, all of which lack intellection: while not all engineers build the same bridges or painters the same portrait, various animal species do the same thing. You will encounter no rebellious, avante garde bee who decides instead of hives and honey to build nests or dig in the ground for acorns. Moreover, we as humans uniquely perceive the finality in the fact that even small children incessantly ask “why,” precisely because they presuppose there is reason and intelligence behind all things.
In this regard, we can appreciate how finality clarifies another proof for the existence of the divine. Aristotle in his Metaphysics argues: “It is not likely that the order and beauty that exist in all things or are produced in them has the earth or some other element of this kind as their cause…. To attribute these admirable effects to chance, to a fortuitous cause, was far too unreasonable.” Aquinas in turn argues in the Summa: “Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
Finality underlies the first principle of practical reason: good must be done and evil avoided. This is because things act towards their ends, and those ends are for their good. The bird naturally acts towards the end of building the nest to lay eggs to create offspring. It doesn’t, alternatively recklessly dive-bomb turtles in the nearby pond. Of course, humans do act in ways that do not facilitate their good: betraying loved ones, engaging in addictive behavior, and otherwise harming themselves. Yet in all of these cases humans act out of a misplaced understanding of the good — the alcoholic takes another drink not to kill himself but to bring comfort or distraction from something bad. The drink is perceived, albeit wrongly, as good.
In the introduction to The Order of Things, Garrigou-Lagrange argues: “many histories of philosophy present us with nearly all teachings as though they were situated at the same level. In them, the most foolish of such doctrines seem to have the same value as those that are the wisest, merely because such foolish thoughts are proposed in a somewhat original way.” If this is true of anything, it certainly is true of much contemporary academic philosophy that rejects absolute truth. One wonders, if the skeptics are right, what’s the purpose of studying anything?
While Aristotle, Aquinas, and Garrigou-Lagrange help us recognize the common-sense of noncontradiction and finality, philosophies of skepticism only lead us to doubt the things we naturally perceived as children. As adults we should be maturing into a deeper understanding of reason and teleology, not devolving into some bizarre species incapable of identifying its own good. The Thomists declare Omne agens agit propter finem: “Every agent acts for an end.” A world as confused as ours is in desperate need of hearing and understanding those words.
The Order of Things: The Realism of the Principle of Finality
By Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Translated by Matthew K. Minerd
Emmaus Academic, 2020
Hardcover, 392 pages
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
A man may say I am because I’m conscious of my existence. Or is it more correct to say I know that I am because I can reflect on what I apprehend? Consciousness for Man is impossible sans perceivable material ‘things’. And their ends. Descartes made the mistake of repudiating external existence so as to isolate an irrefutable first principle, himself, the error of a mathematician. Casey Chalk raises a paramount problem, in that the principle of non contradiction is the preeminent issue that currently affects all knowledge, especially morality. Because it is held that opposites are simultaneously reconcilable. For example, if we reflect on what is said in Amoris Laetitia an inherent evil, Adultery may conceivably exist and not exist for a person whose circumstances remove responsibility on the one hand, while the same circumstances clearly indicate adultery. In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang literally dark bright, negative positive is a concept of dualism. Yin yang is a process of harmonization ensuring a constant, dynamic balance of all things. Currently, an example: “If our awareness is sufficiently attuned to the patterns of change we have the potential to be a harmonizing force. If we are unaware, then at best we are swept along by the current, often fighting it in a futile manner. Cultivate an awareness of things as they truly are, interconnected, part of a larger whole. Our conventional view of the world as irreconcilable opposites is based on a perception of the universe as separate objects” (Pacific College of Health and Science). Casey Chalk offers the resolution from Aquinas that, Every agent acts toward an end. The ancient evil doctrine of Zoroaster held that good and evil were entities that in the end were to be reconciled. Manes taught similar and ensnared a young Augustine. It’s a powerful argument that highlights harmony in a divided world. Much of what is evident in New Paradigm religious ethics, in a Vatican that seems consistently contradictory, example repudiating abortion while similarly lauded are proponents Jeffrey Sachs, Emma Bonino [Bonino also an enthusiastic open borders advocate a position favored by Pope Francis]. And the most contradictory, gender transition male female including the undefinable. For the Church a tragic entry into the Darkness is the growing male on male adult relationship. For the morally deranged who determine ends of nature awaits doom. For the faithful the Author of Life ordains all things visibly evident toward a just end. And for these eternal life.
