Logos-Centric Metaphysics

Introduction

The simple definition of metaphysics (part 1) leads us to understand that metaphysics is Logos-centric by existential necessity. Yet, is it not the Holy Spirit who reveals the Son toward whom we can turn? (part 2).

Before presenting what a logocentric metaphysics is, it probably is useful to recall what metaphysics is, or, at least, the definition we retain here¹.

What is Metaphysics?

History of a Word and of a Matter

If Plato has once and forever established the speculative reference in metaphysics, the word itself derives from Aristotle’s work, who once and forever did set the conceptual language of science; both of them providing metaphysics with ultimate credentials.

It is important here to recall the three senses of the Greek meta: ‘after’, ‘beyond’ and ‘trans(formed)’, which senses shall play some instructive role in the following.

The vocable ‘metaphysics’ in one word is not to be found in Aristotle’s work where the matter is however clearly defined. Its occurrence is even quite late, appearing first in the catalog of Aristotle’s work established by the Anonymus Menagii, most probably Hesychius of Miletus (VI^th century AD), while Aristotle wrote the related fourteen books in the IV^th century BC. Some may have believed that the inaugural ta meta ta phusika (by Nicolas de Damas, 1^st century BC) only meant these texts were to take place ‘after the things about physics’; yet the metaphysical doctrinal intention of Aristotle is firmly established (not to mention that the metaphysics books were to be placed, per Aristotle himself, after the texts on mathematics!).

So, after specifically designating Aristotle’s books throughout the Middle Ages, “metaphysics” then rapidly and rightly designated the philosophical science of what is beyond physical realities, or what precedes it, to put it in Aristotle’s words:

the knowledge of this [motionless independent thing] precedes it [composite natural things] and is first philosophy, and it is universal in just this way, because it is first. And it belongs to this sort of philosophy to study being as being, both what it is and what belongs to it just by virtue of being.

Aristotle²

As we see it here, Aristotle’s metaphysics undeniably encompasses two topics: the being as being and the First being:

• If what precedes physics is not protophysics, this is because meta has here the sense of ‘trans’: the Latin transformatio exactly translates the Greek métamorphôsis; also, St Thomas Aquinas sometimes uses transphysica to designate metaphysical realities. This aligns with ‘first philosophy’ or ‘theology’, that is to say the science of the first Being or divine Being. And in fact, first philosophy or theology adequately describes several books of the Lyceum founder. The quasi equivalence between metaphysics and first philosophy is illustrated by Descartes’ English and French titles: Meditations on First Philosophy and Méditations métaphysiques (the original Latin title being Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, Paris, 1641).
• The being as being, distinctively, gets no specific science name in Aristotle’s books, but clearly endows meta with both senses of ‘after’ (once physical beings are noticed, after comes the question: what is being?) and ‘beyond’ (being as being is beyond any physical being).

While we today recognize in the latter topic what modern science has named ontology (Clauberg, 1647), neither Antiquity nor the Middle Ages saw a need for separating two necessarily combined points of view, yet never confusing them and, rather, recognizing that the two are entwined.

Whatever discussions have later taken place about hierarchizing these objects and related sciences (from Suarez to Gilson via Kant and Heidegger), we have no choice but to note that metaphysics, as it continues to be discussed today, still necessarily encompasses both topics, First Being and being as being.

About the Possibility of Metaphysics

Two prominent thinkers have tried to prove either the impossibility of metaphysics (that is Kant) or its historical failure (this is Heidegger).

In fact, the Kantian and post-Kantian criticism, misled by its own elaborate intellectual constructions, claims to fix a priori a limit to knowledge within the knowledge itself. Yet, what knowledge could know the limit of knowledge? As if an eye could see the limit (the border) of its vision. This is pure contradiction, in keeping with the whole project of the Critique of Pure Reason. There, “pure reason only is concerned with itself”, and “what is limiting must be different from what it limits” (sea does not limit sea), writes Kant, so reason cannot limit reason, which was the illusory purpose of the Critique—unless reason transcends itself, such as by being illuminated by an absolute (divine) Reason. As such, contrary to the Critique, if one can become aware of the limits of the human and existential conditioning, this is because “these limits are extrinsic and knowledge disposes of its internal illimitation” (Borella):

Likewise, intelligence cannot draw the limit of its intellective power, unless it surpasses that limit, and thus contradicts itself. So, we have to live with it, we are sentenced to the logos, even to the infinite (divine) Logos. Beyond the light of our intelligence is the infinite Source. This is why, in its very essence, the intellective light is metaphysical. In this respect, metaphysics is neither some philosophical luxury, nor vain exaltation, nor illusory pretentiousness: it results from the awareness of the very nature of intellect. […]. It is true that this awareness is not easy. We live and move within the logos, just as a fish lives in water. Nonetheless, it belongs to the spirit to be aware; so, it is not impossible to become aware of the ‘miraculous’ nature of the spiritual act, which is the act of intelligence.

