Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."
- Voluntarism: in the modern metaphysical sense is a theory which explains the universe as emanating ultimately from some form of will. In a broader psychological sense, the term is applied to any theory which gives prominence to will (in opposition to intellect ). In this latter sense, but not in the former, the philosophy of Augustine, Anselm, William of Occam, and Scotus may be styled Voluntarism.
- Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God's reason.
-According to intellectualism, choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as good; the will itself is determined. For voluntarism, by contrast, it is the will which determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Concerning the nature of heaven, intellectualists followed Aristotle's lead by seeing the final state of happiness as a state of contemplation. Voluntarism, by contrast, maintains that final happiness is an activity, specifically that of love.
-19th century voluntarism has its origin in Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason." Intellectually, humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality, but this need not and must not interfere with the duty of acting as though the spiritual character of this reality were certain.
Questions concerning consciousness:
1. Which camp do you fall under; do you consider the Will taking primacy over the Intellect, or is the Will subordinate to the Intellect?
2. If the answer is, a little of both, is that not "logically impossible" ?
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
" A proponent of metaphysical voluntarism is 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.[1] In his view, the will is not reasoning, but an irrational, unconscious urge in relation to which the intellect represents a secondary phenomenon. The will is actually the force at the core of all reality. This putting out of the drive–intention–vital dynamics later influenced Friedrich Nietzsche (will to power), Philipp Mainländer (will to die), Eduard von Hartmann, Julius Bahnsen and Sigmund Freud (will to pleasure). "
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
Consciousness is something that I have studied most of my life, but I have not studied it formally, and am not familiar with the "isms" that are in your posts. I don't see "will vs intellect" as a valid dichotomy and both seem to be end products, not original sources, of a mental evolution.
I agree that intellect is knowledge and it is acquired, so it is not an original source. Will is not a source either because will is 'want' plus intellect; 'will' is a directed want.
Now, I can see 'want' as being the source of mental evolution whether we are talking about chaos as described in ancient ideas, or the waves and particles that blink in and out of existence as described by science. Both could be considered as attraction/repulsion or motion that 'wants' to balance as all of reality wants to balance. This seems possible, but this is not 'will'.
'Will' is directed -- it needs a specific point to focus from -- it cannot be directed from nowhere. Will cannot exist until matter exists, because it needs time and space to have an originating point to focus from. So I see want as the original source of the mental, and I see it as motion.
Good and bad and the "God" idea seem to be a separate issue, in my opinion, and much closer to our home planet. Of course, religion studies e-motion, recognizes it as spirituality and calls it "God", so maybe the "God" idea is not so far off after all.
Gee
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
Considering the appropriateness of both, St. Thomas' and Scotus' expressions, to opt for one camp would be an act of the will ignoring the intellect.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 12:47 pm Taken from William Barrett's, Irrational Man (Existentialism):
"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."
...
Questions concerning consciousness:
1. Which camp do you fall under; do you consider the Will taking primacy over the Intellect, or is the Will subordinate to the Intellect?
However
the answer can't be "a little of both" because that again would amount to ignoring the intellect which is telling that the two views are incompatible. Both, not ignoring will and not ignoring intellect, results in suspension of judgement as to primacy of will or intellect and leaving the two camps behind.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 12:47 pm 2. If the answer is, a little of both, is that not "logically impossible" ?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
At one pole some people believe only emotional reactions to situations should be acted on while at the opposite pole some people believe only unlimited cerebral reflection can justify acting.
Sometimes large numbers of people are swayed by their emotional reactions as for instance conspiracy theorists, and dupes of clever political agitators.
There is a happy medium and safeguard between the two poles: emotional reactions are necessary but should always be refined by self knowledge.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
Great question. In my experience it varies in various people and varies in a single person at various times. In the perfect situation they would co-exist separately. The intellect would be free of the will's opinion and evaluate all incoming information without it being editorialized by the will. After the intellect's analysis, the part of the will that is variable, would be influenced by the product of the intellect's work, combined with the part of the will that is native (relatively constant), would conclude with the final decision.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 12:47 pm Taken from William Barrett's, Irrational Man (Existentialism):
"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."
