This Dark Age

A manual for life in the modern world.

By Daniel Schwindt

NOTICE:
This Dark Age is now available in paperback on Amazon. The print version is MUCH cleaner than this online version, which is largely unedited and has fallen by the wayside as the project has grown. If you’ve appreciated my writing, please consider leaving a review on the relevant paperback volumes. The print edition also includes new sections (Military History, War Psychology, Dogmatic Theology).

Volume 1 | Volume 2 | Volume 3| Volume 4 | Volume 5 | Volume 6

The presence of teleology

Teleology refers to the final end of a being, and the presence of teleology is a distinguishing characteristic of traditional philosophy as opposed to modern systems which either deny its validity or ignore it completely.

Before we enter into the specifics of a traditionalist anthropology, it is important to point out that for Aristotle as well as medieval Christianity, man is envisioned in terms of his spiritual destiny. That is to say, man is first and foremost a being who is in the process of becoming, and to study him as he is without regard to his final end is to study the acorn without allowing for the fact that its entire truth is expressed in the fully developed oak tree. The difficulty here is obviously the fact that oak trees are observable and therefore undeniable, whereas the destination of man is beyond his present state, making it very easily deniable from the point of view of materialist science. What we are dealing with, then, is a spiritual anthropology that addresses itself to man in his present state in addition to his post-humous state(s), asking if there are not aspects of his being which escape, even in his present state, the bounds of nature and touch upon the supernatural. We look at man and we ask: what is the truth that is being realized through life’s journey and what does its final realization look like, since this will be the fullest expression of the truth about man.

We will also emphasize that this must be the starting point and not an ‘addition’ to the purely empirical observations about man offered by profane science. In other words, we cannot, as some well-intentioned theologians have sought to do, try to take man as presented by atheistic science and then superimpose on that creature a theological superstructure. This does not at all suffice, as we will see below, since the creature presented to us is already disfigured beyond recovery and whatever kind of mental acrobatics are used by theologians to cobble together a soul are doomed.

Worst of all, this concession to the social sciences, which allows them to pre-determine human nature to be divinized post-facto by religion, grants secular anthropology a semblance of objectivity and depth that it could not possibly attain. The proper order of things is the reverse, whereby the spiritual doctrine of man provides the parameters for the development of social sciences, and it is the body that congeals around the soul[1] and not the opposite.

[1] This vocabulary and manner of speaking are admittedly very weak, but will soon be clarified.

Share This