UNIVERSAL DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL AXIOMS

The desire to search and to find standard universal definitions for things and the need to believe that they are regular and objective truths which really exist eternally and abstractly and at times concretely as part of reality has haunted philosophers for two and a half millennia.
The need for universal definitions of the abstract and concrete qualities, states and conditions of things such as justice, beauty, love, fear and so on are usually part of any in depth thinking about the qualities, states and conditions of the things we experience in regard to whether they are universally intuited and felt or not. Some universal definitions for things require an abstract and a concrete analysis, such as universal definitions for beauty, whereas the quality and condition of some things are mostly abstract in definition.
The analytical process of actually searching for universal definitions from particular cases at hand is one of induction and requires that the thinker syllogize in inductive questioning concerning the quality and conditions of the things in question, for example, what is considered to have a beauty is not only pleasant to our minds, but is also something which is pleasant to our feelings and our senses also and this is because symmetry and proportion are aspects of what is pleasant to our senses in objects. Now the things which we think that are pleasant to our feelings and emotions usually involve how people and things behave and operate in nature and how they make us feel in the sense that they give us a pleasant feeling that is noticeable to us. A static work of art when observed can also give us a pleasant feeling in our being and in our emotions generally. When I mention that the conditions of a thing play a part in an assessment of its universal definition I mean to say, for example, that a damaged work of art is not as beautiful as an undamaged one or that justice has to be applied to actual situations rather than just being purely universal and abstract. Universal definitions and general axioms can only be arrived at by using induction. There are philosophers and scientific minded thinkers who view induction as a problem and claim that induction is a non-demonstrative method of inference therefore it is not justified or valid and any proposition, theory or inference based on it can be deemed false or worthless for the reasons mentioned. This so-called problem of induction exists only in logical procedures and their inability to assess processes in reality that cannot be demonstrated or proven outright. The validity of an inductive inference should be considered as being relative to the situation at hand and should also be dependent on the other forms and methods of reasoning at one's disposal for any given inductive assessment of a phenomenon or fact. Induction should not be viewed and applied as a rigid and regular method of reasoning to all situations and this is because philosophers and thinkers generally use many methods and forms of reasoning and logic simply to figure out one particular thing.
An example of the relative aspects of inductive inference and their dependence on other methods of reasoning for their validity can be shown by the following examples: All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white, it is obvious that if one comes across a black swan this inference will be disproved but the problem with this pseudo inference is that it is based on what John Locke called a secondary quality because colour is not a real stable property of objects themselves and are variable and therefore it should never have been used for an inductive inference of this kind. Take for example, the claims of the inductive theories of evolution and also quantum physics as examples of induction which provide evidence that is hard to doubt and disprove as facts because they are backed up by evidence. Opposition to any inductive theory or inference can be crushed and neutralized if these theories and inferences have evidence to back them up, what would be the point of saying that these theories are false because they are non-demonstrative and therefore not justified if they have evidence to back them up. Also when one thinks of quantum theory it is not possible to imagine matter consisting of anything except molecules, atoms and particles in wave form, etc, what else is matter going to consist of instead of these things? Induction when it involves self-evident truths whether these truths happen to be empirical, universal, abstract or concrete or a combination of the two is what are known as legitimate conclusions and inferences and are valid unless proven otherwise.
The whole point about logic is that it can give valid reasons for things rather than being a tool to explain and demonstrate all things which cannot be demonstrated by using logic, an example of this inability of logic to demonstrate processes in reality is the claim of the theory of evolution that human beings and apes have a common ancestor; now how can logic and its premises demonstrate this? It cannot and the reason for this is because logic is out of its depth in this instance. Even though the theory of evolution is an inductive theory it does not need logic to validate itself in a demonstration and this is because it has the DNA research as well as all the other evidence in existence that can and does validate its authenticity and this is because non-demonstrative logic is only needed to explain the reasons of how and why things are so. Sherlock Holmes the fictional character or any detective in a real life situation would use deduction to solve crimes in a non-demonstrative sense also because they are not able to show you the actual crimes occurring but only in how they seemed to occur and how and why they happened due to evidence and apparent motives and this is not much different to inductive theories that have evidence or are self-evident but cannot be actually demonstrated.
