|
P H I L O S O P H Y V E R S U S S C I E N C E Southern people are not made for philosophy, science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower), but made for religion and idolatry. I give you an example for the almost proved fact that southern people are not made for philosophy, science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower), but made for religion and idolatry: the climate in the south makes the people more passive, lazy or even motionless (think of the Indian culture with its meditative people), but receptive to religion, but the climate in the north makes the people more active, busy, ..., etc.. The cause or reason therefor is a logical phenomenon which can easily be proved by science. We are endotherm animals, and endotherm animals produce their temperature by themselves (in their bodies). So if the ambient temperature is hot, endotherm animals get more passive, lazy, or even motionless, and if the ambient temperature is cold, endotherm animals get more active, busy, ..., etc.. High temperature means lazy endotherm animals, low temperature means busy endotherm animals. The logical implication for this eaxmple is:
p = the climate is hot.
Truth table for a logical implication:
And we have the syllogistic form:
This could still be continued, although it gets more and more difficult when it comes to proving the thesis that northern people are made for philosophy, science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower), while southern people are made for religion, but in all probability this thesis is true. Exceptions prove the rule. And the history has also shown that this thesis is true. In the beginning of Kultur (= culture / civilisation) the hot climate is favourable indeed (because of the more fructuous grounds, the fruits, the harvest etc.), but LATER it is NOT. Why became the northern people the most important people of civilisation at all (= of the world) - that's the question. Because of the cooperation or interaction between philosophy, AND science, AND technique (technology), AND industry, AND economy, AND intelligence (brainpower), AND so on - that's the answer. And this is much more possible in lands with a cold climate. At last in this lands philosophy has even almost lost its worth because science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower) etc. have become more important than philosophy. Philosophy is much needed in the beginning of Kultur (= culture / civilisation), but at last it is less needed because science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower) etc. have almost replaced it. In other words: When it comes to Kultur (= culture / civilisation) hot climate is only favourable in the beginning, later it is unfavourable. The modern times of Kultur is Zivilisation (cp. Oswald Spengler) and this means e.g. in history of ideas or intellectual history that science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower) etc. have almost replaced philosophy. Since the beginnig of modern times in the Occident (in German: Abendland, which means „evening land“) science, technique, economy, intelligence (brainpower) and so on has been becoming more important than philosophy, llike I said (**). Northern people need no more philosophy - accept the one which has been belonging to them since the beginning of their Kultur: Faustian philosophy which is the one and only occidental or northern philosophy. Faustian means German, means occident, means northern (in contrast to Asia, Africa, Indigenous America, Indigenous Australia, and Eastern Europe). Faustian means science, technique, economy, intelligence (brainpower) and so on. Northern and of course western is the so called Occidental culture / civilisation which has conquered the whole globe, and so the whole globe is more or less a occidental civilisation. I am not proud of that. It is just an historical fact. All this are and will be scientific, technical, engineering (also social engineering), economical, political, social, and, last but not least, cultural / civilised (more: civilisationised) facts. Faustian it is, and that means in terms of Kultur: Occidental it is, and that means in geographical terms: Northern European and Western European it is, and that means in historical terms: German it is. Shall we complain about its advanced decline after thousands of years? Science will come to an end in 21., 22. or 23. century. Then it will no longer exist or have got a different character, for example a complete religious system, which will have had its reason / cause in corruption and / or something similar. Science is already partly a religion. Most of the current scientists are so corrupt, that the word “scientist” is not the right word for them and their profession. They are saying what the rulers want them to say - and that has nothing to do with science, but very much with religion, with being obedient to ideology as modern religion. Yes, it is unbelievable how religious science has become. According to my theory and also because of that fact I often say that ideologies are modern religions. Therefore it is not surprising to me that this has happened and happens an will happen (until the time when science will be no science anymore, but to 100% the new religion, probably worldwide). Once every Westerner thougt religion was replaced by science, in the future every Westerner or even every human being will think the reverse. The sentence “I am” and the sentence “I am not” can not be proven scientifically. Therefore, but not only therefore, philosophy is necessary. Is philosophy able to answer the questions: “Am I?”, “Am I not?”, “Is anything outside of me?”, “Is nothing outside of me?” ...? Science is not able to answer that questions (and many other questions). Philosophy has found some answers - the history of philosophy has made that clear. But its answers are not very much convincing. If one says ”I think”, or “I am aware”, or “I am”, then this one says something about a subject (“I”) and about an object (“think”, “am aware”, “am”) or a predicate. The problem of the “Subject/object-dualism” (**) is that it is not exactly determinable whether the subjct exists or not and whether the object exists or not. The former is primarily a philosophical, the latter mainly a scientific, both together again a philosophical problem. Concerning this matter the doubter Descartes proved nothing. About 1¼ centuries before Descartes another doubter - Martin Luther - founded a Protestant Christian confession: the Evangelical Lutheran. Luther did not try to prove the existence of the subject, but sought the answer in belief / faith. Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were one and the same.. Maybe you are not alive! Maybe we all are not alive! Maybe only philosophy is alive! Maybe only thinking is alive! Can this be true? Can it be a fact? Can we know it? Can it be objective? Or is it just subjective? Maybe we can never overcome the subject/object dualism (**). There is only one fundament of religion and science: the belief - belief in truth. B.t.w.: philosophy has this fundament too. Belief as the belief (or faith) in truth is the fundament, and then it goes:
The result is a new beleif (or faith) in truth. The Occidental culture is a Faustian culture, a culture of science and has a very long history. To me this Faustain culture is the most interesting and the most likable culture of all times. But nevertheless: also this Faustian culture has two sides: a good one and a bad one. After this culture had eked out its science it reached the top of its history - science seemed to be „free“ -, then it created a new theology (new divinity) because science was regarded as a kind of deity, but then, when the first serious enemies of science emerged, it had to change its new theology (new divinity) into new religion. Today the Westerners are still on this way of changing science from a new theology (new divinity) into a new religion, but they are already very close to the goal of this way: a new belief (or faith) in truth. What does that mainly mean? The Faustian culture has been defending its science more and more due to the fact that it has been getting more and more enemies. One of the consequences is that science has been becoming a part of the rulers, thus its former enemies. An Occidental scientist of the Occidental culture's modern times can never be an atheist, or an areligious one, or an disbeliever - that has been being imposible since the Occidental science started its “way” from a new theology (new divinity) to a new religion and its goal: a new belief (or faith) in truth. There is no doubt that science is a success story of the Occidental culture, perhaps the most successful story of all times, so I am proud and grateful. But this is also not a never-ending story, and perhaps it will end very badly. The next time you visit the scientific “church” (“universiy”) or a a public discussion of the so-called scientific “experts” (priests and preachers), you may be reminded of the two sides of science. Once science was an enemy of the rulers, today it is almost entirely under the control of the rulers. The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies, philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture. The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture a „Faust“ came to the idea to interpret the dynamics (and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the cause of this dynamics. Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories, although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton. The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what “nature”, “physics”, “universe”, “life”, ... means. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own “worlds”, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how “science” was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called “science” nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real science. You may say (for example): “there were the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)”. Alright, but they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous “science” and “technique/technology”. You may see what it means to have a more religious “science” and “technique/technology” when you look at thre current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“). It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science. Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of “relativity”, “gravitational force”, “electromagnetic force”, “strong nuclear force”, “weak nuclear force”, “speed of light”, “thermodynamics”, “quantum”, “big bang”, “inflation of the universe”, “black holes”, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, ....? That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The “scientists” of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense. My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities. In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), “scientists” or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call “science” lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a system of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian. The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called “Middle Ages” but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist. That is my firm conviction. You have to know Goethe’s “Faust”, especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is meant with “Faustian culture” and why all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to read Goethe’s “Faust” or Spengler’s “Decline of the West” when it comes to really and well understand what “Faustian culture” means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians. The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture; all so-called “monotheisms" have their origin in this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts. Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture. It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion. Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with his “Faust”, but also predicted the future of the Western man. Northern climate - very much advantageous for thinking and for science, thus for a Faustian culture: ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** In the near end of Goethe’s „Faust“, part II, an angel says to Faust: „Wer immer strebend sich bemüht, // Den
