with Chapter XVIII and the rest of the book. The necessity of
both going beyond and conforming to previously
considered types of knowledge if there is or if there is to be a
higher integration of human living than what is provided by man's
Chief among basic characteristics of knowledge: the determination of a
heuristic structure which determines in advance of knowing certain
general attributes of the object of knowledge.
Comparison with empirical science.
General transcendent knowledge: knowledge that God is, not
what He is.
1. The Notion of Transcendence
Transcendent vs. Immanence
Common view of knowing models it on looking.
Error is then a matter of seeing what is not there or not seeing what
Correction is then only possible by other "super" looks that are
subject to the same difficulty.
Knowing is immanent:
1. It occurs within the knower.
2. What is known is nothing but the content immanent within the act
The argument for knowing-as-looking is not itself a
looking, but rather an exercise of intelligence and reasonableness.
Transcendence as going beyond.
Present study has revealed a progression of "goings beyond."
Is human knowledge confined to the universe of proportionate being?
The elementary matter of raising further questions.
Chapter XVIII left us with man's incapacity for sustained
Is there a higher integration and a higher viewpoint corresponding to
If so, the necessary transcendence will transcend "hitherto considered
procedures of transcendence.
For Chapter XIX (recalling 0.1), transcendence is a development in
man's knowledge corresponding to a development in man's being.
Its principles will govern the study of transcendent knowledge.
Man has in fact extrapolated from the past through the present to the
Can he extrapolate beyond proportionate being to
2. The Immanent Source of Transcendence
2.1 The detached,
disinterested, and unrestricted desire to know
is the immanent source of transcendence, the origin of all questions
which drive the questioner beyond every given limit.
This desire is not only the operator of cognitional development, but
also the opponent of attached and interested subjectivity and
The claim that the desire to know is unrestricted seems
The claim does not mean that man's understanding
is unrestricted, for unrestricted understanding would exclude the
possibility of any desire to understand.
The claim does not mean that man's attainment of
understanding will be unrestricted, for such attainment has
conditions of which unrestricted desire is but one.
The claim does not mean that the desire to know
everything entails a duty to know everything or an expectation that
man will know everything.
Whereas restricted desire to understand opposes
total obscurantism, unrestricted desire opposes every
partial as well as total obscurantism.
there is no evidence that we are running out of questions to ask.
the pure desire to know is unrestricted, because its object, being, is
Doubt as to the unrestricted character of my
desire to know proves that this desire is active, concerning itself
with "what lies beyond a suspected limited horizon."
3. The Notion of Transcendent Knowledge
The range of possible questions is larger than the
range of possible answers.
"The requirement is a critical survey of possible questions" for
setting aside those that cannot be answered and limiting oneself to
those that can.
A prior critical inquiry into possibility will itself
require a grounding, and so will that grounding, etc., ad infinitum.
Only an appeal to fact can settle a question of what is possible.
propositions with terms that occur in judgments of fact—will
alone be of use.
The fact of knowledge determines the
possibility of knowledge.
has four stages:
1. Cognitional activity as activity: Chapters I-X.
2. Cognitional activity as cognitional, determining positions
on self-affirmation, knowledge of being, and objectivity: Chapters
3. Positions and counterpositions dialectically opposed in accordance
with the logic of self-affirmation (Chapter XIV). This in turn
provides a basis for a metaphysics of proportionate being (Chapters
XV-XVII) and an ethics (Chapter XVIII).
4. Chapter XIX begins the 4th stage. Being is
whatever can be intelligently grasped and reasonably affirmed,
proportionate if it lies within the domain of man's experience,
transcendent if lies without.
This last stage "will contribute to a determination of
the power of the human mind."
Because their accounts of proportionate
knowledge are deficient, neither positivists nor Kantians can halt the
attempt to demonstrate transcendent knowledge.
Positivism is a tissue of counterpositions.
