Latest / Reformed Thinking / Why True Virtue Begins with Supreme Love to God | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Why True Virtue Begins with Supreme Love to God | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Usually when we talk about being a good person, society provides
0:04
a very specific checklist for you.
0:06
Oh, absolutely, A very rigid checklist.
0:09
Right. It's like you pay your taxes on
0:10
time. You hold the door for the person
0:12
carrying groceries behind you. Maybe you drop a few dollars
0:16
into the charity bucket during the holidays.
0:18
Yeah. And then the culture around you
0:20
just points and says, you know, there it is a good person.
0:24
Yeah, it is treated as this highly observable, quantifiable
0:28
state of being. You perform the required actions
0:31
and you earn the title. Because we crave measurement.
0:34
I mean, we really do. We want morality to be a visible
0:36
binary Ledger of selfish actions versus unselfish actions.
0:40
It's easier that way. Totally.
0:42
It offers a sense of control and predictability to assume that if
0:46
we just follow the accepted societal rules, our moral
0:49
standing is totally secure. We judge the surface because,
0:52
well, the surface is really easy to tabulate.
0:54
But that checklist breaks down entirely when you step into the
0:56
world of historical philosophy, especially when looking at the
1:00
actual motives operating underneath those actions.
1:02
Yeah, that's where it gets messy.
1:04
Really messy. So we are jumping straight into
1:08
an excerpt from a philosophical treatise by Jonathan Edwards
1:11
called The Nature of True Virtue.
1:13
And for those listening to reformed thinking, our goal
1:15
today is to Parse's logic. We want to strip away modern,
1:22
superficial definitions of niceness.
1:24
Which is a huge task. It is.
1:26
We're trying to uncover the absolute root of moral beauty
1:29
here. Edwards attempts to lock down
1:31
the precise essence of what makes a person's heart or their
1:34
actions genuinely good. Independent of what society
1:38
might applause. Yes, completely independent of
1:40
that. And this deep dive is honestly
1:42
it's mental workout, but the intellectual rewards for you,
1:46
the listener are massive if you stick with it.
1:48
It really forces a total perspective shift.
1:51
Edwards approaches this not by looking at the actions
1:53
themselves, but by looking at the engine driving those
1:56
actions. Your motives, right?
1:57
He forces the reader to confront the reality that you can perform
2:01
every single action on that societal checklist and still
2:05
possess a heart that is entirely devoid of true virtue.
2:07
That's a terrifying thought. It is, and he begins this
2:11
argument by making a very specific categorization.
2:14
He states that virtue is a kind of beauty.
2:17
OK, but he means a very specific kind.
2:19
Right. Yeah, He immediately draws
2:20
strict lines around what kind of beauty he means.
2:24
He separates moral virtue from two other types of beauty that
2:27
human beings constantly confuse it with.
2:29
Which are. Physical beauty and intellectual
2:31
beauty. So physical beauty is obvious.
2:33
I mean a flower, a pristine mountain range, a spectacular
2:38
piece of architecture. Right, visual things.
2:40
Yeah, those things possess an aesthetic draw.
2:43
We call them beautiful, but no one assumes a mountain has moral
2:47
virtue. Row.
2:48
Of course not. Because it's an inanimate
2:49
object. It lacks consciousness.
2:51
It lacks a will. Yeah, the confusion rarely
2:54
happens with physical objects. You know, no one's waiting for a
2:57
rock to apologize. The real danger arises with his
3:00
second category. Intellectual beauty, yes.
3:03
Edwards acknowledges there is a genuine beauty in the ideas,
3:06
theories and conceptions of brilliant minds.
3:09
Like a math. Problem.
3:11
Well, I mean, yes, we look at a spectacular mathematical theorem
3:14
or a brilliant piece of diplomatic strategy and we
3:17
recognize an elegance in it. We might call a philosopher's
3:20
argument beautiful. But Edwards insists that
3:24
intellectual brilliance is completely distinct from moral
3:27
virtue. Totally distinct.
3:29
True, virtue is a beauty that has its original seat in the
3:33
mind, but it specifically belongs to beings capable of
3:37
perception and will. So it belongs to the
3:40
disposition. Yes, the heart.
3:42
That distinction right there hits on a massive flaw in how
3:45
modern culture operates. I mean, we constantly conflate
3:48
intellectual sharpness with moral goodness.
3:51
We assume because someone is highly articulate or holds
3:53
multiple advanced degrees or, I don't know, innovates a
3:56
brilliant piece of technology, that they possess A virtuous
3:59
character. We elevate people to massive
4:01
platforms of influence based on their intellectual beauty,
4:04
assuming their high intelligence just guarantees a good
4:07
disposition. And we see the fallout from that
4:10
assumption constantly. Yeah, we really do.