Jean Borella³

Heidegger’s critique of all metaphysics before him, from Plato through the modern age, consists in denouncing the fact that this science never reached true being; it has been reduced, he thinks, to a limited ontotheology (term most probably forged by Kant), where God appears as a simple being. The truth was easily reestablished (formally by Etienne Gilson) as God is not a being, but he is the “pure act of being” (actus purus essendi, as expressed by St Thomas Aquinas, as an example), or, most frequently, the transcendent Cause of any being. God, as first being, ‘only’ is the auto-affirmation of the Cause preceding any being, be it the first one.

Metaphysics Practice: Reason or Intelligence?

Kant’s failure to see the possibility of metaphysics lies in his conviction that reason is the utmost ability of knowing, that strict rational construction is an unsurpassable means. In line with his times though, he is the first philosopher ever putting reason (Vernunft) above intelligence (Verstand). Yet, reason is just a tool, while intelligence leads and governs. Reason calculates (a ‘book of reasons’ was an accounting book) or reasons, which is the same, while intelligence understands the calculation or the reasoning. Reason is as limited as intelligence is unlimited. Reason is even twice limited; limited by the object it reasons on and by the logic it has to stick with, should it lead to contradiction or paradox. As such, reason is trapped within its own limits, though construction is still its mainspring. As an unavoidable consequence, it ends up in systems, in which reason becomes forever confined, carrying away with it the person reasoning. Intelligence, as totally opposed to reason, is pure opening to things or beings, just as the eye is open to whatever is visible. This goes as far as saying that things are not thought about, but think themselves in the intelligence of the person. That is why you cannot force yourself to understand something you do not understand (Simone Weil); this is what Plato called knowing by reminiscence or what classical philosophy has called knowing by participation. There, there is no construction; there, you cannot feel secure inside a rational system; there, there is no such thing as comfortable certainty. Even viewed from the empire of rationality, there is the realm of uncertainty—but an ineffable uncertainty. There, metaphysics invites mysticism; there, speculation (speculum means ‘mirror’ in Latin) meets revelation, even if of Platonic type; there, at last, knowledge may become gnosis. And that is, we believe, the fundamental purpose of metaphysics: to open the intellect to an epiphany of the Spirit, to offer the potential link from existential realities to the unique Reality, to let the necessary pneumatization of the intellect happen, if this is the will of the Spirit.

The Language of Metaphysics

Contrary to some unthoughts on metaphysics and religions, there is no such thing as some supra-metaphysics or “transcendent unity” or “Religio perennis” or “Sophia perennis” or “King of the world”, which requires putting oneself in God’s shoes, looking at religions from above them, and believing in one’s own intellectual power. Moreover, such alleged ‘Supra-religion’ does not require any specific revelation per se; in fine, this is just a bottom-up construction, a mythological projection of a concept (be it attractive before having thought it through). An immanent or, even better, an “analogic unity of religion” (Borella) would make more sense, keeping each one unique in its form and language.

This means then that metaphysics does not provide any supreme language above those of religions. As such, if metaphysics truly is an epiphany of the Spirit, the language of a (revealed) religion is adequate to express universal metaphysical (ultimate) notions, and vice versa.

What is a Logos-Centric Metaphysics?

Now, we believe that both the word ‘metaphysics’ and what it is about cannot be clearer. We also now know which faculty is at work (intelligence or intellect) and which language we can use (religious or not). Hence, it is about time to see what a Logos-centric metaphysics can be.

The Irruption of the Logos in Human History

As we have seen, the possibility of metaphysics lies in the fact that the human being “lives and moves within the logos, just as a fish lives in water” (Borella). The light of our intelligence is the infinite Source, which is in Christian terms: “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (Jn 1:9). It is thus crystal clear that any metaphysics can only exist if the Logos is part of the equation. Yet, there has been a unique moment in the history of humanity: that is when the Word, “and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1), the Logos Himself, “was made flesh” (Jn 1:14). This event is founded on the vertical identity of Christ-Word-Son, that is to say that from within the Trinity, at the eternal time of Creation and through Incarnation, the same ‘Person’ is at work. As such, the divine Logos is not some philosophical event per se and has no equivalent in philosophy, but It has indeed, whether you believe in it or not, relativized philosophy. Philosophy has thus been established in its proper order, where it is not supposed to drown within the endlessness of its own discourse (whether the ancient sophistic discourse, or its most modern equivalents: the Kantian, Hegelian, Heideggerian, Derridean, etc. discourses)⁴.