Kantianism errs in not recognizing the constitutive role of the
unconditioned in judgment, a role evident in Kant's schematism of the
4. Preliminaries to Conceiving the Transcendent Idea
heuristically the transcendent idea, we must first extrapolate from
Just as mathematics is more concrete than logic yet
more abstract than physics, so the present extrapolation lies between
mere conceptualization and empirical verification. We will, however,
be able to verify certain elements of the extrapolation.
Being has been identified with the real. But what
There are four clues:
1. Pure notion
notion of being
acts of understanding, conceiving, and affirming being
unrestricted act of understanding (UAU)
The pure notion of being is the pure desire to know.
It is the ground of intelligent inquiry and critical reflection. It
is called a "notion" because it is intelligent desire.
notion of being is whatever is to be grasped intelligently and
The pure desire to know, because it is reasonable,
restricts itself to restricted attainments of knowledge. This yields
only restricted acts of understanding being.
Only an UAU being knows the answer to the question,
"What is [the essence of] being?," for only an UAU has the idea of
being as its content.
The idea of being "assigns the limit to the whole
process of going beyond" and is therefore absolutely transcendent.
The fact of extrapolation to transcendent
knowledge proves its possibility.
Although man cannot enjoy an UAU, he can still determine heuristically
a number of features of the answer to the question, "What is being?"
He can do this by a dual extrapolation:
on the side of the subject from restricted to
unrestricted understanding, and
on the side of the object from the structure of
proportionate being to the transcendent idea of being.
Since obscurantism is indefensible, "an extrapolation
of the idea of being is necessary if one is to measure the power and
the limits of the human mind."
5. The Idea of Being
An idea is the content of an act of understanding.
"Being is the objective of the unrestricted desire to
know. Therefore, the idea of being is the content of an UAU."
The idea of being leaves nothing to be understood and
so is absolutely transcendent.
Being "is completely universal and completely
concrete. Therefore, the idea of being is the content of an act of
understanding that grasps everything about everything."
The idea of being is the total range of
The idea of being is the idea of the good, because the
good is the intelligible.
The UAU is one act.
The idea of being is one idea.
The idea of
being is one, but of many; immaterial, but of the material;
nontemporal, but of the temporal; nonspatial, but of the spatial.
What is possible for restricted understanding is not
beyond the attainment of unrestricted understanding; and so 5.9
affirms no paradox.
The idea of
being has a primary component and a secondary component.
The primary component is the principle by which the secondary is
Inasmuch as there is a single act of understanding, there is a primary
Insofar as the primary grasps itself, the secondary is understood.
(Idea = intelligently grasping intelligibility + nonintelligent
6. The Primary Component in the Idea of Being
The primary component in the idea of being
consists in the unrestricted act's self-understanding.
The secondary component consists in the unrestricted act's
understanding of everything else because it understands
The duality of knower and known is not found in the
idea of being.
Knowing is knowing being. Only relevant judgments can
determine the difference between or identity of knower and known.
Ordinarily, "intelligibility" denotes what can be
More profoundly, "intelligibility" denotes the primary component of an
the intelligible that is also intelligent,
the generative insight itself as distinct from its issue,
"the ground or key or root from which results
intelligibility in the ordinary sense."
To understand the primary component of an idea is to understand
understanding; to understand the secondary component, it is not
necessary to understand understanding.
For example, the generative principle of the series of
positive integers is the insight without which one can do arithmetic,
but not grasp the idea of positive integers. That is, positive
integers are intelligible, but not intelligent. The insight into
positive integers is an intelligent intelligible that makes the
idea of positive integers possible.
Without some understanding of understanding, there can be no primary
component of an idea and hence no idea.
intelligent intelligibility, intrinsically independent of the
As essence, as conceived, is abstracted from the empirical residue,
but does not understand, and so is a spiritual product, not
itself spiritual. A conceived essence is a secondary component of an
The primary component of the idea of being = the UAU.