I am interested in a comment on the following with regard to the principle of contradiction.
I’ve read that I. X. Kendi asserts one must be either a racist or an anti-racist. No other position is possible. In his view, if I understand him correctly, one cannot simply be a non-racist. Persons who claim to be non racists rather than anti-racists, are in Kendi’s view, necessarily racists.
I note also that I have difficulty with the common and widespread use of the word racist in ordinary discussion, because the term does not have a sufficiently precise meaning. All who use it do not necessarily mean the same thing by it, and in fact many may not be completely clear what they mean by the term.
Wikipedia: “In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive.” Note: “in the SAME sense at the SAME time.”
As for the possibly implied proposition that human sexuality is not binary (a parallelism to racism/anti-racism/non-racism?)–and, therefore, that there is no “contradiction” in the gender-theory spectrum where all “positions” [!] are possible–also in play is the morality of Natural Law. As in all of nature: the (not to be directly obstructed) reproductive purpose of sexual intercourse. The human person is not an arbitrary “transformer toy” from Toys-R-Us.
To be noted here, too, is the undeniable illogic of those who claim to be “non-binary” which, itself (!) is a binary statement (binary vs. non-binary)—the underlying, non-demonstrable, first principle of non-contradiction is baked into human thought from the beginning, and hangs around. Unlike the politically constructed gender theory spectrum or the parallel propositions that one can be neither pregnant nor not-pregnant, but just half-pregnant; or that one can neither exist nor not exist, but just half-exist or quarter-exist, or “whatever”.
Instead of such foggy dis-orientation, and with Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “to be, or not to be, that is the question…”
On Kendi, there is this: https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist
Thanks Joe for this reference to City Journal. It added importantly to my knowledge of Kendi’s thinking.
“In the introduction to The Order of Things, Garrigou-Lagrange argues: “many histories of philosophy present us with nearly all teachings as though they were situated at the same level. In them, the most foolish of such doctrines seem to have the same value as those that are the wisest, merely because such foolish thoughts are proposed in a somewhat original way.” If this is true of anything, it certainly is true of much contemporary academic philosophy that rejects absolute truth. One wonders, if the skeptics are right, what’s the purpose of studying anything?”
This is a big part of the problem with pretty much everything “taught” as philosophy. Teaching is concerned with conveying TRUTH. The implementation of the idea that any and every philosophy – true or false – could or should be taught leads to relativism or skepticism. Something like 70% of philosophy professors are atheists or close to it, according to what I have read. (I am not 100% sure that the characterization of their specific belief is accurate, but they definitely aren’t religious) Is it any wonder how this happened?
In the natural sciences, would we study all of the wrong disproven theories along with what is taken to be true? Outside of a cursory mention in the realm of historical introduction, there isn’t much interest in explaining much of the currently regarded foolish natural science thoughts.
A question is, “If we know that some philosophy is false, then why are we even teaching it?” The Catholic Church has the ability to judge philosophy, but it doesn’t have any jurisdiction regarding secular education. In hindsight, insisting on the prohibition of false philosophy from being “taught” should have been the second most important item (the first being the prohibition of teaching or publishing books concerning heresy or infidelity) on the Church’s “secular agenda” after the Protestant “Reformation.”
“While Aristotle, Aquinas, and Garrigou-Lagrange help us recognize the common-sense of noncontradiction and finality, philosophies of skepticism only lead us to doubt the things we naturally perceived as children. As adults we should be maturing into a deeper understanding of reason and teleology, not devolving into some bizarre species incapable of identifying its own good. The Thomists declare Omne agens agit propter finem: “Every agent acts for an end.” A world as confused as ours is in desperate need of hearing and understanding those words.”
A question is whether anyone actually cares about these issues enough to investigate? Morally speaking, they should, but “the rat race” seems to occupy most people’s thoughts and time. It is an evil thing.
On the secular side, there are good solutions to social problems if one is willing, and able to take the time to “dig for treasure.” We are reaping what we sow, but God cares about injustice – even if it seems like He is the only one.
It seems that most people are fatalistic, pessimistic, or apathetic when it comes to social change. Those who have the time and money are perhaps literally hell bent on creating more societal dysfunction and enriching themselves. The wicked seem to – financially at least – prosper and wrong others with almost complete impunity and the wronged just seem to exhibit what St. Thomas Aquinas identifies as a sin – a lack of anger. A good somewhat obscure (IMO) word for this attitude is “supine.”