Meaning through Reason: A Necessary Ethic

In Tolstoy’s Confession, he makes two claims to why life is meaningless:

1. There is a seemingly uncloseable gap between the finite and its access to the infinite.
2. All acts in rational life lacks intrinsic meaning.

Assuming a strong Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) I respond to Tolstoy by providing a framework rather than complete demonstration of my metaphysical claims. The framework provides that rational agents engage with an underlying intelligible structure of reality, and that engagement provides meaning to emerge from the intelligible structure’s grounding. 

1. The Modal Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) for a Necessary Being:

Proof:

1. Every contingent fact or truth has a sufficient explanation.
2. The totality of contingent facts is contingent or dependent.
3. Therefore, the totality of contingent facts is contingent.
4. Therefore 3 needs an explanation that is not contingent. 
5. This means the explanation needs to be necessary.

Conclusion:

6. Therefore, there is a [Divine] Necessary Being (NB) that explains all of contingent reality (CR).

2. Divine Simplicity

The NB contradicts what it means to be a NB if it has parts or dependencies. If it has parts or dependencies then it could be otherwise. If it could be otherwise then it is contingent and not necessary.

Proof: 

1. If something has metaphysical parts or dependencies it is contingent.
2. The NB is not contingent.

Conclusion:

3. Therefore, the NB is not made of parts or dependencies and all attributes are identical.

3. Intelligibility

Commentary: This principle is elaborate. But will be shown as necessary. 

Proof:

1. Intelligibility is a mind-independent but mind-accessible structure of the explanatory relations between facts or states of affairs.
2. Reasoning requires intelligibility.
3. Denying intelligibility is reasoning.
4. Therefore, intelligibility is required for all rational activity.
5. Whatever is necessary for all rational activity requires explanation (PSR).

Conclusion:

6. Therefore, intelligibility requires a necessary explanation or necessary being (NB).

4. Grounding Intelligibility

Proof: 

1. If intelligibility is required for reasoning, then explanatory relations must exist in reality, not merely cognition.
2. All explanation presupposes intelligibility.
3. Explanatory relations are not reducible to particular facts but the facts’ dependent structure between them.
4. PSR applies to explanatory relations in it of itself not only particular facts.
5. Therefore, intelligibility requires the PSR.

Conclusion:

6. Therefore, intelligibility is explained by the NB and is a property of the NB.

5. Actuality and Potentiality of Finite Reality 

Proof: 

1. Finite beings exist in with a state (actuality) and possess the ability to realize capacities for further particular states (potentiality).
2. Ordinary physical explanations (e.g. objects’ capacities to reflect light) presupposes actualized structured capacities under conditions.
3. Instantiations of those states in all finite things independent of particulars require grounding. (Per PSR)
4. All grounding is terminal in the NB. (I(5)).

Conclusion:

5. All actuality and potentiality of finite things is grounded in the NB.

6. Necessary Being as explanation

Any actualization of the NB must originate from a property of the NB.

Proof:

1. The NB is defined by its properties.
2. The NB’s properties are all identical. (II(3))
3. The NB ‘s explanatory power is identical to its nature. (II(3)
4. The NB explains everything in CR. (I(5))

Conclusion:

5. Therefore, NB’s properties explain all of CR.

7. Intelligible Agents

Proof: 

1. Humans rationalize.
2. Humans are finite.
3. All expressions of rationality require intelligibility.
4. Humans require intelligibility. (1 & 2)
5. All instantiations of intelligibly inside CR is grounded in the NB.

Conclusions:

6. Therefor human rationalization is a finite manifestation of the NB. 

8. Participation in Divine Causality

Proof: 

1. Rationalizing agents necessarily engage in reasoning.
2. Reasoning presupposes intelligibility.
3. Intelligibility is grounded in the NB. (III(6))

Conclusion:

4. Therefore, rational agents participate necessarily in a structure grounded by the NB.

9. Coherent Actualization and Normative Extension of Established Framework

1. Intelligibility is mind-independent structured explanatory relations grounded in the NB (IV(5)).
2. Rational agents necessarily participate in intelligibility through reasoning.  (VIII(4)).
3. Rational agent reasoning necessarily entails coherence of intelligibility because reasoning is non-arbitrary structured relations between reasons, judgements, and outcomes.
4. If normativity exists (non-arbitrary reasons for action) it presupposes structured explanatory relations.
5. Normativity presupposing structured explanatory relations required grounding in intelligibility.
6. Rational evaluation presupposes coherence and non-arbitrariness within intelligibility.
7. Rational agent participation in intelligibility is not limited to reasoning but actualization of potentialities that extend explanatory relations inside intelligibility’s structure.
8. Not all actualizations support intelligibilities coherence.
9. Rationalization presupposes coherence within intelligibility.

Intermediate Conclusion:

10. Therefore, rational agents have reason to distinguish forms of actualization that enhance or undermine intelligibility.

Proof Continued:

11. Universal rational participation in intelligibility serves as actualization of intelligibility’s coherence.
12. Any act of rational evaluation commits agents to preserving and extending the coherent intelligible structure that makes evaluation possible.

Conclusion:

13. Therefore, rational agents have reason to pursue forms of actualization that increase coherent intelligible structures and avoid forms that undermine it.

10. The Ethic: Divine Participation in Actuality and Potentiality

Proof:

1. Rational agents have reason to pursue coherent intelligible actualization. (IX(10)).
2. Finite beings possess multiple instantiations of varying capacities of actuality and potentiality. (V(1))
3. Realization of capacities result in forms of actualization within intelligible structure.
4. Distinct rational agent activities are different modes of actualization. (Knowledge, relationships, physical fitness, ect.)
5. Forms of actualization that enhance intelligibility across rational agent modes of actualization increases participation (as actualization and potentiality) in intelligibility.
6. Forms of actualization can limit further participation in intelligibility. 

Conclusion:

7. Therefore, rational agent ought to pursue actualization of potentialities that enhance intelligibility coherence across modes (human flourishing) in their participation inside intelligible structure.

11. Answering Tolstoy:

1. Evaluating if life is meaningful presupposes rational activity and intelligibility.
2. Rational activity and use of intelligibility require the intelligible structure grounded in the NB.
3. Rejecting participation/negating rational agency removes the premises to permit the question.

Conclusion: 

4. Therefore, denying meaning undermines its own necessary conditions.

Final Conclusion

Reality is unified necessary actuality that grounds existence and intelligibility that provides meaning from rational participation within.