|
Showing 1 - 25 of
29 matches in All Departments
Regarding paradoxes, Wittgenstein stated: 'It is the business of
philosophy not to resolve a contradiction by means of a mathematics
or logic discovery but to get a clear view of the state of ...
affairs before the contradiction is resolved. (And this does not
mean that one is side stepping a difficulty.) Wittgenstein believed
philosophy has the responsibility to resolve paradoxes through an
interpretation of what seems most reasonable. It is then
mathematics and logic, which follow and validate or invalidate such
a view. It is the function of the philosophical field known as
metaphysics to examine the concept of the whole. Is the physical
the whole? If the physical is not the whole then what lies beyond
the physical, meta - beyond, physics - the physical? Kant proposed
a metaphysical system of limited existence 'containing' infinite
possibilities. Such a perception is metaphysical in nature for it
places a limit upon the whole leading to the question regarding
what lies beyond the limit itself. Such a topic lies well beyond
the parameters regarding a dialectic of space and time. In fact,
such a topic lies beyond the parameters regarding a dialectic of
the void of space and time. We will not ignore such a topic, rather
we will address the topic of what lies beyond the limits of the
whole in Tractate 18: The Emergence of Theoretical Metaphysics.
What then are we to examine within this tractate: Tractate 6: Kant
and the Void of Space and Time? We are to examine space and time,
the void of space and time, passive observation, active
observation. In spite of the pronouncements of philosophers to
follow Kant, meta-physics, is not dead. Meta-physics has just been
set aside while we await a new metaphysical system. Kant said we
have no choice but to establish a more comprehensive metaphysical
system before we relegate his system to the archives of ancient
history. Such then becomes the task of this dialectic for the very
purpose of this work to establish both a new metaphysical model and
the rationality regarding the new metaphysical model. As we shall
see, however, the task of 'replacing' Kant's system is not to be
attempted through the process of destroying Kant metaphysical model
but rather the new model is established through the process of
fusing Aristotle's, Kant's, and Hegel's model all into one
metaphysical model. First: The universe evolves as our thoughts
evolve. Second: The concept of a system is critical to metaphysics.
Regarding the first concept: The perception, the universe evolves
as our thoughts evolve, provides the rationale as to why our
understanding of the 'Greater' picture is so important. The concept
that the universe evolves as our thoughts evolve implies we
actively 'form' what 'will be' as opposed to the past Aristotelian
perception that we are merely observers of 'what is'. Regarding the
second concept: Kant was the first to propose such an upside down
concept as the universe itself evolving as our thoughts evolved.
Kant turned metaphysics and thus philosophy on its head just as
Copernicus turned cosmology and thus science on its head. Kant was
the first metaphysician to step beyond the perceptual metaphysical
perception of the day. Kant was able to step beyond the perception
of the day regarding the observer passively observing. Kant,
however, was unable to step beyond the perception of the day
regarding the existence of an Aristotelian closed system. Such
conflicting positions generated unwieldy metaphysical
contradictions. Kant innovated a perception incapable of being
'confined' within an Aristotelian closed system and thus found
himself incapable of finding both first truth and his dearly sought
categorical imperative. It is these two concepts, first truth and
categorical imperatives, that this work will examine and resolve.
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
Part I: Creating the paradox of a Perfect System 1. Introduction
This tractate, Tractate 5: Leibniz and Theodicy, appears relatively
unimportant when compared to the voluminous material found within
the previous tractates. One must not forget, however, that we are
dealing with abstractual concepts... ... It is theodicy we must
examine in order to understand how we are to redirect the
'masquerading metaphysician' back to becoming a purist, a
legitimate metaphysician as opposed to acting within an ontologist
masquerading as a metaphysician. It is Leibniz who introduced the
concept of 'perfection' and 'imperfection' and labeled such a
concept with a unique term of its own, theodicy... ...In terms of
the shortness of the tractate, there is no doubt the tractate is
'shorter. The concepts with which the work, The War and Peace of a
New Metaphysical Perception, deals are abstractual in nature and as
such 'perfection' and 'imperfection' are found to be,
metaphysically speaking, non-relativistic in nature. Should one
feel uncomfortable with the concept of puristic non-relativistic
values of abstraction, one may find comfort in reexamining the
diagram introducing this tractate. Upon doing so, admirers of
Leibniz may find comfort in observing that although the tractate
regarding Leibniz may be 'shorter' than the other tractates,
Leibniz and the concept with which he dealt take up more space
within the diagram and require the listing of his name more
frequently than any other philosopher. In addition, the diagram
credits Leibniz with having established the first thought of there
acting within a distinctly separate and independent 'location'
existing 'isolated from' the physical. So much for the 'shortness'
of the Leibniz' tractate, but what of the emotional approach versus
the less objective approach found within the tractate itself as
'compared' to the first four tractates? Leibniz introduced a very
emotional concept, the concept of humanity, the concept of all
forms of abstractual knowing acting within 'imperfect' versus
simply the individual in the puristic sense of the word. Such
personal re-characterization of our very essence deserves its own
unique emotional response. Leibniz, through his work,
re-characterizes our, humanity's, actions as being 'imperfect'.