4:12
A person can possess an astounding capacity for complex
4:16
thought, memory, spatial reasoning, and they can use all
4:20
of those faculties to orchestrate immense harm.
4:23
Because intelligence is just a tool.
4:26
Right. It's a capacity of the mind.
4:27
It is entirely neutral. Edwards locates virtue
4:31
exclusively in the heart, the will, the disposition, the
4:34
actual choices made by the intelligent being.
4:37
He points out that for equality to be of a moral nature, it must
4:40
be attended with desert, meaning it must be worthy of praise or
4:44
blame. Yes, and you cannot praise or
4:47
blame a calculator for producing the correct answer.
4:50
Right. The calculator is simply
4:51
functioning according to its design.
4:53
It has no will. It makes no moral choice.
4:55
And you cannot blame a hurricane for flattening a city, either.
4:58
Because the hurricane possesses immense force, but it lacks a
5:01
disposition. Caught on praise and blame are
5:04
reserved for beings that perceive a situation and
5:07
actively will a specific outcome.
5:10
Therefore, virtue is the beauty of the qualities and exercises
5:13
of the heart. It's the alignment of the will,
5:15
not the capacity of the brain. Yeah, that's a great way to put
5:18
it. Think about it like this.
5:19
Imagine a computer hacker writing a devastating piece of
5:22
ransomware. OK, from an engineering
5:25
standpoint, another programmer might look at that code and
5:28
recognize it as, you know, flawless, elegant, highly
5:32
efficient. Right, that is intellectual
5:33
beauty. The structure of the code is
5:35
brilliant. But that code is designed to
5:37
shut down a hospital's critical systems until a massive
5:40
financial payout is secured. So the code lacks moral beauty
5:45
entirely. Entirely.
5:46
The intellect behind the action is stunning, but the
5:48
disposition, the will of the hacker is completely misaligned.
5:53
The heart behind the brilliance is just ugly.
5:56
And honestly, the brilliance actually magnifies the ugliness
5:59
of the disposition. Oh, how so?
6:01
Well, the sharper the intellect, the more damage a misaligned
6:03
will can cause. The ransomware works better
6:06
because the guy is smart. Yeah, Yeah, that's true.
6:09
Edwards warns his readers not to be seduced by a sharp mind.
6:13
He forces us to ask a much harder question.
6:17
If we have established that virtue is located in the
6:19
disposition of the heart, what differentiates a truly beautiful
6:22
heart from one that only appears beautiful?
6:25
Because we can still be fooled by actions that look virtuous on
6:28
the surface. Right.
6:29
And Edwards introduces a concept here to answer that He separates
6:33
what he calls particular beauty from general beauty.
6:37
OK. Particular versus general.
6:38
Yeah. He defines particular beauty as
6:41
something that appears beautiful when considered only within a
6:44
limited, private sphere. It's a beauty that exists when
6:47
you look at it in isolation or in relation to a very small,
6:51
restricted set of circumstances. And he contrasts that with
6:54
general beauty, which is the quality by which a thing appears
6:57
beautiful when viewed comprehensively.
7:00
So looking at the big picture. Right, general beauty requires
7:04
looking at an action universally with regard to all its
7:07
tendencies and its connections with the entire system of
7:10
existence. So an action might seem entirely
7:13
good when viewed in a vacuum, right?
7:15
But it becomes a source of immense discord when you zoom
7:18
out and observe its universal connections.
7:21
Yes, true virtue requires alignment with the universal
7:25
system. He uses an analogy about music
7:27
to illustrate this, doesn't he? He does, and it's brilliant.
7:30
If you take a few notes in a tune and play them by
7:32
themselves, they might sound harmonious.
7:35
Within their tiny, isolated context, they possess particular
7:39
beauty. Right, but if you take those
7:41
exact same notes and insert them into the larger Symphony, they
7:45
might clash horribly with the rest of the instruments.
7:48
They become discordant and grading.
7:50
They literally ruin the broader piece of music.
7:53
And human actions and human loyalties operate under that
7:56
exact same principle. We can act in a way that creates
8:00
harmony in a very small private circle.
8:03
Like being incredibly generous to our immediate family, yeah.
8:06
Or fiercely protective of our specific social group.
8:09
Within that contracted view, our actions appear virtuous.
8:13
But if that same loyalty creates chaos, pain or like injustice in
8:18
the broader society, it is not true virtue.
8:21
No, it's a private harmony that creates a universal discord.