- Voluntarism: in the modern metaphysical sense is a theory which explains the universe as emanating ultimately from some form of will. In a broader psychological sense, the term is applied to any theory which gives prominence to will (in opposition to intellect ). In this latter sense, but not in the former, the philosophy of Augustine, Anselm, William of Occam, and Scotus may be styled Voluntarism.
- Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God's reason.
-According to intellectualism, choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as good; the will itself is determined. For voluntarism, by contrast, it is the will which determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Concerning the nature of heaven, intellectualists followed Aristotle's lead by seeing the final state of happiness as a state of contemplation. Voluntarism, by contrast, maintains that final happiness is an activity, specifically that of love.
-19th century voluntarism has its origin in Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason." Intellectually, humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality, but this need not and must not interfere with the duty of acting as though the spiritual character of this reality were certain.
Questions concerning consciousness:
1. Which camp do you fall under; do you consider the Will taking primacy over the Intellect, or is the Will subordinate to the Intellect?
2. If the answer is, a little of both, is that not "logically impossible" ?
Of course we are all familiar with individuals who make decisions based on personality and others who are number crunchers. IMO a balance as I described is best.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
Perhaps, the will and intellect should not be separated so clearly at all. Kant, Shopenhauer and Nietzsche had a less clear knowledge of the way in which consciousness is not simply a function of the brain but distributed in the body as well as the brain. In particular, the emotions are based on complex biochemical reactions, such as the hormones and neurotransmitters. Freud was coming much later and was working on ideas about drives and the conflict between the life and death instincts. He saw the construct of ego as being important and will was bound up with this, especially in relation to will.
One particular writer who may be relevant to your area of debate is Iain Gilchrist, in his book, 'The Master and the Emissary'. He argues that the brain hemispheres come into play in thinking, and in philosophical perspectives too, including romanticism and the enlightenment. Gilchrist stresses that it is important for us to be able to integrate reason, intuition, feeling and intuition to one's perspective to achieve an integrated form of perception. However, he says that this does not mean that reason should be disregarded, simply that, 'The master needs to trust, and believe in the emissary.'
So, in raising the actual question about will vs intellect, and whether both can be conceived as important, or whether that is logically impossible, you are treating reason as the sole criteria. Logic and reason are important, but are not the complete picture. Will, which is connected to will to live is not apart from the intellect. Consciousness relies on the reason of brain but other aspects of mental and biological functions bring this together in synthesis.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
Lucky!stevie wrote: ↑October 20th, 2021, 3:20 amConsidering the appropriateness of both, St. Thomas' and Scotus' expressions, to opt for one camp would be an act of the will ignoring the intellect.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 12:47 pm Taken from William Barrett's, Irrational Man (Existentialism):
"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."
...
Questions concerning consciousness:
1. Which camp do you fall under; do you consider the Will taking primacy over the Intellect, or is the Will subordinate to the Intellect?
Howeverthe answer can't be "a little of both" because that again would amount to ignoring the intellect which is telling that the two views are incompatible. Both, not ignoring will and not ignoring intellect, results in suspension of judgement as to primacy of will or intellect and leaving the two camps behind.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 12:47 pm 2. If the answer is, a little of both, is that not "logically impossible" ?
Yes, so far some other interesting comments....including yours... .
Just thinking aloud, because in consciousness, the conscious and subconscious mind work together in an 'illogically possible' way (breaks the rules of Bivalence/LEM), logically, I'm thinking we are presented with the same kind of challenge in trying to resolve paradox. Though like most, I would prefer to assign an absolute value to one or the other, without an exact science, I'm afraid we are left with a gradient. As such, I would vote for the Will comprising , say, a 70/30 split where the Will takes primacy over the intellect. Again, that kind of description of consciousness is not truly logical in and of itself.