Leibniz creates the concept of imperfection becoming a location of
the lack of 'perfect quality' through the emergence of a new
location. As the new location emerges, its characteristic becomes
defined: Perfection exists. As such the concept of 'omni...'
spreads to action as well as knowledge, power, and presence.
Through Leibniz, 'Separation through exclusion' becomes a
necessity. And where will examining Leibniz and theodicy take us?
It will take us to the metaphysician who perhaps was the first
philosopher since Leibniz to discard the facade of being 'an
ontologist working in the guise of a metaphysician'. It will take
us to the work of Immanuel Kant himself. Leibniz attempted to
create a term to resolve what he considered to be a paradox
underscoring religious and philosophical thought. Theodicy, a term
introduced by Leibniz to characterize the topic of God's government
of the world in relation to the nature of man. The problem is the
justification of God's goodness and justice in view of the evil in
the world. He attempted to compartmentalize the contradictory
discussion regarding the concept of a 'perfect' God being
'perfectly good' while allowing 'evil' to exist, while allowing
evil to take place, while allowing evil to be created 'within' It's
personal creation which 'lesser' 'beings' call 'the universe'. But
Leibniz failed to recognize that as soon as he accepted the first
three forms of 'omni-', omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence,
than the fourth form, omnibenevolence, became an invalid concern to
both religion and philosophy.
This tractate is a process of stepping onto a surface of quicksand
whose depth is indeterminable. The only tangible aspect of this
tractate is an intuitive sense that the depth of this 'quicksand'
will go well beyond Einstein and his concepts of relativity as it
applies to metaphysical thought. To avoid such a journey, however,
is to turn away from the true nature of metaphysics, which is to
explore regions yet to be theoretically examined by science
itself... To shun examining the full implications of a new
metaphysical system including its impact upon the theoretical is to
shun the obligations of the most basic principles of metaphysics
itself: 'To thine own self be true.' And why is the principle 'To
thine own self be true.' so basic to metaphysics? Principles are so
fundamentally basic to metaphysics because it is metaphysics, which
deals with the most basic of principles, principles rooted in the
purity of truth itself. The new metaphysical perception which the
individual acting within God creates regarding Zeno, Newton,
Einstein, relativity, and the modern physics of quantum mechanics
is an unusual one to say the least. Modern physics is immersed in
the realm of the physical universe. This is as it should be. What
should not be the case however is the perplexing abstractual state
of existence within which modern mathematics (the language of
physics) and physics find themselves existing. Mathematics and
modern physics find themselves immersed within the realm of
physicality with no sense of understanding the abstractual
significance of the very physical reality they are examining.
Mathematics and physics are in a state of abstractual confusion.
This state of abstractual confusion was not 'created' by
mathematics and physics but rather was created by the inability of
metaphysics to break out of its state of uncertainty regarding the
most fundamental of first truths: 'I am.' 'The universe is.' '1st
cause is.' This state of uncertainty regarding whether first truth
is 'I am.', 'The universe is.', or '1st cause is.', once logically
hurdled will allow metaphysics to once again lay down a model which
can act as a challenge, act as a guide towards which the energies
of mathematics and physics may be directed. Until a theoretical
goal is established by metaphysical ingenuity, mathematics and
physics will have no beacon towards which they can advance. Without
such a beacon, mathematics and physics will have no choice but to
visualize each new advance as a step into the blackness of the
unknowable which they find surrounding their reality of the
physical. Each step will no doubt expand their horizons, expand the
very limits of their presently existing physical universe but each
expansion will find itself forever being followed by the question:
Into 'what' did our expanding universe just expand? ... It is this
new metaphysical system, the individual acting within God which
allows us to understand, in the metaphysical sense, the
interrelationship between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian
physics. If the new metaphysical system of the individual acting
within God aids us in understanding the connection between
metaphysical Newtonian physics and metaphysical Einsteinian
physics, what then becomes of the 'i'. Is 'i' a grammatical error?