8:24
Let me push this into a more uncomfortable real world
8:26
scenario. Let's apply this to the concept
8:28
of a mafia family. Oh.
8:29
That's a good one. In that setting, the trap of
8:32
particular beauty becomes glaringly obvious.
8:35
Within the private sphere of the organization, you find intense
8:38
loyalty. Very intense.
8:40
Members provide for each other, they protect each other's
8:43
children, and they adhere to a strict internal code of honor.
8:47
And if you only study the relationships within that small
8:50
group, it looks like virtue. Yeah, it really does.
8:53
But when you look at how that private circle interacts with
8:56
the broader city, you know, extracting wealth through
8:58
extortion, silencing opponents through violence, corrupting
9:02
local institutions, the illusion completely shatters.
9:05
The notes of their internal loyalty sound good together, but
9:09
they destroy the Symphony of the society they inhabit.
9:12
Right. The intense loyalty of the group
9:14
is actually the engine driving the broader destruction.
9:17
The stronger their particular beauty, the worse the general
9:20
discord becomes, and Edwards argues that human beings are
9:24
highly susceptible to this trap. We really are.
9:26
We are naturally wired to appreciate the limited sphere
9:30
because it is tangible, immediate, invisible.
9:32
My family, my friends, my town. It takes a massive effort of the
9:36
will and the intellect to step back and consider the
9:39
universality of our actions. Which is why we see this driving
9:43
modern tribalism and nationalism so hard.
9:46
People develop an intense loyalty to their specific
9:49
faction, their specific nation, or their political ideology.
9:53
And they convince themselves they are acting virtuously
9:55
because they're defending their own group.
9:57
Yeah, they view their fierce protection of their small circle
10:01
as a moral high ground. Yet that localized loyalty often
10:05
requires demonizing anyone outside the circle.
10:08
They are just playing their isolated notes louder and
10:10
louder, completely ignoring the grading noise it creates against
10:14
the rest of human existence. That's a great way to put it.
10:18
Edwards states that a private circle of affection that does
10:20
not imply A tendency to a union with the great system is not
10:24
true virtue. It falls completely short of the
10:26
mark. So if a disposition is truly
10:28
beautiful, it must be beautiful by a general beauty.
10:31
It must harmonize with the entirety of existence.
10:34
Which leads to the central question of his entire treatise.
10:36
Right. If true virtue must harmonize
10:39
with the universal system, what is the precise object of this
10:43
virtue? What is the actual target of a
10:46
truly beautiful heart? Edwards defines this super
10:49
clearly. He states that true virtue most
10:52
essentially consists in benevolence to being in general.
10:56
Benevolence to being in general. Yes, he describes it as a
10:59
consent, A propensity and a union of heart to universal
11:02
existence. OK, let's translate being in
11:05
general, because he is not suggesting we must harbor
11:09
intense affection for inanimate objects like rocks or dirt.
11:12
No, no, he clarifies that being in this context refers to
11:16
intelligent beings capable of perception and will.
11:19
OK, so conscious existence. Right.
11:21
He is addressing the totality of conscious existence, right?
11:23
Benevolence is an active, expansive goodwill toward that
11:26
totality. So it's a disposition that
11:28
genuinely desires the well-being and the flourishing of the
11:30
entire system, rather than seeking the advantage of a
11:33
single isolated part. Yeah, and the psychological
11:36
shift required to operate this way is staggering.
11:38
I mean, we are conditioned from birth to view ourselves as
11:42
isolated individuals, right? Like the center of our own
11:44
narrative. Oh, completely.
11:46
Our default setting is to prioritize our own needs, then
11:50
the needs of our immediate family, and maybe the needs of
11:53
our local community. But Edwards is asking the reader
11:56
to view themselves as a single, infinitesimal thread within a
12:00
massive, interconnected reality. Yes, When your disposition is
12:05
bent toward being in general, your decision making process
12:08
flips entirely. You no longer ask what benefits
12:11
you in the short term. You ask how your actions
12:14
resonate through the overarching structure of reality.
12:17
You seek to consent with the whole.
12:19
That concept of consent is so vital here.
12:21
It means your will agrees with the flourishing of universal
12:24
existence. You are not fighting against the
12:25
whole to secure a private advantage.
12:27
You are willingly participating in the broader harmony.
12:30
Think about a single cell operating inside a human body.
12:34
OK, biology analogy. I like it.
12:36
If that cell decides to work only for its private
12:39
proliferation, like gathering resources exclusively for
12:42
itself, ignoring the communication signals from the
12:45
surrounding tissue reproducing without limit.
12:47
Then it exhibits particular beauty.
