Freedom & Determinism & Time

Both determinacy and freedom are necessary aspects of temporal reality. And, so, because we are naturally and ineluctably temporal creatures, both determinism and indeterminism are true for us: but this, in different ways, for they pertain to different temporal epochs.

Determinacy pertains to the past of every occasion, and indeterminacy to its present.

The past must be determinate, or it would not be anything definite at all, and thus have no actuality. As inactual, it could have no effect on any futurity, and could not play any causal role in any world.

The past is actual, and fully definite, so it is fully determined: it has no option to be other than what it is. And as we look back upon it – this being the only way that temporal events can possibly look (for, of what is not yet fully and definitely actual, there is nothing yet definite to be seen) – we can – in principle, at least – see how each past act is completely, perfectly, and indeed beautifully coherent with its causal antecedents, so that between it and those antecedents there are no causal gaps, no inconsistencies, nothing left out of the causal account, and no loose causal ends. Only thus, looking back, could we apprehend the world as a causal system consistent with itself, and orderly; as, i.e., a world, properly so called: a seamless web. Then we can see looking back, in other words, that past events are, from our present perspective as an occasion of lively becoming, all fully determinate.

Determinism is true of the past of each moment of becoming.

The present moment of becoming is not in every respect determined by the past, or by what is factual – including eternal facts. If our present moments of becoming were thus determined, they could have no effects of their own upon futurities, and would not therefore act in any way: they would not be actual. They could not then play any causal role in any world.

Indeterminism is true of each present moment in itself, and for itself, as it comes to be actual, definite, and determined; as it determines itself. The moment of becoming, then – which we experience as the present – is what it is like to act. The present is the realm of indeterminacy, and thus of freedom.

Occasions of becoming are each of course very greatly constrained by their actual worlds – by their past, which is their causal environment. That constraint is no tyranny, but rather an information, indeed a sort of education. It is the indispensable theater of free becoming, the ordered environment in which alone orderly action can proceed in the first place. For, it is not possible to behave either properly or improperly, either well or ill, in respect to chaos. Indeed, in respect to chaos it is not possible to act at all, period full stop. Nothing appertains to chaos; to nothing, nothing only appertains.

The project of coming to be an actual event involves finding a means of agreement more or less happy – and in all ways perfectly coherent with – the environing past. It involves finding the best way to be that is compossible with that past. Each such discovery involves a search for optimality in what Borges called the Library of the Possible, among the various options in that Library that are compossible with its past. Each such option will be an absolute novelty: the realm of those options is the future of each occasion, which exists in respect to it only virtually.

Those options are constrained and ordered ex ante and logically – are, i.e., limited – by the logical order and character of the environing actual past. The logical structure of its past limits what is possible to each new instant. Viz., it is not possible given the logical character of acorns and carburetors – given, that is to say, their essential natures – for an acorn to give rise to a carburetor, or vice versa. Its logical character does not, however, prevent an acorn from giving rise to countless different possible oak trees, each with an unique career.

The logical character of things, and their resultant logical and causal relations in every possible world line of every possible cosmos, are of course given necessarily in the eternal Lógos.

To become is to intend some future option, not just for oneself, but for the whole world. To choose to be x is to suggest to all subsequent occasions that the world ought to have x in it; would do well to have x in it.

The past then, which is entirely composed of actual events that each intended and proposed to its subsequents a particular future, taken together intends and proposes to us a certain sort of future. Such is its aesthetic appeal. No such appeal, then no suasive effect of a preterity upon its futurities.

Determinism is completely true, then, but only of past and fully actual events. And indeterminism too is completely true, but only of events presently becoming.


Post Scriptum: becoming that is causally tied to a past of some sort is essential to time; and so is that becoming; and because an event now transpiring cannot act, and thus be actual, except in respect to futurities, so temporal becoming as such – and, so, time: any world that extends temporally – necessitates futurities. A sequence of events cannot be obtained without both a fixed past and an indeterminate present that in its due time will add to that past, thus generating a newly modified past as the causal input of futurities. We could not have time – past, present, or future – without all three causal epochs. So, both determinacy and indeterminacy are indispensable to worlds such as ours.

The angelic worlds are of course a different story; likewise, the demonic. This post is not about them.

