SHARE:

The Exceptional and Pious Doctor Flips the ‘Secret’ Switch from Dark to Light…

Yeah…like I would call Jack “Exceptional and Pious”…this is something different…

Priest, theologian, and philosopher, he even studied metaphysics in an effort to show that there was more to reality than physical existence…

Francisco Suarez, or Doctor Eximius et Pius(Exceptional and Pious Doctor), was a man of many hats, and I cannot allow his reference to go unnoticed.

There is a lot of info on him, and I chose wiki, checking on what I felt important for verification from a few other place…Im sure there will be some things I may have missed, feel free to add any info you might come across…
Be forewarned…there is some interesting info, But I merely pulled a C AND P special from several of the sites. Im not embarrassed to say that I had to research some of the research to understand what it meant sometimes. Feel free to read or skim, the more you understand, the more you will understand the underlying point towards the end of the theory.

The excerpts I have chosen have to do with beliefs and life events of a few men who I believe to be very influential in the character development of a few members of Lost and its historical background…if you enjoy any of the information, check out the sites I note and I can try and dig up any I have forgotten. Again, wiki being the most used with effort to find conclusiveness in researching the research…its sort of a mess, but pulls together after the C and P…
Basically, if you dislike my LONG and sometimes confusing theories…you may want to skip this one…if you read, I hope you find it worth your time…

From Wiki…

“He enjoyed the reputation of being the greatest metaphysician of his time. He thus founded a school of his own, Suarezianism, the chief characteristic principles of which are:

From Advent…

“In Scholasticism, he founded a school of his own, “Suarism”, the chief characteristic principles of which are:

the principle of individuation by the proper concrete entity of beings;
the pure potentiality of matter;
the singular as the object of direct intellectual cognition;
a nonconceptual distinction between the essence and the existence of created beings;
the possibility of spiritual substance only numerically distinct from one another;
ambition for the hypostatic union as the sin of the fallen angels;
the Incarnation of the Word, even if Adam had not sinned;
the solemnity of the vow only in ecclesiastical law;
the system of Congruism that modifies Molinism by the introduction of subjective circumstances, as well as of place and of time, propitious to the action of efficacious grace, and with predestination ante praevisa merita;
possibility of holding one and the same truth by both science and faith;
belief in Divine authority contained in an act of faith;
production of the body and blood of Christ by transubstantiation as constituting the Eucharistic sacrifice;
the final grace of the Blessed Virgin Mary superior to that of the angels and saints combined.”

Wiki…

On Principle of Individuation…

“The late scholastic philosopher Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) held, in opposition to Scotus, that the principle of individuation can only be logically distinguished from the individual being. Every being, even an incomplete one, is individual of itself, by reason of its being a thing. Suárez maintained that, although the humanity of Socrates does not differ from that of Plato, yet they do not constitute in reality one and the same humanity; there are as many “formal unities” (in this case, humanities) as there are individuals, and these individuals do not constitute a factual, but only an essential or ideal unity. The formal unity, however, is not an arbitrary creation of the mind, but exists in the nature of the thing before any operation of the understanding”

On Theology…

In theology, Suárez attached himself to the doctrine of Luis Molina, the celebrated Jesuit professor of Evora. Molina tried to reconcile the doctrine of predestination with the freedom of the human will and the predestarian teachings of the Dominicans by saying that the predestination is consequent upon God’s foreknowledge of the free determination of man’s will, which is therefore in no way affected by the fact of such predestination. Suárez endeavoured to reconcile this view with the more orthodox doctrines of the efficacy of grace and special election, maintaining that, though all share in an absolutely sufficient grace, there is granted to the elect a grace which is so adapted to their peculiar dispositions and circumstances that they infallibly, though at the same time quite freely, yield themselves to its influence. This mediatizing system was known by the name of “congruism.”

From EWTN…

On Natural Law…

“Suarez clearly taught that there are moral absolutes and that there are certain kinds of actions, described in terms of their moral objects, that human beings ought never choose to do. ”

“Suarez believes that “imperium”(POWER) is an act, not of the intellect, but of the will. He thus holds that law, in its most proper sense as existing in the mind of the legislator, “is an act of a just and right will, whereby a superior wills to oblige an inferior to do this or that.”This will act is not arbitrary and presupposes an act of the intellect judging that the law is just and conducive to a good end. Thus the eternal law can be said to be “a free decree of God’s will establishing an order that must be kept . . . especially . . . by intellectual creatures with respect to their own free acts.””