12:49
It is thriving locally. It is highly successful at being
12:53
a single cell. But in biology, a cell that
12:55
operates with complete disregard for the general system is a
12:58
cancer. Oh wow.
13:00
It grows. It establishes its own private
13:02
empire, but it eventually destroys the host and
13:05
consequently destroys itself. The analogy holds up under
13:08
intense scrutiny. The cancer cell has no union of
13:12
heart with the body. None.
13:13
Conversely, a healthy cell works in consent and agreement with
13:17
the whole. It performs its specific
13:18
function. It uses only the resources it
13:21
needs. It communicates with the
13:22
surrounding tissue and it even undergoes apoptosis program cell
13:26
death when it's continued existence would harm the broader
13:30
system. That's incredible.
13:31
It exhibits true biological harmony because it's disposition
13:34
is aligned with the general body.
13:36
And Edwards forces us to ask if we are operating as healthy
13:39
cells or as cancer within the universal system.
13:42
But to achieve this alignment, the type of love we exercise
13:46
becomes the deciding factor, right?
13:48
Yeah. The word love is universally
13:51
recognized, but it's application varies.
13:53
Wildly, it really does. Edwards outlines the mechanics
13:57
of this love with intense precision.
13:59
He draws a firm line between what he calls the love of
14:02
benevolence and the love of complacence.
14:05
OK. Benevolence versus complacence.
14:08
This distinction is arguably the most critical mechanism in his
14:11
entire argument. Let's break those down.
14:13
He defines the love of benevolence as an affection or
14:16
propensity of the heart to any being that causes it to incline
14:20
to its well-being. So it's the disposition to
14:22
desire and take pleasure in the happiness of another.
14:25
Right. And the defining characteristic
14:27
of benevolence is that the object of this love does not
14:29
need to possess any prior beauty or excellence.
14:32
Meaning you desire their good regardless of their current
14:35
state, their merit, or their attractiveness.
14:37
Yes, while complaisance operates on a completely different
14:40
engine. How so?
14:41
The love of complaisance presupposes beauty.
14:45
It is a delight in an object because of its existing
14:48
excellence. So you love the thing because it
14:50
is already pleasing, virtuous, or aesthetically beautiful.
14:53
Exactly. I mean, yes, the love is a
14:56
reaction to a quality the object already possesses.
15:00
Let's ground this with an analogy for the listener.
15:02
Think about the love of benevolence, like taking in a
15:04
stray dog. Oh yeah.
15:06
The dog is mangy, aggressive, sick and covered in mud.
15:11
It has no aesthetic appeal whatsoever.
15:13
Right. It snaps at your hand, it offers
15:15
you 0 comfort, but you take it in.
15:18
You pay for the medical treatment, you provide food and
15:20
shelter simply because you desire its well-being.
15:23
You seek its healing without requiring it to offer you any
15:26
beauty in return. The affection initiates from
15:28
you, not from the dog. While the love of complacence is
15:31
entirely reactive. Right.
15:33
Complacence is going to an elite breeder and purchasing a
15:36
purebred show dog. The dog has a pristine coat,
15:40
perfect obedience training and ideal temperament.
15:42
And you admire it, you delight in it, and you love it because
15:45
it is already beautiful. Both scenarios involve
15:48
affection, but the starting point dictates the entire nature
15:51
of the relationship. Yes, and Edwards uses this
15:54
distinction to address a staggering theological reality
15:58
regarding the nature of the divine.
16:00
OK, where does he go with this? He points out that God's
16:03
benevolence must precede the existence and the beauty of all
16:07
created things. Oh, because before creation
16:10
nothing was there. Right.
16:12
If the Creator only exercised the love of complaisance, he
16:15
would only love things that were already beautiful.
16:18
But before the act of creation, out of nothing, nothing existed.
16:21
There was no beauty to observe, no excellence to delight in, and
16:25
no creature to admire. Exactly.
16:27
Therefore, God's goodness moved him to grant both being and
16:31
beauty to the universe. So his benevolence is the
16:34
uncaused foundation. Yes, he creates specifically to
16:37
give existence and happiness, entirely unprompted by any
16:40
external beauty. When you apply that distinction
16:43
to human relationships, it exposes why so many of our
16:46
social structures. Crumble.
16:47
Oh, it's brutal when you look at.
16:48
It we build our friendships, our marriages and our alliances
16:51
almost exclusively on the love of complaisance.
16:53
We really do. We look at other people and we
16:55
require them to be beautiful first.
