Freedoom (Prelude-1b)

Even in the absence of its energetic Catholic constituency, it could be tempting to identify NRx as an anti-Calvinist ideology, given the centrality of the occulted Calvinist inheritance to Moldbug’s critique of modernity. As Foseti remarks (in what remains a high-water mark of Neoreactionary exegesis):

Believe it or not, even though Moldbug’s definition of the Left is basically the first thing he wrote about, there is a fair amount of debate about this topic in “reactionary” circles. This debate is sometimes referred to as The Puritan Question. (In addition to Puritan, Moldbug also uses the terms: Progressive idealism, ultra-Calvinism, crypto-Christian, Unitarian universalists, etc.)

It is no part of this blog’s brief to facilitate the more somnolent — and at times simply derisive — positionings which Moldbug’s diagnosis can appear to open. While our Catholic friends may consider themselves to be securely located outside the syndrome under consideration, this attitude corresponds, structurally, or systematically, to a minority position (irrespective of the numbers involved). As a dissident schismatic sect, the NRx main-current is cladistically enveloped by the object of its critique. ‘Calvinism’ — in its historical and theoretical extension — is a problematic horizon, within which NRx is embedded, before it can conceivably be construed as a despised object for dismissal.

More directly relevant to this slowly emerging sequence is the question of doom, employed as a Gnon-consistent super-category embracing fate and providence. Trivially, it is maintained here that the fundamental Calvinist challenge to the meaning of history and the final status of human agency has been in no way resolved over the course of its successive cladistic developments, but only evaded, marginalized, and effaced. At the level of philosophical clarity, no significant ‘progress’ has taken place. Certain questions, once found pressing, have merely been dropped, or quasi-randomly reformulated. Typically, a hazy tolerance for implicit cognitive discordance has replaced a prior condition of acute theological anguish. Modernist dissatisfaction with previously proposed religious solutions to certain profound metaphysical quandaries has been mistaken for the dissolution of these quandaries themselves. As invocations of ‘freedom’ become ever more deafening, conceptual purchase has steadily receded. An intoxicating — and more importantly narcotizing — mental cocktail of unconstrained private volition and naturalistic determinism is (absurdly) presumed to have obsoleted the historical dilemma of divine omnipotence and human free-will (or its philosophical proxy, time and temporalization). Discomforting problems that install uncertainty at the core of human self-comprehension are treated as embarrassing cultural relics, inherited from benighted ancestors, on those rare occasions when they impinge at all.

For Outside in, Calvinism remains an unexplored doom. Apprehended within its own terms, it is a providential occurrence whose sense remains sequestered within the secret counsel of God.

As fuel, three passages, taken from Chapters 15 and 16, Book 1, of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), the Henry Beveridge translation:

Book 1. Chapter 15.

8. Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her τὸ ἑγεμονικὸν. To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and Judgment, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness. Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason. In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself. Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed, if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave these things to their own place (see Book 2 chap. 2) At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition,—to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man’s fall he might extract materials for his own glory.

Chapter 16.

2. … the Providence of God, as taught in Scripture, is opposed to fortune and fortuitous causes. By an erroneous opinion prevailing in all ages, an opinion almost universally prevailing in our own day — viz. that all things happen fortuitously, the true doctrine of Providence has not only been obscured, but almost buried. If one falls among robbers, or ravenous beasts; if a sudden gust of wind at sea causes shipwreck; if one is struck down by the fall of a house or a tree; if another, when wandering through desert paths, meets with deliverance; or, after being tossed by the waves, arrives in port, and makes some wondrous hair-breadth escape from death — all these occurrences, prosperous as well as adverse, carnal sense will attribute to fortune. But whose has learned from the mouth of Christ that all the hairs of his head are numbered (Mt. 10:30), will look farther for the cause, and hold that all events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God. With regard to inanimate objects again we must hold that though each is possessed of its peculiar properties, yet all of them exert their force only in so far as directed by the immediate hand of God. Hence they are merely instruments, into which God constantly infuses what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.