'i' is not a grammatical error. The 'i' is in fact, 'i' not I. ...
It is through the process of following the trail the concept 'i'
marks as it travels through the physics of Newton and then moves
through the physics of Einstein that we gain an understanding as to
the metaphysical concepts Einstein's introduction of relativity has
to offer us as a species of rational, reasoning entities of
individuality. So where do we begin? We begin by examining the most
obvious aspect of our reality. We begin by examining what it is we
find ourselves immersed within. We begin by examining the realm we
call space.
The new metaphysical system: a.An open passive system powered by a
closed active system wherein the whole of the closed system is
itself passive and the whole of the open system is active. b.An
open active system 'containing' a totally independent closed
passive system wherein elements of the open active system found
'within' the closed passive system are generated independent of the
open active system As complicated as such statements may appear,
the system itself is actually quite simple: (Simple Diagram of
System Composed of Three Elements: The Whole, The Physical
Universe, The Individual) The Aristotelian metaphysical system
evolved in the 1st millennium. The Kant/Hegel metaphysical system
evolved in the 2nd millennium. Eventually a new all-encompassing
metaphysical system will evolve in the 3rd millennium. The
development of the metaphysical system of the 1st millennium
accompanied us as our species explored the concept of geographical
'rights'. The development of the metaphysical system of the 2nd
millennium accompanied us as our species explored the concept of
global 'rights'. A new metaphysical perception needs to emerge
which will dominate our expansion into the vast depths of the
universe. Such a system will by necessity need to match our
advances in both technology and extraterrestrial cultural
intrusions and intrusiveness. If such a metaphysical system does
not emerge, history will repeat itself. The time periods involving
the exploration of the globe and the initial explorations of the
Americas, Africa, and the East by the West lead to horrific human
and environmental trauma supported by perceptions of geographic
'rights'. This trauma was not unique to Western action. The
'inhumanity' imposed upon individuals was generated by both the
East and the West. Human geographical 'rights' are in the process
of conceding their status to global 'rights.' Such 'rights' will
have no less a negative impact upon the frontiers of the universe
than geographical 'rights' had upon the frontiers of our planet.
How do we avoid repeating our species past negative acts? We can do
so by establishing a universal philosophy based upon a foundation
of new metaphysical thought. The result is the development of a
foundation for action derived from rational thought rather than
depending upon a foundation for action derived from examination of
past actions steeped in horrific negativity. How is one to
accomplish such a monumental 'leap' in human behavior? One must
identify the foundation of action which created the past history of
human negativity and modify the foundation. And what is the
foundation of human behavior which initiates human action? The
foundation for human behavior is metaphysical thought, metaphysical
perception. We are what we think we are. We are a species which
acts based upon what it rationally perceives itself to be, believes
itself to be, sees itself to be. In short we are what philosophy,
religion, and science defines us to be. If such is the case, then
what is it that science, religion, and philosophy have been
debating for the last twenty-five hundred years? Religion, science,
and philosophy have been debating the legitimacy of Cartesianism
versus non-Cartesianism. Simplified the statement becomes: Which is
correct, monism or dualism? The philosophical debate: Either
awareness of awareness, intentionality, knowing is an innate
characteristic of the physical or it is not. The religious debate:
Either there is a soul or there is not. The scientific debate:
Either awareness, consciousness is an innate characteristic of the
physical or it is not.