16:56
We demand they have their lives sorted out, that they are
16:59
intellectually stimulating, morally upright, perfectly
17:02
aligned with our opinions. We want to delight in the
17:05
qualities they already possess. Yeah, we approach relationships
17:09
as consumers looking for a finished product.
17:12
And when the product degrades, when the beauty fades, when the
17:15
person makes a moral error, or when the intellectual
17:18
stimulation wanes, the love of complacence just vanishes.
17:23
It vanishes because the foundation of the affection was
17:25
the existing beauty of the object.
17:28
When the object ceases to be beautiful, the love has
17:30
absolutely nothing left to stand on.
17:32
It collapses. But if a society operated from a
17:35
primary disposition of benevolence, the dynamic would
17:38
be entirely inverted. Yes, we would desire the good of
17:42
others regardless of their current state.
17:44
We would seek their flourishing even when they are not
17:47
displaying any moral or physical beauty.
17:49
Benevolence is a far more resilient, durable framework
17:53
because it does not depend on the perfection of the recipient.
17:55
And Edwards does not make this distinction merely as practical
17:58
relationship advice, right? No, not at all.
18:01
He uses it as a scalpel to dissect and remove a massive
18:05
philosophical error regarding the origin of morality itself.
18:08
This is fascinating. He.
18:10
Applies this understanding of complaisance to dismantle a
18:13
circular logic trap that has snared countless ethical
18:16
systems. This is where the logic requires
18:18
intense focus, but the payoff is staggering.
18:22
The trap is the idea that the foundation of goodness is loving
18:26
good things. Yes, Edwards argues that it is
18:29
an absolute inconsistency to claim that virtue primarily
18:33
consists in loving an object for its beauty.
18:35
He mathematically proves that the primary root of true virtue
18:39
cannot be the love of complaisance, right?
18:41
Let's walk through his reasoning step by step, because it's a lot
18:44
to wrap your head around. Why does the love of complacence
18:47
fail as the starting point for morality?
18:49
We have to follow the chain of definitions he has already
18:51
established. He defined virtue as the moral
18:54
beauty of the mind. OK, so virtue and moral beauty
18:57
are synonymous. Yes.
18:59
So if a philosophical system claims that virtue primarily
19:02
consists in loving beauty, they're effectively claiming
19:04
that virtue consists in loving virtue.
19:06
OK, wait, that sounds plausible on the surface.
19:09
We tell people all the time, goodness means loving good
19:12
people and good actions. It sounds totally fine until you
19:15
apply pressure to it. Right, because if the definition
19:18
of a word requires the use of the word itself, you have not
19:22
defined anything. You have created a loop.
19:24
It is the classic in infinitum argument, an infinite regress.
19:29
OK, let me try to map this out. If the first virtue is loving
19:33
virtue, then virtue becomes the consequence of itself.
19:36
The cause and the effect are identical.
19:38
Which forces you to ask what was the first virtue that was being
19:42
love? Yes, because if virtue consists
19:44
primarily in love to virtue, then the object you are loving
19:48
is the love of virtue. Oh.
19:49
My head hurts. So that means virtue consists in
19:52
the love of the love of virtue. And the chain goes backward,
19:55
forever hanging in empty space, never anchoring to a solid
19:58
foundation. It is like walking into a room
20:01
entirely lined with mirrors. Oh, I love that analogy.
20:04
You see an infinite repetition of reflections, but when you
20:06
look for the original object casting the reflection, there is
20:10
nothing there. The mirrors are just reflecting
20:12
other mirrors. A more moral framework built on
20:15
the love of complaisance is exactly that room.
20:18
You keep peeling back the layers to find the origin of the
20:20
goodness and there is nothing at the center.
20:23
Therefore, the primary initiating root of virtue must
20:28
be something fundamentally different from delighting an
20:30
existing beauty. The bedrock cannot be the love
20:33
of complacence, because complacence requires beauty to
20:36
already exist before it can act. There must be a primary movement
20:40
of the heart that does not rely on observing something that is
20:43
already virtuous. Because you cannot build a
20:45
bridge by starting the construction in the middle of
20:48
the air. You need a pillar anchored into
20:50
bedrock. And the lighting and existing
20:52
beauty is mid air construction. You still have to explain where
20:55
the very first beautiful thing came from.
20:57
OK, so having successfully eliminated the love of existing
21:00
beauty as the foundation, Edwards applies the exact same
21:03
logical rigor to eliminate another highly popular candidate
21:07
for the origin of virtue. Yes, he targets the concept of
21:10
gratitude. This argument strikes at the
21:12
core of a lot of modern sensibilities.
21:15
It really does. We elevate gratitude constantly
21:18
in our culture. We really do.
21:19
We treat it as the absolute peak of moral achievement.