To the Voluntarist, the Will (the will to survive and not die, the will to seek pleasure and purpose, etc.-see metaphysical voluntarism) is an awfully strong impulse that seemingly drives the volition of all self-aware/conscious creatures. For the sake of argument, the will almost acts like emergent instinct. But everyone's instinct to live, to have purpose, to seek pleasure and the like is somewhat different. For instance, a scientist must do science, a painter must paint, and so on. And without that feeling of purpose, one might be in despair, which in turn could lead to other deleterious things...
― Albert Einstein
- Formless777
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 2:24 am
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
These are old ideas, and while they have an admirable pedigree, we need more complex formulations to unlock the most complex question humanity is ever likely to face; that of Consciousness.
We cannot know if a mollusc is conscious. Based on their actions, we can suppose that shell-fish such as periwinkles don't spend much time cogitating, and their response to their environment is very simple by human standards, to they point where we can predict and control what a periwinkle does by stimulating it externally. On the other hand, octopi are also molluscs, and their behavior can, based on a lot of evidence now evidence, be very considered indeed. The Buddha preached that even rocks can teach humans the principles of enlightenment.
Neuroscience has shown that all human actions that we might describe as volitional i.e. based on will, are likely to begin well before the activation of, say, our language center when we move to speak. These potentialities are essentially chemical in nature, as we certainly cannot say that the action of any single neuron constitutes consciousness.
One might argue that a periwinkle has will, as it moves and feeds itself, and reproduces, but with what we now know about nervous systems, it is highly unlikely that a periwinkle as anything approaching consciousness, which might be described as that moment of insight wherein the will realizes "I am I".
Consider then the human intellect. It knows "I am I" and has clearly moved on from that little insight by the time it turns 4 years old. On the other hand, this consciousness we identify with is the product of this electrochemical meat machine in which we dwell. The intellect may be aware of this perspective, and may even be aware of neurons and their interactions, but the fact is, the intellect is largely a passenger, and the control over the will the intellect assumes it has often proves to be an illusion. We lack any direct control over our mental activity, and may only influence it indirectly through interpreting our experiences.
I doubt that anyone would argue that Will (as defined) is likely the earlier production, but it definitely isn't conscious. It is also worth highlighting again, that while intellect is conscious, it isn't directly conscious of its own operations, and has to infer a lot.
Arguably the real problem here isn't with Will, or Intellect, but with the notion of Consciousness itself. If a question's answer is not apparent, one proceeds down a checklist of methodologies to find an answer. A methodology that is often most fruitful with a difficult question is to interrogate the foundation concept of the question itself.
So I ask you, collectively, how can we even begin to understand consciousness when we can barely define it in meaningful terms? We take the idea for granted on so many levels. Consciousness is also difficult to identify as it is verging on perfect subjectivity, so how can we be objective about it?
We have created a discourse on the matter, and a good deal of science now, which is largely driving the discussion due to artificial intelligence research, but perhaps (by analogy) the trap is that we may well be in a hall of mirrors, each reflecting the other apparently ad infinitum, but actually the images are merely shrinking and the clarity is breaking down, and much of the problem comes back to this notion of Consciounsess itself.
I would suggest that perhaps like Cancer, which it turns out represents multiple different diseases erroneously bearing the same name, that Consciousness is an imperfect description of something that is actually a category, but which we assume is a singular phenomenon we all experience.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
Formless 777!Formless777 wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2021, 3:36 am Is it possible instead to reject both intellect and will? I think so.
These are old ideas, and while they have an admirable pedigree, we need more complex formulations to unlock the most complex question humanity is ever likely to face; that of Consciousness.
We cannot know if a mollusc is conscious. Based on their actions, we can suppose that shell-fish such as periwinkles don't spend much time cogitating, and their response to their environment is very simple by human standards, to they point where we can predict and control what a periwinkle does by stimulating it externally. On the other hand, octopi are also molluscs, and their behavior can, based on a lot of evidence now evidence, be very considered indeed. The Buddha preached that even rocks can teach humans the principles of enlightenment.