Natural law, however, is law not as existing in the mind of the legislator but as found in the intellectual creatures subject to the eternal law. Suarez rejects the view that the rational creature’s nature is itself the natural law, although he acknowledges that this nature is the foundation of natural law “inasmuch as it is as it were the foundation of the agreement or non-agreement of human actions to itself.” More precisely, natural law is a “certain power of that nature, which it has for discriminating between actions agreeing or not agreeing with that nature, which [power] we call natural reason . . . which prescribes or prohibits to the human will what is to be done in accord with natural law.” In its most precise sense the natural law is a or of the human intellect about what is or is not in conformity with human nature and therefore to be done or avoided: “I do not doubt that natural law exists most properly in the actual judgment of the mind.”

Judgments of the human intellect about what is or is not in conformity with human nature are not merely of the natural law; they are truly i.e., obligatory. Suarez puts the matter thus: “Natural law is not only indicative of bad and good, but also contains its own proper prohibition of bad and prescription of good.” It is preceptive, i.e., obligatory and not merely indicative precisely because “God, as the author of this nature, prescribes to do or to avoid what reason declares is to be done or avoided,” and because “whatever happens contrary to right reason displeases God and its contrary pleases him, because, since God’s will is supremely just, what is base cannot please him, nor can what is noble not please him, because the will of God cannot be irrational.” Therefore, Suarez concludes, “Natural reason, which indicates what is of itself bad or good for man, consequently indicates that it is in harmony with the divine will that the one be done and the other avoided.”

And Finally…
The Intrinsic Meaning of Human Acts

God’s prohibiting or prescribing of an act is not the whole reason for its malice or goodness. Rather, God’s will “supposes necessary in these actions a certain goodness or wickedness and joins to them a special obligation of the divine law.”85 To prove this Suarez first appeals to authorities such as St. Thomas and St. Augustine, attributing to the latter the source of the maxim that “some evils are forbidden because they are evil.”86 He then argues that this truth is rooted in the metaphysical principle “that the natures of things are immutable with respect to their essential being, and consequently also with respect to the agreement or non-agreement of their natural properties.”87 He continues by saying that “in a human act there is some goodness or badness from the force of the object precisely considered, inasmuch as it is fitting or not fitting to right reason and can be denominated by it as evil and sin and culpable in those respects, even leaving out of account its relationship to its own proper law.”88 He next affirms that God “cannot not prohibit through some law those things that are intrinsically evil.”89 God cannot not prohibit those actions judged intrinsically evil by reason of their objects because:

If we suppose that there was the will of creating a rational nature with sufficient knowledge for doing good and evil and with sufficient concourse on the part of God to both, God could not have willed to prohibit for such a creature acts intrinsically wicked or not to have willed to prescribe noble and necessary acts. Because, just as God cannot lie, so he cannot govern unwisely or unjustly. Providence would have been quite alien to divine wisdom and goodness had it not prohibited or prescribed for those subject to it suchlike things.90

The natural law has God as its author, but it exists in the rational creature as a judgment or set of judgments about actions that are intrinsically good, i.e., in conformity with human nature, the foundation of the natural law, and of judgments about actions that are intrinsically evil, i.e., not in conformity with this nature. Thus, “the natural law prohibits those things that are intrinsically evil () inasmuch as they are such; and therefore it supposes in their very objects or acts something intrinsically undue, so that they may not be loved or done; and on the contrary it prescribes those things that are good inasmuch as they have an intrinsic connection and necessity with a rational nature.”91 This intrinsic character of human acts as being either good or in conformity with human nature or evil or in disconformity with it exists antecedently, in an ontological or metaphysical way, to the acts being either prohibited or commanded by some law extrinsic to them. Their moral character “is intrinsically presupposed in things themselves before every extrinsic law; and therefore, as long as these things remain themselves, [this moral character] cannot be taken away, because it does not depend on an extrinsic will, nor is it some distinct thing, but is as it were an entirely intrinsic mode or relationship that cannot be impeded, given its foundation and term.”

In other words, the intrinsic goodness or badness of human acts consists in their conformity with or disconformity from human nature, their foundation and term. Thus, so long as human nature exists, actions in conformity with it will be judged to be good and actions not in conformity with it will be judged to be bad. Since God is the author of this nature, it necessarily follows that whatever will be judged contrary to human nature will be displeasing to him, and whatever will be judged to be in conformity with it will be pleasing to his will. His will, therefore, is that human beings act in accord with the judgments of natural reason, and it is for this reason that these judgments constitute the natural law, whose author is God and whose obligating force comes from his will.