21:23
We encourage gratitude journals. We build campaigns around
21:26
recognizing the good things others have done.
21:29
We judge people harshly when they fail to show appreciation.
21:32
And then Edwards comes along and states that gratitude cannot
21:34
possibly be the primary root of true virtue.
21:37
Right, and he defines gratitude specifically as one being's
21:42
benevolence to another because of their prior benevolence to
21:46
him. So it is a reactionary
21:47
affection, yes. Someone performs a kind action
21:51
for me, and my heart responds by desiring their well-being in
21:54
return. The logic he uses to discard
21:57
gratitude as the primary route is identical to the logic he
22:00
used for complacence, right? Spot on.
22:03
Gratitude, by its very definition, requires a prior
22:06
act. It mathematically relies on a
22:08
preceding trigger, therefore it is a reactive virtue.
22:12
If my moral goodness is strictly defined by my ability to say
22:15
thank you for your goodness, we are back in the infinite loop.
22:18
Who initiated the chain? Right.
22:20
The very first act of benevolence in the universe
22:22
could not possibly be an act of gratitude, because prior to that
22:26
first act, there was nothing to be grateful for.
22:28
No one had done anything. The system demands an uncaused
22:32
primary absolute benevolence. Gratitude is a beautiful
22:36
response, but it is a response. True virtue, in its most primary
22:41
and pure essence, cannot require a trigger.
22:45
It must initiate. It forces the reader to look
22:48
higher toward a love that exists completely independently of how
22:52
others behave or what they offer.
22:54
And realizing that gratitude is a reactive virtue really
22:57
challenges us to analyze our own daily motives.
23:00
Oh, absolutely. Like am I operating from a place
23:02
of true virtue or am I just running a transactional Ledger?
23:05
Am I only kind to the neighbors who are kind kind to me?
23:08
Right. Am I only generous to the
23:09
systems that offer me a return on investment?
23:11
If my moral output is entirely dependent on the moral input I
23:15
receive from my environment, I am not generating virtue.
23:18
You're just a mirror reflecting the room you are standing in.
23:20
That's a gut punch. It is a transactional morality.
23:24
It is safe and it is manageable, but it is not the bedrock of
23:28
moral beauty. No, it's not.
23:31
Edwards is pushing for a framework that initiates
23:33
goodness into the void, rather than just returning goodness
23:37
that was already provided. Okay, so we have cleared the
23:39
brush. The love of complacence is
23:41
removed. Gratitude is removed as the
23:43
primary foundation. The infinite regress is solved.
23:46
We are left with only one logical starting point for true
23:49
virtue. The bedrock is absolute
23:51
benevolence. And the primary object of
23:53
virtuous love is being simply considered.
23:56
Yes, it is a propensity and union of heart to universal
24:00
existence which excites an absolute benevolence to being in
24:03
general. The first object of a virtuous
24:05
heart is seeking the highest good of universal existence.
24:08
But, and this is key, Edwards introduces a highly specific
24:12
metric to this benevolence. He introduces a calculus of
24:15
existence. A calculus of existence.
24:17
OK, he states that love should be proportionate.
24:20
The object with the greatest share of existence, assuming all
24:23
other things are equal, demands the greatest share of benevolent
24:26
affection. Wait, we must parse his phrasing
24:28
carefully to avoid a massive misunderstanding here.
24:31
Good call. When he speaks of the greatest
24:34
share of existence, he is not referring to like physical
24:38
volume or spatial mass. Right.
24:40
He's not suggesting that a larger physical object deserves
24:43
more affection than a smaller one.
24:45
Because he established earlier that being in this context
24:48
refers to intelligent entities capable of perception and will.
24:51
Exactly. Yeah, that's right.
24:53
The share of existence refers to the capacity, the moral weight,
24:58
and the magnitude of the intelligent entity.
25:00
So if a heart genuinely seeks the highest good of universal
25:04
existence, it will naturally allocate its benevolent
25:07
affection in proportion proportion to the degree of
25:09
existence held by the object. Right, but when people hear
25:12
this, the immediate reaction is resistance.
25:14
Yeah, because it sounds like a cold, calculated utilitarianism.
25:18
It does. Are we supposed to walk through
25:19
our lives weighing the capacity for being of every person we
25:23
meet, allocating our affection like a corporate budget?
25:26
It sounds devoid of any genuine warmth.
25:28
It sounds cold if you attempt to apply it horizontally purely
25:31
among human interactions, but this framework is pointing
25:35
vertically. It's pointing directly toward
25:37
the divine. Oh, I see.