The UAU must understand itself, and so must
understand itself as unrestricted; it must therefore, understand its
content, its product, its issue, namely, the secondary component. The
unrestricted act, understanding itself, thereby understands
The UAU is the insight which, if understood, grasps
everything about everything else. Therefore, we are justified in
calling that insight the primary component in the idea of being.
component in the idea of being is the primary intelligible and is
identical with intelligence in act.
secondary component in the idea of being is the (class of the)
secondary intelligibles and are the primary's products, grasped
inasmuch as the primary understands itself. Intelligible only in the
ordinary sense: understood, but not understanding.
7. The Secondary Component in the Idea of Being
It seems that the nonsystematic component in this and
other possible universes excludes the possibility of an unrestricted
But from the viewpoint of the unrestricted act, the
Abstract laws can be concretely applied only in
conjunction with further determinations which can be brought under a
different, i.e., statistical, type law. Both recurrent patterns and
diverging series of conditions are intelligible.
But their intelligibility does not lie on the level of
abstract grasps of systems of laws: their intelligibility is that of
the particular, and so is concrete.
Abstract-classical and concrete-statistical laws are mutually
conditioning as well as complementary.
(a) Given information on all events + knowledge of all laws, one can
find the concrete pattern
(b) Given information on the concrete pattern + knowledge of all
laws, one can deduce all events
But (a)'s proviso is (b)'s conclusion, and (b)'s proviso is (a)'s
Unrestricted understanding does not proceed this way,
but rather "from a grasp of itself; it does not attempt the impossible
task of relating through an abstract system the concrete patterns but
grasps the lot of them inasmuch as it understands itself." It has no
use either for deduction or prediction, since it grasps all events and
all concrete patterns at once.
Deduction and prediction are
impossible for restricted understanding, because the manifold
of concrete patterns of diverging series of scattering conditions can
never be systematized.
impossible for unrestricted understanding, because it does not
advance in knowledge: it is outside of all temporal sequence while
grasping the totality of temporal sequences.
If we know what causality is, we shall be led to affirm
that there is an UAU.
Basic division of causes:
(or "substantial") potency, form, and act
(or "accidental") potency, form, and act
External causes can be conceived in three ways:
a. In concrete instances: e.g., the erection of a bridge
(efficient) according to a plan (exemplary) for a purpose (final).
b. In principle: establishing their universal validity and
hence their applicability to the universe as a whole.
c. In their fullness: theism is the principles' fullness
which has heretofore been only implicit. Its yield is a first
agent, primary exemplar, and a last end of the universe of
Efficient, exemplary, and final causality are facts.
Our present question is whether these facts are instances of a
principle that can bear human knowing from the realm of proportionate
being to that of transcendent being.
Being is intelligible.
What is apart from being is nothing.
Therefore, what is apart from the intelligible is nothing.
Matters of fact which admit of no explanation are unintelligible.
Therefore, matters of fact which admit of no explanation are nothing.
If existence or occurrence is a mere matter of fact, it is nothing.
Knowing and the known are nothing if they are mere matters of fact.
If one is tempted to flee to the counterposition on being, he must be
reminded that it only invites reversal.
If human knowing is confined to the realm of
proportionate being, then human knowledge is condemned to mere
matters of fact. This confinement then strips human knowledge not
only of transcendent knowledge, but also of proportionate knowledge.
Knowledge consists in a grasp of the virtually
unconditioned, i.e., judgment.
But the virtually unconditioned is a conditioned state of affairs that
only happens to have its conditions fulfilled.
This mere matter of conditional fact always invites the further
intelligent and reasonable question, which positivistic philosophy
seeks to shut out.
Every proportionate being (one known through
experience, understanding, and judgment) is a virtually unconditioned:
its conditions happen to be fulfilled.
Therefore, if a proportionate being is taken to be ultimate,
i.e., without explanation, then either that proportionate being is not
being (because unintelligible), or being is not intelligible (a
This is the nerve of the argument.
The most fundamental question asks about existence.