können wir erlösen.“ And amongst others this is what the „Chorus mysticus“ sings when Faust is in heaven at last (... fortunately!): „Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis.“ Science is no cure-all, no universal remedy. Currently science is on the best way to become a new religion. Do you believe that will be a “better” religion? Science became a new theology long ago, even before it could try to become a new religion. Newton’s “laws” are as theological as God’s “laws” in the “good old” religious times of Christianity, and as Allah’s “laws” (if you don’t believe it, then ask the “Christian” French!). Today the Christians are similar to those scientists who were persecuted by the Christians in the 15th, in the 16th, in the 17th, and in the eraly 18th century, especially from the middle or late 16th to the early 18th century when the Catholic Anti-Reformation persecuted scientists. Don’t think that religion will be destroyed just because Christianity will be destroyed. That’s an dangerous, fatal error. And if you want to destroy Occidental values and traditions why don’t you start with science which is one of the most typical Occidental forms but not the Christianity which is also and even originally an Oriental form? It is true that science is on the way to become a new religion.
Science as science (!) simply does not get further. But it gets
further as religion, as a new religion. You are not allowed to question
the According to Schopenhauer the WILL is Kant’s „thing-in-itself“ (I’ve been told that the better English term could be: „thing as such“), and Einstein often quoted Schopenhauer, agreed with Schopenhauer, but also with Kant, and the only one who was accepted as philosopher by Schopenhauer was Kant. It is in fact impossible to show or even prove respectively disprove with physical means and methods what physics is; that is only possible with language and with philosophy. This is roughly that what Heidegger once said in an interview. Philosophy has also to be a realm of science, but science has also to be a realm of philosophy. It is the interdependence which makes both successful - otherwise both become dictatorships, religions, new religions with new dogmas and new bondages which have been increasing for so long. Religion and science are different, they are not the same, but hey have the same root: belief. Every culture is inimitable, and the Faustian culture is a science culture. Most of science is Faustian science, thus Faustian culture. Faustians have a never-satisfied thirst for knowledge. Therefore the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science. That all is unique. That all lacks- in Non-Faustian cultures. If there were not a Faustian culture there would not be the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science, the technical and consequently the economical and social progress with all its good and bad sides. When we close our eyes, we (1.) keep the eyes’ pupils moist (during the sleep the reflex for closing the lids does not work), (2.) protect the eyes from debris (foreign bodies; during the sleep the reflex for closing the lids does not work), (3.) turn off external stimuli, (4.) ensure the forming of the sleeping hormon Melatonin, (5.) treat the brain with care because it has less to do during the sleep with closed eyes. A sleeping person does not blink (see also => 1. and 2.). It is not possible to know whether there will also be “no alternative” (**) in the future. Due to that there is no scientific truth but merely probability. The conclusion “gold, silver, iron ... etc. are metals, they are havier than water, thus all metals are heavier than water” had been “true” (“no alternative”) until the potassium was discovered. Logic as a such doesn't change, but some or many contents of it change; they may have a proton pseudos or any other logical falsity. The conclusion that „all metals are heavier than waterr“ had been “true” for a long time; but then it changed to “false” because the potassium was discovered. Since the potassium was discovered the conclusion that “not all metals are heavier than water” has been being “true”; probably it will be “true” forever because probably the premise that „potassium is a metal“ will be “true” forever. Please don’t forget that this example refers to science, thus is not merely logical but also scientifical, thus is not merely theoretical but also empirical, and it is the science (and not the logic as a such) which has caused the false conclusion. Do you know the difference between the real being (existence) and the ideal being (essence)? The real being is spatiotemporal, the ideal being (essence) lacks temporality. According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being (essence) is the true, the actual real being, while the so-called „real“ being is merely the appearance, the illusoriness. If our definitions merely accepted spatiotemporality as the property of being, then being without temporality would not be possible by defintion. If our definitions accepted that temporality is not required for being, then we being without temporality would be possible by definition. Does essence also have affect? Do both the real being and the ideal being have affect? Don’t forget: According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being is the true, the actual real being. Some physicists (seriously) say “1+1=1.9...