8. … we hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, — that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, he decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined. What, then, you will say, does nothing happen fortuitously, nothing contingently? I answer, it was a true saying of Basil the Great, that Fortune and Chance are heathen terms; the meaning of which ought not to occupy pious minds. For if all success is blessing from God, and calamity and adversity are his curse, there is no place left in human affairs for fortune and chance. We ought also to be moved by the words of Augustine (Retract. lib. 1 cap. 1), “In my writings against the Academics,” says he, “I regret having so often used the term Fortune; although I intended to denote by it not some goddess, but the fortuitous issue of events in external matters, whether good or evil. Hence, too, those words, Perhaps, Perchance, Fortuitously, which no religion forbids us to use, though everything must be referred to Divine Providence. Nor did I omit to observe this when I said, Although, perhaps, that which is vulgarly called Fortune, is also regulated by a hidden order, and what we call Chance is nothing else than that the reason and cause of which is secret. It is true, I so spoke, but I repent of having mentioned Fortune there as I did, when I see the very bad custom which men have of saying, not as they ought to do, ‘So God pleased,’ but, ‘So Fortune pleased.’” In short, Augustine everywhere teaches, that if anything is left to fortune, the world moves at random. And although he elsewhere declares (Quæstionum, lib. 83). that all things are carried on, partly by the free will of man, and partly by the Providence of God, he shortly after shows clearly enough that his meaning was, that men also are ruled by Providence, when he assumes it as a principle, that there cannot be a greater absurdity than to hold that anything is done without the ordination of God; because it would happen at random. For which reason, he also excludes the contingency which depends on human will, maintaining a little further on, in clearer terms, that no cause must be sought for but the will of God. When he uses the term permission, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of all things, because nothing happens without his order or permission. He certainly does not figure God sitting idly in a watch-tower, when he chooses to permit anything. The will which he represents as interposing is, if I may so express it, active (actualis), and but for this could not be regarded as a cause.

ADDED: In connection with some of the discussion taking place in the comment thread (below), this paragraph from Pope Benedict XVI’s (2006) Regensburg Lecture seems worth reproducing here: “Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.”

October 29, 2014admin 30 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

30 Responses to this entry

  • bob sykes Says:

    As a lapsed Catholic, I am unread in Calvinistic literature. This sounds Islamic to me.


    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 11:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Freedoom (Prelude-1b) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 11:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Deogolwulf Says:

    “This sounds Islamic to me.”

    The misconception of God that arose in Europe in the late middle-ages with William of Ockham, an idea, that is, of an omnipotently wilful god in whom will is prior and predominant to reason, is essentially that of Allah.


    admin Reply:

    Do you think Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg Lecture is applicable to Calvinism, or even cryptically addressed to it?


    Deogolwulf Reply:

    His criticism applies to every iteration of voluntarism, which, in modern times, appears to be the default idea of God, not least amongst atheists*, but whether Benedict had in mind to address it cryptically and specifically to Calvinism is another matter.

    [*That this voluntaristic misconception of God is widespread amongst atheists is shown in how widely are invoked the omnipotence paradox and the Euthyphro dilemma. God, as understood by the classical theist, cannot do what is contrary to reason, which is one with his will. Understood thus, there is no omnipotence paradox or Euthyphro dilemma, and the atheist who thinks he scores a point or two against the existence of God by means of one or both of these objections scores only against the omnipotent god of dark and wayward will, namely, against the very misconception that is but a projection of his own dark and wayward will.]


    admin Reply:

    Calvin certainly seems to have thought that problems at least closely-related to those you mention were internal tensions of the Christian faith. Could Arminianism have been such a consistent engine of theological controversy were this not the case?

    Logos — human or divine — is inaccessible to a mankind depraved by the Fall.

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    This depends on the depravity. But history does show that for the most part, humans have not acted freely, or if they have, their freedom is mostly characterized by ‘random’ acts of evil.

    Now, the issue with this analysis is that if I freely choose to follow the will of another, in historical terms my choice is undifferentiated from compulsion; so the purpose of evil in this analysis can only be to show that humans do have free will, not the character of that free will.

    But it also shows that the human actualization of free will is rather low and its implementation slipshod; I think Calvin made a mistake in his interpretation here, following ‘history’ too naively.

    I made a post here that touches on this problem, but takes things in a different, perhaps considered ‘arminian’ direction. We Easterners are synergists, focusing more on the actualization of characteristics rather than imputation of characteristics (whether legal or not.)