25:38
In Edwards world view, God possesses the infinite majority
25:42
of being an existence. God is the uncreated source, the
25:46
sustainer of all reality, the infinite mind.
25:50
Therefore, any true benevolence that seeks the good of universal
25:54
existence must inherently prioritize the Creator over the
25:58
creature. Because the Creator holds the
26:00
greatest share of existence by an infinite unbridgeable margin.
26:04
So the math solves the ultimate priority of the universe.
26:07
Yes. It is not about deciding whether
26:09
to allocate 51% of your love to your neighbor and 49% to your Co
26:13
worker. If you love being in general,
26:15
your greatest affection, your primary loyalty, will naturally
26:18
flow to the being that comprehends all things and
26:21
sustains all things. And Edwards also points out the
26:23
severe consequence of this calculus.
26:26
If you are genuinely seeking the highest good of being in
26:28
general, you will naturally give up the good of a smaller
26:31
particular being if its existence conflicts with the
26:34
whole. If that makes sense.
26:35
Furthermore, you will actively oppose declared enemies of being
26:39
in general. So if an entity is irreclaimably
26:42
opposed to the universal good, a truly virtuous heart will
26:46
forsake that enemy. Which aligns perfectly with the
26:49
earlier discussion regarding the trap of particular.
26:51
Beauty, you forsake the destructive cancer cell for the
26:54
sake of preserving the entire body.
26:56
Yes, you oppose the discordant noise for the sake of the
26:59
Symphony. True virtue is not a passive
27:02
weak tolerance of everything. It requires active opposition to
27:06
anything that seats to destroy the universal harmony.
27:09
But there is a secondary level to this love that Edwards
27:12
introduces to complete the framework, isn't there?
27:15
Yes, there is. We have established that the
27:17
primary object is being in general, with affection
27:20
proportion to the share of existence.
27:22
And the primary disposition is absolute benevolence.
27:25
But what happens when a person operating with this disposition
27:28
encounters another person operating the exact same way?
27:31
This brings us to what Edwards calls the secondary object of
27:35
virtue. Right.
27:35
The secondary ground of pure benevolence is loving a person
27:38
specifically because they possess general benevolence.
27:42
So when you witness someone who loves being in general, your
27:45
heart naturally attaches to them.
27:46
Yes, Edwards notes that spiritual beauty consists wholly
27:51
in this secondary ground. Why does this reaction happen so
27:55
automatically? Why are we so drawn to
27:57
universally benevolent people? Edwards explains that when a
28:00
person possesses A benevolent disposition toward universal
28:04
existence, their own being is, as it were, enlarged.
28:08
Enlarged. Yeah, their heart extends to
28:10
comprehend being in general. They no longer view themselves
28:14
as an isolated point. They look on the universal
28:17
interest as their own interest. They have expanded their
28:20
identity to embrace the whole. And if you are someone who is
28:23
also governed by a love to being in general, you must of
28:27
necessity have complacence in this person.
28:30
Remember, complacence is delighting in existing beauty,
28:33
right? You look at their benevolent
28:35
propensity, you recognize it as a supreme Excellency, and you
28:39
delight in it. You love them out of gratitude
28:41
for their love to universal existence, because your own
28:44
heart is deeply united to that exact same existence.
28:47
It is a shared spirit of consent.
28:49
Edwards uses an analogy about gold to clarify why we value
28:54
this combined benevolence so highly, doesn't he?
28:56
He does. He notes that if you see
28:58
benevolence in two beings, you value it more than in one.
29:02
It is a greater thing to have two beings favor the general
29:05
good than just a single isolated individual.
29:09
There is more being that favors being.
29:11
Just as a large quantity of gold is inherently more valuable than
29:14
a small quantity of the exact same quality metal, more being
29:18
that favors the universal good is a greater overall good.
29:21
The total amount of general goodwill in the universe has
29:24
multiplied. And that increase is a cause for
29:26
intense, immediate delight for anyone who values the universal
29:30
system. Think about the real world
29:32
experience of recognizing a kindred spirit.
29:34
Oh man, that feeling is incredible.
29:36
It is a person who genuinely seeks the good of the world, can
29:39
travel to a different country, meet someone from an entirely
29:42
different culture, speaking a different language, and feel an
29:45
instant, profound connection. Because when you witness someone
29:48
acting out of pure benevolence, seeking the harmony of the whole
29:51
rather than their private, selfish game, you feel an
29:55
immediate bond. You bypass all the superficial
29:58
cultural differences because you recognize they speak the exact
30:02
same language of universal consent.
30:05
You are both pulling in the same direction.