28 thoughts on “Freedom & Determinism & Time

  1. I only made this connection now, on seeing this article and pairing it with your previous: Occasions of becoming are only possible while creation is becoming. Because only completed acts are actual, and thus factual, and thus determined, the sum of creation therefore is undetermined, but creation so far is determined.

    In other words, playing a song on the piano: Before you begin playing, it is undetermined. While you play, the notes you have already played are definite. When you have finished, the song is complete and actual and follows a form which is recognizable to everyone. Creation is a harmonious song in the midst of being played: The musician is perfect, the keys on which he plays are flawed.

    Because this seems to be written on the universe, (that creation is in progress) it makes sense that it would apply all the way down. Our microcosmic determinism is congruent to the determinism to all of creation, created so far.

    –Though I think i’ve misspoken. When we are glorified and resurrected, are we still considered “becoming”? Or if the cosmos is perfected then can we be completed and actual and have no need for differentiating past or present?

    • It does not seem to me that you have misspoken.

      We’ll be resurrected as humans; and that entails resurrection as human bodies. By nature and essentially, human bodies are procedures of temporal worlds. One can’t be properly human – or, a fortiori, *perfectly* human – except as environed in a world such as ours, and indeed on a planet very much like ours. Indeed, when we push this analysis to its logical conclusion, it is hard to see how any of us could be truly ourselves other than as resurrected to a world that had the very same past as our own, which was after all the past that gave us our first rise qua ourselves.

      So we will be resurrected perfectly, together with our world, likewise perfected: “all things made new” [Revelation 21:5]. My fingers are crossed in hoping that in that perfected world, all things shall be restored to their original newness, and therein perfected. I do not see that there could be any other way that in that world there could be no more sorrow [Revelation 21:4]; for the only way to eliminate sorrow would be to eliminate loss. In that case, e.g., we would be able to see Notre Dame with her roof still intact – or, rather, intact again, as her builders intended.

      We and our world resurrected will then proceed along an everlasting career of becoming.

      As perfect, and nowise alienate from the Presence of our Lord, the world of our resurrection cannot but be open at every juncture, not just to his human companionship, but to the Beatific Vision. The light of that Vision cannot but illumine every moment of that world. Whenever we turn toward it as we live our everlasting lives – from, say, the score we are playing in its light – we shall at that moment have no need to differentiate past and present; for in that Vision, all times of all worlds shall be present to our sight, by our sight of him, in whom they are all eternally present. We shall have no need of such differentiation; nevertheless, as perfected, our capacity of that differentiation will be maximal. We shall be able to look through and into God at all times, and see how everything that happened in all times made perfect sense, and flowed out despite its manifest defects, misadventures and catastrophes into the best thing that might ever possibly have happened.

  2. Wherever there is determinism, there is evil atheism, and the impossibility of genuine faith in God in any human being. Mary was rewarded the honor of victory over darkness because She of Her own free will chose the Light, and said in humility, “Be it unto Me according to Thy will”. Calvinism is atheism. None less a rational thinker than Thomas Jefferson said that Calvinism is evil. He was riight. The Calvinist god is the devil himself. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. An angry Father capable of no love nor of being freely love by human free will. This is what the Holy Orthodox Church teaches us. And She is right: She is the little flock of Christ’s Sheep. Calvinism is for the Wolves. David Hume became an atheist because of Scottish Calvinism.

    • Hume could do what he liked-his fate was sealed, regardless, according to his national religion. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches of freedom in the same way as the Orthodox Church. Kristor is not proposing determinism, if that’s your point, and forgive me if it isn’t. He is simply saying that the freedom we exercise in our present is grounded on a determined past. The past is unchangeable by its very nature. If one dies in a state of mortal sin, it can’t be undone, one’s fate is sealed for eternity. One might repent in the present of one’s dying moment, one’s last moment of freedom, but once the dying is ended, one’s destiny is fixed because one’s being is no longer in time, the phenomenon that enables free options for the future. That’s the deal.

      • Agreed. My impression was however not that Mr. Harrington thought I was preaching determinism, nor even that he disagreed with what I was saying, but rather that he was making the additional point that the preaching of determinism is wicked. With that, I agree. It’s equivalent to preaching moral relativism or nihilism, or nominalism, or that there is no such thing as Satan. Better to have a millstone tied about your neck and be thrown into the sea, than to do any of those things.

      • The New Testament does not say the past is unchangeable. It merely says you reap what you sow. It also says all those who are regenerated are new creatures.