    NRX I think, must embrace the syngeristic position fully (RCC seems to, but the expression of it seems to totter and ride the line) if it is to counter Calvinism, and thus the Judaizing strand it adopted, at the root.

    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 12:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • timothy Says:

    @bob sykes

    Calvinism could be described as Islam that went to college, an effect of the centrality of iconoclasm to both traditions.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Iconoclasm was originally in Judaism to prevent people from making images of God prior to his incarnation. The temple worship was full of images, cherubim, angels, bulls, fruit, birds, etc. But idols – that is, images of gods – were forbidden. This is the ‘original’ Judaism. Arguably, it is the ‘original’ religion of man, which we might attribute to say, the prophet Enoch.

    All religions trying to ‘go back to the root’ (radicals) will all adopt a form of iconoclasm if for no reason other than the fact that decorations and details are accrued over time and they will be motivated to strip away the layers ‘covering’ the originals.

    Two points:

    1. Later Islam, Later Judaism (what we now call ‘Judaism’) and Protestantism are very mistaken about ‘original’ belief. Early Islam permitted images but not images of Allah (this is as good an approximation of the primitive stance as possible.) These images could even be sacred as, for instance, an image of the prophet M. might be highly venerated and early Muslims venerated the ‘prophets’ depicted by their Nestorian neighbors in icons.
    2. Christianity fulfills this essential edict in that the divine gives itself an image in the man Jesus. After this, all depiction of the divine, retroactively and otherwise, participates in the form of this man. Look up Orthodox icons of the days of Genesis; the ‘Lord’ creating the Garden is obviously a Jesus, though perhaps not an incarnate one. (A divine being and not yet a man.)

    St. John Damascene’s central argument in On The Divine Images is simply that, since God gave himself an image, we are freely permitted to use it. If the divine is now imaged, it is now possible to detect false images of the divine, and so any general panic against sacred images is superstition.

    Chesterton makes a similar argument, noting that of course if Moses had permitted ANY images of the divine, just to appease the people, it wouldn’t have been two generations before it became a vagina or a penis. Horrifying apes.


    Alex Reply:

    Clown terror. (Thomas Murner on Protestant iconoclasm.)


    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 12:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:


    This ”iconclasm” is a reaction against idolatry. Seeking to return Christianity to its roots. Just as the jews do not utilize images in worship.


    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 12:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • timothy Says:


    I understand the justification/rationalization that Protestants have for their iconoclasm; that doesn’t affect my judgement that it leads to pathological behavior and starts the slow march to apostasy.

    For full disclosure, I’m an agnostic, so you aren’t dealing with a Catholic who’s out for some trolling over the Puritan Question.


    admin Reply:

    OK, but consequentialist criticism of religious doctrines always strikes me as incredibly weak.


    timothy Reply:

    Approaching religion as just another ideology, I fail to see the weakness of pointing out the consequences of a particular doctrine.

    What’s more, the working out of the doctrines/memes in successive generations is, at least for me, the way to connect the family tree of Calvin in Geneva, to Puritans in England, to Pilgrims on the Mayflower, yadda yadda, Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Unitarians, to our contemporary Atheism+ types who seem to be rather, how should we say, “iconoclastic” about Christian symbols?


    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 1:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Whether embedded within Calvinism or not, this blog sure displays an impressive work ethic.


    admin Reply:



    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 1:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Deogolwulf Says:


    “Logos — human or divine — is inaccessible to a mankind depraved by the Fall.”

    And with teachings like that, many painful lessons follow, and not just intramurally.


    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 4:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    I find interesting that when one sees Erasmus or Servetus, it’s clear that the growth of classical knowledge and the advancement of science had created a situation in which large parts of the intelligentsia in Europe had realized that Christianity was bogus.

    They probably thought that rationality would prevail and that the Church would lose its power to science or something. But what happened is that screaming demagogues came out of nowhere in droves and soon dominated the ideological vacuum that incipient science had created. And what they sold was not rationality or heliocentrism, but something 10 times wackier and more violent than the Roman Church had ever been.

    Fast forward to the late 18th century, and the further advances of science and history produce a new cohort of intellectuals convinced that Christianity, this time in 2 flavors is bogus. They probably thought that rationality would prevail…

    but something 10 times wackier and more violent than the Puritans had ever been appeared, and won. We call it progressivism.