Thus God cannot dispense from the precepts of the Decalogue, including such precepts as those forbidding adultery or intercourse with someone who is not one’s spouse, theft, and the like,93 because to dispense from such precepts, which contain the very order of justice that God wills, would be a self-contradiction. Suarez thus firmly rejects Scotus’ position94 and concurs in the judgment of St. Thomas that even God cannot dispense from the precepts of the Decalogue.95 He insists that “as often as . . . God makes licit an act which prohibited by natural law, he never makes this as a pure legislator, but by using another power.” By “using another power,” Suarez means that God changes, by his power, the of the act that he commands, i.e., the subject matter or “object” of the human will. He makes the act in question to be a different sort of human act by changing its object or essential conditions. Thus, Suarez writes, “it must be said that, properly speaking, God does not dispense in any natural precept, but rather that he changes its matter or the circumstances without which the natural precept itself is not obligatory of itself.” Indeed, “since the goodness or malice arise from the conformity or nonconformity of the act to rational nature, it is not possible that the same act with the same conditions be of itself () dissonant and consonant, because opposite relationships do not result from the same foundation.”

This is the end of the Suarez talk from this article…for more info, see http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/FR92202.htm#3
…its a good read overall if you are interested in any of this information…

Now…if you hung around this long, maybe we get a little treat thrown into the bag through all of this…

Suarez followed in the footseps of a man known as “Grotius”…he also known as “Hugo DeGroot”…

From wiki…
Liberal natural law grew out of the medieval Christian natural law theories and out of Hobbes’ revision of natural law, sometimes in an uneasy balance of the two.
Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. In particular, his writings on freedom of the seas and just war theory directly appealed to natural law.

Think about this last part…

About natural law itself, he wrote that “even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate” natural law, which “would maintain its objective validity ****even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs.”**** (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous argument etiamsi daremus (non esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology.
…reminds me of ‘the rules’ in a way…

John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two Treatises of Government. There is considerable debate about whether his conception of natural law was more akin to that of Aquinas (filtered through Richard Hooker) or Hobbes’ radical reinterpretation, though the effect of Locke’s understanding is usually phrased in terms of a revision of Hobbes upon Hobbesean contractualist grounds. Locke turned Hobbes’ prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect “life, liberty, and property,” people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.[19]
While Locke spoke in the language of natural law, the content of this law was by and large protective of natural rights, and it was this language that later liberal thinkers preferred. Thomas Jefferson, echoing Locke, appealed to unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Now…just for fun we have Richard Alpert be brought in front of Father Suarez and denied forgiveness for his sin of killing in the name of saving his sick wife.
We then see him brought to Whitfield, who offers him a chance to live if he can prove he speaks english and will go to the “New World” (again dont miss the possible “Brave New World” reference), and be a slave owned by Magnus Hanso, who we have learned here and there is in relation to the DeGroots and helping fund and create the Dharma Initiative.
Jacob tells people that he brings them to the island, and we are told by some that he brought them to the island, quite possibly making him a tie in to the Hanso, Suarez, the DeGroots, and the Dharma Initiative.

How does this fit right now…?

Here, from wiki, is another tidbit of info from “Grotius/DeGroots” view of Jesus…

Grotius also developed a particular view of the atonement of Christ known as the “Governmental” or “Moral government” theory. He theorized that Jesus’ sacrificial death occurred in order for the Father to forgive while still maintaining his just rule over the universe.

Sound familiar…Jacob dies, and continues to control/rule his followers, and with or without Hurley…possibly even more so than when he was alive.
That also makes you think of Charlie words to Desmond about his “near death experience”…

Jacob expected and didnt deny death, Charlie realizes that death could connect him to happiness, Juliet talked about “going Dutch” on her death bed…something I imagine we will see occur in the new 2004 timeline.
From this line of thought, death is a way of cheating the system , and breaking the rules of god and humanity through technology of man…I think…

MIB on the other hand, who obviously would be the view of John Locke (being he has the form of “John Locke”), would believe in “natural law”, has an opposing thought when compared to what I view as the thinking of Degroot, Jacob, and the DI…
For starters, MIB/Locke flat out said “…I dont want to be killed…”

From Wiki: Locke on Organized Religion created through the word of man…

Locke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689—92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.[14]

This is reminiscent of my take on Jacobs Others…They offer what is to me the only organized religion we have seen on Lost in terms of believing, worshiping, and following of the islands “indigenous people”. Some have not swayed to it, but it is the island religion and myth that drives the others…with their savior fallen, the weak willed lose faith and fall to the next offering hand. the strong believe his word after death, carrying it in a way that it could never have been in life.