A common argument that is used by people who doubt the validity of induction is that it is presumptuous to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow (i.e. the earth continues to spin on its axis and orbit the sun) because it has always done so as far as we know during our life. What these skeptical people who view induction as a problem fail to realize is that it is a valid enough conclusion to think that the sun will rise tomorrow due to our scientific knowledge and evidence. Also if something prevents the sun from rising tomorrow it will be due to another reason that will not have a thing to do with our original inductive conclusion. The universal and the particular, the potential and the actual are all aspects of reality which must be analyzed in a rigorous manner if universal definitions and general axioms are to be reached and found. Justice is in a sense an extension of the harmony and balance that can be found in nature but is perceived as necessary because it is impossible for a community of advanced forms of biological life to be happy without it.

ATAVISM AND DNA

The concept of atavism is a very interesting way to view all those familiar feelings we get when we observe the reality of different cultures and societies in general and our place in them. Atavism also reveals how we relate to some of them more and not so much to others. Atavism is also a very useful concept to explain all those character traits that we have that make us who we are. Atavism is also a very adequate concept to describe some of our behaviour and feelings in general. The concept of atavism along with the fact that the knowledge that exists in our DNA that exists as natures programming is responsible for much of our abilities, faculties and behaviour is a very interesting and useful avenue of inquiry in which to understand ourselves. The work being done in DNA research itself as well as the behavioural sciences will teach us a lot about our nature, behaviour and atavistic feelings and this research will reveal all manner of interesting clues which will shed light on, for example, the reasons which compelled earlier philosophers to invent the concept of innate ideas. In his book the (meno) plato mentions that all learning is merely a recollecting. Now the first thing that I will mention in regard to plato's claim is that the concept of innate ideas represents something that we do feel within us even though the concept of innate ideas itself is false for various reasons and so I will have to begin to mention this in the due course of my investigation into this matter. The reasons why we as human beings know so much and remember so much in our lives as well as those things we experience on a day to day basis seeming so familiar to us is not because of innate ideas or because of past lives and such like things, but because of our DNA make-up and atavistic tendencies. Atavism applies to all those traits and affinities one has with one's ancestors due to our DNA inheritance. Atavism it must be pointed out does not exist in a consistent and regular manner, for example, a brother or a sister may have completely different atavistic feelings in regard to actual traits and feelings with the same ancestors but this brother and sister will usually in most cases have a similar racial or genetic affinity with each other. It cannot really be denied that our genetic inheritance and DNA make-up is an intrinsic aspect of how we feel in regard to culture and society generally and it can be said to be largely how we define ourselves in the world in regard to other people and cultures and this genetic aspect of how we define ourselves has a huge impact on all the other aspects of our lives and especially in our behaviour.
We as human beings contain a wealth of information in our DNA which is responsible for an innumerable number of functions in our bodies as well as in the faculties of our being and all these feelings that we get from the information that exists in our DNA makes the different things in reality seem familiar to us, even though we may not have experienced them before and our instincts and intuitions are largely due to this information in our DNA. Some of the information in our DNA also contains all the atavistic feelings and character traits which we as individuals experience most vividly in the fullest sense of affinity with particular ancestors and also the things that our ancestors experienced and these affinities that we experience also make certain things seem familiar to us that we know about due to the cultural, and physical experiences of our lives. Knowledge of the past and of previous cultures and societies is not enough to make us relate to these cultures because it is what we feel genetically that makes us relate to them or not.

IN DEFENCE OF METAPHYSICS

Since the arrival of empiricism and its slow rise to the upper ranks of a lot of the philosophy being conducted by philosophers in the field today and of late, will be found as one will by chance happen to observe in this steady rise of empiricism a dual effect that has occurred in philosophy in the sense that a slow pernicious and damaging effect has been produced by the apparent success of empiricism at the expense of metaphysics. Now I find it to be my duty as well as my optimistic desire to repair some of this damage that has been perpetrated towards metaphysics at the hands of empiricism and its over confident supporters, of which I myself have been.