This essay will begin where we, humankind, have lead ourselves as
we attempted to slash our way through the jungle of life's
seemingly endless paradoxes. These paradoxes, which life has
persistently thrown across our path, are signposts for us. They are
indicators that we do not have all the answers. They warn us to
beware. They warn us there is something wrong with our perception
of life; there is something wrong with our thinking. They have a
function of their own, they direct us towards a state of
understanding where we are, what we are, and why it is we exist. In
this essay, we will be attempting to understand the likes of
Russell, Wittgenstein, Frege, Plotinus, and back again to Russell
as we attempt to move past parts of Heidegger. Our objective will
be to step back in time in order to get back to today. What is the
point of going to all this trouble just to get back to where we
started? The point is to bring back with us a new perception
regarding a simpler solution to Russell's paradox. Why is this
important? Presently we have a solution to Russell's paradox, which
involves a complex understanding of 'separation through
exclusionism', which in turn represents what we do to people in
society. We separate individuals and groups from our own groups and
ourselves. Once having separated them from ourselves we exclude
them from ourselves through a process of rejection, exclusionism,
and separation. It is Russell's paradox, which provides the key to
rectifying these constant actions of rejection. For this reason we
will accompany Russell as he travels eighteen hundred years back in
time. This trip will allow us to bring back with us a different
solution to Russell's paradox. This trip will allow us to bring
back a process known as 'separation through inclusion'. Now the
name would seem to imply our creating a paradox to act as a
solution to Russell's paradox but as we shall see it does nothing
of the kind. What it does is allow us to find a much simpler
solution to Russell's paradox. 'But what does this concept of
'separation through exclusion' as opposed to 'separation through
inclusion' have to do with me?' you may ask. The process provides
an alternative means to resolving a fundamental paradox of
mathematics, which in turn can be applied directly to the process
of understanding life. It is the simplistic resolution of complex
paradoxes, which provides us with a simplistic understanding of
life. It is through this process that we shall see 'Ockham's razor
not only cuts away the complexity of science but becomes the
primary tool for Husserl's bracketing . Ockham's Razor now becomes
not only a principle axiom for science but now moves on to become a
principle axiom of philosophy. This is an essay beginning in
complexity and ending in simplicity. Why is it that we must begin
in complexity rather than begin at the logical point of origin, the
point of simplicity? We begin in complexity for it is through
complexity that we presently have begun to understand Russell's
paradox . Presently we have solved Russell's paradox in a complex
fashion. This has led us to understanding life in a complex manner.
We cannot understand the simplicity of life as long as the basics
remain complex. The solution to this problem lies in the
understanding of Russell's paradox. Once you understand the end of
this essay, you will begin to understand why it is that we must go
back and make a correctional adjustment to our journey as
individuals and as specie. The question becomes, 'How far back in
time must we travel to do all this?' We must go back 1700 years.
Who will lead us on this backtracking expedition? The honors will
go to Bertrand Russell himself. Russell verbalized the paradox in
1901. As such, it is Russell's paradox. Therefore, it will be
Russell who will lead our backtracking expedition, which will lead
us to an understanding of life.
'Hegel's Theory... is a philosophical summit ' So it is 'a' summit
appears to have been reached only for us to find, having attained
such a summit, a new summit awaits beyond the one we just
laboriously conquered. The climb towards Hegel's summit began with
'nothingness' and revealed stunning paradoxes great metaphysical
thinkers such as Zeno, Aristotle, Boethius, Copernicus, Leibniz,
Kant, and Hegel himself attempted but failed to resolve. The
gallant attempts put forward by these great thinkers led to
metaphysical perceptions which temporarily satisfied segments of
our species but never rose to the level of consensus required of a
universal metaphysical model. A universal metaphysical model
answers, at a minimum, three metaphysical questions: Where am I?
What am I? And, Why do I exist? From such a model the term 'I'
finds itself, naturally and with an ease of complete continuity,
capable of being rationally replaceable with the terms: 'you',
'we', 'you and I together', 'humanity', 'life', 'the earth', 'the
solar system', 'the galaxy', 'other life forms within the
universe', 'all life forms within the universe', 'the universe',
'all universes'. ... Hegel is no different just because we come to
'a' summit. There is always a summit to follow each summit we
conquer. To state: 'Hegel's Theory... is a philosophical summit.'
is not to imply there are no other summits awaiting us. Before we
can begin our climb to the next summit, we need to understand the
new perception Hegel displayed for us. It is Hegel's metaphysical
system, which raises the question regarding the need of 'a creator
of the universe', the need of' 'a primal cause', the need of 'a
first Cause'. ...What then of 'God' being 1st truth? ... Hegel's
system would suggest there is no 'need' for God, no 'need' for
primal cause, no 'need' for 1st cause to exists since the universe
would appear to be timeless, would appear to have 'always' been.