30:07
That is the secondary ground of reach W love operating in real
30:11
time. It is the spiritual beauty that
30:14
naturally arises from the primary foundation.
30:16
You love the whole, and therefore you cannot help but
30:19
love anyone else who actively loves the whole.
30:22
But there is a final, incredibly sobering point Edwards makes
30:26
regarding this secondary beauty. Oh, right.
30:29
He states that it is impossible for anyone to truly relish this
30:32
beauty in others unless they possess that benevolent temper
30:35
themselves. A selfish heart, a heart trapped
30:38
in particular beauty, literally cannot value a universally
30:41
generous heart. The mechanics of that failure
30:44
are easy to trace. If a being is entirely destitute
30:47
of benevolence, if their entire existence is dedicated to their
30:50
private circle and their personal advancement, why would
30:53
they prize someone else's dedication to the general?
30:55
Good. They wouldn't, because they do
30:57
not value the general good themselves.
30:59
If I care absolutely nothing about the Symphony, I am not
31:02
going to appreciate the musician who works tirelessly day and
31:05
night to keep the orchestra in tune.
31:08
No, you won't recognize their effort as beautiful at all.
31:11
In fact, I might resent them for making me look bad or for asking
31:14
me to care about something I find totally useless.
31:17
Edward states the contradiction plainly.
31:19
For a selfish person to love general benevolence, they would
31:23
have to prize and seek that for which they had absolutely no
31:26
value. Which is an impossibility.
31:28
You cannot value a disposition that promotes a thing when you
31:32
were completely regardless of the thing itself.
31:35
This perfectly explains the heavy cynicism we see permeating
31:38
so much of the modern world. It really does.
31:40
When a genuinely virtuous act occurs, an act of pure
31:44
benevolence with no obvious hidden agenda, no financial
31:47
kickoff, and no PR advantage, cynical people immediately try
31:51
to find the selfish angle. They assume that is a
31:53
manipulation tactic. They assume the person is
31:55
angling for leverage. They literally lack the internal
31:59
capacity to relish the spiritual beauty of the ACT because their
32:02
own disposition lacks the temper that makes the ACT beautiful.
32:05
They only understand the language of particular beauty
32:08
and private interest, so they project that motive onto
32:11
everyone else. It is a stark dividing line.
32:14
A person's ability to recognize, appreciate, and delight in true
32:19
virtue is entirely dependent on whether their own heart has
32:22
consented to being in general, so true.
32:24
Synthesizing this massive philosophical framework alters
32:28
how we view every interaction. I mean, we started by looking at
32:31
the common societal checklist version of morality.
32:35
The assumption that external niceness equals goodness.
32:39
We moved from viewing virtue as localized niceness or particular
32:42
beauty to understanding it as a cosmic alignment with universal
32:45
existence. We established that true moral
32:48
beauty resides exclusively in the disposition of the heart,
32:51
not in the intellect or in physical aesthetics.
32:53
And we observed that this disposition must be directed
32:56
toward the highest good of all intelligent beings.
32:58
We dismantled the circular logic trap, proving that the
33:01
foundation of goodness cannot be the love of complaisance, nor
33:05
can it be gratitude. We uncovered that true virtue
33:08
must be rooted in an absolute benevolence, a desire for
33:11
universal well-being that requires no prior trigger,
33:14
demands no existing beauty, and expects no return.
33:18
And we saw how this primary benevolence naturally scales
33:21
according to the share of existence, prioritizing the
33:23
infinite over the finite while creating a secondary beauty when
33:28
we recognize that same universal love in other people.
33:31
This text asks the reader to step completely outside their
33:34
narrow private spheres. It challenges human tribalism,
33:37
it exposes transactional relationships, and it demands an
33:40
active union of heart with the overarching system of reality.
33:44
It is a rigorous, highly demanding framework, but it
33:47
provides a level of clarity that the murky waters of modern
33:50
checklist morality simply cannot offer.
33:52
It forces a complete re evaluation of motive.
33:55
I want to leave you with a final idea to process as you go about
33:58
the rest of your week. If true virtue requires us to
34:00
love the entirety of existence and to prioritize those with the
34:04
greatest share of being, how should that alter the way you
34:07
view your daily conflicts, your private loyalties, and your
34:10
smallest acts of kindness? When you look at the choices in
34:14
front of you, ask yourself, are your actions harmonizing with
34:17
the Universal Symphony, or are you just playing an isolated,
34:20
discordant tune on your own? Thank you for joining Reformed
34:23
Thinking for this deep dive into the underlying mechanics of
34:26
moral beauty. Keep questioning the surface,
34:29
keep seeking harmony, and we will catch you on the next one.