The Logos, through the vertical Identity (Christ-Word-Son), is the axis of the universe, the universe turns around It, and any thinking, looking for a way out of the trap of reason, simply turns to Him.

Such ‘vertical’ Logos is to be found in other traditions and languages. This is puruṣa and buddhi in the sāṃkhya. Buddhi, in the advaita vedānta, specifically corresponds to the intellect (Vijñānamayakośais). In Sufism, Ibn ‘Arabī distinguishes the three levels of the Logos, defined as al-haqiqa al-Muhammadiyya (the metaphysical reality of Muhammad):

• vis-à-vis the Principle (or Super-Being), Logos is the first degree of Being, the perfect theophany of God, in the very degree of the absolute Being;
• vis-à-vis the external world, Logos is the primary cause of its existence, its evolution and its conservation;
• vis-à-vis the human being and his final destiny, Logos is the efficient instrument of his spiritual evolution and his eternal destiny. He is the source of prophecy and the origin of holiness (nubuwa and walaya).

The “Two Hands” of God

Yet, while any metaphysics is Logos-centric by existential necessity, there is another ‘Person’ involved. That Person is what makes metaphysics an “epiphany of the Spirit” (Borella). Here we are, with the “two hands of God”, as St Irenaeus puts it — a mere figure of speech.

These two ‘hands’ are to be spotted all along the vertical Axis.

• Within the one God deployed in the Trinity, the Person of the Son is the pure relation of filiation; He shows a Person to be a Relation. On the other hand, what unifies the Persons of the Father and the Son is the Relation of donation and love, and that Relation Itself proves to be a Person, who is called the Holy Spirit in Christianity. This founds in divinis the commutability between Person and Relation.
• Now, God creates by the Word. It is a creatio ex nihilo sui et subjecti, meaning that neither the form nor the matter existed beforehand. So, God creates through the Word, fine; but where does He create? In the Holy Spirit! Space is the “sensorium Dei” from Newton, an image of God’s immanence, which coexists with His absolute transcendence.⁵
• On Earth, Christ incarnates but the Holy Spirit is never far: He is there at the virginal conception and deploys after the resurrection at Pentecost. Therefore, we turn to the Son while bathing in the Spirit.

And these are the two ways to God: Intelligence through the Son, Love through the Spirit. One is the Truth, the other is Charity. They cannot be one without the other. There is no Intelligence without Charity, no Truth without Love⁶.

This is why, in metaphysics, we can use the Christian language: turning to Christ opens to the Holy Spirit, or we can adopt a more general language: one turns to transcendence, and immanence may show up.

Yet, is it not even the contrary that is true: the Holy Spirit reveals the Son toward whom we can turn?

In fine, both, together, are the light of the intellect and of the world.

This is why metaphysics is necessarily Logos-centric and, alongside, an epiphany of the Spirit.

Note: while editing Jean Borella’s next book (Situation du catholicisme aujourd’hui. Entre résistance et dissolution — now published: 2023), one comes to this text from him:

Si l’on peut approprier la vérité au Fils et l’amour au Saint-Esprit, on comprend alors que l’œuvre propre de la charité c’est de conduire à la vérité de même que l’œuvre propre de l’Esprit c’est de révéler le Fils : Esprit et Fils, charité et vérité, volonté et intelligence, amour et connaissance, dans leur union et leur unité se réalise la perfection même de l’être.

If one can associate truth with the Son and love with the Holy Spirit, one thus understands that the work of charity is to lead to truth, just as the proper work of the Spirit is to reveal the Son: Spirit and Son, charity and truth, will and intelligence, love and knowledge, in their union and their unity fully realize the very perfection of being.

Jean Borella

Footnotes

1. In this paper, my thinking often follows Jean Borella’s thinking. For § 1: see Borella’s contribution to Bruno Bérard (dir) et al, Qu’est-ce que la métphysique ?, L’Harmattan, 2010 (pp. 149-178).[↩]
2. Cf. Metaphysics, Book 6, section 1026a.[↩]
3. « De la connaissance métaphysique : la métaphysique comme épiphanie de l’Esprit », in Bruno Bérard (dir) et al, Qu’est-ce que la métaphysique ? op. cit., p. 165.[↩]
4. Cf. Borella, Penser l’analogie, pp 14-15.[↩]
5. To be precise, matter is not created per se. It is not the object of a proper act of creation, but it necessarily ‘supports’ the creation of something; it is thus concreated. In St. Thomas Aquinas in particular: primary matter is not the object of a proper act of creation (for to create is to create being, and materia prima is not, by itself (per se) a being; so matter rather is concreated than created.[↩]
6. Love and Truth is a book in English from Jean Borella.[↩]