Neuroscience has shown that all human actions that we might describe as volitional i.e. based on will, are likely to begin well before the activation of, say, our language center when we move to speak. These potentialities are essentially chemical in nature, as we certainly cannot say that the action of any single neuron constitutes consciousness.
One might argue that a periwinkle has will, as it moves and feeds itself, and reproduces, but with what we now know about nervous systems, it is highly unlikely that a periwinkle as anything approaching consciousness, which might be described as that moment of insight wherein the will realizes "I am I".
Consider then the human intellect. It knows "I am I" and has clearly moved on from that little insight by the time it turns 4 years old. On the other hand, this consciousness we identify with is the product of this electrochemical meat machine in which we dwell. The intellect may be aware of this perspective, and may even be aware of neurons and their interactions, but the fact is, the intellect is largely a passenger, and the control over the will the intellect assumes it has often proves to be an illusion. We lack any direct control over our mental activity, and may only influence it indirectly through interpreting our experiences.
I doubt that anyone would argue that Will (as defined) is likely the earlier production, but it definitely isn't conscious. It is also worth highlighting again, that while intellect is conscious, it isn't directly conscious of its own operations, and has to infer a lot.
Arguably the real problem here isn't with Will, or Intellect, but with the notion of Consciousness itself. If a question's answer is not apparent, one proceeds down a checklist of methodologies to find an answer. A methodology that is often most fruitful with a difficult question is to interrogate the foundation concept of the question itself.
So I ask you, collectively, how can we even begin to understand consciousness when we can barely define it in meaningful terms? We take the idea for granted on so many levels. Consciousness is also difficult to identify as it is verging on perfect subjectivity, so how can we be objective about it?
We have created a discourse on the matter, and a good deal of science now, which is largely driving the discussion due to artificial intelligence research, but perhaps (by analogy) the trap is that we may well be in a hall of mirrors, each reflecting the other apparently ad infinitum, but actually the images are merely shrinking and the clarity is breaking down, and much of the problem comes back to this notion of Consciounsess itself.
I would suggest that perhaps like Cancer, which it turns out represents multiple different diseases erroneously bearing the same name, that Consciousness is an imperfect description of something that is actually a category, but which we assume is a singular phenomenon we all experience.
BTW, love the 'handle'! I must say too, excellent analysis. And wonderfully lucid questions!!! I liked the notion, if I may interpret as such, your 'categories' that may help describe conscious phenomena (Kantian). And in this instance, the phenomenon between trying to assign meaningful sense data to the so-called binary attributes of the Will and Intellect. If the intellect is part of the Will, and the Will part of the intellect, we may simply find that they are inseparable thus making them transcendent in their own kind of way. Meaning, does their qualities (Qualia) feature an existence that goes beyond our capacity to logically explain them? We certainly cannot physically explain them as we would a cake recipe or a concrete mix design for a cast-in-place bridge structure.
That may, in part, be a paraphrase or interpretation (at least one anyway) of your 'wonderful' reply-thank you. Alternatively, as another thought experiment, and thinking aloud again, I would like to consider an analogy to Emergence. Consider the emergent properties of birds, automatically swarming as a fixed innate biological system of survival needs. Can we assign a similar value system to consciousness and self-awareness? My initial reaction is no. Emergent instinct, on many levels, is quite distinct from the human Will. To begin to parse these distinctions, I think, we must first review, again, the meta-physics associated with the Will itself (first principles of Being):
" A proponent of metaphysical voluntarism is 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.[1] In his view, the will is not reasoning, but an irrational, unconscious urge in relation to which the intellect represents a secondary phenomenon. The will is actually the force at the core of all reality. This putting out of the drive–intention–vital dynamics later influenced Friedrich Nietzsche (will to power), Philipp Mainländer (will to die), Eduard von Hartmann, Julius Bahnsen and Sigmund Freud (will to pleasure). "
As you alluded somewhat, can we assign such qualities of biologically conscious creatures whose existence include self-awareness and volition to, say, emergent instinct? Can we assign physicalism to its explanations? Not likely. For instance, one's Will to seek and want and need pleasure, will to power, will to decide to live and not die, all seems counterintuitive to such emergent survival instinct or advantage(s). In other words, what, when, where and how did the Will develop when emergent instinct is all that needed for biological creatures to survive? Similarly, I once did a cursory model (borrowed a bit from theoretical physics) of human value systems, otherwise known as a kind of pseudo Anthropic condition:
Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity
The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind
The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.
Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of physical reality)? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such complexity? (Refer to philosophical 'Structuralism' as a reference-point to a sense of 'abstract structures' in nature.)
― Albert Einstein
- Consul
- Posts: 6044
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
(The same question can be asked about desires, wishes, and intentions: Are they ever subjective experiences with a genuine and distinctive phenomenal character, or just objective dispositions or inclinations to actions?)
Here are definitions of the noun "will" that I found in the Oxford English Dictionary:
WILL
=def
* Desire, wish, longing; liking, inclination, disposition (to do something)
* A desire or wish as expressed in a request; hence (contextually) the expression of a wish, a request, petition (sometimes passing into the sense 'a command')
* An inclination to do something, as contrasted with power or opportunity
* Intention, intent, purpose, determination
* The action of willing or choosing to do something; the movement or attitude of the mind which is directed with conscious intention to (and, normally, issues immediately in) some action, physical or mental; volition.
* The power or capacity of willing; that faculty or function which is directed to conscious and intentional action; power of choice in regard to action.
* Intention or determination that something shall be done by another or others, or shall happen to take place; (contextually) an expression or embodiment of such intention or determination, an order, command, injunction
* Consent, acquiescence, permission, favour, good will
- Consul
- Posts: 6044
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
For example, there is a book I want to buy; but willing myself to buy it involves more than wanting to buy it, viz. actually causing myself to buy it or trying to cause myself to buy it. But this raises the general question of the causal efficacy of volition.
- Consul
- Posts: 6044
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
Another possibility:3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 12:47 pmQuestions concerning consciousness:
1. Which camp do you fall under; do you consider the Will taking primacy over the Intellect, or is the Will subordinate to the Intellect?
2. If the answer is, a little of both, is that not "logically impossible" ?
"The will and the intellect are one and the same thing."
(Spinoza, Benedict de. Ethics, Proved in Geometrical Order. [1677.] Edited by Matthew J. Kisner. Translated by Michael Silverthorne and Matthew J. Kisner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. p. 87 [Part 2, Proposition 49, Corollary])
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Consciousness: The Will vs. the Intellect
I am a voluntarist because nobody does anything that they feel or think is not good or least bad. Conatus is peculiar to living entities and no living entity can endure minus conatus. Without conatus the living entity is deceased.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 12:47 pm Taken from William Barrett's, Irrational Man (Existentialism):
"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."
- Voluntarism: in the modern metaphysical sense is a theory which explains the universe as emanating ultimately from some form of will. In a broader psychological sense, the term is applied to any theory which gives prominence to will (in opposition to intellect ). In this latter sense, but not in the former, the philosophy of Augustine, Anselm, William of Occam, and Scotus may be styled Voluntarism.
- Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God's reason.
-According to intellectualism, choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as good; the will itself is determined. For voluntarism, by contrast, it is the will which determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Concerning the nature of heaven, intellectualists followed Aristotle's lead by seeing the final state of happiness as a state of contemplation. Voluntarism, by contrast, maintains that final happiness is an activity, specifically that of love.
-19th century voluntarism has its origin in Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason." Intellectually, humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality, but this need not and must not interfere with the duty of acting as though the spiritual character of this reality were certain.
Questions concerning consciousness:
1. Which camp do you fall under; do you consider the Will taking primacy over the Intellect, or is the Will subordinate to the Intellect?
2. If the answer is, a little of both, is that not "logically impossible" ?
Reason is engaged to serve conatus, by intellectual animals. Intellectual animals are animals that can learn from experience. Reason is acquired via natural selection.
The "state of contemplation" (Aristotle) is peculiar to the Absolute 'when' time, causation, and relativity don't apply.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023