Now in the following passages that are to come, I will endeavour to repair the great name of metaphysics and so raise its proud banner high once again, so that all the world can marvel in its brilliant and creative radiance and this I do so that its efforts and offerings of which there are many shall never be lost by the hasty and ignorant of temperament. Metaphysics by its very nature is a cause of wonder and speculation and is a highly creative and all encompassing way in which to view reality itself (that is the essence of reality itself) and it is the type of outlook that got the early Greek philosophers thinking in a constructive way in the first place all the way back in the days when religion, mystery and superstition predominated. Now philosophy proper as a force was largely metaphysical at first and slowly began to branch out and take on other disciplines. One main reason why metaphysics now gets a bad name is because a lot of the philosophers around (especially the logical positivists) are only interested in trying to explain things which are easy to explain which are empirically obvious, they are not interested in all those mysterious things about reality which is harder to describe and explain. A lot of philosophers and peoples opinions and attitudes today have even degenerated into a somewhat petty belief that philosophy is only now good for a clarification of thoughts or for minor descriptions of phenomenon and a limited play with language etc. A lot of philosophers and people in general today doubt the greatness that philosophy has and also once had which was especially great in the minds and hands of the legendary figures like Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and this general attitude today is an indication of the nihilistic, apathetic, cynical and hopeless state in which some people live by and have allowed their opinion of philosophy to degenerate into and this negative outlook is partly due to science and the empirical method, which I am sorry to say, does not satisfy us in all departments and should be relegated to what it is good at. Metaphysics is one subject that has suffered the most at the hands of this poor outlook that I have described above that attempts to make us into automatons of so-called logic and hard scientific facts. Human beings in general mostly think in a philosophical, rational, symbolic, imaginary, metaphysical and desire-orientated way and not in a hard logical and scientific way, which hardly does not satisfy us at all as human beings. Metaphysics gets a bad reputation for supposedly consisting of all the erroneous speculations, subjective fancies and imaginary mystical beliefs that have ever been invented by the minds of human beings. Metaphysics it must be shown, does not necessarily consist of all those erroneous concepts that have ever been thought up, such as an all encompassing substance that surrounds everything or that matter consists of spirit or has spirit in it or that there is a swirling aether in space. Metaphysics as a subject should be approached as an extension of realism and materialistic philosophy, for instance, it is not known why energy perpetually vibrates both infinitely and eternally or why energy and space are infinite in extent and quantity and so on.
Some people even go so far as to claim that the concept of the will in nature is a purely metaphysical concept or is only an automatic physical process; but these views, it must be pointed out, are absurd at best and are only one-sided and incomplete views of the will. The concept of the will in nature is in fact both physical and metaphysical and the people who are ignorant at heart always want the physical to be separated from the metaphysical, as if in their estimation the metaphysical is going to weaken somehow what they consider to be a fact that is purely explainable by empirical, physical and literal means or by using a purely scientific type of language and description that is not always possible, seeing as it is usually hollow and without any true meaning and description of reality. Metaphysics attempts to describe and explain the very essence, nature and meaning of reality and existence itself and one will find no other subjects which attempt to do this and so therefore metaphysics cannot be replaced by any other subject and can also not be discarded in favour of any other subjects. Metaphysics as a subject is concerned mostly with first principles and basic causes and how they influence processes and this because it is an attempted understanding of all those activities and processes that occur as energy vibrates and forms physical and creative situations within space involving forces, rules, laws and universal forms. Metaphysics cannot attempt to explain first principles and basic causes in the literal sense because these things do not exist, that is there is no first or last principles for processes universally because there is no beginning or end to processes universally, but there is first principles for particular processes like the big bang. There are only first principles for particular processes like the creation of our universe. As time goes by one will find that physics will increasingly become more like metaphysics as it progresses and this is because the boundary between what we are capable of knowing in the sciences and what is highly real and unknowable in reality (i.e., metaphysics) gets blurred and one can find this occurring already in string theory. Metaphysics attempts to understand the deeper issues of reality and existence, such as why does matter exist at all? Why does energy perpetually vibrate? Why is space and energy infinite? And metaphysics never goes away because it is one of the most important subjects around.