The problem becomes the operative word, 'universe', for everything
we observe, believe, or reason suggests timelessness is not simply
a perceptual option. The most obvious yet simultaneously obscure
result is that a 'second' location emerges as 'the' solution to the
problem. In essence, Hegel's system reinforced what Zeno,
Aristotle, Boethius, Copernicus, Leibniz, and Kant had already
reinforced one with the other. This is not to say Hegel's system
lacked new insights for our species. ... It is the ideas and
actions identified within this quote from Rockmore, which need
addressing if we are to resolve the issues Hegel brings
metaphysics. It is the concept of the universe not needing a
'creator' and yet finding an acceptable significance for 'God'
which needs to be addressed and resolved before we can fully
appreciate what it is Hegel may have stumbled upon: 1.The universe
had no 'beginning' from which it evolved. 2.The universe is
timeless and has no 1st cause. The problem seems paradoxically
irresolvable in terms of either a Cartesian system or a
non-Cartesian system. It is for this very reason the new
metaphysical model presented in this tractate may well be 'the'
solution to the problem. The metaphysical model presented is not
one of Cartesianism nor one of non-Cartesianism but rather the
metaphysical system being presented is one of a non-Cartesian
system 'powered' by a Cartesian system located 'within' the a
non-Cartesian system using the process of 'separation' through
'inclusion' versus 'separation' through 'exclusion'. The questions
then become: What is a non-Cartesian system and what is a Cartesian
system and how can the two exist one 'within' the other? Why is the
first located 'within' the second rather than the second located
'within' the first? In fact why is either located 'within' as
opposed to being located independently one from the other and
separated through the process of exclusion?
If we united religion, science and philosophy, what would it offer
us? If we united religion, science and philosophy, what would it
offer us? What would if offer us as a speciess? It may provide us
with a means of coming to a consensus regarding what it is we
believe we are and why it is we believe we exist. It was Carl Sagan
who best expressed it when he said: "We are privileged to influence
and perhaps control our future. I believe we have an obligation to
fight for others, who came before us, and to whom we are all
beholden and for all those who, if we are wise enough, will come
after. There is no cause more urgent, no dedication more fitting
then to protect the future of our speciess. Nearly all our problems
are made by humans and can be solved by humans. No social
convention, no political system, no economic hypothesis, no
religious dogma is more important." The means of developing such a
consensus is through the development of a concept defined by
Stephen Hawking as a 'universal philosophy.' This 'universal
philosophy' could be achieved by using a process developed by
Husserl: using 'bracketing' and applying the process of 'reduction'
as outlined by Husserl. 'Bracketing' is the process of eliminating
any superfluous and irrelevant perceptions that are a part of our
everyday lives until one is left with life's primary essentials.
'Reduction' is the process of examining what remains, the primary
essentials - to make sense of ones 'intentionality'. In short, it
is Husserl's development of process that helps us to develop
Hawking's concept of a 'universal philosophy'. It is the process of
'bracketing' and 'reduction' that helps us to formulate answers to
the three basic questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we
exist? In essence, it is Husserl who has defined the process and
Hawking who has named the product of that process. A search for
purpose is in essence a search for a 'universal philosophy' based
upon 'truths'. This 'universal philosophy' - this means of modeling
a 'universal ethic' upon which we and all life throughout the
universe can agree - needs to be found in order to resolve the many
socially divisive issues we confront as a speciess. Perhaps more
importantly, we need to develop this understanding, this model,
before we confront other life forms with which we may have
decidedly differing views. If our speciess does not put such a
consensus in place, we may once again find ourselves divided and in
conflict. As history has shown over and over again, we will find
ourselves at war with each other. We will be a divided speciess
attempting to cully favor with differing intellectual life forms
which we will undoubtedly encounter as we push the limits of our
presence beyond our earth, to the far reaches of our solar system,
our galaxy, and to the very edge of the universe itself. To prevent
this, we need to develop a 'universal philosophy' capable of
supporting and embracing all religions, scientific thought, variety
of philosophies, and perceptions that we as a speciess have so
uniquely developed. Once we have developed such a philosophy, we
will need to test it. ... We need to be sure it unilaterally
encourages the concept of creative thought and freedom of action.
For if a model of a universal philosophy does not take on this
characteristic of free action and thinking, it can never be
considered 'universal'. Once a model of a 'universal philosophy'
has been developed, it can be tested in terms of its validity as a
universal philosophy by observing the degree of constraint it
imposes upon God. The less constraining the model, the more
universal it will be. This process of building a model of a
'universal philosophy' - that will act as a foundation for our
present perceptions - is in essence a search for truth. Perceptions
are concepts we form regarding what we understand to be 'truths'.
As a speciess, we appear to have three means of forming what we bel
|
You may like...
Knapsekerels
Pieter Fourie
Paperback
R175
R137
Discovery Miles 1 370
Stillerlewe
Pirow Bekker
Paperback
R20
Discovery Miles 200
|