The Psychology of Ontological Proof

This seems to be the case for me and why it is necessary for us to prove to ourselves if and how we exist. We feel compelled to study our being and to explain it since somehow we do not feel complete. This study of being and in particular our being, we call the study of ontology.

Naturally, if we were ourselves, there would be no reason to argue about it since the proof is in the pudding. But, as Chesterton implies, something went wrong somewhere.

But how do we study ontology in order for the objective benefit of our being? Is philosophy enough? There is Kant’s view of our phenomenal self being cut off from noumenon. Yet Plato refers in his allegory of the cave that phenomenon is a reflection. Well if it is a reflection, there must be some sort of connection.

As you know people argue endlessly about this and these arguments are logical. but is logic sufficient for the study of ontology or is something else necessary. First I may as well pass along a quotation from Robert Heinlein which should provoke the appropriate growls from the logicians.

Ain’t that the truth. How many times are ideas bandied around that give the appearance of importance but actually lead to nothing conclusive and only continue to move in circles. The attraction is in self justifiction and the beauty of ideas themselves but separate from ourselves.

So the question becomes if the study of ontology is really logical or does this logic only serve to validate something of greater importance and the basis of our attraction to ontology?

This is my view and now requires me to use a word that has been abused if possible even more than the word “art”, and this word is “love.”

I would like to quote a very profound observation in this context by Simone Weil.

It is our heart where our experience of “being” is revealed. And the quality of this revelation is proof for ourselves of our own existence.

A nineteenth century theologian, Friedrich Schleiermacher asserted for example that our phenomenal or morally independent self was able to experience its own transcendence through “a feeling of absolute dependence.” This takes it out of the logical domain and into the experiential or domain of the heart. In this way two distinctly different levels of consciousness are experienced.

the transcendental point of consciousness is that in which consciousness is experienced as itself and more than itself. This is the connection between the head and the heart and the shift from thought to feeling. Logic supports and discriminates at this point but doesn’t dominate. It doesn’t close off our being, our openness, as it does by itself.

But this brings us back to that abused word “love.” The quality of love Simone Weil is referring to has nothing to do with our normal experience. It is a completely different quality of experience.

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom was metropolitan of Western Europe (Russian Orthodox equivalent of archbishop). He understood this well as I read when in response to a question on the lack of emotional expression exhibited by the Russian choir during a service he said:

This is the very deep observation that is usually overlooked. Love, as we normally understand and experience it, is inadequate for the ontological experience of our being or the experience of ourselves which enables the development of our being.

This gets people angry both in their support of logic and emotion. The logician doesn’t want to be bothered and the sentimentalist equates love with intensity and unaware that the true distinction and its ontological value is in its quality which they are unaware of by their reliance on intensity.

So ontological proof as I’ve come to understand it requires the appreciation of both are logical and emotional limitations that the people on both sides struggle against considering.

Yet it is precisely this qualitative unification of mind, heart, and body in which this unification finds expression, that the ontological proof of man’s existence is revealed.

This qualitative unification is real psychology and so much so that in a world dominated by illusion, it will only be pursued by a minority with the inner strength to experience impartially the reality of their own human condition and desire the ontological proof of their own existence and purpose.

The desire then is for the real experience of love different and far beyond the normal experience and understanding of the word but is within man’s potential to experience.

This is very much out of the mainstream since it annoys just about everyone but if you have some thoughts on it, feel free to post them.