Philosophy was largely metaphysical when it began as a major force in Greece and philosophy will always invariably lead to metaphysics because all absolute and ultimate questions and answers are metaphysical. Science by itself as a discipline and a method to attain knowledge cannot be relied on as a complete description and explanation of reality and processes, because it only concerns itself with how phenomenon operates and so on, but rarely asks questions like why does this phenomenon exist? And why does this phenomenon operate in this manner? Also why do processes produce a situation in which things operate in a certain way?
And why is it that the apparent infinity of space that we know of is able to produce a universe that only we know about that we exist in but yet we do not know if any other universes exist and if they do, how far away they are? The real tangible world human beings know about that we have representations of in the manner of ideas, abstract concepts, symbols, images and words is only partly real or only an interpretation of the truth of reality due to the correspondence of our perceptions to objective reality, but yet there are aspects of reality and the cosmos which is more real than our representations, and ideas and are in themselves undifferentiated. It is the human world of representations, ideas, concepts, images, symbols, languages, images and correspondence that creates the world of things for us as human beings and this so even if we are able to manipulate reality by the use of objects in science, but there are realities and processes that are outside our languages, representations and symbols which resist symbolization absolutely and this is what Immanuel Kant called the thing-in-itself and is a very useful label to assign all those things and processes that exist in reality that we are unsure about and do not know that are beyond our powers of perception and comprehension. Metaphysics as a subject as well as all those mysterious and unknown things about reality that we do not know will always motivate our curiosity and sense of wonder and so this will always lead human beings to probe further into reality to understand more about it, but there will always be things beyond the reach of our senses that we cannot, and will not know because they are beyond the comprehension of our limited physical human brains and this is because a finite thing cannot understand an infinite thing, it can only understand a finite portion of it. The logical positivists (empiricists) claim that all metaphysical statements and propositions are nonsense and false, but this is like saying that all statements and propositions that describe the nature of reality and existence are nonsense and false. What the logical positivists think are metaphysical statements and propositions are not really true metaphysical statements and propositions if they think they can dispense with metaphysical statements and propositions all together as being nonsense and false. If a person claims that there is a swirling substance called an aether that exists in space and also that this aether is responsible for gravity and many other things then one would using logic infer that this is not really a metaphysical claim but is an imaginary claim. Genuine metaphysical claims should not be dismissed as unnecessary or as nonsense simply because false imaginary metaphysical claims have been propounded by thinkers in the past. The logical positivists claim to use the word "nonsense" to mean that a statement or proposition cannot be independently verified rather than meaning that a statement or proposition is "without meaning". In science many theories cannot be verified with certainty but scientists still know that the available truth is still in accord with their theories and metaphysical statements and propositions that cannot be independently verified with certainty still have a validity as long as they correspond to and are in accord with the available truths of reality.
It is strange how in science today new theories like: for instance, energy being alike to looped vibrating strings and forces like gravity supposedly existing as a postulated particle called a graviton that is exchanged between most particles are accepted as science even though they fail the criteria of being science (that is, "demonstrable knowledge"), whereas metaphysics always gets attacked for being unscientific and unverifiable. What a lot of people do not seem to realize today, is that there is a very thin line between what we call science and metaphysics!

ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FOLLOWING IDEALS AND HOW THEY AID US

The following of "ideals" is a purposive and constructive thing for human beings to do in their lives and is an activity that is mostly pursued by those who are noble and moral of character and also by those individuals who have a lot of integrity and honour. There are individuals who we meet in our everyday lives who follow role models or people they admire, but the problem with this course of action is that we tend to become faint copies of the people we admire and not truly ourselves and also we become far too respectful of the errors made by the role models that we follow and there are even people who spend a lot of time defending the faults and errors that have been committed by their role models and they engage in this defensive activity in open discussions with people who might say something negative about their role models or heroes. Ideals are either "abstract" or "actual" or they can be said to be a combination of both together. Our emotions, feelings, passions and hopes aim towards our "ideals" and "values" because meaning is nearly always objective and our ideals and values are objectified goals as things that are worthy for us to strive towards that give us meaning and the searching and striving for meaning always requires many goals.