        If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation, all things are past, behold all things are become new.

        Including the past. Because of Christ, all of the past is no longer determined. It is FREE. And there is no such thing as superorogatory. That’s a papalist concept, not New Testament.

        [Kristor writes: from this point on, I have deleted the remainder of Mr. Harrington’s comment, as he began at this point to rant in all caps, and at great length.

        Mr. Harrington, I adjure you – as in the past I have adjured other commenters here – if you want to convince anyone, and so to succeed as an evangelist, you simply must leave off the ranting, and write both reasonably and pacifically, and with Christian compassion for your interlocutors, with a due consideration for the valid aspects of their perspectives. You must at all costs prevent yourself from running off the rhetorical rails into any sort of maniae. With the Orthospherean readership, that sort of thing is the kiss of death. Submitting to the temptation to rant, you’ll have ruined your beneficent evangelical intentions. Cave, praedicator!

        Pro tip: if you find yourself even a little bit inclined to write in all caps even a little bit, you are already off the rails – have, that is to say, begun already a slippery descent from the high hard road that leads to truth into some horrid slimy easy abyss of hatred, rage and unmeaning – and must calm down, and then with your wits again about you, climb carefully back up to that high road, before going any further.]

      • The New Testament does not say that Kristor and Scott Robert Harrington exist, or that F = ma. Still is it true that both Kristor and Scott Robert Harrington exist, and it is true what is more that F = ma. Nor is the Pythagorean Theorem mentioned in the NT; nor is Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Still are those two theorems true, necessarily.

        That the NT does not convey a truth does not render that truth untrue. The NT does not mention that Esau was hairy. Was he then smooth, like Jacob?

        The NT is not intended to convey all truths, and does not mention most of them: John 21:25.

        If the past were not unchangeable, we could not reap what we sow. We might then sow thistles and gather corn, and no one would think that odd. Indeed, in that case oddness would be an empty category. Reaping and sowing would have no orderly relation to each other.

        The past is indeed regenerate in Christ. But if it were otherwise than it is, it would be different than whatever it was that was regenerate in him. It would be something quite different than in fact it is.

        One can regenerate only what is first and irrevocably generate.

        In Christ, the past is still determinate – is, i.e., still itself – but it is no longer utterly determinant: it no longer absolutely determines the prevention of our theosis. The limit that had prevented our theosis, that was rent in twain from top to bottom by the Atonement, was – *just was* – the facticity of our depravation, thanks to the Fall. The Atonement does not reverse or obviate the Fall. On the contrary, it cures some sequelae of the Fall. The Atonement – and thus the faith, the Church and latterly the NT qua document, each and all of them together constituting the Body of Christ – is needful in the first place only on account of that Fall. No Fall, no Atonement. Had Adam never sinned, nor would the Passion have accomplished anything; there would in that case have been nothing for Atonement to do. Even if it had nevertheless happened, it would then have been entirely pointless, and so bootless; nothing but a waste. O felix culpa, that earned our redemption!

        Supererogation is not a Catholic notion. It is just Latin, that picks out an aspect of eternal necessary moral logic. Supererogation is just “more than duty requires.”

        Honestly! Not every little thing need be a point of controversy among Christians! Especially when they are extending every supererogatory courtesy to you, as Mickvet and I both were! Have you yourself then no jot of Christian charity for us, or even its bare minimum in common courtesy? Christe eleison!

      • That is perfectly absurd. The NT does not say we don’t exist. But it does say “In Him [God] we live and move and have our being”. One must understand and appreciate fully the existential ontological difference between Providence (Grace/Love) and Predestination (Determinism/Fatalism/Fate). The NT does not teach Fate.

        [Kristor writes: Here Mr. Harrington again began raving incoherently, often in all caps. Nuff said.

        Mr. Harrington, control yourself, if you want to keep commenting here.]

      • Of *course* the NT doesn’t say that we don’t exist. I never said that it did. You are not *thinking.* Start doing so. Don’t comment again until you have finished.

        Comments that you submit in future that are either nonresponsive or raving will be summarily trashed.

      • Logic is indeed the beginning of wisdom. But if wisdom can’t get started in logic, then, well, it can’t get started. So, logic is the sine qua non of wisdom. First, you must make sense. Then, and only then, might you begin to grow wise.