~” because of the “mass defect” (cp. E=MC²). The German mathematician C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann proved (published in 1882) that p (pi) is a transcendental number, meaning it is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. p is irrational, even transcendental. The transformation of the same area of a circle in a square is impossible. This impossibility was given the designation „quadrature of the circle“ because no one knew what the reason for that impossibility was; but 1882 C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann showed that this problem is in principle unsolvable. The algebraic irrational numbers and the transcendental irrational numbers (for example “p” [“Pi”] or “e” [“Euler’s number”]) belong - of course -to the irrational numbers (cp. in the following Illustration): |
| 1) | Set: | Linguistics | 2) | Set: | Sun | |
| 1,1) | Subset: | Logic | 2,1) | Subset: | Hydrogen | |
| 1,1,1) | Subsubset: | Mathematics | 2,2) | Subsubset: | Helium | |
| 1,1,2) | Subsubset: | Others | 2,3) | Subsubset: | Others |
Question: What happens if you take the hydrogen away from the sun?
Answer: The sun becomes bigger because of the helium burning.
If there were no mathematics, then logic would use linguistics instead of mathematics (like the logic of children, especially of little children, does).
Observe your little children when they try to calculate in a really mathematical way for the first time. You should find out that they use language and a bit later also their fingers in order to come closer and closer to the real mathematics.
Scientists need money for their researches. Therefore they become more and more dependent, thus non-scientists.
The Wiener Kreis (Vienese Circle) and the Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie founded the Neupositivismus (Neopositivism).
The Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie) and the Wiener Kreis (Vienese Circle) and the founded the Neupositivismus (Neopositivism), also known as Logischer Empirismus (Logical Empirism).
Consciousness is the immediately findable total content of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.
The teem „immediately findable total content“ means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others. Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, ... and so on.
I did not say „is found“ but „can be found“ or „is immediately findable“, namely by the owner of the consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important, because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately find the spiritual and emotional content.
Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness is part of the brain.
1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.
The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain (light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).
But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically, we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.
One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it depends on the so-called „point of view“.
Consciousness is the immediately findable total content of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.
The teem „immediately findable total content“ means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others. Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, ... and so on.
I did not say „is found“ but „can be found“ or „is immediately findable“, namely by the owner of the consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important, because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately find the spiritual and emotional content.
Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness is part of the brain.
1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.
The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain (light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).
But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically, we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.
One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it depends on the so-called „point of view“.
Who or what is doing the finding? If it is the consciousness itself, then the next question comes immediately: Why is it not the subject in a philosophical sense? The brain of the subject is the hint. If it is this subject, then we can also ask: Why is it not the consciousness itself? We just do not know very much about consciousness, so it can also be possible that the consciousness does its own work in an absolute sense (so that the subject is merely the means of the consciousness). I would not have a big problem with both interpretations.
The Occidental monasteries of the Early Middle Ages can be interpreted as the first universities (the real universities appeared later).
Why should God or his work be limited? And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?
Theologically said: Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God, because according to them, thus by definition, God is the creator of everything.
So those who believe in God and his laws do not believe that „everything in the universe is limited by the physical laws.“ (**). One has to consider two aspects here: the philosophical (especially metaphysical) and the scientifical (especially physical) one.
If you consider only physics, then you have to leave out the metaphysical aspect (science dictates this, and the word „physics“ shows it). But you do not have to leave out the physical aspect, if you consider only metaphysics (philosophy does not dictate this, and the compound word „metaphysics“ shows distinctly that physics" is considered in metaphysics). There are many consequences that follow from this, and one of them is that scientists, although they claim to be objective, are subjective because of this dictatorship, the dogma, the determination of the methods. The scientifical methods are determined by subjectivists.
Being objective in a more real sense means that the subject determines nothing at all but lets the objects themselves determine what they are.
The modern science is an Occidental science and has conquered the whole world. So even if the genocide will be continued and finally completed, the techn(olog)ical results of the Occidental science - especially the machines - will be there, and then it will depend on the Non-Occidentals or the machines whether science will be continued or not.
Maybe science will „die“ in the same manner as Faust in the second part of Goethe’s tragedy „Faust“.
Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.
Mathematics is a spiritual science, thus: a science. In German, there is the distinction between Naturwissenschaft (natural science) and Geisteswissenschaft (spiritual science), and Sozialwissenschaft (social science) is „something“ between them.
Mathematics is the most exact science, and - interestingly - it is not a natural but a spiritual science.
Do you belive that scientists have „even declared (for sociopolitical
reasons) that science has proven that logic doesn't work. 
“ (**)?
If that is true, then they did something like a declaration of
bankruptcy. A „science“ that has „proven that
logic does not work“ is no science. In other words: The current
„scientists“ are no scientists.
I think that this sociopolitical development with such a „declaration“ (see above) is a very ugly one. At last there will be no practical science anymore (at least no one which is practiced by real humans), and "no practical science" means "no science in use, only false definitions of it".
Mathematics should remain what it has always been: an „unphysical“ („non-physical“), thus an „unnatural“ („non-natural“) branch of science which is the most exact one, thus also the best one when it comes to help all other branches of science.
If someone is badly talking about mathematics, then you can be sure that this someone is not a scientist.
Mathematics is not a branch of natural science, as we know, but it is a branch of science. So it must be a branch of another kind of science, and I call this another kind of science „spiritual science“ (following the German „Geisteswissenschaft“ - „Geist“ means „ghost“, „spirit“ -, although „Geisteswissenschaft“ is often translated by „humanities“, but I do not think that that translation is the right one). The translation is a bit difficult, but we know that mathematics as such has nothing to do with physics, with chemistry, with biology, ... and other branches of natural science. Mathematics is a „subset“ of the „set“ logic.
According to Nicolai Hartmann there are four main strata or levels of being or reality:
|
This four levels of reality are characterized by the fact that the respective higher (and lighter) levels are carried or borne by the respective lower (and heavier) levels and „free“ towards the respective lower (and heavier) levels - insofar as their „freedom“ is not restricted by the fact that they are carreid or borne -, especially because they show new properties or characteristics against the respective lower levels.
The (1) first, lowest, haeviest one is the inorganic level; the (2) second, second-lowest (and third highest), second-haeviest (and third-lightest) one is the organic level; the (3) third, third-lowest (and second-highest), third-heaviest (and second-lightest) one is the level of „Seelisches“, which means properties or characteristics of soul, psyche, emotion; the (4) fourth, highest, lightest one is the level of „Geistiges“, which means properties or characteristics of spirit, thinking, intellectuality, imagery. So, for example, the inorganic level (1) is carried or borne by no other level, whereas the level of „Geistiges“ (1) is carried or borne by all other levels.
Inorganic beings (1) do not need an organic body (2), do not need „Seelisches“ (3), do not need „Geistiges“ (4), whereas even the highest spirit of all times (4) needs „Seelisches“ (3), needs an organic body (2), needs inorganic beings (1). The fourth level is not capable of existing without the other three levels, because it is carried or borne by them. The third level is not capable of existing without the second and the first level, because it is carried or borne by them. The second level is not capable of existing without the first level, because it is carried or borne by it. Only the first level is capable of existing without the other three levels, because it is not carried or borne by them. The first level is unfree because of its type of determination: causality. The second level is relatively free in the sense that it is categorially free towards the frist level. The third level is relatively free in the sense that it is categorially free towards the second and the first level.
The fourth level is relatively free in the sense that it is most categorially free (but not 100% free), which means categorially free towards the three other levels.
100%-freedom is not possible: the fact that the lower and heavier levels carry the higher and lighter levels means that the higher and lighter levels depend on the lower and heavier levels, although the higher and lighter levels are relatively free towards the lower and heavier levels; and the lowest and heaviest level (1) is not free because of its type of determination: causality. Note: „relatively free“ means here „categorially free“; each level has its own categories.
Hartmann postulated four laws that apply to the levels of reality:
- The law of recurrence: Lower categories recur in the higher levels as a subaspect of higher categories, but never vice versa.
- The law of modification: The categorial elements modify in their recurrence in the higher levels (they are shaped by the characteristics of the higher levels).
- The law of the novum: The higher category is composed of a diversity of lower elements, but it is a specific novum that is not included in the lower levels.
- The law of distance between levels: Since the different levels do not develop continuously but in leaps, they can be clearly distinguished.
The first and the second level are spatial, the third and the fourth level are not spatial.
The first level (which is pretty similar to what you called „physical power“) is in fact the most powerful one, has in fact the strongest power in the sense that the other three levels are carried or borne by the first level and that the categories of the first level recur in the higher levels (and never vice versa) as a subaspect of higher categories.
An example:
You hit a man and this hit causes something physically (=> (1) matter, causality). Maybe you hit that man bcause he has threatened you; so you just want to save your own life (=> (2) life, urge). Maybe you groundlessly hate that man and therefore you hit him (=> (3) Seele, motif). Maybe your hate is not reasonless, and you hit that man because of a reason (=> (4) Geist, reason).
| LEVEL ** | CATEGORY ** | TYPE OF DETERMINATION ** |
| (4) | Geist | Reason |
| (3) | Seele | Motif |
| (2) | Life | Urge |
| (1) | Matter | Causality |
If one looks at the connection of levels and categories, many world
views contain for Hartmann the basic mistake of the fundamental
one-sidedness.
- The materialism tries to derive organic (2),
emotional (3) and
spiritual (4) phenomena
from physical processes (1)
and overlooks the more complicated structures at the respective
higher level.
- Alike the biologism tries to found emotional (3)
and spiritual (4) phenomena
on the life (2) principles
and overlooks the laws of the novelty and the freedom.
- The vitalism tries an explanation of life (2)
with the principle of the finality, although this is a category
of the Geistiges (4).
- In the idealism occurs an explanation of the world ((1)
and (2)) in the principle
of the subject, although the subject is to be assigned to the level
of the Geistiges (4).
Nicolai Hartmann is worth reading - in any case -, yes (**).
Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. Even most scientists are subjectivists - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.
Most scientists are subjectivists. They subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers. But what about philosophers for example? Are most of them subjectivists too?
Thesis:
Science is not philosophical enough and philosophy is not scientifical enough, because philosophy is more theoretical than science, and science is more empirical than philosophy.
We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that „universe“ is a concept) ... and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.
If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.
Kant knew much about science.
„Kant is best known for his work in the philosophy of ethics and metaphysics, but he made significant contributions to other disciplines. He made an important astronomical discovery about the nature of Earth's rotation, for which he won the Berlin Academy Prize in 1754. According to Lord Kelvin in 1897, Kant made contributions useful to mathematicians or physical astronomers. According to Thomas Huxley in 1867 Kant made contributions to geology as well when, in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles."
In the General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens (Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels) (1755), Kant laid out the Nebular hypothesis, in which he deduced that the Solar System formed from a large cloud of gas, a nebula. Thus he tried to explain the order of the solar system, which Isaac Newton had explained as imposed from the beginning by God. Kant also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars, which he theorized also formed from a (much larger) spinning cloud of gas. He further suggested that other nebulae might also be similarly large and distant disks of stars. These postulations opened new horizons for astronomy: for the first time extending astronomy beyond the solar system to galactic and extragalactic realms.“ **
Kant knew much about the biological sciences too, ecpecially about anthropological sciences. Kant was really ingenious.
It is not possible that a physical experiment explains what physics „is“. This is was what Heidegger meant when he said: „Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht“ („the science does not think“).
So philosophy (especially its ontology) has to say what physics „is“ and what reality „is“.
Science is not capable of answering philosophic questions like „what is reality?“ or „what is nature?“ or „what is physics?“ and many other philosophic questions that have not to do with empirical evidence.
Questions about, for instance, the „anthropic principle“ or about the „first cause“ should not be answered by scientists, but by philosophers or theologians, because „die Wissenschaft denkt nicht“ („science does not think“), as Heidegger once said, so scientists are not really capable of answering philosophical or theological questions.
You can measure the distance between the Sun and the Earth, but this does not necessarily mean that this distance is random; and you can know how the system of the Sun and its planets has developed since its beginning (Kant has given a theory that is still valid), but that does not necessarily mean that you can answer all philosophical or theological questions. And the anthropic principle for instance is a metaphysical (thus: a philosophical or theological) issue, although or even because it is deduced from physics (thus: science). When physicists try to answer a metaphysical question like the question whether their physical constants (natural constants) are „caused by randomness“ or not, then they are already metaphysicians (the more proper word is „metaphysicists“). The natural constants (physical constants) do not have to be caused by randomness, they can also be caused by a „spiritual machinist“, a creator, a God or a principle which is not random. Physicists do not know either anything about the „events before the big bang“, if there was a big bang at all, or about an existence beyond our universe, if there is one at all.
A strong argument would be that this „cosmos“ literally requires life.
Four steps:
1) Perception - based on the sense organs (subjective) and signs
(objective). Pre-Knowledge (semiotic language).
2) Knowledge through linguistic skills - based on perception and
semiotic language (=> 1) and on linguistic language.
3) Knowledge through the pure logic of language - based on perception
and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2)
and on pure logical language.
4) Knowledge through mathematical language - based on perception
and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2),
on pure logical language (=> 3) and on mathematical language.
Now an example: We want to know what a circle philosophically means.
If we know how and wherefore mathematicians use certain definitions, then this does not necessarily mean that they use it in order to get the truth. They are just searching for consistent statements (in their mathematical language).
The „higher“ Occidental mathematics has much more to do with functions than with numbers. Its geometry has mainly become a functional theory too. But what does that tell you about the circle when it comes to the first three steps I mentioned above? No mathematician denies the meaning or/and definition of a circle giving in a currently valid dictionary. We already had a similar discussion about „1 = 0.999...~?“ (**). 1 and 0.999...~ are never identical, but according to the Occidental mathematics functions have become more important than numbers, because functions do work (just: function) much better than pure numbers.
And what about the physicists? Do they say that sunrise and sunset do not exist according to your perception? Do they deny that the Sun is going up and down according to an observer? Do they insist that you have to always say that sunrise and sunset are caused by the Earth rotation? No.
In other words: Does the answer to the question whether a circle is just circular (without sides) or has sides just in order to calculate in a better, the Occidental way of mathematics not also depend on perspectives?
I mean: Would you say that sunrise and sunset do not exist, namely in the world of your perception? Certainly not.
So do we at last not have the same discussion here as almost always: subjectivity versus objectivity (**).
According to my understanding, scientists have to be objectivists; but when they become corrupt and greedy, so that they depend on their money givers, then they are no objectivists, but subjectivists; because they only say what their money givers want them to say. The methods are the other reason why scientists can and mostly do become subjectivists.
The words „subject“ and „object“ are linguistic (grammatic) and philosophic (epistemic) concepts.
The object/subject relationship is different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity and different from the relationship between a subjectivist and an objectivist.
Many scientists got fired because they had been objective.
The enlightenment was the era with the most real or objective scientists. So, one can say: the farther away the enlightenment, the more subjective the scientists.
When science depends on money and on dictating methods, then science is almost always very much more subjective than objective, because there are almost always subjective interests behind the money and the methods. Only those money givers who have interests in science as an institution of objectivity are friends of science, of objectivity; and only those methods that do not depend on subjective interests are no dictating methods.
Scientist can’t explain our world, the philosophers and theologians can’t explain it either.
So, all we can do is to describe it and to do it in the most possible way of correctness and conclusiveness, stringency, thus by using logic in connection with our experiences.
The success of the scientists is pretty great. But nonetheless, we have to admit that this success refers mainly to a short time of history and to certain times in history more than to others. And by the way: I was not talking about the success of the scientists. I was talking about the scientists’ incapability of explainig our world.
The current scientific knowledge contradicts the older one, although (or because?) the older one was probably more successful than the current one, at least in a relative way,.
Philosophers and theologians have already been unsuccessful for a long time; and according to many people (regardless of the facts about them), philosophers and theologians are just redundant.
What remains?
An example: We want to know whether or not a soul exists. I can guarantee you that science is the wrong address when it comes to this question. On the other hand, theology and philosophy have currently a more bad than a good reputation in general, at least in the West.
Terms like „Ding an sich“, „Wille“, „In-der-Welt-sein“ and many others do not have the function to avoid science, objectivity, knowledge, recognition, insight ... and so on and so forth. The opposite is true. With those terms we are more capable of getting more information about the other things than without those terms. They are and work like scientific and mathematical constants and variables.
Humans (especially the Faustian humans) want to understand and to explain everything. And if they did not use such terms, they would be less able to understand and to explain most things.
These terms do not forbid anything. They are just epistemological constants and variables. As if they were saying: „As long as you are not able to find a solution use us as constants or variables“. And they are not only epistemologically important. The speed of light is a natural constant. Who says that the speed of light explains „most things away“? - In spite of the fact that natural constants are not like social or spiritual constants, I would say that they all work very similarly.
Spirtual, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like „pi“ or „root two“. They work! They function!
The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word „spiritual“ may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law ....
We can and should relate to likelihood and to average values anyway.
The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.
Experience has both sides: subjectivity and objectivity (**). Both are aspects of epistemology.
The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.
Not all beings are living beings, not all living beings are human beings; and empiricism is not the only way to prove something; empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses; so empircism alone never proves anything, logic proves or disproves ....
Quantum physics (mechanics) and Relativity physics (theory) are so much different frome each other, that one can say that they refer to two different realities, two different worlds; and since these described realities (worlds) are so much different from each other and we can only have one reality (worlds) by definition, either one or both must be false.
The subject can overtake the role of an object. For instance: If a subject adopts the point of view of an object or observes the own body with all its affects, then this subject is in the position of both subject and object. And to others this subject is an object anyway.
Science will not save us. It is more likely that it will do the opposite.
Religion is likely more capable of saving us than science is. How likely is it? Which kind of religion would or should it have to be? Would or should this religilion be a theistic one? If yes: Would or should it be a religion of pantheism (is already very close to atheism), of monotheism, of polytheism. If no: Would it or should it be a primitve religion, at least a heathenish religion?
If the demographic, economic and political development we have been experiencing for a pretty long time will go on, then we will get a syncretistic religion (**|**) or just the islamic religion which is a monotheistic religion and currently increasing the most. This is possible and probable, but not what I would like to have.
An example of a first preform of scientists are the monks of the Order of Saint Benedict (ca. 480–543).
|
- Register -