    Fast forward to the early 21st century, and a small group of aspiring intellectuals are starting to notice that Progressivism is bogus. They probably thought…


    Rasputin Reply:

    Neat formulation. The leading lights of NRx should probably shift camp to the Cathedral and begin formulating the next bat-shit insane Leftist doctrine for world domination, mega death and lulz.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Many are just waiting on an offer Mr. R.

    It’s just not attractive now: you have to be gay, possibly chop your dick off [trans] and spend a lot of time listening to cracked out Schizo Vibrants babbling on and nod your head as if you’ve just listened to a lecture from Einstein. Oh and they’re out of money.

    Straight White Males who aren’t schizo and have an IQ over 86 need not apply.
    No, not 130. 87 is the cut off. And a merciful bar it is…

    A better offer surely awaits?


    Contemplationist Reply:

    …aaand the award for Horrorist Post of Oct 2014 goes to Spandrell. *shudder*


    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Horrorist Post of Oct 2016


    Mai La Dreapta Reply:

    This is picking nits, but I really don’t think that Erasmus et al. thought that Christianity was bogus. I think that they thought that Scholasticism was bogus, being based, as it was, on bad readings of classical authors and bad readings of their own tradition, which had gone unnoticed for a long time since knowledge of Greek and good primary sources were all lost. What Erasmus (and his archenemy Luther, interestingly) wanted was basically Christianity without the baggage of Scholasticism, but what they got was…

    Anyway, I concur with Contemplationist. Horrorist Post of the Year.


    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    @bob sykes

    Yes it does somewhat.

    Difference being in Islam Faith won decisively over reason [long before Calvin].

    In Catholic Hellenism faith and reason compromised and indeed came to complement each other.

    In Post-Hellenism reason won over faith, that is the Enlightenment. However very swiftly after Victory Reason dispenses with God.

    And now of course the Calvinists have dispensed not only with God but reason.

    Along the Way Histories Divine Charter Banking [Protestants especially England] got lazy and handed over the reins a short time ago to their Accountants and Lawyers so they could go to Europe and find themselves. Said Lawyers/Accountants instantly reverted to Histories Trolls.

    There’s not much hope for Hellenistic Catholicism amongst the 3d Worlder’s who are the only young people going to Catholic Mass now…so…yep…thank you Protestants. Sure you made a lot of money but you lost Christendom doing it. Now Western Civilization which indeed it carried forward and nurtured [as Rome carried forth Hellenistic Civilization] is gone as well.

    Thanks a lot Prots, praise Jesus, purpose driven lives and meth.

    Western Civilization rose from the ashes of the Apocalypse at the end of the Second Bronze Age and has had about a 3000 year run. Ye Prots ran it into the ground in 300 years.


    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 8:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    “As a dissident schismatic sect, the NRx main-current is cladistically enveloped by the object of its critique. ‘Calvinism’ — in its historical and theoretical extension — is a problematic horizon, within which NRx is embedded, before it can conceivably be construed as a despised object for dismissal.”

    NRx is indeed enveloped by the object of its critique.

    Very apt – and the eternal curse of rightwing politics (yes, tender reader: identifying mere human ideas as the cause of social disorder is terribly, terribly POLITICAL and only accurate in a profoundly base and crude sense). But why is this characterization so apt? Which is to ask: how?

    The neo-reactionary implicitly (though not always consciously) recognizes at least to a degree the law of original unity – that the earlier the time, the higher the degree of social order society typically exhibits and enjoys. That they describe their current foray into revelation as “dark enlightenment” simply demonstrates how many years into the past neo-reactionaries are able to see – or at least claim to see – evidence of the law of original unity.

    But Calvinism did not conjure up bad ideas; human reason conjured up Calvinism and human reason is a bit more than 400 years old!

    I, a secular Jew, recognize that Calvinism is mere iteration of the demonic creed of REASON that man is born with. When the neo-reactionary understands this he will also see that this “ideology” as a political movement is simply manifestation of communal disobedience to His will. As a result, the neo-reactionary will SIMULTANEOUSLY cease to be political, know that the original unity of society exhibited greatest order, and understand the several ways in which the phrase “every people has the government they deserve” is necessarily and inevitably true.


