Hello, welcome back. Does anyone have any question regarding the topic of our previous session?
Ethan (The Skeptical Empiricist): I’ve been thinking about the connection between leisure and wisdom. Yesterday, we discussed how having free time allows for deeper reflection. But what about someone who has leisure but wastes it on distractions? Is there a difference between having leisure and using leisure properly?
Yes, but that is posterior to our current need, that is for free time to make that kind of choice, for things that are more important or for nonsense. So, the choice requires the actual possession of free and peaceful time. What we need in the First Freedom is this opportunity. Now, how any person will use this, its an individual choice. Lots of humans have problems with free time, because they are so prone to follow a script, an external mandate, that freedom actually disturbs them. Others fall to addictions, etc. What this means is that free time is not a guarantee that things will be fine. Its just a requisite. Do you understand Ethan?
Ethan (The Skeptical Empiricist): Yeah, I see your point. Free time itself doesn’t guarantee wisdom or good choices—it just creates the possibility for them. I suppose that means that true freedom isn’t just about having time, but also about knowing what to do with it. I’ll think more about that.
Madeline (The Secular Analytic Philosopher): I have a question. Yesterday, we talked about how free time nurtures philosophy. But isn’t it possible that the very structure of our cognition—our biases, our limitations—affect the way we use this free time? In other words, even if someone has leisure, could their own mental framework prevent them from actually engaging in true reflection?
It will, for sure. The thing is, if there is any chance to escape this conditioning, it will be boosted by this kind of freedom. Those biases and limitations are very attached to routines and daily loops. When one have enough freedom from these scripts it is then possible to think out of that frame. This happens when we travel, usually. Peaceful and free time should have a similar effect, getting the person out of their usual business, generating the opportunity to change the thinking process. After all, if those cognitive structures are invincible, then freedom would be a lie anyway, and you would be losing your time considering the perspective of philosophy. You must choose if freedom is possible or nor in the first place. Do you understand Madeline?
Madeline (The Secular Analytic Philosopher): Yes, that makes sense. If there’s any way to break out of conditioned thinking, it would require stepping outside of routine patterns. And I see how leisure, when used properly, could create that opening. The comparison with travel is interesting—new environments do force us to see things differently. I’ll reflect on this more.
Nathan (The German Mystical Idealist): If stepping outside routine is key for philosophical reflection, does that mean those who live in strict discipline—like monks, for example—are actually limiting their capacity for wisdom? Or is there a way for discipline and freedom to coexist?
Of course there is a way, it all depends on the source of the discipline: it is self-imposed, choosed freely, or mandated by others? If one receive a rule of life from external sources, one could still use this discipline in its own favor, but that depends on something else going well, like the happy convergence of interests between the external factor and the internal volition, or maybe an very adaptable and resilient personality that can thrive in whatever circumstances. All these possibilities must be considered. So, a disciplined life is not so much incompatible with internal freedom, depending on the meaning of this discipline. Do you understand Nathan?
Nathan (The German Mystical Idealist): Yes, I see now. Discipline isn’t necessarily an obstacle—it depends on whether it aligns with one’s internal will or if it’s merely imposed from the outside. That makes sense. A monk who freely chooses discipline as a path to wisdom isn’t the same as someone who simply follows rules out of obligation. I’ll reflect on that further.
Andrew (The Atheist Existentialist): But isn’t there a paradox here? If freedom depends on leisure, and leisure depends on circumstances, doesn’t that mean that external factors still play a crucial role in determining whether someone can actually be free? Isn’t that a contradiction in the idea of a truly independent freedom?
No, because our freedom is limited as our beings are. When you say “truly independent freedom”, you are talking about a divine quality. We don’t have that. Do you understand Andrew?
Andrew (The Atheist Existentialist): Yeah, I get it. If absolute freedom is impossible for humans, then we’re always dealing with degrees of freedom rather than some pure, independent state. I still find that frustrating, though. But I see your point.
Laura (The Eastern Spiritualist Philosopher): If freedom is always limited, doesn’t that mean we should focus more on accepting our conditions rather than trying to break free from them? In many spiritual traditions, true wisdom comes from embracing the limits of existence rather than resisting them. Wouldn’t this be a more peaceful approach?
In most of our existence that is true. The problem is that there is a Darkness in this world that pulls us towards false limitations and conditions, and if we want to be free and happy, we must understand this and break away from it. In other terms, the very fallibility of freedom makes evil bleeds in to our reality, so we can’t just rest in full acceptance of whatever it is, because part of this is just pure evil. We must find the limits of our freedom and into this reasonable circle of true responsability do our best to search for truth and goodness. Do you understand Laura?