A harmony and balance of different and varied meanings is what we appear to strive towards when following ideals because being multidimensional is more suited to our complex designs as human beings than does singular convictions of a stubborn kind. "Ideals" it can be said give us hope and purpose and without them our lives would seem to be lacking in any type of inner life or meaning. In the past religion and mythology gave our ancestors hope and meaning in their often difficult and brief lives and this is because religion and mythology represented their inner subjective hopes projected outwardly towards an objective meaning they thought existed in the world or cosmos at large. A desire for meaning is a subjective urge or need but meaning in the fullest sense can only be found objectively, for example, to lose one's enthusiasm and curiosity for the objective world of things whether they be real or ideal is to give in to despondency or lack of meaning subjectively. Whatever ideals a person chooses to follow will, I am sure depend on his or her character because the reason for following ideals are that we create our own meaning and purpose by the ideals that we follow.
To be a realist that follows ideals is the best way to approach the following of ideals because to follow ideals without regard for reality or the material conditions of things seems like an impractical thing to do. Consciousness is determined by life and real things so ideals must be in accord with practical and actual events as well as material conditions and situations, there should be a harmony and balance between the concrete and the abstract aspects of ideals. Even though "willing", is "willing something" as an aim for its total condition and fulfillment, it would still be impossible to be willing any particular thing without desire, need, attraction, purpose, striving, motives, reasons, etc. Willing is an end and "an end" includes an evaluation and this evaluation depends on our natures and it is our natures that give us our values, but nothing is valuable "in itself" and this is because processes ultimately have no meaning, meaning is a temporary truth and is less real than infinite processes which have no real aim, purpose or meaning. Our values are based on what is "pleasant" or "painful" to us personally as individuals and our ideals are a type of value to us because they represent our hopes of what is pleasant, enjoyable and meaningful to us. The authentic type of person determines his or her own values, ideals and meanings not by what other people think, but by what is advantageous to themselves, because to be authentic means to be truthful to oneself and one's own nature. When we follow ideals we are following concrete ideas rather than blind feelings (because feelings are only useful if you account for the motives or needs of these feelings) or faith in wishful thinking and self deception, which lets face it, is what hope in spirituality is. Any good motive for feelings can be useful if these feelings are based on ideals, real values, genuine sentiment and rational instinctual desires. Some people prefer to be free from ideals, but this is their own choice which for them is grounded in their own values, but a life without ideals lacks stability and purpose. Human beings are in general, a weak, flawed and imperfect race, the simple act of following any of them as an example of how things should be done or experienced, can only end badly, to put any of them up on a pedestal to be worshipped is a mistake at best. In the past people created the concept of God as a perfect ideal that was worth following or emulating. But now the concept of God is no longer a feasible or adequate ideal for most people to follow and so now it becomes necessary for most people to follow the ideals that suit them. Personal ideals and values have replaced most of the religious and spiritual hopes and ideals of mainstream religions.

HOW COMPLEX IDEAS ARE MADE FROM THE SIMPLE IDEAS THAT WE RECEIVE THROUGH OUR SENSE-IMPRESSIONS

All the complex ideas, notions, concepts and theories that our minds are able to create or receive from nature come firstly as simple ideas, or simple impressions and these come originally from our sense-impressions and these sense-impressions that we receive from our senses which then become a form of sense-data due to the faculty of perception and then become a form of understanding in our minds as a type of conception or realization of ideas is either of things we have sensed directly through our senses or they are things we have read or pictures we have seen or things we have heard people talking about etc. Complex ideas can be created in the mind without directly experiencing with our senses some of the simple ideas that these complex ideas consist of and there are various reasons for this which I will enumerate in due course. It must also be pointed out that we do not experience a lot of these complex ideas directly with our senses either even though some of these complex ideas exist in an abstract sense within nature itself as part of reality. Complex ideas are created in our minds from the many simple ideas that have been put together to create the complex ideas of varying complexity that we have in our minds. It must be mentioned that even though all our simple ideas come from our sense-impressions that some of these simple ideas that our complex ideas consist of have been received by our minds in many and varied ways, for instance, simple ideas can be received through reading, by listening to music, by looking at pictures, paintings and photographs, from things people have said, from television, films,and cinema, from objects in museums and also directly through our senses etc. Another way our minds create complex ideas out of simple ideas is by the use of logic, reason, intuition, instinct, memory and all the other aspects of the a priori concept which I have