Neither empirical science nor methodically restricted philosophy can
adequately or at all handle this question, for they have to assume
existence as a mere matter of fact, since its range is that or
The same also holds for
The contingency of existence and occurrence penetrates
everything that empirical science and methodically restricted
philosophy are to know.
(1) Being is intelligible, and mere matters of fact
(2) Proportionate being presents only mere matters of fact.
(3) Therefore, proportionate being might not be all the being there
is; we cannot exclude transcendent being from consideration.
A transcendent being relevant to our problem; that is,
such a being
(1) must not be contingent in any respect as this would only
reproduce the problem, and
(2) must ground the explanation of everything else, or the problem
being exists and exists contingently, i.e., it is known by a grasp of
the virtually unconditioned.
Therefore, proportionate being is not ultimate.
Therefore, some other being is ultimate and is not contingent, and is
therefore formally unconditioned because it has no conditions at all.
This other being must be self-explanatory and capable of explaining
everything else, thereby relieving proportionate being of its
apparently brute facticity.
We need only formulate correctly the facts of external
The formally unconditioned, which the pure desire to
know anticipates, would be the truly efficient cause of
proportionate being, because it would be capable of grounding the
conditions of everything else. Neither chains of infinite regress or
cycles of recurrence are so capable.
The formally unconditioned efficient cause must also be
the exemplary cause of proportionate being, because that cause
would ground the intelligibility in the pattern in which the
conditions are fulfilled. Without such an exemplary cause, the
conditions are fulfilled at random, which is unintelligible.
The formally unconditioned efficient and exemplary
cause must also be the final cause of proportionate being, if
being is the intelligible and the intelligible is the good. The
actual order of the universe of proportionate being must be a value
whose selection is due to rational choice.
(Review of 8.5 through 8.19)
As the final cause of proportionate being, the formally
unconditioned is the ground of value and overcomes contingency at its
Contingent, proportionate being must be a reasonably realized
Its possibility lies in the exemplary cause.
Its realization lies in the efficient cause.
Its reasonableness lies in the final cause.
Thus the demand of 8.4 has been met.
An "anthropomorphic" solution? No, for it is pure
intelligence while man's intelligence is in tension between
pure and other desire. But this tension is not foreign to the
universe, which is the objective of man's pure desire to know.
9. The Notion of God
already conceived the unrestricted act of understanding (UAU. Now we
will work out its implications for arriving at a notion of God.
The UAU is the primary intelligible (see 6.9)
To grasp the unconditioned is an act of reflective understanding.
The UAU grasps itself as unconditioned.
(The unconditioned as grasped by reflective understanding is truth)
Therefore, the primary intelligible is the primary truth.
What intelligence and reason knows is being.
The primary intelligible understands itself.
Therefore, the primary intelligible is the primary being.
Also: Primary being = the intelligent + the intelligible = the
primary being is perfect. Unrestrictedness is perfection, and the
primary being is an UAU. Imperfection is a restriction. Therefore,
if the UAU were imperfect, it would grasp restriction in itself. This
The good is the intelligible.
Therefore, the primary intelligible is the primary good.
Perfection of the spiritual requires, not only that the intelligible
also be intelligent, but also that affirmable truth be affirmed and
that the lovable be loved.
Therefore, the UAU = the perfect act of affirming the primary truth =
the perfect act of loving the primary good.
These three acts are identical: separateness would imply
primary intelligible = the self-explanatory or it would not be a
perfect act of understanding.
The primary being = the primary intelligible = the formally
Therefore, the primary being = the formally unconditioned.
The primary being = the self-explanatory = noncontingent.
Therefore, the primary being is either necessary or impossible.
(That is, the primary being cannot be merely possible, depending upon
conditions, for the primary being is the formally unconditioned.
Therefore, if the primary being is not impossible as well
noncontingent then, necessarily, the primary being is a necessary
There is no necessity for more than one primary being.
If there were more than one primary being, then either there would be
or there would not be more than one UAU.
If there were not, then some primary beings would be
restricted acts of understanding, which is impossible.