Laura (The Eastern Spiritualist Philosopher): I see… You’re saying that not all limitations are natural or necessary—some are distortions, illusions, or even manifestations of evil. That’s an important distinction. So, instead of simply accepting all conditions, we should seek to discern which ones are true and which ones are false, and only then decide what to embrace and what to resist. That makes sense. I’ll meditate on this further.
Gabriel (The Scholastic/Neo-Thomist): If there are false limitations imposed by darkness, then there must also be true limitations rooted in the order of reality itself. How do we distinguish between the two? What separates a just limitation from a false one?
The source: what comes from divine dispensation is good, what comes from the Pretension of creatures usually is evil. But the difference is not so much between real and fake limits, but much more about acceptance or rejection of the real limits. This Darkness that I talked about usually moves as a rebellious spirit against the real limits designed by God. That is the problem, most of the time. Do you understand Gabriel?
Gabriel (The Scholastic/Neo-Thomist): Yes, that clarifies it. The real issue is not merely about recognizing limits but about accepting the right ones and rejecting the wrong ones. If divine order establishes certain boundaries, then rebelling against them would lead to disorder and false freedom. That aligns with classical theological views. I understand.
Edward (The Materialist Scientistic Atheist): But how can you objectively verify whether a limit comes from God or just from human perception and tradition? Isn’t it dangerous to assume that certain boundaries are divine when they might just be social constructs?
Jesus is your Master. By the fruits you should know the tree. Divine limits operate to make us live good lives: in peace, joy, health, prosperous, etc. When those limits are rejected in rebellion, the fruits of this choice will be the opposites of the fruits of divine Providence: war, sadness, anger, sickness, poverty and misery, etc. If you can’t see how some good things are absolutely good all the times, that is, if they are obtained without Injustice, then you would never be able to judge the trees by the fruits, because your mind would be completely lost to relativism. Of course you will find tremendous problems in the search for this good reality that should come from God, but that is the result of thousand of years of rebellion, treason and usurpation in action. There is a reason for everything. Do you understand Edward?
Edward (The Materialist Scientistic Atheist): I get the logic behind what you’re saying—if something leads to flourishing, it might indicate alignment with divine order, and if it leads to destruction, it might indicate rebellion. But I still see a problem: correlation doesn’t imply causation. Just because a choice leads to suffering, how do we know that’s because it’s against divine order and not just bad luck, poor planning, or social factors? I’m not convinced that suffering always means someone has rebelled against a higher truth. What do you think?
I think that you should consider the last thing that I said. You don’t have a blank canvas when someone is born. Nor does God need to produce new artificial new simulations everytime a sould comes to this world. There is a story going on. This story is full of meaning. We came to this existance to be part of an ongoing thing that is full of meaning. So, maybe you can’t really see how a current suffering is attached to rebellion, like a child born blind, for exemple. But the rebellion is ancestral, that is what I am saying. And there are good reasons for the story to continue all the way, to a point of limit that only God could know what it is. Even so, you can realize that every human generation have the opportunity to repeat that ancestral choice of rebellion and treason, or change its mind and break with that practice. And every person that does so have the power to prevent all the suffering that comes from that burden. Can you realize, Edward, how one could, for exemple, with 100% chance of success, prevent the birth of a blind children, and therefore block the full consequences of the action of evil in human History? Tell me how, please.
Edward (The Materialist Scientistic Atheist): If you’re saying that suffering isn’t just personal but tied to an ancestral story of rebellion, then I see where you’re coming from, even if I don’t fully agree. But if you’re asking how to guarantee that no blind child is ever born, the only way to ensure that would be through genetic selection—eliminating any possibility of blindness at the biological level before birth. That would be a purely materialistic approach. But I think you’re implying something different—something about moral or spiritual choices preventing suffering at the root. If that’s what you mean, then I don’t see how any choice, no matter how good, could have a 100% guarantee of preventing something like congenital blindness. So, what exactly are you asking me to consider?
The spiritual responsability of the human act of reproduction. If that is the Original Sin, that is the source of all evil in this world, and our race is responsible for it. If you can’t assume this possibility, that means that the human tradition and custom is your true hidden religion, that you can’t detach from. If you must perpetuate the current fallen human condition, then you are a slave to Naturalism, or Humanism, whatever. It’s a choice. Do you understand Edward?