        Indulge in illogic to your heart’s content. But don’t presume to preach wisdom on that basis.

        Is the Logos rendered impotent by the quest to be logical? For answer, just look at the words in that last sentence: the Logos *is* logic – among other things.

        Can the infinite, eternal Logos be rendered impotent by *any creaturely act whatsoever*? No; that’s nonsense.

        Get hold of your wits, man, before you utter more of it, and so, spreading chaos, do the devil’s work.

  3. Pingback: Freedom & Determinism &Time | Reaction Times

  4. Dear Kristor:

    Is the past dead, which it would be if fixed in crystalline rigidity? Are the dead, dead? I offer no argument, but only an expression of what intuition tells me. Not only would God, in his absolute goodness, not create a cosmos that was dead, but he would not create a cosmos, part of which dies and then remains a deadweight on present and future. Past, present and future are, it seems to me, in a perpetual living conversation; otherwise we would start from the degree zero in every moment — which is what the Left defines as “Progress.” We could not converse with the dead, if they were truly dead. Time flows forwards and backwards, like the flow of the life-blood in our bodies. The inhabitants of Çatal Hüyük, a ten-thousand-year-old city in Asia Minor, buried the bones of their dead in the floors of their apartments. They regarded the dead as still living, as still participating in the life of the present moment.

    What does it mean when the SJWs pull down a statue? They are trying to kill the past, deprive it of life, and make it therefore irrelevant. One of the “Alinsky Rules” (I paraphrase, but accurately) is: Fix it — kill it.

    There is a tension, a considerable tension, I believe, between the Logos and the mere verbal structures of logic. We are stuck with the verbal artificiality of syllogism. You might, for example, count the number of “if-then” statements in these paltry paragraphs, on the tally of which I would need to enter a plea of hypocrisy. But we also have analogy, metaphor, the tessera hospitalis, and signs in the sky. There is no logical sequence for me to complete in these loosely connected words, so I break it off.

    In very great respect,


    • That’s a beautiful, plangent comment, Tom.

      The first thing I would say is that the preterity of an event does not alone render it anywise lost, or gone, or inaccessible. On the contrary. An event cannot be an urgent or suasive causal factor in the becoming of its successors if it is not present to them, more or less immediately.

      Thus in virtue of its changeless facticity, the moment of your first taste of ice cream is in principle accessible to you immediately, as if it had just happened to you. Sure, it formed the structure of you back when it had first happened, and sure its memory has lived on ever since in you – if in no other way, then fossilized as some rarely accessed molecular structure of your CNS that functions as a memory register. But as a fact it stands ever ready to flow directly into this your present moment, fresh and new.

      The first book that was particularly mine, the prayer book given me at my confirmation by my parents, arrived yesterday in the mail as a birthday gift from my little sister, in whose care it landed when I left home to hit the road where I have lived ever since. There on the first page was my first real signature. Seeing it, I remembered the grave joy in which I inscribed my name – the sigil of my inmost self – upon that prayer book, the afternoon of that Sunday when I first received it. It was the first time I signed my name as an attestation of personal commitment to a discipline of care; which is an aspect of all ownership. I signed to show that I owned that book for myself, and all that was in it, and all that what was in it meant; that I took responsibility for it. That moment has of course lived within me ever since. But it has scribed itself equally on the whole history of the cosmos; and that signature on the page is a participation of that scription. That moment of scribing then is adjacent by its facticity to all other things.

      A preterity might of course wind up lost or gone for practical purposes. However important they are to themselves, most moments of being must in the nature of things be found relatively trivial in the apprehensions of all others that are not equipped with the omniscience and omnipotence needed to love all things as they could and therefore should be loved, optimis optimus. I suppose the limit case of that sort of thing would be the future causal effect of a particle springing up out of the quantum foam deep in interstellar space, making a singly instant contribution to the cosmic Casimir effect, then winking out again forever, without ever warranting future particular notice. Its single instant of actuality would have made an infinitesimal permanent addition to the causal nexus, but it would otherwise be forgotten.

      The second thing I would say is that it is not at all clear to me that, once an occasion of becoming has attained its final, definite form, and is thenceforth fixed and definite, it is then no longer a subject of experience. I can’t see any strictly metaphysical reason why a completed moment might not enjoy its final satisfaction sempiternally. That enjoyment – that lively appreciation of the beauties it has achieved, and that it discloses in and as and by itself – is a source of, and reason for, the interest in it of subsequent occasions, as a proposal for their own satisfactions. Mimesis is important in social relations all the way down.