If there were, then there would be more than one UAU differing
from each other only empirically, which is impossible.
Therefore, there can be only one primary being.
The primary being = the UAU = perfect affirmation = perfect loving =
the primary intelligible = the primary truth = the primary good.
Therefore, the primary being is simple.
Primary being does not share an order with other beings: it is simply
a single act.
Therefore, primary being does not admit the compositeness of central
and conjugate forms.
Primary being = spiritual being beyond all development.
Potency is the capacity to develop. It is the materiality or the
empirical residue from which the spiritual abstracts. Therefore,
primary being does not admit the compositeness of potency and form.
Primary being's "form" or "essence" (primary intelligible/being/good)
Primary being's "act" or "existence" (unrestricted act of
Therefore, primary being does not admit the compositeness of
distinct form and act.
the primary being exists, then it does so necessarily:
its act is not the realization of a mere thought.
Continuous time presupposes the empirical residues and materiality.
The primary being is spiritual and does not develop.
Therefore, primary being is timeless.
Eternity is timeless existence. Therefore, primary being is eternal.
shall now consider secondary intelligibles.
Secondary intelligibles are understood if the primary
intelligible is understood.
Therefore, secondary intelligibles are conditioned.
Therefore, secondary intelligibles are distinct from the primary
Knowing is not a looking at something else.
The primary object is perfect.
Therefore, secondary intelligibles need not be distinct realities.
Secondary intelligibles may be mere objects of thought.
Primary being would be imperfect if it could not ground a possible
universe as a reality.
Primary good would be imperfect if it could not originate any other
instance of the good.
But primary being/primary good is perfect.
Therefore, primary being is the omnipotent efficient cause.
Primary being is the idea of being which grasps the intelligible order
of every possible universe in every detail.
Therefore, primary being is the omniscient exemplary cause.
Secondary intelligibles are conditioned in their being.
As conditioned they cannot be necessitated.
As being they cannot be arbitrary.
Therefore, secondary intelligibles, if they exist, exist in virtue of
the freedom of unrestricted understanding, perfect affirming, and
Therefore, primary being is free.
Primary being does not develop.
Therefore, understanding, affirming, and willing, unlike in man, do
not being increment and change in the primary being when it
understands/affirms/wills contingent being.
Certain conclusions follow which depend on the distinction between
words and sentences
concepts and judgments, and
enumeration of realities on the supposition that some judgments are
Every contingent predication about God [first
occurrence of "God"] is also an extrinsic denomination.
God is the same whether or not He understands, affirms, wills, or
causes this or that universe to be.
The extrinsic denominator is temporal, but the contingent predication
can be eternal.
X's existence or occurrence is a metaphysical condition:
(1) God understands/affirms/wills X's existence or occurrence; and
(2) X exists or occurs as God understands/affirms/wills it.
Divine necessity does not impose necessity upon its
The necessity of the deduction of X's existence/occurrence from God's
knowing X is not a metaphysical necessity, but rather the conditioned
necessity that the logic of knowing governs.
Scientia media: God knows Corollaries I-IV.
God knows that whatever world order He wills would be willed down to
the last detail.
Some of those details are exercises of free will.
Therefore: "God knows exactly what every free will would choose in
each successive set of circumstances contained in each possible world
Scientia media rests on "Aquinas' familiar contentions on the
immutability of God and the conditioned necessity of what God knows or
wills or causes."
God's efficient causality would not depend upon the unexplained
existence of some matter. Nor would He be limited to fashioning and
ordering this matter.
Therefore, God would be the creator of the universe.
God's creative decision accounts for the empirical residue, so there
is no need to consign the universe to the category of the unexplained.
The empirical residue grounds the manifold of the potential good,
standing under the good of world order, thereby possessing value
accruing to the contingent through the reasonableness of the freedom
God's efficient causality is being exercised as long as the universe
or any of its parts exists.
"A cause B" means "B is emerging into intelligible dependence upon A."
It does not refer to an "imaginable 'influence' occupying the
space intermediate between A and B."
