Prior to the 17th century, the prevailing view among natural philosophers was that the world was a meaningfully ordered whole. This world-view was shared by many ancient pagans (such as Plato), medieval muslims (such as Averroes), and early modern Christians (such as Copernicus).

During the 17th century, however, there was a pronounced change. Increasingly, people began to think of the world as matter in motion, and nothing else. That is: all the stuff we see around us is composed of inert and powerless atoms bouncing around in the void of space according to certain laws that were arbitrarily imposed from without by a distant God.

To be sure, it was still thought (at least for a a couple more centuries) that God had given man something additional: a vital soul. Nonetheless, all other things (sapphires, dandelions, hummingbirds) were just matter in motion: machines having varying degrees of complexity but no discernible intrinsic significance. The question is: were these so-called "scientific revolutionaries" correct? As Erazim Kohak puts it:

shall we opt for the model and posture of a meaningful cosmos ordered by a moral law, or shall we opt for the model and stance of a chance aggregate of matter? Is the Person or is matter in motion the ultimate metaphysical category?

At LARGe this week, we continue our discussion of Erazim Kohak’s book The Embers and the Stars. The reading this week is from the section titled A Philosophy of Personalism.