Aristotle divided the universe into incremental layers of distance
heading outward from a center. As such humankind became confined to
the limits of 'a' system. We are an amazing species. Confining
humanity to the restrictions of a closed space does something to
humanity's psyche. It does not matter if the confines are physical
or abstract, the results are the same. Confinement generates an
overpowering need to 'escape', to once again 'breath' the air of
expansiveness, to 'breath' the air of freedom, to 'breath' the air
of the 'open spaces', to journey unimpeded. The closure of the
system was not necessarily a 'negative' development. Aristotle
moved humanity in the direction of understanding our universe as a
physical entity. Aristotle's perceptions allowed science to evolve
as just that, science. The development of science provided the
means by which we could understand what lies within 'the system'.
Our problem as a species, however, does not exist with
understanding what lies 'inside' Aristotle's system but rather
understanding what lies 'outside' Aristotle's system. Multiple
philosophical paradoxes emerged through our decision to diminish
the significance of the abstract. Ethical issues developed through
our decision to disregard the interrelationship between the
abstract and the physical, between seamlessness and multiplicity.
'Aristotle's system' leads us to the perception that 'the whole' is
the universe and the universe is 'the whole'. 'Aristotle's system'
leads to the philosophical perception that 'God is dead',
metaphysics is dead, and philosophy reached its end with the
development of the 'Hegelian non-Cartesian system'. It may have
taken thousands of years, but philosophy, through 'Aristotle's
system' reached the same point science reached in the mid-twentieth
century: Philosophy reached the point of 'believing' there is
nothing 'new' to learn. Philosophically much of society believes
the only 'new' perceptions left to explore are simply variations of
what we already 'know'. In regards to science, how wrong we were,
as the second half of the twentieth century so dramatically pointed
out. It may have taken thousands of years, but philosophy, through
'Aristotle's system' reached the same point science reached in the
mid-twentieth century: Philosophy reached the point of 'believing'
there is nothing 'new' to learn. Philosophically much of society
believes the only 'new' perceptions left to explore are simply
variations of what we already 'know'. In regards to science, how
wrong we were, as the second half of the twentieth century so
dramatically pointed out. In regards to philosophy, philosophy is
about to discover it is no different than science in this regard.
We cannot blame Aristotle for our having given up our pursuits
regarding the essence of the whole, individuality, and the
universe. Aristotle did not force us to take the limited approach
we took. We, humanity, made that decision. In order to resolve our
socially conflicting views and actions, we need to step back in
time and begin to examine the entities of individuality, the
universe, and the whole from a fresh perspective. Philosophical
paradoxes will remain paradoxes until we integrate all three
entities into 'a' system we can understand. Such a model is the
task of philosophy to develop. The model of the 'whole' is what
philosophy/reason must develop. Science measures, probes, and
observes the universe. Mathematics formulates the universe.
Religion stabilizes actions of free will within the universe.
Philosophy - and metaphysics in particular - expands our perception
of the whole and defines the role the universe and the individual
play within such a system. Is there an alternative? Absolutely, and
the alternative is provided within the pages of this book
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!