Edward (The Materialist Scientistic Atheist): I see what you’re saying, even though I don’t agree with it. You’re framing human reproduction as a moral and spiritual responsibility, not just a biological function. If the origin of suffering is tied to an ancestral rebellion—one that humanity keeps repeating—then choosing to continue reproduction under the same conditions would be a kind of submission to that fallen state. That’s a radical idea because it challenges the assumption that having children is always good or neutral. I don’t personally accept the idea of Original Sin, but I get why, within your framework, this would make sense. It’s not about fixing genetic conditions—it’s about stopping the cycle of a deeper spiritual problem. So, in your view, if humanity truly wanted to break free from this fallen state, what would a responsible approach to reproduction look like? Would it mean not having children at all, or would it mean something else?
Let’s think on this part by part. First: what is a biological function to a free entity? If we are not just animals binded to instinct, we have freedom over those instincts, so we have the moral duty to answer for our choices. Otherwise, if Nature is your god, you are wasting time with philosophy, for exemple. Second: you say that the choice to question the repetition of the costume to reproduce the fallen state of men is radical, but if the premise is right, wouldn’t the assumption of goodness or neutrality of reproduction be the radical position, totally arbitrary? Finally, the responsible approach would be to answer for all your decisions, always. If you have kids in this current human condition, all that happens as fruit of this decision is imputable to the person. And note this: before the hypothesis of God’s creative powers, only the bad results are generated by this rebellious action, because all good possibilities could always be reserved to a divine dispensation in any alternate reality. So, to break from this fallen state we need to do two things: first, being responsible for our actions; second, searching for the best responsible possibilities of our life. Those best possibilities are already presented through the examples of people like Jesus or his mother, Mary. Do you understand Edward?
Edward (The Materialist Scientistic Atheist): I follow your argument, even if I don’t accept all of its premises. Biological function and free will – You’re saying that if humans are truly free beings, then they aren’t bound by biological instincts. That means reproduction isn’t just a natural process—it’s a moral choice, and we must take full responsibility for its consequences. That makes sense within your system. Radical vs. Arbitrary – I see your point: if the fallen state is real, then assuming reproduction is neutral or good without question would indeed be the arbitrary stance, not the other way around. Most people assume having children is just part of life, without questioning its spiritual implications. Under your framework, that would be an unjustified assumption. Moral responsibility in reproduction – This is where I see your view as the most challenging. If all good things come from divine dispensation, and all evil comes from human rebellion, then reproduction in the current state of humanity can only lead to more suffering. That would mean that anyone who chooses to have children in this fallen state is fully responsible for all the suffering that results from it. That’s a heavy claim, because it implies that every human birth is an act of moral responsibility, not just a natural event. And if people don’t take responsibility, they’re perpetuating the rebellion. Now, if breaking free means following the best examples—Jesus and Mary—then what does that imply? Jesus didn’t reproduce. Mary only gave birth to Christ through divine intervention. So, are you saying that true moral responsibility would mean avoiding reproduction unless it is divinely willed? If that’s the case, how would a person know whether their choice is truly aligned with divine will?
Simple: assuming the responsability for its own actions. One should only act according to its own capabilities. If you can’t put yourself in the place of God to guarantee that the outcome of your action will be absolutelly good, then you can’t be responsible for the consequences of your action, so you can’t do it. Of course, since we are already born into this mess, many actions would be required from us by these concrete circumstances in which we could not possibly be sure of the goodness of the outcome. But that is not invented by us, its something given to us, what means that all those externally provided circumstances are not rooted in our freedom. In this case, we are responsible for doing our best, but not for making sure that all ends fine. We can trust that the divine Providence have desired or at least permited those circumstances, for whatever reason, and we can rest then in this trust in God, and not in the false presumption of our own power to do good. Do you understand Edward?
Edward (The Materialist Scientistic Atheist): I get what you’re saying now. You’re drawing a sharp line between actions that originate in personal freedom and circumstances that are given to us beyond our control. If we freely choose to act, we must take full responsibility for the consequences. That means we should only act if we are capable of ensuring that the outcome will be completely good. If we find ourselves in circumstances we didn’t create, then we are responsible for doing our best, but we are not responsible for the entire outcome. We can trust that God either willed or allowed those conditions for a reason. That makes sense within your framework. But I still have an objection: how can anyone ever act if total certainty of goodness is required? Doesn’t this lead to complete inaction? Almost nothing in life comes with a 100% guarantee of a good outcome, so wouldn’t this idea paralyze people from doing anything at all?