John Locke/MIB are “very disappointed” with those who follow blindly… THEY “feel sorry” for those who do what others tell them in hopes of achieving personal enlightenment without knowing the full consequence.

The real Locke also believed something very interesting about “the self”…

Locke defines the self as “that conscious thinking thing, (whatever substance, made up of whether spiritual, or material, simple, or compounded, it matters not) which is sensible, or conscious of pleasure and pain, capable of happiness or misery, and so is concerned for itself, as far as that consciousness extends”. He does not, however, ignore “substance”, writing that “the body too goes to the making the man.” The Lockean self is therefore a self-aware and self-reflective consciousness that is fixed in a body.

…there is a reason why John Locke is chosen to be the name of this ‘nemesis’…(hmm…makes you think about “They lost your fathers body, but they didnt lose your father”)

Self aware, as in aware to the happenings of the two parts of people split between the two 2004 timelines.
Self-reflective, as in the losties making conscious-like connections between the two timelines when staring into the looking glass…be it a mirror, water, or a reflection of ones very self…as I think the story is headed.

I very well could be reading way too into things, or even have reversed the logic in who is who, but it doesnt seem likely due to the names put to each side on the show in terms of connecting the historical and philosophical dots…

But if you are with me in connecting this Heavyweight Showdown of Philosophy, which does seem to be the true roots of the show above science or religion…and you have stayed with me through all of this copy and pasting, allowing my imagination to run amok over some of the greatest thinkers and television show of our time and before…
I leave you with just one last thought…

I have always said that through thick and thin I will believe in John Locke on Lost…so for now, on island, Ill make due with what I have…and with that thought…enlightening words about darkness, that if applied to the show, may cause many to rethink the basic idea behind Lost…something that OUR ‘John Locke’ told walt a long time ago, almost rephrased in a poetic manner in favor of the situation at hand on Lost…from the mind of the real John Locke philosopher…

Locke wrote that “the little and almost insensible impressions on our tender infancies have very important and lasting consequences.” He argued that the “associations of ideas” that one makes when young are more important than those made later because they are the foundation of the self: they are, put differently, what first mark the tabula rasa. In his Essay, in which is introduced both of these concepts…

(This is the important part…)

Locke warns against, for example, letting “a foolish maid” convince a child that “goblins and sprites” are associated with the night for “darkness shall ever afterwards bring with it those frightful ideas, and they shall be so joined, that he can no more bear the one than the other.

Take that thought and apply it to Lost. We all know John Locke was used as a reference to the philosopher…so why ignore his philosophy?

Assuming that it was more important than his previous disability…I would love to know the secret that Locke told Walt in the Pilot…

Thank you very much for your time…

Share with fellow Losties

Written by

A.E.S.

Abbot Enheduanna Schwarzschild

14 thoughts on “The Exceptional and Pious Doctor Flips the ‘Secret’ Switch from Dark to Light…

  1. i am a lover of philosophy, and this was all very interesting.

    i wonder if the fake john locke is parading around pretending to have the philosopher locke’s philosophy, as he is pretending to be locke.

    my head hurts a little

  2. that was exceptional…

    you mentioned “Locke warns against, for example, letting “a foolish maid” convince a child that “goblins and sprites” are associated with the night for “darkness shall ever afterwards bring with it those frightful ideas, and they shall be so joined, that he can no more bear the one than the other.” …Sawyer?

    consistently plagued by things that go bump in the night, in childhood and on the island (polar bears, conmen, fathers with guns, others, nukes, secret bases, smoke machines, Jacob…) he has responded to the inexplicable (MIB appearence/dead locke walking around and Jacob’s Death) unaffected. it almost appears like he has become the scale, balancing both sides to let them attempt to destroy each other while leaving himself in the middle. has he then created his own natural law? if so is he going to become the one that MIB answers to? (i’m not positive but believe that at one point MIB explained that everyone answers to someone, himself included.)

  3. Okay, lol. This was just too much. I didn’t read all of it, but tried to read the most important things.

    Your mentioning of Grotius is a good point…since DeGroot is an important name in the background of Lost.

    And I can’t really apply the last thought you mention to Lost…maybe this is too deep for some 😛

  4. Wow, AES, this was a fantastic and thrilling read…!! Your research here is impressive, and how you’ve managed to link ideas and relate them back to the show is just great. Thanks for all your work and for sharing it with us!