Every contingent being is in intelligible dependence upon
Therefore, God would be the conserver.
Only the cause of the order of the universe can be the sufficient
ground for the occurrence of any event (or development or emergence).
Therefore, God would be the first agent of every event.
God applies every contingent agent to its operation, because He is the
first cause of every occurrence of the fulfillment of that operation's
conditions. This is because He is the cause of the order of the
universe. Those occurrences take place in harmony with that order.
Bañez and Molina, God controls each event because He controls all. He
controls all because He alone is the cause of the order of the
universe upon which order every event depends.
The primary intelligible grasps every other intelligible.
The primary being originates every other being.
The primary good is the source of other instances of the good.
Secondary intelligibles/contingent beings/other instances of the good
owe their existence to the primary intelligence/being/good.
Therefore, God would be the ultimate final cause of any universe, the
ground of its value, and the ultimate objective of all finalistic
value is a possible object of reasonable choice.
Any actual world order is chosen by a willing identical with the
unrestricted act of understanding.
Therefore, God would be the ground of the value of any world order, a
ground identical with the standard of true value.
Reconception of finality. Upward yet indeterminate dynamism is from
the perspective of proportionate being. There is now the intended
each potency for the form it receives,
each form for the act it receives, and
each manifold for the higher integration that subsumes it.
Everything is designed to bring about the order of the universe in the
way that it does.
Transformation of metaphysics.
The metaphysics of proportionate being becomes a subordinate part of a
more general, transcendent-envisaging, metaphysics.
Transformation of ethics.
The consistency of doing and knowing.
is elevated to an apprehension of the divinely created order.
Doing consistent with knowing
is elevated to co-operation with God in the realization of the order
of the universe.
becomes sin against God.
Points on Evil and Sin
If God is the efficacious cause of everything in the universe, is He
the author of all its evils and responsible for all its sins?
free will's failure to choose an obligatory, or reject a morally
reprehensible, course of action.
This is the root of the irrational in man's consciousness.
Willing vs. failing to will the good one knows.
Contraction of consciousness
is the basic sin: the practical consequences are more conspicuous, but
they are really derivative.
Moral evils: the consequences of basic sin.
Physical evils: all the shortcomings of a world order that consists,
in so far as we understand it, in a generalized emergent probability.
Intelligence must grasp this three-fold distinction.
Basic sin invokes an inverse insight: there is no intelligibility to
Sin is the irrational: there is no "reason" for it: it is the
failure to yield to reason.
Therefore, basic sin cannot be in intelligible dependence on anything
Therefore, basic sin can have no cause.
Therefore, God cannot be its cause or the cause of its consequent
Basic sin is not an event: it is the failure of occurrence, the
absence of will.
"Besides what is positively and what simply is not, there is the
irrational constituted by what could and ought to be but is not."
The irrational is neither caused nor uncaused by God: He simply
permits it to be perpetuated by others.
God created rationally self-conscious and hence free beings and leaves
that freedom intact. This is good, even though basic sins will and do
The good is the intelligible.
Therefore, sensitive pleasure and pain are not the criterion of good
Therefore, physical and moral evils are not ultimately evil.
General emergent probability is an intelligible order within which
only basic sin is left unexplained.
As man, so God is a rational self-consciousness.
The notion of God satisfies all that is meant by the subject, the
person, the other with his own intelligence, reasonableness, and
The notion of God implies a personalist view of the universe.
The order of the universe is an intelligibility grasped only by
compounding all the methods, and includes personal commands,
prohibitions and forbearance, i.e., the refusal to interfere with the
will of others, and includes the surd of basic sin.
Being is the core of all meaning.
Our notion of God is the most meaningful object of our thought.
But is God merely an object of thought?
God is real = God is an object of reasonable
affirmation = God exists.
"God exists" is not about Existenz or Dasein.
The yes of reasonable affirmation varies in
meaning with the question it answers.
Contingent existence is not self-explanatory existence, even though it
is something reasonably affirmed.
