|
Showing 1 - 25 of
40 matches in All Departments
The value of the more general and abstract efforts of politi- cal
theory, of what may perhaps be called the philosophy of the state,
is often questioned. It is urged on the one hand that the true
science of politics cannot go beyond the study of the actual
organization of government and of its relations to other social and
economic institutions. On the other hand, it is asserted that
political philosophy, because it is necessarily a priori in method,
cannot do more than ring the changes on certain fundamental types
of theory which were stated once for all in the far-distant past.
Thus, for example, Professor Dunning in his recent book on
Political Theories Irom Rousseau to SPencer says, "Greek Thought on
this problem [the justification of authority and submission] in the
fourth and third centuries before Christ in- cluded substantially
all the solutions ever suggested. " 1) Nevertheless, with some ups
and downs, political philosophy goes on; it is one of those
subjects of pennanent human inter- est which, whether "scientific"
or not, men are not likely to abandon. To be sure, it does at times
degenerate into an apol- ogy for special interests in their endless
struggle for power. This danger can scarcely be avoided when men
undertake to weigh values and to estimate the importance of
tendencies that have not yet eventuated in political fact. But
notwithstanding this danger, the criticism of principles is
indispensable.
In May 1954 twelve select members from several disparate
organisations including Freemasonry, Propaganda Due, Opus Dei and
the Knights of Malta demanded a highly classified meeting with the
Special Assistant to the President of the United States. They
sought total suppression of an antediluvian artefact captured from
German forces in the last days of World War II. The horribly
disfigured keeper of an obscure archive within the Vatican is
compiling a dossier that reveals a message coded by the Knights
Templar within a stained-glass window before their extermination in
the 14th century; a message deliberately concealed by an
underground fraternity since it was hidden in the Holy Bible 2,000
years ago. As a young boy during the final days of World War II,
Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Antonio Valla witnessed a
terrifying truth, forever altering the course of his life. This
unspeakable event has steeled his determination to uphold the
conservative doctrines of the Holy Church. Anything less would be
heresy. Yet within the Holy See, an outcast toils relentlessly in
the archives of the Apostolic Penitentiary, compiling the most
heretical and subversive information ever gleaned from the ancient
manuscripts. The very authority of the Holy See is now threatened.
Should this information be released, it would topple established
religion and science. Powerful interests are determined that this
man be stopped, but it appears he has friends in high places. The
keeper has been transmitting information to a secret society that
seeks to uncover the explosive truth of human genesis. They seek
the help of Aiden Keyes, a paleo-anthropologist who has uncovered
an ancient crypt in Baalbek, Lebanon. Aiden discovers a curious
reference in the Holy Bible echoed in other historical documents
such as the 6,000 year old Sumerian writings: "And it came to pass,
when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters
were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men
that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they
chose. There were Nephilim on the earth on those days; and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them..." But his discovery is compromised
by a covert agency that is chartered with maintaining a fictional
religious history. Their goal is to obscure the incredible truth of
human origins. Aiden, together with the uncompromising but
beautiful Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Keisha
Peterson, must now fight malevolent forces that are gathering. They
must fight for their lives, and more importantly, for the release
of a revelation that will change the world forever.
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.
|
|