    I was wondering if you’ve had a chance to read my post titled “Romulus, Remus & So Much More…”. The reason I’m asking is that in it, I too have related many aspects of the show’s characters to philosophical ideas from well-know writers such as those mentioned in your post: from Locke himself and the “Tabula Rasa”, to Hobbes and his ideas on human nature…

    I think that this is a perfect illustration of how the same theories and ideas can be interpreted in various ways, leading to different conclusions. As an example: interesting to see how you took Locke’s (the philosopher) ideas on “tabula rasa” to relate his character to Nemesis (and his homonym) on the show, and how he is “very disappointed with those who follow blindly” – while I took the same concept from the same philosopher and related it to “the original” John Locke on the show and Jacob, and their promotion of free will and getting a clean slate on the island…

    What do you think of that?

    In any case, like I said, I found your post outstanding. I love it when facts meet fiction, and I am convinced that the writers are making constant winks in the show’s scripts to the background behind their ideas – the hints are in the names of some characters, and the content is in their actions.

    GREAT STUFF!!

    And – forgot to mention – great catch on “Father Suarez”!! I definitely missed that one…. although I did get a friekish chill when he suddenly went from “nice loving priest” to “evil judging Torquemada” in the wink of an eye…. Doesn’t he look just like Cheech Marin too?? LOL

  5. Thank you all very much for the thoughts…I will get to them individually tonight, but I just want to comment on the end of stones comment, referencing the application of the line…

    “Locke warns against, for example, letting “a foolish maid” convince a child that “goblins and sprites” are associated with the night for “darkness shall ever afterwards bring with it those frightful ideas, and they shall be so joined, that he can no more bear the one than the other.”

    I saw this and thought instantly of “light vs dark”, and we(almost everyone) automatically assumes light to be good, and dark to be evil…

    I thought about Widmores words to MIB/Locke about ghost stories and tales of whispers in the jungle, compared to spirites in the darkness that the philosopher spoke of…

    I thought about those things and AGAIN, second guess the notion of MIB (who at the moment represents John Locke) being compared to darkness, and wonder if the real John Lockes philosophy could possibly mean that we are viewing “light vs dark” in the incorrect manner…

    I hope that can clear up my interpretation of the final John Locke beliefs from the end of my theory…thanks again, and Ill get back to this a little later…

  6. I’ll read the entire post later, couldn’t put myself to it now. I’m sure it will be clearer then, and looking at all the comments here, I’m sure it’s again one hell of a post..

  7. AES, you did an excellent job on researching Suarez!

    Lost has made a habit of including the namesakes of many Philosophers. It’s fascinating to read up on all of them. Others who have been named after famous philosophers on the show in addition to John Locke are; Anthony Ashley-Cooper (mentor of John Locke), Jeremy Bentham, Jean Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Mikhail Bakunin and Edmund Burke.

    Reading up them and examining their individual philosophies assists in understanding some of the concepts that the show is attempting to deliver on a philosophical basis.

  8. Cool Stuff AES. I like having to study up on things writeen here.
    There are two names which I am suprised we have never heard in connection with Lost. They are Leibniz and Newton. I only bring them because Leibniz was greatly influenced by Suarez.
    I read some books by Neal Stephenson, the Baroque Cycle, a while back where the feud between those two was greatly enhanced. On the surface their argument was about who invented calculus first. But, according to the books (not sure how much is fictionalizsed, probably a most of it) their dispute went much deeper. I’m only going by memory so I may get some of this wrong. At the heart of the dispute was freewill vs. predestination. Newton’s view of the universe being what it is he believed everything was preordained. Leibniz, now considered by some to be the grandfather of quantum mechanics, thought there was much more choice involved, so he was on the side of freewill. After coming out with the principia mathematica not many people were inclined to criticise Newton, except Leibniz, who was shunned by the Royal Society and ended his life in obscurity. I have often thought that MIB and Jacob are in fact Newton and Leibniz, respectively. Really only because of the Baroque Cycle, I have no evidence. Maybe someone on here has read the books and can explain this better than I can.

  9. All right AES, I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around all this and I believe I’ve come up with something worthwhile.

    There were two things that stood out to me out of all this. The first is the paragraph where you discuss natural law and human nature. If I’m understanding all of this correctly than anything that goes against human nature and natural law is a bad thing. Now, Smokey believes that humans can not overcome their own nature, which is, he basically believes, is animalistic. So anything that goes against this, say like free will, is bad. Not only does Smokey believe this but he lives by it as well as evidenced by all the killing he does himself. Hold this thought now.

    The second thing that jumped out was how you said that we may be looking at the dispute between Jacob and Smokey the wrong way. This set me to thinking. What if Jacob is not trying to prove Smokey wrong by having other people change but is actually hoping to use other people to get Smokey to change his own nature? Perhaps Jacob is trying to get Smokey to rise above his nature and not give in to it.

Leave a Reply