The self-explanatory being Who knows that He is,
is identical with the self-explanatory being Who knows what He
and whether God exists are two different questions for us.
grasp the notion of God, not by an unrestricted act of understanding,
but rather by an act of restricted understanding which extrapolates
from the latter to the former.
the question of the reality of the extrapolated notion remains.
All forms of the ontological argument are fallacious.
conceptions can yield no more than an analytic proposition, which is
the basis of the ontological argument.
"God exists" may indeed be an analytical proposition, and its
denial may indeed be self-contradictory, but it can become an
analytical principle only when its terms (in this case, "God')
appear in a concrete judgment of fact.
Anselm: Deus est quo maius cogitari nequit is but an analytical
Descartes: He relies on a view of knowing as looking.
Leibniz: His argument proves no more than the coherence of an object
There seems to be no way of verifying God in our
But there is a problem only if verification is limited
to empirical verification. The law of gravity, e.g., is not
experienced, but it is verified in judgment. Reflective grasp of the
unconditioned is the heart of all verification, including that of the
existence of God.
The transition from analytic proposition to analytic
principle is one between different types of unconditioned; only
secondarily does it resemble verification.
Acts of defining and postulating fulfill the conditions of an analytic
What the analytic proposition defines and postulates may in turn be
Here, we must grasp the virtually unconditioned of
inferring God's existence from true premises.
Grasping this and making the relevant judgments are immanent acts of
rational consciousness each person must perform for himself.
[The argument proper begins]
The following general form covers all theistic arguments:
the real is completely intelligible, then God exists. [Major premise]
But the real is completely intelligible. [Minor premise]
Therefore, God exists.
Minor Premise of 10.10.2
Being is completely intelligible. [Major]
The real is being. [Minor]
Therefore, the real is completely intelligible.
Major Premise of 10.10.3
Being is the objective of the pure desire to know. [Major]
Answering all intelligent questions correctly reaches that objective.
Therefore, being is completely intelligible.
Minor Premise of 10.10.3
"Real" means "all objects of both thought and affirmation."
"Being" means "all that is to be known by intelligent grasp and
Therefore, the real is identical with being.
The premises of the above arguments presuppose acceptance of the
positions and rejection of the counterpositions.
remains to prove the major premise of 10.10.2.
(a) If the real is completely intelligible, then complete
(b) If complete intelligibility exists, then the idea of being exists.
(c) If the ideas of being exists, then God exists.
Therefore, if the real is completely
intelligible, then God exists.
Premise (a) of 10.10.8.1
Whatever is true of the real, exists.
Premise (b) of 10.10.8.1
Complete intelligibility can reside nowhere else than in the idea of
being, for there are but three types of intelligibility:
in the objects of the sciences. Incomplete, because in its existence
and occurrences and because it includes the empirical residue.
in understanding. Incomplete as long as it is restricted, as
long as it can inquire.
in concepts of unities, laws, ideal frequencies, genetic operators,
and dialectical tensions and conflicts. Incomplete, for it arises
only in the self-expression of spiritual intelligibility.
Premise (c) of 10.10.8.1
the idea of being exists, its primary component exists.
The primary component has all the attributes of God.
Therefore, if the idea of being exists, God exists.
This proof is only material for a reflective grasp of the virtually
unconditioned. Only the reader can elicit that act for himself. Was
any step unjustified?
Only if the break with the counterpositions was
The real is being which is what is intelligently grasped and
Therefore, God is a being if He is intelligently conceived and
Further, intelligence is committed to the effort to conceive God by
way of the question, What is being? The question for reflection, Does
God exist?, follows naturally.
Only three answers are possible:
The answer is to be determined in fidelity to the pure desire to know.
If God is not in the premises, how does He get into the
conclusion? Where does He make His implicit entry?
(A) Affirming a link between some proportionate being, x,
(B) Affirming x.
The link is grounded in the identification of
the real with being,
being with complete intelligibility, and
complete intelligibility with God.