mentioned already in my essay called " logical intuition and instincts". The complex ideas that are created in our minds are either real or they are imaginary, they either apply to reality or they are fictions made-up in our minds and have no real existence except in our minds. The faculty of our mind to receive and interpret sense-data from our sense-impressions is called perception and is a faculty that is mostly a part of our senses, the faculty of understanding on the other hand is a faculty that is a part of thinking and reasoning and exists mostly in this way. Simple ideas must exist in the form of sense-data for the faculty of understanding to process it properly, because without the faculty of perception then the information from our sense-impressions would not exist as sense-data or as simple ideas for our understanding to comprehend. There is an aspect of our minds which we can call the faculty of conception which is the part of the mind that fully realizes the formation of a simple idea from the sense-data that the faculty of perception has presented to it. The faculty of conception can be said to be a type of logical cognition or process which confirms the sense-data as being a simple idea for the mind to assess. Our sense-impressions usually produce a simple idea in us or they produce a simple feeling and usually if the impressions on our senses are strong our minds can create a simple idea that contains a strong feeling (emotion) and this can be said to be extremely vivid in nature. A simple feeling (emotion) can be viewed as being slightly different to a simple idea even though most emotions are produced by simple ideas. A simple emotion is an impression or feeling that exists within us irrespective of thoughts or ideas being experienced, a simple emotion is simply felt and experienced without thought.
A simple emotion is basically alike to an intuition, or instinct in its simplest and purest form, it can be said to be the things we know to be true without having to think about it. We know things to be correct and true not because we think them to be so purely by thinking, but because we think and feel them to be correct and truly real and this is because the truth is something that is not only thought, but is something that is felt also. Ideas are involved in thinking and reasoning and emotions are what we know and feel to be correct irrespective of thinking, but most emotions come either from our simple ideas or they exist as simple emotions directly from our sense-impressions and it is sufficed to say that our emotions in general are very complex in origin and also in admixture of actual origin either from ideas and also directly from our sense- impressions and this is known to have created many a confusion in emotional wrangles between people. The emotions, passions and instincts are all part of the physical form and this is the main reason why simple emotions are instinctually felt through our sense impressions without requiring thought as a certainty of the validity of certain truths. Most of the ideas in our memory are simple ideas because when we attempt to remember a complex idea we find ourselves piecing together one simple idea after another until all the correct simple ideas have been pieced together in such a way as to present the correct complex idea that we have chosen to remember in our mind. When we attempt to create a complex idea in our mind that we have never thought about before it becomes necessary to use imagination and intuition as well as logical reasoning in our attempt to create this complex idea whether it be a representation of reality or merely imaginary.
It can be pointed out that our imagination is somehow connected to our intuition and instincts, for example, our intuition appears to be a faculty that is connected to thinking and reasoning whereas instinct is a very physical thing and is connected to our senses. Sometimes in the dark we imagine things to be there in front of us, or in a corner which are not really there and this is a form of instinctual imagination and this type of imagination is connected to the fact that our senses can fool us and play tricks on us, but we also have a reasoning form of imagination that is connected to our faculty of intuition and this is the type of imagination that is used in art and literature and is also used in thought experiments etc. Our complex ideas begin to form and take shape once we have reflected on many of the simple ideas that our minds are furnished with and this introspection and reflection occurs due to the thinking, imagining, willing, doubting and connecting of simple ideas etc. Simple ideas appear to be mainly of two basic types which our senses are able register as a simple idea, the first is the intuitive and relational type such as you find in geometry, algebra and arithmetic and the second type of simple idea is usually intuitive, and is also a matter of fact that is generalized and particular, the first type is more static and eternal like universals and the second type is both universal and particular. I am sure that other types of simple idea can be found in nature if considerable thought is given to the matter of simple ideas. In the philosophical movements of "idealism" and "rationalism" many subjective and fancy concepts were created and developed by the philosophers of these movements. Many of the subjective and fancy concepts that were created and developed in the movements of idealism and rationalism were redundant and erroneous concepts and have lowered the quality of philosophy in general ever since and this negative and weakening influence of redundant and erroneous concepts in philosophy has lead to further despondency and illusion in the philosophy that came after and it has allowed more negative and subjective fancies to appear and be produced in a lot of the philosophy of the 20th century and also up until the present day.