      Ice cream moments of little boys are all very well. What about their finger crushing moments? Who would want to enjoy an instant of such torment forever? A harrowing thought, indeed. But, it errs in supposing that the now of an achieved final satisfaction was suffered by it over a duration of time. But an instant – a single now – does not endure, and is not therefore suffered, over a stretch of time. On the contrary, its subjective duration is that of just a single now; whereas time is a nexus of relations of such singular instants, which form its nodal constituents.

      The whole of the past then is as you say very much involved in a living conversation with each new presence. Insofarforth, that past lives. As subject it lives, so as then to live for us as object, not just of our apprehension, but of our affection. It is not dead, but participant in life, in myriad lives, in the life of the cosmos, and in the life of God. We can feel this particularly when we visit battlefields and cemeteries, wherein the dead make themselves especially present. Our ancestors live in us still. This is what leads men all over the world to bury the sainted dead in the floors of their dining rooms, in their rock hewn dining tables, aye and in their altars and temples: in the floors, the walls, and the temple precincts. We go to church not just to rehearse our death, but to join in it with our whole past, and so to renew its living presence in our lives. The House of Abraham is his seed forever, and he is buried in them; so that his people are what they are in virtue of their participation in him.

      That last sentence is a lesson in ecclesiology.

      I would close with the notice that there is such a thing as backward causation. Time is a secondary derivate of causation. Thus there is a way that your present enjoyment of your first ice cream moment can affect and influence that moment’s initial constitution.

      This might be part of what is happening when we go through an experience and feel that we shall remember it forever. It might also be part of what is happening in experiences of déjà vu.

      In eternity, which is the forecondition of time, all moments are present in a single now. Such is omniscience: eternity cannot but know all things whatever. That perfectly comprehensive integral presence is the logical forecondition of each particular creaturely moment. They all continge upon it. In and by that eternal integrity, your present enjoyments are as present to your past as your past is present to you. In the final analysis, each moment is presented to all others, and all to each, in and by eternity, which is their forecondition.

      Sub specie aeternitatis, the whole of time – the entire everlasting stretch of it – cooks out of eternity all at once, a living integrity ab initio. This is what is meant by calling the Lógos of that everlasting life its Alpha and Omega, its source and end.

      So, not to worry; nothing is ever completely lost; or, therefore, dead and gone forever. Everything is recoverable, and renewable. Revelation 21:4.


      PS: the Social Justice Warriors want to kill the past. But that can’t be done. Their effort is then a sort of lie. They lie to such as we, of course; and to the Lord of Truth. But, what is far worse – for them, at least – they lie to *themselves.* They lead *themselves* to perdition. Better that they had lashed a millstone about their necks, and cast themselves into the sea.

      • I have come to think that there is no differentiation between Past, Present and Future to the Being that really matters, God. My past is just as real and ‘present’ to Him as my present and my future. In God’s eyes, nobody is dead. This makes me not look forward to my Judgement, but does more greatly glorify His Mercy. My worst sins are, hopefully, in my past, but they are still in His present and thus no less offensive to Him. Judgement Day won’t simply be a recollection from a list. Our pasts will be present before us, as real as anything can be, in every physical, spiritual, psychological, internal and external aspect. There will be nowhere for anyone to hide, no prospect of deniability. May the Lord God have mercy on us all.


      • Amen, amen. May God forgive us all our sins and wickedness. Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Kyrie eleison; Christe eleison; Kyrie eleison.

      • Yes, I call the normal thinking that people have — that their “now” is the “real present” — temporal chauvinism. We’re all living through moments in a causal chain — and Dr. Fauci’s speeches are no more present, in the ultimate sense, than Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon. Events have temporal relations to each other, but no page in the book is the author’s now. Some come earlier in the story and some later.

      • Yes! Mercutio dies … when, exactly? Well, at a certain point in the play, whenever it is performed.

        Likewise: Jesus dies … when, exactly? Well, at a certain point in the play, whenever it is performed.

        NB: that the deaths of Jesus and Mercutio are not uniquely limited to a given spatiotemporal locus does not at all vitiate such reality as they each have.

