Jeremy,

You name a number of figures you have been on my to-read list for a while.  The reason I did not mention Schuon is because I have never been able to enjoy his writings.  A number of respectable people have told me to keep trying with him, but for whatever reason I find him to be much less satisfying than Guenon.  

I don't think what I'm about to say is completely accurate, but it seems to me almost like Guenon, Schuon, and Evola (those being perhaps the 3 most popular) start from the same basic idea, but all view themselves differently.  Guenon seems to be interested in pure metaphysics, as far as possible, and thus views himself as a genuine intellectual or Brahmin.  Evola seems to be interested ultimately in the metaphysical as it is applied to the temporal, and thus views himself as a warrior or Kshatriya.  Schuon, especially at the end of his life seems to view himself as a prophet or an avatar or something, and I have always found this very weird.  Like I said, this is not completely accurate, but I don't think it is dishonest either.  Does this seem a fair characterization?

I also am sympathetic to the Platonist position, influence by Hermeticism.  I am curious if any of the Christians or more traditional Thomists have any strong feelings about these figures, seeing as they, especially Guenon, speak openly and positively of Thomas Aquinas quite often as an authentic source of wisdom for Western civilization.

I'm not sure if saying something has potential "that it could never advance towards in reality, but still could still possess in some abstract sense" makes sense.  If some state can't ever be actualized, then it is not, by definition, potentially actual, or more simply, you are not talking about potential.  So I think to ask your question, you would have to ask, why the unmoved mover is partly actualized and partly potential.  If this is what you are asking, then either 1) you aren't talking about the unmoved mover, or 2) GeorgiusThomas' answer would apply here.

Let me know if I misunderstood your question, or skipped over something.

iwpoe wrote:

Brian wrote:

Trump is a businessman. That's argument enough against him, or at least it should be.

Why? You prefer the proxy oligarchy we have now?

Why?  Because the life-long pursuit of money is shallow and pathetic.  Americans are already obsessed with the idea that wealth is the natural goal of life which is one of the reasons are popular "culture" is so ridiculous.  Electing someone who has done an overwhelmingly good job at pursuing wealth is not likely to make our nation great again.

Do I prefer Trump to the proxy oligarchy we have now?  Yes, but that is like saying I prefer drinking bleach to drinking sulfuric acid.  I am not going to do either one.  One being "better" that the other, is barely relevant in this situation.  

iwpoe wrote:

Re his lack of accountability:

Politics is theater. Every presidential candidate I have ever known has said either flatly false or grossly simplified or dressed up things for the sake of audience appeal. Have we forgotten Palin's "paling around with terrorists" lines? Trump's prime sin seems to me to be foregrounding the theater qua theater.

The idea that he actually lacks impulse control on a general level (as opposed to sexually) is not particularly plausible. His educational and business credentials clearly show his ability at organisational control is quite competent. Indeed, even these verbal "lapses" seem carefully calculated for particular appeal and effect. I've known Trump as an excellent improve talent since the 90s, and it is not a matter of *merely* saying anything.

Right, the difference between the populist and most democratic politicians is one of degree, not kind.  But the degrees are not unimportant.  And even if politics has always been theatre, that doesn't mean we should accept any actor who entertains us.  Trump is a businessman.   That's argument enough against him, or at least it should be.

iwpoe wrote:

Re his abortion beliefs:

I am not firmly against abortion because I am not fully convinced that the personhood arguments are decisive, so forgive me for any callousness, but does it ultimately matter whether he really *believes* it or not? What matters for a head of state is not belief but action. If he makes the correct actions, what's it to you if he does it for reasons of conviction or for reasons of alliances.

I am also not fully against abortion, but you cant trust someone who only acts to appease his supporters.  What he will do in the future is completely and radically unknown because he has no principles.  If being pro-abortion meant winning the election, he'd restaff and flip in a heartbeat.

It also seems like the head of state should be more than a temporary office holder.  To some degree he should b

DanielCC wrote:

Why should one want to be a human being?
 

Well, presumably because you are a human being.  Really, you shouldn't want to be a human being, you should want to be good, but since the good manifests itself differently for different brings, you should realize that for you, a human being, the good will necessarily look like a human good.  This would mean becoming good at himan things like thinking and being just, not squirrel things like collecting nuts or bear things like hibernating.

Perhaps I'm understanding you incorrectly, but being human is not in any way up to us. It is a matter of fate, and not being able to accept fate is a problem of hubris.