|
Showing 1 - 25 of
38 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.
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
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.
Boethius argued we must accept free will as being recessive,
submissive to divine foreknowledge, determinism, pre-destination,
and predestination. Now if submissive independence is not an error,
what is? Is Boethius to blame for our having been unable to resolve
the paradox regarding free will and divine foreknowledge? An
alternative metaphysical perception, metaphysical model, to
Boethius' metaphysical perception exists and is presented within
this tractate. The problem is to gain the attention of religion,
philosophy, and science, all of who have rejected the very validity
of metaphysics itself. Boethius moves our perceptual understanding
regarding the system being filled with free will into that of being
'the' system filled with both free will and divine foreknowledge.
As such, free will and divine foreknowledge, with the help of
Boethius, now have a location within which they can be found.
However, the understanding regarding the role of both free will and
divine foreknowledge as well as the understanding regarding the
interrelationship between free will and divine foreknowledge not
only remain in a state of confusion but even more disconcerting,
the existence of such an interrelationship is not recognized as a
significant aspect of the 'larger' system. It is this state of this
confusion which will be specifically addressed within this
tractate.
|
|