For simple ideas, concepts and notions to be valid they must come from reality and experience, and this is because our simple ideas must correspond to known facts of reality if we are ever going to be able or capable of creating complex ideas that are of any real truth and validity from them.
Philosophy is a science that is empirical, real, factual and objective and true philosophy does not have anything to do with the subjective fancies of ignorant people and this is only because most truths are objective and this is because most of our simple and complex ideas of the truth come from our sense-impressions especially those ideas of eternal truths which seem so profound and moving and only some or a few truths can be considered to be subjective in origin and a lot of subjective truths are usually temporary and our subjective ideas and truths usually exist as part of the minor facts of our day to day experiences. Some of our subjective ideas exist also in the form of original ideas, or insights we might happen to have in our lives of which some are real, and true whereas some are merely subjective fancies and are usually imagined. Our "ideas" and "theories" of objective reality if they are true always correspond to reality objectively and can be proven empirically and are not mere descriptions by the use of words but are actual explanations and descriptions of objective reality and processes in reality. Objective reality does not exist in words alone it exists objectively as a fact that is a part of reality and philosophy explains, and describes reality as it is. Language was developed by our ancestors to communicate ideas of objective reality and philosophy is not a language game that is stuck in language or in erroneous concepts. I must state that ideas do not exist in the literal sense in nature and what we call ideas are merely attributes, properties, forms and moments of processes which are part of the continuum of nature. Our ideas of these attributes, properties, forms and moments in processes are either abstract or concrete. What we call abstract ideas exist as potential and possibility in reality but can only be realized by thinking minds as an idea, for instance, triangles and squares do not exist in nature but are abstract ideas or concepts in reality for thinking minds to realize. Some aspects of reality seem to be abstract but exist as an actuality, for example, gravity and the strong force seem like abstract forces but are actual forces because we cannot see them, but we can feel them and know them to exist. The reason that I mention that ideas do not exist in nature in the literal sense is because ideas are a product of thought, you need to be able to think to produce ideas and to think you need a brain. Nature in general is not a brain and does not have a brain therefore it cannot think ideas or consist of ideas, ideas cannot exist in an unthinking medium. The brains of human beings convert reality into simple ideas in our thinking because our brains can only handle and process one thing at a time or just a few, but not too many. I must mention that synthetic a priori ideas and knowledge contribute to many of our complex ideas also and this synthetic a priori knowledge is only possible due to our DNA inheritance which as I have mentioned elsewhere is a natural inclination and ability inherent within us to know these truths.

ON THE ABSTRACT AND THE TANGIBLE

Abstractions only exist because reality and its processes exist and abstractions should not be viewed as existing purely in our minds but should be viewed as being mental representations of processes in reality that are not always visual or fully tangible. Also abstractions in the normal sense of the word applies also as in abstract thinking existing in thought or idea but not necessarily existing in physical or practical existence. Abstractions are more useful when they are applied to reality in the sense of being conceptual representations of processes in reality that we have observed to exist but are not necessarily visually seen. A lot of the processes in reality are abstract and cannot be seen and abstractions cannot exist without actual processes in reality occurring therefore abstractions are analogous to processes in reality that are not always visual or not completely tangible. The a priori concept in some ways describes abstract processes in the sense of how people attain ideas and knowledge about the truth of reality which they have had and have not experienced directly through their senses. The many ideas that human beings have of abstractions must surely come from the fact that many processes in nature and reality itself seem very abstract. Also many of the processes in our genetic make-up itself and also in the workings of our minds seem very abstract and have their tangible source in the brain. Many of our simple ideas are abstract in either the imaginary or realistic sense of being a representation of something real. All simple ideas can be said to have an essence and nature of their own whether they be imaginary or real or whether in the concrete or tangible sense. All abstract ideas have an essence or distinguishing nature which enables us to know it and distinguish it from all other ideas and this essence and nature can be found also when simple ideas are part of a more complex idea that this simple idea may be a part of. The ideas that we have of imaginary abstractions come from the ideas we have of real abstractions and the ideas of real abstractions come from our sense impressions of reality and its processes. Ultimately all the abstractions that we can think of or conceive of come from the actual processes in reality, so that the best way to understand abstractions would be to attempt to understand the actual processes in reality and how they operate. The best way to try to understand the processes in reality or in nature generally is to picture them or think of them in an abstract way and also in a tangible way also whenever possible and this should be part of our thought experiments which in a lot of cases can yield good results except in situations where it is not possible to think of both of these things at the same time.