        NB also, and to state what I hope goes without saying: that the deaths of Mercutio and Jesus are both non-local does not mean that either of them are not actual in their proper worlds; nor does it entail that either death is not also local; nor of course does it indicate that either death is less real than the other, from any perspective that is properly apposite to either one or the other.

        I should state that last bit again. That the deaths of Mercutio and Jesus are both non-local does not mean that they are in every respect real in the same way. Nevertheless, both are real in the same way in certain respects. E.g., whatever else it is, the Passion is also a play.

    • I shall presume to speak on behalf of Mr. Harrington, in saying that, while your apology is gracious and shall I’m sure be graciously received, it is supererogatory. For, you had already doubted whether he meant that I was preaching determinism, and begged his forgiveness, if not. In other words, your original comment was gracious. So, no apology needed.

  5. Just a thought (and a bit out of order in the sequence of your thread): Once upon a time, and not too long ago, all of the books on Homer held that Troy was a pure fiction, that it had never existed. Then Heinrich Schliemann, acting almost solely on intuition, redeemed Troy from the slopes of Hissarlik in Northwest Turkey. That was a change in the past in the sense that an act of faith had brought to light the falsity of a falsely fixed notion of the past. Considered from the point of view of epistemology, archaeology is one of the most important of the sciences. In an almost paradoxical way, archaeology, which moves forward in time like every other endeavor, increases the prevailing representation of the past and in so doing increases the self-understanding of the present. James Mellaart and others brought into the light of knowledge the existence of Çatal Hüyük, pushing more deeply into the past the phenomenon of human organization and, once again, disturbing a view, held as true, that proved to be false. Time is a turbulent back-and-forth exchange. The past speaks to the present far more poignantly than the present speaks to itself.

    • The Dead Sea Scrolls were another such epochal discovery. There cannot but be many more in the offing.

      Although each new moment must necessarily take comprehensive account of the whole past of its world in order to be coherent thereto, and thus form itself a member thereof, still – again necessarily for finite intelligences – very few such past moments can play particularly emphatic roles in the character of its final constitution, or therefore of its mark upon its future. Most events are mostly forgotten. Nevertheless each prior moment of the past waits patiently for some future occasion to remember and emphasize it, thus magnifying its future effects. Archeology is one of the scientific enterprises especially intended to such recollection. Others are astronomy, paleography, and psychotherapy.

      All our looking is into the past. Sometimes we are fortunate to look deep.

      • I enjoy hobby astronomy and am interested in archaeology and I agree with what you say, in a vacuum. Unfortunately, to add a dollop of cynicism, many astronomers today are looking for aliens in order to affirm their belief that humans aren’t special; many archaeologists are trying to prove that Christ didn’t exist. There are many cases of good and decent scientists in both fields, but I can’t help but feel that knowledge of the past is limited by who is looking. We cannot assume that they are dispassionate data gatherers. Many of them–at least, the ones that get attention in the popular media–are motivated by a desire to prove some widely held belief wrong.

  6. Matt 26:34 “Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” Imagine Jesus explaining in obscurantist academic language to Peter that this meant anything else than what He said using plain language. The complex abhors the simple. It lusts after exponential complexity generating more (fractal abyss). The prophetic impulse is a warning from the future to the present. A warning to consider changing the negative outcome of personal remorse and regret crimes for which the blood of bulls, goats, and child sacrifice – shall not pay invoices past due. ACTIONS THAT ALREADY HAPPENED. Time loop. Eternal Recurrence/Return. Fait Accompli

      • Please consider watching or re-watching a “Terminator” or “Matrix” or similar movie for simple analogy. Characters are having an adventure involving real risk (human extinction) and reward (becoming heroic) trying to Save the world from a future pre-known apocalyptic outcome (human self-inflicted self-autonomous progress – machine intelligence master/slave complexity). Biblical Book of Revelation another clear analogy, Myth of Cassandra another:

  7. Example of self-inflicted human curse of perpetual language complexity generated by the desire to not know/discover simple truth/answers, and when used instead to generate more complexity.

    Decadence of the French Nietzsche – James Brusseau. “But, for decadents, every philosophic conclusion is valued purely in terms of its ability to generate more thought: If thought no longer exists to pursue truth―or stolid truths―it exists, then, to serve and accelerate thinking” ….”contemporary theory is the habitation of these convictions and desires”.

    And as said by Pilate the Post-Modernist – John 18:38 “Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.