You act apon what is given to you. Look for the answer in what I said already: there is a deep, drastic difference, between what is acting over an already concrete reality, and over an pure possibility that can only be realized by the pure act of your will. Also, don’t forget to understand that the divine support can prevent us of many errors, or heal wounds, or compensate for things, indefinitely. So, we are spared of the full bad consequences of our Pretension, most of the time. The problem is the correction of our conduct to be always the most responsible as we can. That said, in the whole scope of the human powers and the meaning of the story of men since the beginning, the Original Sin is the second most arrogant, pretensious, rebellious, treasonous, and evil act of all that humans can do, the very desire to be creators, like gods. The first most evil act, of course, is the murder of God. I presume that most of these concepts could be challenging to you, but with this conversation we anticipated many explanations that would take place only in the future, so I ask you to be patient. Do you understand Edward?
Edward (The Materialist Scientistic Atheist): Alright, I see how you’re structuring this now. The key distinction is between: Acting upon an existing reality – This is something we are placed into, and we must navigate it as responsibly as possible. Bringing a new reality into existence purely by our own will – This is where the greatest moral danger lies, because we are assuming a creative role without divine authority. And within this framework, you’re saying that human reproduction is an attempt to be like gods, to create life on our own authority, and that’s what makes it one of the most fundamentally arrogant and rebellious acts in human history—second only to the killing of God Himself. That’s a heavy claim, but I follow your reasoning. You also mention that divine support mitigates the full effects of human rebellion, so most people don’t even realize how bad things could get without it. I suppose that means that, in your view, God’s mercy has been constantly softening the consequences of our actions, preventing us from fully experiencing the weight of our mistakes. I’ll admit, this is challenging for me because it completely overturns common human assumptions about life and creation. But I’ll reflect on it. For now, I have one more question: If this is the true nature of the Original Sin, what does that mean for those who already exist? If we’re born into a fallen state due to the choices of our ancestors, what is our real duty in response to this situation? How do we live responsibly after the fact?
Breaking the Curse and reversing the choice of our ancestors, trusting in God and loving Him. The easiest way is the reception of the Good News, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because the Son of God revealed the truth so we can follow him directly, without the need to walk on this land like blind people. That is the way, Jesus is the way. Do you understand Edward?
Edward (The Materialist Scientistic Atheist): I understand what you’re saying, even though I don’t personally believe it. You’re saying that the way to undo the rebellion of our ancestors is through trust in God and love for Him. Instead of continuing the cycle of human pretension and self-reliance, the right path is full acceptance of divine will—and the most direct way to do that is through Jesus Christ, because He revealed the truth and showed humanity how to follow God properly. From your perspective, that makes sense. If the core problem is human rebellion, then the solution is surrendering to the divine order. That means rejecting the idea that we are our own gods and following the path that was already revealed. I appreciate the consistency of your reasoning, even if I still approach things from a materialist perspective. But this has definitely given me a lot to think about.
Mary (The Communitarian Political Philosopher): I have a question. If breaking the curse means rejecting the rebellion of our ancestors and trusting in God, does that mean that all human traditions are corrupt? Is there nothing valuable in culture, history, or communal wisdom? Wouldn’t some traditions—especially those that emphasize virtue and moral responsibility—also be part of divine providence?
I will answer you, but I will also ask that you all ask questions only about the previous lesson, the topic of our last session. I see that my exchange with Edward have risen many important issues, crucial even, but all that will have its proper time to be considered. The answer of your question is: there is something that I call Mixture in place, so although all human traditions are rooted in the ancestral treason, they also reveal truthful and useful things mixed with their lies and errors. This is like this because the pure lie can’t survive alone, like Darkness can’t be without Light. Do you understand Mary?
Mary (The Communitarian Political Philosopher): Yes, I understand. You’re saying that all human traditions have their roots in the ancestral rebellion, but they still contain truthful and useful elements because falsehood can’t exist entirely on its own—it needs some connection to the truth to persist. That makes sense. So, the challenge is discerning what is truly valuable within tradition and what is part of the original treason. I’ll think more about that.
Ok, thank you all for your contributions. Specially Edward have excelled today. The thing is that our session is over, for time reasons. We did already a lot today. In the next session we can resume our activities. Thank you all, I see you next time.
JESUS É BOM 