    This is about epistemology and metaphysics or, rather, the proper understanding thereof.

    I like to think I’m about as extreme a Platonist and rationalist (as opposed to empirist) on epistemology and metaphysics as one can be. I’m a hard dualist on the mind-body problem and believe in a priori knowledge and universals. I think that all true propositions are inherently analytic (not synthetic), that essence is prior to superior to, separate from existence. But most importantly I think that ALL THESE VIEWS ARE ONE AND THE SAME (belief in abstract/divine), come from intuition/faith, and lead not to the correct “politics” but to the right understanding of politics.


    Posted on October 29th, 2014 at 8:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Friedrich Ludovico Says:

    The fundamental matter with Progressivism’s cladistic roots in Calvinism is the primacy of the faith of the intellectual, i.e. faith in faith. This is not the case with Catholicism, especially the medieval form, where the question is one not of clinging to and holding onto a different “view” than that of Calvinism, but letting go of views. Faith is the act of the fearful and trembling mortal, fearing the wrath of God, one surrenders oneself to God. The dispensation of grace actually happens as a result of “self-surrender,” rather than with a Calvinist, protestant, intellectualist “dispensation of law.”

    We’re talking here about the difference between a worldview where it is considered “possible” to rationalise governance from the ground up, and one where what was, is, and ever shall be, are accepted for what they are. Existence is existence, God is God, humans are unequal and never can be made to fit a rule, and as a reactionary one makes peace with the world as it is.

    Inasmuch as this is understood, the authority and natural order of life under the Church becomes self-evident. This is many layers deep, and not simply a matter of structure and formal order. I also say this not as a Catholic but as a Buddhist.


    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    Friedrich Ludovico,

    “The fundamental matter with Progressivism’s cladistic roots in Calvinism is the primacy of the faith of the intellectual, i.e. faith in faith.”

    Faith in faith? Or faith in reason?

    Insofar as Progressivism’s cladistic roots can be traced in any permanent sense to mere ideas, it can be traced to those of Aristotle – not coincidentally known as the intellectual grandfather of science. This is clear as day. Aristotle is the intellectual forefather of Progressivism in the Western tradition.

    If you don’t believe that universals are separate from, prior to, and superior to particulars, then you cannot believe in the Creator. Aristotle did not; Plato did.

    If you do not believe in the Creator, you do not believe in spiritual realities beyond human comprehension. If you do not believe in spiritual realities beyond human comprehension, your religion is debased to the state of mere ideology, which is antisocial by definition and the means by which social order is disrupted, debased, and dismantled.

    “This is not the case with Catholicism, especially the medieval form, where the question is one not of clinging to and holding onto a different “view” than that of Calvinism, but letting go of views.”


    What’s the purpose of forming views if not to communicate them? And note that explicit communication is inherently political by virtue of man’s nature.

    Any religion is generally as true as it obviates the human folly of forming opinions of what ought to be.


    Posted on October 30th, 2014 at 12:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    ” … the activities and objects of the intellect and will mutually include each other: the intellect understands the will’s willing, and the will wills the intellect’s understanding. … Is there a danger of an endless regress here? Aquinas raises the question himself:

    We cannot want anything unless we think of it. So if the will moves the intellect to think by willing to think, that willing will have to be preceded by another thought, and that thought by another willing, and so on ad infinitum. But that is impossible; so the will does not move the intellect.

    Aquinas replies that though every volition requires thought, not every thought is voluntary. Hence, there is no regress; but of course the question remains: what is the cause of non-voluntary thought? And the ultimate answer to that question, Aquinas says with an allusion to a mysterious passage in Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics, is God.”

    – Kenny, Aquinas on Mind.

    All the way down…


    Posted on November 1st, 2014 at 4:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • on Calvin – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] onto this lately. form which, Calvin: Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by […]

    Posted on May 11th, 2016 at 5:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Liberdade (Prelúdio-1b) – Outlandish Says:

    […] Em conexão com algumas das discussões que estão ocorrendo na seção de comentários (aqui), este parágrafo do Sermão de Regensburg (2006) do Papa Bento XVI parece digna de reprodução […]

    Posted on October 20th, 2016 at 11:06 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment