OF EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE GENERALLY

Epistemology can generally be considered to be any theory that we have about what real knowledge of truths are in regard to how they correspond to reality itself, and how this knowledge is acquired, what is it that we really know? How is it that we know what we know? What can we really know for sure? I mention this because there are two main types of knowledge: knowledge of truths and knowledge of things that are not truths; epistemology proper refers to a knowledge of actual truths. A proper accurate epistemology of truths should be objective and impartial, this is so, in the sense that it should describe what knowledge of truths really are in reality, it should not involve our subjective feelings concerning knowledge, seeing as how these can be biased. Radical empiricism as most of us philosophers all know, is a type of epistemology as well as an ideological theory and method that we find in philosophy that puts an emphasis on the individual empirical experiences that any observer has of the world and the objects that he or she encounters in life. Radical empiricism is very singular in its desire to exclude the use of any so-called transempirical entities (which is a fancy use of jargon, that means, any truths, facts or anything at all that is beyond the range of immediate experiential knowledge). Radical empiricism has its drawbacks for thinkers who require a more thorough and complete epistemology and this is because radical empiricism puts all limited personal empirical experiences above all the other methods of attaining to the knowledge of truths. Even though there is nothing wrong with empiricism as part of an epistemological method, the strictness of radical empiricism as an epistemology that is solely empirical and sense-data orientated seems limiting. Radical empiricism excludes all forms of universal objectivity as well as all other unobvious abstract truths, it also tends to put subjective meaning and values above pure objectivity, this is because it views all philosophy from only a practical and value orientated position, not as knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Philosophers can pursue knowledge only for the sake of knowledge itself or they can concern themselves only with the knowledge that is useful and practical to them personally in their everyday life or they can choose to do both. Apart from having a proper epistemology which all philosophers should have anyway, one should also develop theories of knowledge in regard to its value, use and purpose in everyday life for ourselves and for others, this knowledge should be a combination of the truths that we have learned as a type of knowledge for the sake of knowledge as well as the knowledge that is useful and practical. We should always ask the following questions to ourselves to find out whether any particular piece of knowledge is to be worth pursuing in the way that I just mentioned above: How much is a piece of knowledge going to benefit us? What does it resolve? Is it a solution? Can I use it? Is it practical? Do I value it? Does it tell me something new? Since the advent of materialism and pragmatism on the philosophical scene it has become necessary for all philosophers and thinkers to clarify the value and purpose of knowledge generally. How we use this knowledge depends on many factors, we are either able to use certain kinds of knowledge or we are not able to use other kinds of knowledge and the knowledge that we do use is either harmful, useful or neutral and depends on how it is used. Ideas have a lot of impact on the lives of people around the world even though a lot of them do not know it themselves. Ideas, knowledge and philosophy and how it influences politics, ethics, sociology, economics, etc., is much more significant in the lives of people than they generally think it is. Most of the people around the world chooses not to think, but thinking and developing ideas is necessary for the human race, for its progress and for its evolution, so it is important that some of us does it. For knowledge to be worth pursuing, it should ultimately have a purpose, meaning and value to us, it should also enlighten us, make us happy as well as enrich our lives in certain ways, otherwise it becomes an empty exercise in knowledge accumulation. Human knowledge when it is once acquired by any individual person exists in a latent form, yet it is used without any conscious strain at all. Sometimes the results and the use of knowledge does not always seem evident or actual, yet it is always there in some form or another, in our behaviour, actions and in our works. Even though knowledge exists objectively in books and computers and in the world generally, its use can also be viewed as personal and subjective and this is because we all value different types of knowledge. A physicist values mathematics, a politician values politics, history and sociology, explorers value knowledge of survival techniques, etc. A knowledge of history, for example, is not as useful as a knowledge of current events. In matters of knowledge, we prioritize knowledge due to the levels of usefulness that it has for us. Historicism and the philosophy of history as well as some knowledge of history is good to have, yet it is not necessary that we have a lot of it, this is because there are many types of knowledge that we can make room for, such as psychology, sociology, politics, science, etc. Epistemology also concerns eliminating the differences between certainty and truth. Certainty and truth does exist together in correct inferences, yet many people can be certain about things that are not true. For something to be true requires that it can be proven to exist concretely and can be validated as really existing by more than one person. Any knowledge that we think and know exists that is true and that we are also certain about as really existing is what is useful to us in any epistemology and without this solid confirmation of the knowledge of truths, then knowledge becomes a battle between incorrect certainties and the certainties of real truths. A strong desire and ability to avoid mistakes as well as to rectify them once they have been made, is a necessary aspect of building any kind of epistemology or theory generally. The following Bruce Lee maxim captures the essence of epistemology and how we apply it in our everyday lives as well as in regard to how we use knowledge generally: "absorb what is useful; disregard that which is useless". The fact that certain kinds of knowledge can be used in some way or another to improve our life is proof in itself that it is real and useful, this also applies to abstract knowledge that makes us wiser and not just to practical tangible (concrete) knowledge. In general an epistemology is formed after one has already understood reality in a simpler way (that is, observed it physically and metaphysically) and not before it. If you pick an epistemology before you analyze reality fully and thoroughly, you are more likely to delude yourself, this is why there are so many deluded people who are religious or spiritual as well as people who follow strange beliefs and ways of thinking. All useful knowledge is contextual and can be applied to a particular context in the world and can be explained using examples that relate to any thing in the world in an objective description, definitions of things in the world is also contextual in nature. In epistemology and philosophy new ground is covered when we know how to ask the right questions, when we are able to find the right questions through rigorous searching and then are able make the effort to answer these questions. It is not only new ground that we should be attempting to cover with the right questions, but new solutions also, it is in finding questions, which when resolved will lead to solutions. All legitimate questions that can be framed and put into words can also be answered and even demonstrated. Even though unanswered questions can produce doubts, it is in the nature of human beings to overcome doubts and seek certainties and results. Asking the right question means overcoming general uncertainties about the nature of things. Human beings need certainties, it gives them purpose and power, a knowledge of epistemology and its development furnishes them with confidence in their own certainty of knowledge generally. "Episteme" is a science of knowledge that enables one "to know" the truth of facts, it is equivalent to all systematic philosophy and science. A philosophy without an "episteme" is an inconsistent and unscientific body of knowledge, episteme allows all errors and falsehoods to be banished from the structure of a philosophy. A science of knowledge (i.e., episteme) in the sense of a systematic philosophy that enables us "to know" the truth of facts must be built on the foundation of the "logos", i.e., the knowledge of the fundamental order of the cosmos (macrocosm) and also on its microcosm equivalent (i.e., rational discourse and reason). A thorough knowledge of epistemology teaches us that a philosophy as a whole that is not systematic in the sense that it has an "episteme" based on the "logos" of the world combined with objectivity and the impartial empirical method, is flawed, chaotic and produces only crude, negative and contradictory forces when applied to the world, Nietzsche's philosophy is an example of this, his philosophy as a whole, is vague, flawed, false, contradictory, chaotic and illogical, it is an attempt at manipulation on its readers based on sophisms, in reality it is a failure, only some individual parts of his philosophy have any worth or merit. A lack of system in philosophy is the passive, rather than the active way, reason (logos) and all systematic and logical methods are the active way. Reason in itself is active and forceful, it is intellectual strength and is the sure path to all truth and wisdom. Skepticism should be a part of any epistemological method, but skepticism as an unending process should be frowned upon. Certainty in knowledge should always be the aim of any theories concerning objective reality and truth, otherwise skepticism becomes an unending process in which even the self-evidence of one's own existence is put into doubt, this its seems is a symptom of much of the thought today because of Nietzschean perspectivism and subjectivity and the influence it has had on postmodernism generally. Mysticism and prophesy is also the passive way, whereas magic (i.e., the science and art of causing changes in the world in conformity with one's own will and knowledge) as well as shaping the world actively is the active way. Magic occurs and causes changes in our own consciousness as well as in the consciousness of other people as well as throughout society and the world generally, it is the intention and effort of making the world a certain way, preferably better. Even though Nietzsche was profound at times, he was only correct about some things, he was also incorrect about many other things too. Most of the time Nietzsche behaved more like a so-called prophet (mystic) than a proper rigorous philosopher with an adequate epistemology. The active, certain, systematic, logical and truthful path of knowledge, is best summed up by the words of the famous mathematician Leonhard Euler in the following statement: "logic is the foundation of the certainty of all the knowledge we acquire". A certainty and progress in knowledge acquisition is produced by being firm and confident about the truths one already possesses, yet at the same time having a free and playful attitude towards the knowledge one is still unsure about. The concept of "episteme" is a natural outcome that appears once one has established a proper epistemology, it is a natural extension of it. An epistemology that is able to establish truths within their proper context and order them, is in a sense a prerequisite for having a proper episteme. Seeing as how we are able to establish a theory of the knowledge of truths in epistemology, we then proceed to create a systematic science of truths as a body of knowledge that exists as an episteme. To have an epistemology and an episteme as living concepts and methods means that their "essence" is established on the foundation of the order and reality of the cosmos or "logos", this gives them an objectivity and life of their own that transcends subjective opinions. Even though the word episteme is an old word, just like philosophy is, it does not mean that it represents an old paradigm or method, as a concept it is merely a type of universal form, it is up to us to put our own content within this form. The episteme that we create through our own effort is a "science of the knowledge of the real" that exists exclusively within the context of the new science of modern times. In epistemology we also concern ourselves with matters of whether an accurate theory of the knowledge of truths involves a correspondence theory of truths or a coherence theory of truths. Without any hesitation, I conclude that a proper epistemology must deal in a correspondence theory of truths, one that is highly objective in nature, yet it must also account for the fact that some truths are subjective also.

NOTES ON POSTMODERNISM

In recent historical times there has arisen a new philosophical, artistic and cultural movement that goes by the name of postmodernism. In some ways this phenomenon of postmodernism has made important contributions to human thinking as well as making most people realize the pitfalls of an excessive use of reason, progress and scientific ingenuity to attain meaning in our lives. Any definition of postmodernism cannot be adequately defined without mentioning that it is a cultural rebellion against another movement called modernism or it can also be said to come after modernism; this I mention even though the postmodernists dislike postmodernism being defined. It is true that a world that is far too scientific and rational is a sterile and unfeeling one, so values, feelings, inner meanings and socially agreed upon external purposes are just as significant for our general needs and wants than is to be found in a scientific and rational progress as a goal in itself can be in our lives. In postmodern architecture we find a return to ornamentation as opposed to the very cold formal and simple buildings of the modernist movement. Also in architecture postmodernism reintroduces traditional and classical styles as a reaction against modernist principles, but postmodern thought and philosophy itself rejects all the traditional knowledge of philosophy, religion and science that have come before it, especially the knowledge that has led to the modernist movement. It is this extreme complexity, contradiction and ambiguity that I am mentioning that makes postmodernism a puzzling cultural movement; it does seem to create a lot of fertile ground for so much confusion and disagreements between people about what exactly it is that defines postmodernism as a unified whole. The ideals of postmodernism as a whole does not seem to fully resolve itself completely into a specific form than can be fully understood. Because of their dislike of modernism and progress it seems that postmodern thinkers have rejected traditional methods of philosophy and science to such a degree that they have discarded logic and objective truths completely from their epistemological thoughts of what real knowledge consists of. Most postmodernists give you the impression that they are a bunch of confused, deluded, affectless, illogical, relativists and perspectivists as well as subjectivists who will argue with you all day long on the matter of what exactly it is that truth is. This intense skepticism against any kind of objective or absolute truth claims is one of the defining aspects of postmodernism which I find to be an unjustified stance against the truths of reason and science that we have greatly benefited from, such as the curing of diseases, medicine, improved living conditions as well as all the other improvements to our lives that the knowledge of the truth has given us generally. Postmodernists are also suspicious of truth claims because they equate them with authority types and the manipulation of the masses by instituitions and authorities generally; I must add, that this way of thinking was made popular by Nietzsche himself. A lot of postmodern thinkers admired Nietzsche and were influenced by his example. Nietzsche was one of those thinkers of a dual nature who used equal amounts of sophistry as well as philosophy in his writings so that it would have a sort of dynamic and poetical affect on his readers, one especially finds this in his aphorisms, he was also known to have admired the sophists for their more direct, realistic and forceful methods. Postmodernism is also characterized by an incredulity or skepticism towards all "grand narratives" i.e., all grand narratives are grand or large-scale theories and philosophies that exist of the world about the world, examples of this, can be found in such theories as that their is a progress of history, the knowability of everything by science as well as the possibility of absolute freedom or free will. It is a good thing in a way that in postmodernist thinking absolute grand narratives have been rejected; this is because they seem like such a clumsy thing. In general people will cease to believe and accept that such narratives of this kind are adequate and sufficient to represent and contain any proper definitions of certain truths. We as human beings have become alert to the differences in opinion as well as the diversity and the interconnectedness of phenomena. Also the incompatibility of different peoples aspirations becomes more apparent over time. Peoples beliefs and desires change as society progresses. I must stress that progress is an inevitable thing throughout history as well as in civilizations forward movement and so the postmodernists are fighting a losing battle in their opposition against progress in this particular regard. I do not think that nihilism will take as much hold as Nietzsche claims in his most cynical moments of so-called prophecy and this is because most people are inherently ethical and constructive in nature. Somebody once described postmodernisn as being like a bastard child or offspring of modernism that is constantly trying to kill its own parent; which is a good analogy I am sure for this cultural movement. A battle against a traditional, progressive and objectivist way of thinking by a postmodernist way of thinking can clearly be found in the the novel that is a direct attack on all kinds of communist totalitarian regimes by the writer George Orwell in his novel called nineteen eighty-four. The character named O'Brien distinctly displays a postmodernist, subjectivist and collectivist type sophistry and denial of Winston's objective, empirical and rational truths as a means to manipulate Winston into submission and compliance with his own orders and that of the party. I have often thought that postmodernist writers are like a breed of neo-sophists of some kind; using whatever forceful but fallacious methods of thinking work for them at the time as they are formulating their ideas, but not really thinking about any thing in any real depth whatsoever. Modernism is supposed to represent a cultural condition that is characterized by a constant change in the pursuit of reason and progress; postmodernism on the other hand is meant to represent a constant change that has the notion of progress taken out of it altogether. Postmodernism also rejects all forms of universality in favour of relativism. Universality or universalism as we all know is a doctrine or school of thought (Plato and Aristotle, etc.,) that claims that universal facts are a part of reality and can be discovered and understood by philosophers. At times one gets the feeling that there are cynical, negative, destructive and subversive elements in postmodernist thinking, especially when it is attacking the positive ideals of the enlightenment, science, philosophy and tradition generally. Postmodernists have had the nerve to claim; Rorty in particular, that philosophy mistakenly imitates scientific methods and that it should not do this. It does not even seem to occur to Rorty and other postmodernists that it was philosophy that developed the scientific method in the first place and that it does not need to imitate something that is already part of its own doctrine. Anti-foundationalism is just another one of the mental diseases that has been spread by postmodernists and their crowd. Postmodernists embrace subjectivity because it cannot be made into a science; according them the human subject precludes objective truth claims and so they do not think that science is capable of discovering objective truth. Postmodernists even go so far as to claim that objectivity is an illusion and this is something that they believe in, even though people have actually been to the moon by using scienctific knowledge from objective truths; so according to the postmodernists everything that happens in the real world that is external from their own petty subjective states, is an illusion! If postmodernists really knew how stupid they sounded, they would actually make an effort to change their ways. The disapppearance of a sense of history and a lack of desire to retain the lessons from the past are also characteristics of postmodernism, this also brings about an erosion of class and culture distinctions between high and low culture, the latter of these two things I must add, is a good thing. The traditions of class distinctions will not be missed, but the traditions of knowledge, useful culture, reason and science, etc., should be retained and pursued by all people. The postmodernists like to think that the nature of reality is contingent, absurd, unordered, ambiguous, contradictory and diverse, rather than rational, ordered, universal, necessary, determined and comprehensible, etc.; one could even claim that this is one of the reasons why they are not to fond of Hegel so much and this is because he advocated the latter qualities, the existentialists were not too fond of Hegel either because he was considered by them to be too idealisic and unrealistic unlike they, who were realistic and experiential concerning existence and its struggles, apparant meaninglessness and sense of angst. Postmodernists claim to combine the best aspects of the modern world with the best elements of the traditions of the past, but I think that this is a false claim on the part of postmodernism; to my mind they seem to do this only in architecture, but in all other branches of though they reject the traditions and lessons of the past altogether. All the genuine philosophers of this modern era that we live in today, know how so very deluded and boring these postmodernist killjoys are, with their incessant affectless sophistry and their inability to find proper answers and solutions to things; at least proper philosophers of the traditonal kind actually have answers and solutions and don't simply just use methods of dissimulation to cover up their lack of knowledge which is exactly what postmodernists do when they find themselves unable to answer fundamental questions. When postmodernists claim that the nature of reality is largely contingent, they seem to leave out the fact that many things are in fact determined, necessary and inevitable and so is therefore capable of being understood rationally. Postmodernists are also known for their technical, vague, wishy washy jargon and play on words which they use to cover up the sheer emptiness of their rhetoric. In postmodernisms desire to rebel against all enlightenment ideals which the postmodernists deem to be far too optimistic and confident is a sort of extreme response against an imaginary extreme claim that was supposedly made by the enlightenment thinkers (i.e., postmodernists claim that enlightenment thinkers thought they could resolve all problems and figure out all things, which is not the case). Englightenment thinkers were simply confident in their own abilities to improve the world as well as to learn more about it, they did not claim that they could figure out all things and resolve all problems. In postmodernism any relativist, subjectivist and persepectivist opinion can be uttered and is expected by them to be accepted by others as a truth, but in reality this cannot be accepted as a truth, because black will never be white, salt will never be sugar and two plus two will never make five, it will always make four. Postmodernists have to accept that reason and objectivity works and that there is nothing that they can do to change it. It was natural for the modernists to find traditional themes and ways of thinking to be outmoded and outdated; therefore wanting to move on from all that was holding back progress was a very natural response and this is because change and progress enables one to overcome stagnation and repetition of the same old values over and over again. William Morris and the arts and crafts movement generally was a sort of anticipated rebellion against a climate that was increasingly becoming more industrialist and modernist. Industrialization and mass production of goods does seem to have lowered the quality and value of goods generally and this is because the time, effort and care that one expects to find in a product is not put into every individual product as it was in the past. William Morris and the arts and crafts movement basically taught us to appreciate all that was good in the past and its ideals and accomplishments. One ideally should have a foot in the past and another foot in science, progress and reason and this is because they are all aspects of the same desire to make sense of a world that is constantly changing and building on what was good from the past, postmodernism is simply a sort of negative overreaction to progress, the inevitable and the real. The problem with labels is that they always seem to be one-sided and incomplete. The integration and resolving of opposing concepts or things (Hegel's dialectic) is always the best way to find a harmonious balance in things generally and so the act of doing this always transcends labels and incomplete assessments of phenomena. Where exactly it is that postmodernism leads as a movement itself, no one can know! I myself think that postmodernism is simply a moral and reactionary movement that is aimed against the causes and results of an overuse of the negative aspects of reason to jusify one cause against another or one error against another. We philosophers know that reason is only a tool in the service of truth, reality and progress and that it is useless or negative when used in an absolute sense to justify any cause or purpose in the name of reason alone. Postmodernism likes to create uncertainty and doubt by its use of relativism and perspectivism as well as in its emphasis on subjectivity. But real philosophy consists of certainty, objectivity, clarity and accuracy. Postmodernists like to point out that a lot of the suffering in the world is due to the negative aspects of absolute reason, but this is not a case against reason, it is a case against how reason can be used, reason in itself is neutral, it can be used in a positive or in a negative way depending upon the intentions of the user. Postmodernists use the concept of the "other" (i.e., anything that is different or opposite to one's own cause) as a means to explain the destructive and negative aspects of how reason can be used, reason can be used as a means to be hostile towards the other. It is people who choose to be hostile towards the other by the use of an absolute type of reason, but reason can be used in many ways depending upon how it is used, this does not mean that reason itself is bad or should be blamed for the acts of individual people. Postmodernists do not hide the fact that they hold an anti-enlightenment position, they consider reason, rationalism, science and wisdom to be elitist pursuits, they think that these things are non-multicultural, so are therefore oppressive. Because postmodernists are contemptuous of traditional morality, this gives them an almost nihilistic outlook, they are always in the habit of stripping away whatever it is that is morally traditional and culturally rational in things from its innate meaning or qualities. Postmodernists are also known for being anti-capitalist and anti-individualism, they also dislike the traditions of artistic genius that comes from the renaissance and classical periods, they are in favour of radical egalitarianism and the rise of Political Correctness, so in this sense and in a few others the message of postmodernism is not a complete error. Postmodernists enjoy intentional discontinuity within the elements of a work, they also like ironic self-consciousness as well as anything that is fragmentary, random and arbitrary, they also dislike systematic science and continuity as well as all rational progress. Postmodernists think that they have opened themselves up to the exploration of past models, paradigms and ways of thinking because they have chosen to reject modernism, progress, rationalism, scientism and objectivity and its truths, but this is not so, in fact, postmodernists simply perpetuate the ignorance, blindness and narrowness of past models and paradigms. Progress should be viewed as an inevitable process, the ideals of modernism should be used as a tool to understand, appreciate and transcend older models by analyzing them as a natural process and progression and then learning to go beyond them. Postmodernism should be viewed as a failed experiment, one that panicked by being cynical and irrational in the face of modernism and its ideals. Just because modernism failed to produce new meanings to replace the older ones and initially failed to understand fully the meanings of the older forms and paradigms does not mean that modernism itself and its ideals lack any value or meaning. The postmodernists claim that the modernists are only interested in what is modern, that they behave in such a way that if something is not new, if it is not the latest thing, then it is reactionary, retrograde and an obstacle to progress, I think that the postmodernists use this excuse to cover up the fact that modernism is able to understand the nature of reality and the past very well, yet is also able to transcend it. The science of archaeology was created by the use of modernist ideals, which is the study that appreciates and understands the history of the past by studying ancient cultures, peoples and periods by scientific analysis of physical remains. Modernist thinkers like Einstein, Marx and Freud also appreciated the lessons of the past through science and reason, yet they also valued progress. Postmodernism by its very nature rejects all the ideals and values of modernism that enables us to understand and appreciate reality and the past and its path towards progress, and postmodernism rejects all the ideals of modernism for the superficial belief that it can understand reality and history because it is able to synthesize elements from all phases of human history without truly understanding them, seeing as though you can only really understand them using the methods and ideals of modernism. Postmodernism seems to care mostly about what is modern in the sense that you can synthesize it with older forms, for it makes a mockery of the past in its pastiches and mutations, by combining older and newer things together, seeing that it does not truly appreciate the past, otherwise it would not create these pastiches and mutations and present them as latest fashions, such as a Mona Lisa with a moustache, etc. Postmodernists do not actually understand or appreciate the past through archaeology, anthropology or a study of history that is done in a rational and objective manner, and this is because postmodernism rejects all science, objectivity, objective truths, reason, logic, progress, evolution, universality and rational processes, etc. One of the main reasons that postmodernism fails as a proper ideology is because it was a reactionary and impulsive movement rather than a properly thought out ideology. Postmodernism is full of flaws and contradictions of all kinds, it does not make much sense, not even in a rudimentary sense beyond just being a type of knee jerk reaction against progress itself and its inevitable course through time, with all of its optimism and hopes of a better future for all. Postmodernism is a form of decadence, it is an easy escape for those who fail to hope, dream and wonder on matters concerning the course of progress and evolution generally, it represents a resignation and a failure to be optimistic about how knowledge is understood and used to improve our lives. The in-depth analysis of many labels and their content, has brought me to the conclusion that labels like modernism and postmodernism are either too general, inconsistent or contradictory to have any real, distinct meaning or value for all the things that they are attached to, because they simply represent a sort of general attitude or direction that the general public accepts that they have, and on closer investigation and analysis become something entirely different and problematical. For example, postmodernism itself, is an academic intellectual movement that is anti-philosophical and intellectually bankrupt in nature, and only has any real value in architecture and the arts. Whereas labels like modern and modernism that have been made fashionable by historians, are in fact abused immensely. It is strange to consider, when one thinks about it, that something that happened a few hundred years ago, can be considered modern, yet this is how historians sometimes use the label modern. Will historians in a few hundred years time still be calling Descartes, and his philosophy modern?

ON ONTOLOGY, PHENOMENOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THE FACULTY OF REASON

As living beings existing in this world of matter and forms we go through second after second of conscious and subconscious cognitions of perception and experience. Our sensations, feelings, images and ideas flicker before us like a kaleidoscope of endless possibilities, yet as we all come to find out and know, I am sure, is that it is up to us to put our lives and our minds into finely tuned working order if we are ever to make any sense of this world that we happen to live in. Now as our lives tick on and on we order our lives within space, time and the laws of causality and so find ourselves pursuing all that is within our own power to accomplish that leads onwards and is constructive or valued by us somehow. Our being is existence, life and energy continually going forward in time always and ever seeking for meaning and purpose as well as joy and happiness. Some people deny the existence of meaning and purpose altogether and claim reality to be irrational and groundless. I have mentioned in my essay entitled "On The Rational And Irrational Aspects Of Consciousness And How It Relates To Reality" that what we call the rational, arational and irrational must all be aspects of reality depending on how we perceive the different stages of the processes that occur within reality itself. Ultimately there is a type of order to all universal processes, but the minds of human beings are of such finite and limited capacity and there are so many people that are so biased, prejudiced and deluded that it will never be within our own power as humans to fully comprehend these universal processes in their entirety. In the subject of ontology from the standpoint of values and one's subjective existence, we consider questions like the following: is constant change necessary in our lives or is some repetition and consistency important? Do we need continual growth in our lives and if so, of what kind should it be? Are attainable ideals necessary? Do we need the hope that ideals give us? Is the ultimate aim of our lives simply to enjoy every moment of it or should there be more to it than this? As an ontologist myself I can go on and on asking questions of this kind, but yet I have no room to do so in this essay because it will distract me from the purpose and goal of this current essay. Most people do not care about such ontological questions as have been mentioned above because it deters them from their own self-interests, narrow views and societal conditioning. Now the answer to a lot of ontological questions cannot be answered without some element of one's personal values and needs being part of the answer, the exact nature and needs of my existence is not the same as it is for another person and so on and so this must be taken into consideration when assessing a great number of ontological questions. Phenomenology concerns the subject of perception and how it functions as well as pointing out how percepton either aids us or at times lets us down when we are not truly aware of the process of perception itself and how we perceive things. Ontology in its obvious and general form as well as in the matters concerning its findings, it can be observed, cannot be understood aside from its grounding in phenomenological and epistemelogical categories of perception and knowledge. In ontology, when one asks the question, what is existence? Surely the answer is that it is a process that stems from other processes as an extension of them, right! So when one is considering the matter of existence and its essence one is dealing in processes of becoming that have a sequence from the past that have led to the present but yet are aiming towards the future. The essence and nature of reality and existence itself cannot be understood apart from an analytical and scientific explanation of processes and their results and continuations; these processes in nature are an outcome of energy and matter vibrating within space and so the knowledge of facts and things in nature when they have been analyzed and a synthesis has been arrived at of these things with other knowledge is something that cannot be fully comprehended without regarding these things as a result as well as a part of other process in nature and so it is important and necessary (cannot be emphasized too much) to think in terms of processes and how they function for any given fact or thing as well as generally. Anyone will find by examining my writings generally that I find it difficult to avoid using the two words process and processes and this is because I think that these two words most adequately sum reality and its nature. As organisms our existence consists of and contains certain properties and qualities of experience, for example, chemical and material properties, physical properties, sense and faculty properties, mental properties. How properties relate to each other and influence each other is a process also that needs to be understood more fully. In the subject of phenomenology one considers the fact that perception is either self-conscious perception or it is a perception of things (objects) or it is a reflection on the ideas and concepts that things have invoked in us due to the impressions that things have given us; then again peception consists also of all the imaginary things of our own devising, this aspect of perception is self-delusion. Unless we are able to know exactly where the different ideas and notions that form our own perceptions and thoughts have come from due to our past experiences then we will never be competent enough to account for our own thoughts properly, our minds will be disorganized and uncertain. The honesty and the willingness to admit doubt about some of one's own thoughts enables one to clear certain types of self-deception from the mind, in time one may be able to remember where exactly it is they got a certain idea from or the reasons why they think the way they do about things in general. In the subject of epistemology the main questions that we tend to ask ourselves are: What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? What do people know? How can I know something for sure? How do we know what we know? How much can we rely on our senses? How much can we rely on logic? Who or what is this "I" that wants to know? Also in epistemology the differences between "knowing that" something is a certain way and "knowing how" it is this way as well as "knowing why" something is a certain way are important factors in the analysis of truths. The "knowing why" aspect of epistemology closely ties in with ontological type questions and are both closely related factors in our desire to find meaning and purpose in things. When it comes to knowledge, there is always a difference between believing something to be true and knowing it to be true for sure, one should always be aware of this distinction between these two ways of knowing. Situations do arise sometimes in which we cannot tell for sure whether we know something for sure or whether this thing that we think that we know for sure is actually an aspect of reality in the way that we think of it. I am certain that for something to count as real knowledge, it must actually be true for sure; this is so because you cannot know something that is not real for sure, without in a sense deluding yourself. An honest and sincere person cannot delude themselves for very long without at some point noticing that he or she is doing it. Intellectual honesty is a quality that not all people possess, but it is a quality that all people with a genuine sense of integrity do possess. People who have integrity value integrity even more when they realize that it is a means at their own disposal in which to navigate through a world that is either full of stupid dishonest affectless people or a bunch of dishonest power hungry people. One of the main aspects of ontology is the desire for a feeling and knowledge of self-identity with one's own nature; this can also include a desire to really know the nature of reality, things and other people. We cannot argue against the fact that self-knowledge in the sense of a deep understanding of oneself is important; anyone who thinks that this is not so and that there is not much to discover in oneself and one's own behaviour must be a very shallow and empty person. If we are to truly understand ourselves and our behaviour, it is required that we can figure out the patterns of our own subconscious impulses and desires because it is these things that drive our consciousness.

ON HOW WE RESPOND TO SENSE-IMPRESSIONS AND HOW THEY AFFECT US SUBJECTIVELY

As human beings we find ourselves in a world that is constantly open to us and our senses as long as we are alive and so we mostly rationalize the things and experiences that we encounter based on how these things and experiences make us feel, for instance, we do not rationalize things first and then feel afterwards. All the opinions, beliefs and values that we find ourselves focusing on in life is a form of intentionality on our part due to the impressions that things give us in our feelings based on the pleasure, pain, avoidance of pain as well as survival and adaptation principles that shape the interior subjective world of our organism in response to our environment and its stimuli. A feeling can be experienced as either a physical instinctual response or as an idea or both together. Now what it is exactly that determines how we respond to the stimuli in our environment is a subjective condition that depends on a natural design issue in the sense of how we use our brain as well as depending on the exact type of organism the brain houses. When I mention a natural design issue, I do not mean intelligent design as such, but I do mean the contingent and necessary facts that led to the uniqueness that is our organism.
Now seeing as though our senses at all times are open to the world even when we are asleep, it is likewise true that our perceptions are always at work observing anything that catches our inner desires whether we are dreaming or fully awake, but in either case we are never without a perception of some kind and this perception is always where we are at present. Our perceptions when we are asleep are mostly taken over by feelings, desires, values and meaning, whereas when we are awake these basic feelings are supplemented by rationalizations of a certain kind. Normally whether it is consciously or subconsciously we tend to shape perception to fit our desires because the nature of reality in of itself is difficult to comprehend, so we need conscious rationalizations as a means to fit our desires and needs as well as to understand reality in some form, although imperfectly and incompletely. The more we are able to understand the objective world and its nature the less necessary it is to fulfil our inner desires and whims and this is because it takes a lot of overcoming and transcending of oneself to truly understand the nature of reality in any form. Normally it is the case that we as organic beings do not show much interest in any thing other than when it fits our desires and obvious needs due to the basic organic principles that I have mentioned earlier. So feelings based on impressions are mostly what we as organic beings are used dealing in that have their foundation on these basic organic principles. All of our basic judgements are combinations of these feelings that we are very used to having, very rarely do most people transcend these feelings to accommodate others or to pursue the objective knowledge of reality and its nature. The concept of intentionality that is found in phenomenology in which perception is fully taken up by a focused pursuit of desire or sensation as the motive of our behaviour is one of the levels of the evolution of consciousness that is most basic, for instance, this is intentionality is most evident when a person is intensely interested and caught up in something to the exclusion of everything else or other things and will not notice people walking past them or will not notice what time it is and so on. As I have mentioned elsewhere in my writings and will now point out again is the simple fact that perception and consciousness in organisms generally becomes more integrated and expansive over time as it evolves in organic beings from generation to generation and occurs as societies evolve also and is what I call "multi-perception". Intentionality is only a basic form of consciousness and is not the essence of all that consciousness is capable of being or becoming.
Consciousness in organisms as many writers have shown evolves and progresses within organisms that are capable of progressing, evolving and adapting to nature. Many evolutionists and paleontologists always take the opportunity to point out that not all organisms are making progress in evolution; they are also always showing the fact that progress is not a general theme in evolution, but this does not take away from the fact that some organisms are capable of progressing and in fact do. Desire itself in the different ways in which it expresses itself in organic life is a very crucial and vital aspect of organic existence and is something that needs to be investigated further so as to assess what it really means as a motive and as a necessary aspect of life and evolution. Without a desire for pleasure, happiness, meaning, values and purpose it would seem that life would not be worth living. Desire is a strong feeling of wishing, wanting and having. Why do we desire things? Because we think that these things that we desire will give us pleasure, joy, happiness or power. Desire in all its manfestations makes us imagine and rationalize all as well as anyting that fits the criteria of what things are worth desiring, so these developments have become part of organic existence as it has progressed. The most basic sense of desire that we all feel within us is an obvious aspect of nature's way of wanting us to procreate our genes in organic life and all other desires are modifications and extensions of this initial desire, but this feeling is latent in young children. Homosexuality exists because the initial desire for procreation has been modified to such an extent that it no longer exists simply for procreation alone, but exists for pleasure and happiness. Desire for pleasant things and experiences as well as a need to find meaning seems to be nature's way of making us pursue things as well as attain worthwhile goals beyond simply just procreating. Without the pleasure, joy and happiness that things can give us we would not be motivated to do things. When we are considering how the senses receive sense-data as well as in how the mind produces ideas and the truths concerning them we always arrive at the age old problem that exists between the so-called subjectivists and the empirical objectivists and how they view reality. The subjectivists for example, claim that all truths are subjective, which is a very strange and false assumption in itself, whereas the empirical objectivists who are influenced by Locke or the scientific method or both accept that there is both subjective and objective truths because you cannot have one without the other or because of the fact that both are part of our experiences as well as being an aspect of the learning process itself.
It is not too far of a stretch to suggest that with the subjectivists there is a psychological discrepancy between their own knowledge of what are truths and of how this knowledge relates to sense-data and the ideas they get from it; this discrepancy exists to such an extent that they have deluded themselves into thinking that there is no correlation between these two things and so they seem to think that all ideas of truths come purely and completely from some internal place within themselves. All scientists, mathematicians, empiricists and genuine philosophers know that our ideas of the truth can only be arrived at through objective and subjective means and that to come upon external truths requires a high element of objectivity and freedom of thought without distortion. Ontology, epistemology and phenomenology are the primary subjects for understanding existence, knowledge, truth and how we perceive it and how it affects us also as well as figuring out what we can or cannot know for sure. The ideology of positivism claims that only the knowledge that one gets from sense experience is real and credible, but the problem with this one-sided ideology is that it does not account for all the truths that exist that we cannot detect directly with our senses; positivism is therefore a one-sided and flawed ideology and of no real use to anyone who values an extensive knowledge of truths.
Not all truths can be known through the senses alone and so the use of reason, logic and mathematics must be employed to account for all the truths that exist that the senses cannot detect directly.
Truths from sense experience and truths from reasoning must be integrated together to attain to a fuller knowledge of the truths of phenomenon as well as things, but whether it is possible to attain to complete (absolute) truths of phenomenon and things is highly unlikely and this is because there is always aspects of the things-in-themselves of phenomenon and things that escapes our reasoning abilities; the complete nature of reality itself is not fully comprehensible to finite limited beings such as ourselves no matter how confident that we think we are in our ability to figure out truths. The ideology of perspectivism takes the view that any estimation and judgement of truths takes place from particular perspectives and therefore cannot be taken as definitively "true". The problem with perspectivism is that it claims that an incomplete knowledge of a truth due to one's perpective somehow renders your truth invalid because it is not complete. An incomplete truth without the unknown elements to make it complete is still a partial truth and is therefore still a truth nonetheless. The knowledge of truths become more complete over time as new insights are added to them and so they become more valid and certain. The ideology of perspectivism was developed by Friedrich Nietzsche in the 19th century and it suggests that no purely objective science or philosophy that observes things to be a certain way can exist as an objective truth because no ideation, conceptualizaion or thought as such can exist outside the influences of an individual perception. Nietzsche is pointing out that the ideation or conceptualizion of any single perception or thought is limited not only by its existence in our perceptions and bodies, but also by the assumptions and beliefs that are made by and which are formed by the perceiver's unique culture and history and particular situation. Nietzsche in his observation is only pointing out the obvious fact that we as humans are finite beings that only
understand our own ideas and knowledge and not things-in-themselves or the entirety of a phenomenon in a complete (absolute) sense. The whole point about the two words "objective truth" is that it means and also represents a truth that is observed to exist in nature independently of our tastes, opinions, desires, prejudices, feelings, beliefs and personal ideas. Nietzsche is attempting to make out that no singular human being is capable of observing truths in nature without subjective elements leaking in to contaminate it, but I think that he is wrong especially if a person rigorously eliminates all subjective elements from an observed truth. As long as an observer eliminates all subjective elements from an observed truth it can be considered to be an objective truth and for Nietzsche to suggest that this is not so simply because we cannot separate ourselves from our own thoughts is a very subtle and petty sophism. According to perspectivism the earth orbits the sun for some people and not for others or then again some people live forever while others don't from my perspective or point of view. Do you see how silly perspectivism can seem when you take it too far! Introspection is a very useful tool for understanding our own mental states, cognitive processes and behaviour. In the method an act of introspection we can analyze our own mental content as well as the nature of our usual mental processes and also the way that we usually respond to stimuli and so on and how it influences our behaviour; this is achieved by abstracting and objectifying these things out distinctly in isolation for analysis without personal feelings or desires interfering with our assessment of ourselves. In introspection we analyze the reasons why we get the thoughts and feelings that we do and also why we behave the way that we do; so the method of introspection concerns itself with both the form and the content of our psyche as well as our behaviour generally. Psychology is only useful when it analyses both our minds and our behaviour also, rather than just our minds alone which is only half the picture. When examining the philosophical concepts that are used by thinkers generally one will find that Nietzsche's concept of perspectivism is very similar to the concept of relativism. The concepts of perspectivism and relativism as ideologies that represent statements of truths, I must add, apply mostly to judgements of value and also to truth statements of a very specific aspect of temporary phenomenon and not to universal and eternal truths. Statements that are put forward that come under the category of perspectivism and relativism do not alter the obvious objective truth claims that are universal, eternal or general of which I gave a couple of examples earlier in regard to perspectivism. One could compile a long list of truths that are not altered or invalidated by the claims of perspectivism and relativism if one chose to do so. The epistemological concepts of externalism and internalism are two ways of categorizing the difference between ideas and knowledge that is either objective or ideas that are subjectively intuited as inventions and are thought out as a combination of objective ideas pieced together. Objective ideas are externally perceived to exist as coming from objective facts and things that give us knowledge as sense-impressions on our senses. Internal knowledge is a subjective combination of objective ideas pieced together in such a way as to yield original knowledge as inventions or creative acts of our own devising. Internalism in traditional epistemology is very different to how I have defined it myself for my own use and this is because I think that internalism in traditional epistemology as it is defined can lead to a type of relativism or perspectivism; this is bad because it makes epistemology subjective and circular rather than being a satisfactory definition of external (objective truths) and internal (subjective truths) that either become actual or are actual whether internally or externally. All one's inner tastes, preferences, values, needs and feelings, etc., that people feel generally can be classified also as subjective and internal truths. The exact classification of subjective and objective truths as well as internal and external truths overlap in many places and requires meticulous analysis to describe it; I know how to do it myself, but the method of understanding it is by dealing with one idea at a time and then first asking whether it is an objective or subjective idea; we also ask whether it only applies to internal subjective reality or whether it has a greater application also, for example, a subjective internal idea that begins as an invention or creation in our mind can end up becoming an invention or work of art in the external world. Also a subjective internal idea can remain internal and subjective if it is simply something that we feel or need, such as we prefer the colour red to the colour blue or we need soft music rather than loud heavy music, etc.

ON THE METHODS OF ANALYSIS, HYPOTHESIS AND SYNTHESIS IN PHILOSOPHY

In the investigation of the truths of difficult things in philosophy it is always useful to employ the methods and techniques that are effective and useful for one's purposes. In philosophy the methods of analysis, hypothesis and synthesis should be developed by philosophers if they hope to make any progress in their endeavours. There are many useful methods and techniques that can be employed by philosophers as a means to figure out truths, but in general, rigour and objectivity are necessary components of any methods that are employed by philosophers. Philosophy is in a sense part subjective as well as value orientated and personal, but philosophy is also part objective, distinct and empirical, so one can say that Philosophy is the glue that binds all the knowledge together that we encounter in such a way as to make it intimate to us as human beings. Philosophy is a very human and vital discipline for our inner subjective needs and feelings unlike science and mathematics which are highly objective and impersonal disciplines. Philosophy is necessary to us as humans because it deals in all that is intimate and meaningful to us as living beings. Analysis in philosophy consists in making observations from our experiences as well as in conducting thought experiments in regard to the phenomenon of our experiences. One of the beauties of philosophy is that we can compare our findings from experience to that of other philosophers who have written on the subject or to the people we meet. In philosophical analysis our inferences and conclusions are arrived at by induction and deduction, for example, we conclude certain truths from their effects to their causes and certain causes invariably lead to specific effects whether universal or particular. In analysis we accept nothing as true that is not clear and distinct to the mind and the senses; if something can be doubted then it must be rejected as an invalid conclusion. Not all truths can be experienced through the senses, so all analytical inferences and conclusions cannot be arrived at by the use of the senses alone. Hypothesis, induction and logical inferences account for all the conclusions we arrive at that our senses cannot account for directly. To the Greeks analysis meant "a breaking up" or the process of "breaking up" a complex topic or problem into smaller manageable parts to gain a better understanding of it. In analysis we also proceed from the simple to the complex as well as revise our conclusions in a meticulous manner. All the causes and reasons of phenomenon and also all of their effects that are sought after to be understood must correspond to each of these phenomenon that we encounter in reality because each phenomenon must have an effect and an effect cannot be greater than or other than its cause. Also certain causes always lead to certain effects that are the logical results of specific behaviour or phenomenon.
Now hypothesis enables us to suppose or assume causes or reasons for phenomenon or things generally and so is a very useful tool. A hypothesis cannot be made into a working theory unless it has been made concrete and valid by observation, experiment or the use of reason. A hypothesis is only as useful and as valid as observation, experiment and logic make it, otherwise it becomes an incorrect and invalid inference. A hypothesis can also be made valid if it simply fits the phenomenon or event by the use of reason alone and is self evident as the solution or answer.
I mentioned also that all truths cannot be experienced directly through the senses, for example, the sub-quantum realm and the events prior to the big bang are examples of this, but there are many more etc. Seeing as though all phenomena and events cannot be experienced directly through the senses means that the methods of hypothesis as well a certain kind of reasoning is necessary to arrive at truths concerning them; this certain type of reasoning for things that transcend our senses is what Immanuel Kant called transcendental logic and the things which our senses cannot experience directly that are aspects of reality he called the thing-in-itself or things as they are in themselves. A desire for truth is a desire not to delude oneself concerning the nature of things and the ability to constantly attain to a knowledge of the truth is aided by sound methods and techniques as well as in a diligent use of them. Methods and techniques are an efficient and useful way to figure things out as opposed to simply guessing or bumbling along until answers are found.
If in the analysis and breaking up of a problem into its constituent parts we encounter unknown elements (variables), it is simply because there are things that we have not accounted for in our analysis; these unknown elements need to be resolved so that our analysis can be complete. Even a subjective truth can be explained analytically and so in a sense can be explained in such a way as to seem scientific and rational. Anything that is not subject to analysis is not a truth. There are philosophers who are content for philosophy to remain subjective, mysterious, unexplainable and circular, who prefer to live in a personal and deluded haze and condition in which they propound the idea that what is true for them is not what is true for you and so on.
Deductive reasoning it can be shown is the aspect of analysis that is most used in dialectic philosophy because it is the aspect of analysis that is creative and that also leads to synthesis (in its traditional meaning) and also all kinds of inferences, whereas induction mostly discovers pre-existent universal truths and is therefore more useful in metaphysics and science. Synthesis consists in following causes and other inferences to there correct places in the sense of how it fits or leads to certain conclusions. In the traditional Greek synthesis meant a "placing" of two or more things "with" one another as a combination, but in the discovery of existent truths one is only discovering pre-existing combinations. Both induction and deduction discover pre-existent combinations or truths. Some people dislike the idea of everything and everyone being analyzed and dissected, not that it can be done completely, but yet the fact that it can be done to a certain degree is disturbing to some people. Psychoanalysis was a great discovery and development in human thought and is something that can be applied to how we view all things, including ourselves and all other people generally and is not just useful for neurotic people and their problems. Human beings need to cultivate and improve their "inner being" and their general existence by the use of reason as well as through values and feelings and the most efficient way to do this is through the analysis of both subjective and objective knowledge. Compassion, mutual understanding and support for others are necessary components of an improved existence for all people. Even though in general deduction is used more than induction in dialectic philosophy it is induction that lays the foundation for a lot of science and the scientific method, so analysis in philosophy becomes more scientific when its deductions are established and founded on inductive truths and conclusions rather than being highly subjective and unscientific. The nature of human beings does not always seem rational, but this is only because we do not fully understand why a persons behaviour is so and so, but if we took the time to analyze this person and their behaviour with all the correct knowledge and also considering all the unknown elements involved then their behaviour would not be too difficult to understand. A person is represented more by their own behaviour than the entirety of what they claim themselves to be, so we judge them by their behaviour because we cannot judge a person on what they think, feel or say or on what they claim themselves to be, but only on what they are (which is their behaviour). Even though there are many logical methods and techniques in philosophy for discovering truths there are none that are as crucial and as useful as logical analysis itself. Logical analysis is the most active and penetrating of all the logical methods one can employ.

PHILOSOPHY IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE BUT IT IS A GENERAL SCIENCE NONETHELESS

Iris Murdoch in an interview with Bryan Magee concerning the subjects of philosophy and literature claimed that philosophy cannot be considered as a science and that philosophy is merely a reflection on concepts. Now to suggest that philosophy is no more than a reflection on concepts is to tell us nothing about philosophy. It must be pointed out that philosophy does not exist merely as thoughts and can be considered to be ideas, concepts and notions that refer to and apply to objective reality. A philosophical truth is the same as a scientific truth especially if it is a truth of natural philosophy. In exact science one demonstrates truths by experiment, whereas in philosophy one describes truth in a general manner in regard to how it connects to reality (experience) and other truths. When Pythagoras mentioned that many things in nature can be figured out by using mathematics; he made a philosophical insight, this insight only becomes scientific through repeated demonstration. The philosophical insight of Pythagoras that I just mentioned did not exist merely as a reflection of thoughts and as concepts as Iris Murdoch claims philosophy only exists as, but actually applied to reality objectively and demonstrably as well as having practical applications. When a philosopher sais that there are 5,280 feet in a british mile and that there are 26,400 feet in five miles, then he or she is not only just reflecting on concepts, but is describing actual truths that connect to other truths that are demonstrable, therefore philosophers deal in scientific truths and demonstrable truths and not merely in pure mental concepts that are divorced from objective reality. What starts off as philosophical insights end up being called scientific facts after the fact due to repeated demonstration and experiment. Some scientific facts have been discovered by a purely scientific method, but the scientific method was developed by natural philosophers. Philosophers mostly use words to convey their ideas concerning the truth of reality; now words refer to the world and so do concepts. Concepts and words do have a value in their own right because it is our primary method of communicating our ideas, whereas mathematics as well as diagrams are secondary in this regard. Philosopher means "lover of wisdom" and "wisdom" means truth learned from experience. Philosophy as I have rightly mentioned deals in the truths that are learned from experience and so the concepts and truths of philosophy come from experience and don't exist only in the mind alone but do correspond to reality and experience. Philosophy by its very nature is empirical and objective.
A philosopher must be able to demonstrate his or her concepts, insights, inferences and hypotheses in the real world by example for them to become proper theories.
Truth is when our knowledge and ideas correspond to objective facts and things in the real world and its processes; so one can say that it is subjective opinions that makes philosophy circular and unproductive and seem as though it is merely a reflection on uncorroborated concepts and opinions. For philosophers to be taken more seriously requires that they can all agree to certain types of axioms and general truths because this is the only way that philosophy can become more scientific and universal in its application to our lives generally. Without corroboration and agreement between philosophers as to the axioms and laws of truths then philosophy will always remain undeveloped and subjective.
If philosophy is to be more scientific and certain it has to exist as pure reason and also as pure empirical reason and so therefore it must be objective, empirical, demonstrable, self-evident and consistent. Philosophy it must be pointed out can never be made into an exact science like physics or astronomy and this is because philosophy is a dynamic and living thing, whereas exact science concerns what is mostly mechanistic, rigid, predictable and determined. Philosophy will never be able to be more than just a general and loose science based upon reason and its application to circumstances that we find ourselves in and this is because it would be too mechanistic and rigid if it was treated as an exact science. People evolve and are dynamic and so philosophy has to be able to adapt to their needs and insights as a living thing. Even though philosophy is not an exact science, it can be considered to be a general science especially the logical type of philosophy that incorporates scientific knowledge as part of its content. Philosophers also have scientific hypotheses that they propound. If knowledge does not have an application or use it then fails to be right or wrong and so there is no criteria for truth. To lay down a foundation of truth, clarity, coherence and certainty should be the main aim of a philosophical method and from this foundation one builds, because philosophy is the glue that binds and connects all knowledge of truths together. The subject of psychology is generally regarded to be a type of general science by most people, but yet philosophy has always in the past escaped this classification by most people even though it is capable of being regarded as just as much of a general science as psychology is. Earlier in this essay I mentioned and defined truth in the sense of truth as correspondence and I also mentioned that it cannot exist without us assessing and being aware of it, But also you get objective truths that exists as facts which exist independently of our desire to know them which our truth as correspondence is based upon. Some people think that truth is a socially constructed pursuit, but this is not so, the desire for truth is a very primal need and is pursued by many people in isolation. When mentioning truth one cannot forget subjective truths also. Subjective truths exist as general facts that occur in our lives subjectively and in our personal experiences generally and are sometimes responsible for the things that we invent and so on. It is our values, feelings and desires that are responsible for some of our subjective experiences. If philosophy is to progress it has to show a gradual development and consistency and there has to be a cumulative and co-operative advance in its findings. The advances that are made by philosophy have to occur from generation to generation. Philosophy up until today has been held back by religion, the sophists, the positivists, the subjectivists, the perspectivists, the postmodernists, the ignorant and the downright stupid! Some people even claim that philosophy does not have any subject matter of its own, as though science, and ethics, and logic, and psychology and so many other subjects were not developed by philosophy, when in fact, we know that they were! Philosophers like to converge upon true statements and descriptions of reality because the need to remove doubt and uncertainty from their minds concerning reality is overwhelming. The knowledge of the truths of things that is attained by philosophy gives definite actions and all practical uses of knowledge a utility that is not attained by uncertainty, doubt and falsity. The knowability and demonstrability of universal, particular, objective and subjective truths enables people not only to discover new things about the nature of reality, but it enables people to be clear about what they think and feel is important; in this way you always know where you stand in matters in regard to others and their own point of view. To have the right of free speech is important in this world, because it is the intelligent, clear, rational, ethical and open minded people that will save this world from war, needless suffering and stupidity. One of the things that makes philosophers different to scientists is the fact that scientists are more unrealistically ambitious than philosophers; scientists attempt to create grand unification theories, scientists like the idea of having singular overarching visions or descriptions of reality that attempts to describe everything as a unified whole. Philosophers enjoy describing reality and they also like to make attempted explanations of phenomenon in the form of a hypothesis. Philosophers in general tend to think of their own knowledge of nature and reality as a fragmentary collection of truths that interrelate and connect somehow. To a philosopher reality can only be understood as a collection of truths that have been observed from different perspectives and then assembled as a means to make sense of them. The progress of history may not be a specific type of story as in Hegel's account of it, but history in its course forward does attain a gradual progress nonetheless which aims towards greater freedom for people, greater knowledge, better living conditions for people, more rights for people, scientific advancements, etc. Anyone with a certain amount of intelligence can tell that progress is a real thing and also a good thing and this is so even though the postmodernists reject this as a fact. In his notebooks, Leonardo da Vinci mentions that no human investigation may claim to be a true science if it has not passed through mathematical demonstrations. The most effective way to make one's philosophy or any other similar study into a true science requires that the investigator is able to use statistical analysis and other forms of demographic information as part of their examination, which as we know are mathematical in nature; also he or she must be able to combine this with a logical analysis and methodology based upon common sense and other forms of scientific knowledge and theorizing, it is only with this type of rigour can philosophy ever truly be called a science.

ON THE NECESSITY OF VALUES

Values as a necessary and also as a created experience is a basic and common aspect of the existence of rational organisms and their desire to survive and find meaning in the world that they happen to find themselves in. Everyone shares some values, but one can also say, that in general everyone has different values. Without organisms to value things then things have no value, because value is about necessity and desires and also meaning and things do not have a value in themselves independent of a necessity, desire or a meaning that may be attached to them. Even though values are connected to desire and meaning; material values like food and water are primary to all organisms and are a necessity. Other significant material values are sunlight, shelter, clothing, etc, but are less necessary than food and water, but make existence more bearable and enjoyable. The four main type of values that we encounter regularly are: moral values (moral virtues), material values, quality values (the quality of material things) and content value (the things that interest people; whether concrete or abstract that are valued). There are many other values I am sure beyond the four main one's, such as the conditions, states and emotions that certain things give us that are unique in that way that they do this for us. All people value and share some of the material values, but not necessarily some of the other values that have been mentioned. People who share more of the same types of values and things, have more of an affinity with each other than do people who share less alike values with each other. That we tend to get on well with and also have an affinity with the people that we share the same types of values, virtues, interests and ideals is obvious. We may value the same virtues as someone else, but not necessarily share the same virtues as them. We may value a virtue that someone else has that we don't have ourselves. Having values makes us have judgements about the things we value as well as the other things that are relative to the things that we value and this happens whether it is a moral, material, quality or content judgement etc. Factual judgements are different to judgements concerning the value of things. Judgements concerning the value of things are necessary, contingent and are also personal (subjective). Factual judgements are scientific, empirical, objective and impartial. Judgements of value can also contain a mixture between value and fact, such as the value of something due to its quality in regard to fact (i.e. the quality value of a piece of scientific equipment relative to another and so on). Considering that most values are personal and subjective to each individual apart from certain material values means that most values have no value in an objective and absolute sense, for example, the concept of God is something that is valued psychologically by some people as a concept that gives them hope, but it has no factual value because we cannot value it factually; we can't make a factual judgement on it (because it is a negative). We cannot prove, disprove or judge a negative. It does not matter whether people are theists, deists, atheist or agnostics; what matters is that we can all get on together with each other, just like people of different races should get on with each other or people of different sexual orientations as well, because we all have to share the same planet and we all have to interact with each other and also be happy following our own values and so on. People should not allow their own values as well as their judgements of other peoples values to cloud them from what is objectively real and knowable; our personal values should not be confused for objective and empirical truths.
We as human beings cannot escape values; for us, values are always there in all that we do. Ideals can be said to be the values of the highest kind that we can have. I have always considered truth, reason, honesty, beauty, goodness and love to be significant ideals to follow. There are many other ideals that I could have added to my list, but I will leave them to the imagination of my readers. Life is a dynamic process that is full of joy, pleasure, pain, struggle, suffering, reason and effort and so many other experiences. Values and lofty ideals add to the processes of life and enrich it and give it a long term meaning and purpose that has a value that is worth struggling for; for us and for future people. When following our ideals we may sometimes fail miserably and find ourselves behaving badly towards others, but what counts is that we can value our ideals and never quit thinking that our ideals will improve our lives and also the lives of those we know.
Values like justice, law, rights, democracy, egalitarianism, happiness for all people as well as compassion and mutual cooperation are what count for people generally. Sometimes people confuse values for objective truth or they allow there own values to get in the way of having respect for the values of others. A lot of the suffering in the world comes from the intolerence and unacceptance that some people have towards others or their values. Suffering also comes from the enforcement of one's will and values on others without proper reason or purpose beyond the need to repress or oppress others. If a person lived in a world without other people they would not suffer unless something went wrong, apart from this they would simply struggle through loneliness as well as the need to survive but they would not suffer at the hands of other people. Apart from necessary values there must be a reason for why we value things, otherwise there would be no reason for why we value some things in particular and not others; to say that we value things for no reason does not make any sense. All things happen and exist for a reason and can be analyzed; so therefore there is always a reason for why we value things and also there are always motives for why we do things and this is so even if these things seem trivial or are done out of whim. Most of our behaviour and motives in life depends upon our desires and values, our behaviour also depends on how we interpret situations by our choices and inner nature. A lot of the situations that we have been through in life are in a sense neutral situations, but it is we ourselves that either interprets it in a positive or negative light. Values tend to fulfil our inner and outer needs and wants to such a degree of importance that in our usual day to day activities we are hardly aware of them. Many objects that we encounter in our everyday lives also have a use-value to which we are so accustomed to using but rarely think about because of there general utility. It is not really in our nature in most cases to think about values in a sort of rational and analytical way in the sense of why do we have these particular values and not others, we usually just feel that they mean something to us and leave it unanswered. Human beings are capable of changing their values if they chose to do so and it is this which makes many errors and faults that some people have alterable, for instance, they could turn greed into moderation, hate into love, despair into hope, tragedy into humour and comedy, ignorance into awareness, etc. Ayn Rand claims that all morals and values are purely objective in nature; this sounds wrong! It is only material values which are objective in nature, but apart from material values how can you value something without being subjective? Most morals and values are objective and subjective in nature depending upon our individuality as well as the climate or time that one is living in. What is right or wrong in one generation or time is not the same as what is right or wrong in another generation of time; this is because morality is artificially imposed upon nature by humans and what is considered as right and wrong changes as peoples values change as they evolve over time as a species. It does follow that most people, if not all of them holds an ultimate or highest value which all other values are subordinated to, for some, it is his or her own life, for others it is the ideals that they follow and for others it is some other thing. But the mistake that Ayn Rand makes is that she claims that the highest value for all people is their own life and that this is an objective fact. All of our values can be viewed as a hierarchy in the order in which they can be placed, from the most important to the least important.

ON THE LIMIT OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT C

The hypothesis that I am going to propose in this brief essay; will I am sure, seem odd, but hey! The universe is a strange and mysterious place anyway, so any good theory that intends to describe aspects of the universe should not necessarily be free of strangeness. Now the vibratory activity of particles in a confined area like in atoms cannot vibrate and move at anywhere close to the speed of light, but when you get particles in atoms connected together in a field moving in a circular or elliptical translational movement with a continued energy flow feeding into itself all together at full speed, then this will produce the speed of light velocity and also its limit. The energy activity described above cannot exceed the speed of light because these activities are the limit of its abilities as such. Now this energy activity and speed that I just described above produces kinetic energy in the form of an electron flow emitting photons. Photons that are emitted from this field will travel at the speed of light and this is because this velocity of the photon has been given this velocity or momentum due to the full limit velocity of the field itself that has emitted it. The processes in Physics as a whole go from crude forces to a more refined state to a dispersion to a state of crude forces again and so on, and so they can never excede limits in their own natural state. Objects or masses as they approach the speed of light c limit tend to disperse because their electric charge breaks down. Is there a reason why the electric charge in masses breaks down at the speed of light c? I am sure there is a reason why! The following is I think and I may be wrong the reason why it happens; because the processes and vibrations within the inside of the object are in a sense slower and cannot keep up with the external speed of the object which is faster and so the electric charge in masses in a sense disperses due to this. The speed of light c limit exists for a reason and it will always fascinate the curious at heart and the most fascinating aspect about the speed of light c limit is the fact that it is more constant than anything else that we know about, because the addition or subtraction of the speed of a moving object relative to it has no affect on it and it always remains constant.

THE ORIGIN OF PSYCHIC ABILITIES

The mistake psychics and mediums have made in the past is that they have attributed their powers to external causes rather than to themselves. Psychic ability and mediumship is an ability that exists latently within the psyche of most human beings and goes largely unnoticed unless activated and developed, which is the case with the people in whom it is most evident. Psychic ability can be said to be more prevalent in woman than in men; for the simple reason that women are more in touch with the irrational parts of the mind than men are. As I have mentioned elsewhere in my writings, irrationality is not a state of mind that is devoid of order and reason all together, but is merely indicative of the confusion that is found in consciousness because of the nonlinear states of mind which are difficult to comprehend due to the psyche's desire to grasp complex aspects of reality by nonlinear means and somehow not being able to rationalize the process rationally or because of confusion for other reasons also. Irrationality has order just like rationality does, it is simply that irrationality has an order that is harder to comprehend than the order that can be found in reason. The utterances from the Pythia of Delphi in classical Greece is a perfect example in which to illustrate that the strange irrational and incomprehensible words of a woman could in some strange way have an order and a relevance to them that was so profound that it somehow related to ordered choices in events of a rational kind that applied to any given circumstance put forward for judgement. The Pythia believed that she was in direct communication with the god Apollo and was his mortal human representative on earth during these moments of oracular insight. Most psychics use a combination of intelligence and intuition mixed with an intensely strong belief in their own powers to make the predictions that they are able to come up with. A definition of intuition is that it is a faculty which is a balanced marriage between instinct and reason and therefore combines the senses with the rational cognitions of logical thought. Intuition as a faculty must have been developed by organisms as a means in which to understand their environment both rationally and instinctually. Some thinkers are of the opinion that rational desires, thoughts and feelings do not affect choices in natural selection and that choices are purely selfish and instinctual, but this is not so, seeing as though it cannot be any other way that both the instinctual and rational play a part. Advantageous faculties are adopted and desired by organisms for their usefulness. There are also those cynical people among us who think that psychic people and all mediums generally are either delusional people or are exploitative charlatans and so on, but this does not take away from the fact that a genuine proof of nonlinear ways of thinking have been displayed by psychics and mediums in many cases. Instinct, intuition and reason must all be aspects of psychic ability and also all true explanations of psychic ability, I am sure, must also be explainable by reason and not by beliefs in external mystical forces and influences.

TIME, PROCESSES AND CHANGE

Time is an artificial human construct and has been created as a tool to record the changes that occur in the processes within matter and abstract reality, because time in a sense represents "change itself" as a facet within processes. Time as a human construct, one can say, is an illusion, but the processes in matter, that time represents are not an illusion and are real. Now time is not an independent thing in nature that exists by itself naturally. Even though time exists artificially as a representation, it is also universal and therefore represents certain truths which exist in processes. Time as a regular representation of duration in moments can only exist as an internal constitution of objects and this is because time cannot be outwardly intuited and is relative in regard to one moving object relative to another in certain cases. If time as we have found out is an internal constitution of objects then time must correspond to the internal processes of objects and how they are affected by the objects activities.
Time only has the one dimension which is successive and if time is to be consistently regular and if its duration in moments are to be standard measures then the time in any given object must be measured in a stationary position.
The duration of the moments in time in an object is either standard and regular as in a non-moving object or they are affected by the objects activities. Now the duration of the moments in time of an object is affected by the changes occurring to the molecular constitution of any object due to its activities, such as its proximity and distance from any major gravitational sources and also the speeds at which an object travels through space affects the vibration of the molecules of an objects inner constitution and are slowed down by the pure and empirical intuition of space of the moving object itself. The molecules in the brain of a person travelling at fast speeds will not notice the difference in the duration of the moments in time because the vibration in the molecules in their brains have been slowed down also and so therefore they do not perceive the difference in time relative to a non-moving object. Some people have held the contention, that time as a human construct is merely an illusion, which it is, but the processes in matter, that time represents are not an illusion and this is because if these processes were an illusion then time would not be governed by exact universal laws of change and mathematical equations would not be able to record these changes and as Pythagoras once said: "time is the soul of this world". The processes that time represents could only be considered an illusion if it was unaffected by the exact changes relative to other processes and was completely changeable and inaccurate, but this is not so because time is an accurate indicator of the processes and the changes that occur in objects internally and relative to other objects and space itself. If these processes that time represent were an illusion then time would not be considered as a dimension in its own right and this is because time measures abstract quantities which can be accurate enough to allow people and events to coincide at specific locations at certain times and so on. Most of the causes in nature are more like inevitable processes rather than actual purposeful and intentional causes and only a few of the causes in nature are intentional, deliberate and calculated.
All the inevitable causal processes that exist in nature are responsible for the changes that exist in the universe and everything in the universe changes but at different rates. Now the changes that occur in nature give the impression to the senses of human beings that most changes occur suddenly and as definite causes, but change in nature is consistent, gradual and slow with occasional causes and changes that are obvious amongst all this causal change. Everything in the universe changes except for what Kant called: "the thing-in-itself" and this thing-in-itself is the perpetual and ceaseless vibration within energy itself and is the cause of all the gradual and consistent changes that occur in processes generally but is in a sense unaffected itself.
The thing-in-itself (or what the rationalists viewed as the primary substance) changes things in processes but remains the same in certain ways and this is because it retains its stability, integrity and consistency throughout the effect it has had on all the processes that have been affected by it. A lot of the processes in the universe change very slowly and evenly with a sense of stability and consistency and time in a sense is a good way of recording this. Animate organic life as opposed to inanimate inorganic life gives you the impression that it is quick changing and inanimate inorganic life gives you the impression that it is slow changing and does not change much, but these are only rates of change, but they both change nonetheless. Slow changing processes have more stability than the quicker changing processes and so can be considered less affected by the thing-in-itself than are the quick less stable processes.
All the changes that occur in processes are continuous and consistent and eventually resolve themselves and all these processes can only come from a force (i.e., the thing-in-itself) that is stable, consistent, continuous, interactive throughout all its parts, vibratory, perpetual, ceaseless, infinite, eternal, extensive and so on. To suggest that the thing-in-itself as a force has the qualities that I have enumerated infers that our universe would be only one among many and according to the eminent scientist Stephen Hawking universes exist as bubbles side by side and also expanding throughout the vastness of infinite space. The hypothesis of Stephen Hawking makes a lot of sense and makes much more sense than saying that a universe by itself can appear from a finite singularity out of nowhere and disconnected from everything else amongst the infinite energy and space that exists out there. The so-called bubbles of Hawking's theory can be viewed more as being like fields of connected energy that interact with one another side by side amongst the vastness of space. Time does not exist independently in nature because processes in nature are simply changes. What the people in the past noticed is that the processes of change in nature repeated as seasons and cycles of gradual change and could be divided mathematically into years, seasons, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, etc; so they began to build stone structures like Stonehenge to keep a record of time and its passage. For instance, in some parts of the world the new year begins in spring, which I would think is a more logical time to begin a new year. Time as we know it today is a human construct and a useful illusion as well as a tool which in a sense is founded on the supposed exact day of birth of Jesus Christ and months like July and august are named after people like Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar respectively.

ON THE SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE MODES OF INQUIRY INTO TRUTH

Whenever it is found that we are able to think for ourselves on any given topic or aspect of reality to be observed a part of us becomes, so to speak liberated from the common mass of thinking that most people do and in so doing we also find ourselves enveloped by a sense of wonder and purpose in these moments of pure unconditioned thought.
From the moment we are born we are prepared for a conditioned life by those in authority who happen to raise us whether they are our parents, relatives or some other guardian and in us is instilled by others subjective modes of thinking due to our conditioning in this regard.
Now to follow societal conditioning without questioning it, I must add, seems to me to be a long road towards ignorance and error and this is because all second hand conditioned thinking is merely impersonal and lacks all trace of a personal judgement and assessment of the truth. Historical facts must be accepted as they are written but should also be compared to the common sense aspects of reality that we know of as well as to the other written or factual sources that exist for their truths to be understood realistically and beneficially. There are amongst us those completely delusional human beings who think that the fantasy and the conditioned thinking impressed on them by society could somehow apply to the experiences of their senses in the real world that they live in. Now clearly these fantasies, delusions and societal conditioning that they have thought about do not exist as part of their sense experiences in any shape or form. Errors in judgement usually occur when the subjective is confused for the objective and this is because all ideas of the truth originates from objective reality via the senses. Intense and acute subjectivity is a repression of one's own desire for objective and impartial truth and most human beings suffer from far too much subjectivity at the expense of objective truth and this is because of societal conditioning and plain old ignorance and mental laziness.
Objective truth and modes of thinking tends to get repressed because it usually undermines and puts into doubt many of the things that have been learned due to societal conditioning that is currently believed to be true whether religious or spiritual or just general things we have been taught by our guardians and society. The concept of the pure knowing subject is how the objective truth in matters is allowed to flood and saturate our consciousness and this is achieved in a sense by being empty, impartial and unopinionated in one's judgements of matters and to allow comparisons, differences, diversity, similarities, identities and sameness in ideas to occur by itself until a conception of the truth of a matter is arrived at in one's understanding organically and by itself without any subjective prodding or interference. The ego, the subjective and the personal aspects of one's being can be highly illusory and are what leads people astray and it is the universal and the objective which yields impartial truth. The solutions to the problems in the world and also in our lack of understanding of reality can be found once we have overcome all the false and arrogant aspects of the ego and the "I" that exist within us and this can only occur when we realize that the universal is preferable to the personal mind and ego and its petty, temporary, self-important and illusory attitudes. The personal mind and ego are only an illusory dewdrop relative to the universal and objective truth that is like an ocean and we should all learn to become one with this ocean of truth that exists out there in the cosmos. What I propose is that we as human beings live truthfully, straightforwardly, sincerely and objectively rather than subjectively, dishonestly and selfishly without any care for the truth, posterity and the universal. Impartial truth is only revealed inwardly when one is empirical, objective, real, factual, unbiased, unemotional, analytical, logical, scrutinizing and so on. There are many emotional subjectivists who claim that the truth does not even exist and if it does, then it only exists in language games or only in one's own opinions. I must add, that these subjectivists end up dealing in many sophisms. There are also people who claim that the concepts of the "subjective" and the "objective" modes of thinking and feeling are antiquated and are no longer useful, I think that this type of opinion could not be any more wrong. The concepts of the subjective and objective modes of thinking and feeling are very useful and important concepts in epistemology and cannot be replaced by anything else. Postmodernists in general like to niggle over the meaning of the word "truth" whenever they can, they behave as though objective truths do not really exist, they make out as though philosophers and scientists have never really figured out anything about the world and called them truths. Objective truths are things that we observe or discover about the world, whereas subjective truths are things that we create or that give us inner meaning, we can also say that subjective opinions can exist that are either true or false. Objective truths can never be viewed as being opinions or false conclusions, this is what makes them objective truths, they are facts and realities of the world, that exist independently of us or our wishes. Some people think that the concepts of subjective and objective create a dualism or dichotomy, but I think that these concepts can be understood in many ways that are useful and necessary. We can say that all things and events are not objective in and of themselves, we can say that many things simply exist as facts or events, etc., yet for any person to understand these things clearly and properly without bias, it is required that this person identifies with this object or thing in the sense of being a type of pure knowing subject or receptacle for what this object or event really is in essence. The fact is that we are separate from all the things in the world, so this is why we call ourselves a subject, with all the feelings, ideas, thoughts and emotions of our own that are different from the objects and events in the world. Many people talk about and claim that they can replace these useful concepts of the subjective and objective modes of conceptualization with better concepts, but then afterwards they fail to produce these so-called new useful concepts that they claim to have developed. Sometimes people confuse the concept of a "subject" with that of being "subjective". Some people think that because knowledge must past through a subject, then one is always in a subjective mode as this is occurring, this is not true. The word subject refers to a person or any organism that perceives or assesses knowledge, whereas being subjective means using one's own feelings and opinions in one's assessment of knowledge. The desire to want to know truths that exist independently of us always involves objectivity even though we classify ourselves as a subject, so we call these truths objective truths. It is far easier to attain objectivity in simple truths or observations, whereas it is much more difficult to obtain objectivity in elaborate theories of the world.