ESSENCE, CHARACTER AND INNER IDENTITY

Even though I have defined the concept of "being" as not consisting of a fixed essence, or entity as a whole, or in general it still becomes necessary to mention a very important aspect of the concept of "being" and this is whether human beings have an inner essence, or character that never changes and is what defines them even though their personality and being may change in general. This inner identity, essence, or character must exist in the form of a pivot, or foundational aspect. It is difficult to thing of anything substantial in nature that does not have a foundation, or base and this includes the concept of being also and this must be so even though the concept of being is a very progressive, and changeable thing and is not completely fixed as I have mentioned before in my essay called " being and becoming" and this is so unless we are mentioning inanimate objects, or inorganic matter which is fixed to a great extent and still comes under the category of being. Anything that is to rely on its own essence, character, will-power, and intelligence for its own identity is more real, and genuine than anything that simply adapts, and reconciles and tries to fit in, or please. These latter qualities of the personality that tries to adapt, reconcile, and fit into situations is more fleeting, and shallow. It should be pointed out that our character is the only thing that truly belongs to us as human beings because it is the only thing that we have a complete control over, aswell as it being a complete representation of us without any form of indirect expression, or ownership. To not be able to think for oneself is one of the greatest crimes one can commit to oneself but yet society, and certain people try to rob us of this privilege by expecting us to think in a way that is foreign to our very nature itself. Everyone appears to be born with their own personal character, and inner identity but then society and other people try to drown out this aspect of ourselves by their conditioning and a lot of people end up thinking through cultural, societal, and indirect means instead of developing their own true character, or will, and this is a shame. One can even come across many philosophers who quote other philosophers from the past saying so and so wrote this, and so and so wrote that instead of saying, or writing something they came up with themselves. It must be pointed out that it does take a lot of confidence, and belief in oneself to develop one's own way of thinking to its fullest expression but it is well worth the effort because a philosopher who cannot think in their own way is of no use to the philosophical, or thinking community because it is new theories, and new ideas, and original thinking which pushes philosophy forward and enables it to progress. There are people who think that because culture, and society exists as a temporary truth and we happen to live amongst its fleeting processes that we cannot somehow transcend it by alligning ourselves with more general, universal, and eternal truths which can guide us to a greater understanding of processes, reality, and truth of a more significant, real, and eternal kind, but this way of thinking is plain wrong because we can, and are able to transcend temporary truth to a high degree in our thoughts, and in our feelings but maybe not physically. Academic philosophers, and thinkers in general expect references, and quotes for all manner of truths to be found in the written works of others but rarely expect to find the truth in the processes of reality itself, but it is reality itself which is alike to the greatest book you will ever get around to study to find the truth if you so choose to find it. Another great fault of academic philosophers, and thinkers is the importance that they place on technical forms of argumentation, but this type of behaviour is counterproductive because attempting , and trying to describe the truth should not be about pursuing argumentation. In general philosophers, and thinkers spend too much time attempting, and trying to win discussions, and this behaviour leads nowhere, and is counterproductive because the truth is rarely arrived at by the use of this method. Philosophers, and thinkers should disagree only in a constructive way so that a conclusion about the truth can be arrived at through dialectical discussion. Philosophers, and thinkers in general should not be disagreeing simply to disagree so that they can be right and feel they have won some kind of imaginary competition of the ego. Argumentation and its development is a sign that one lacks knowledge of the truth of reality because the truth is self-evident and should be studied and accepted in this way. Knowledge of the truth of reality produces agreement, and not argumentation because the truth about reality is a self-evident thing.
To argue a point should be a last resort attempt to convince another thinker of the truth of your own point and how it relates to reality and its processes. In philosophy axioms and their development are more important than arguments, and their development should be encouraged, and sought after by all philosophers.
Axioms and their development in philosophy are a good groundwork, and base for all future endeavours in attempting to integrate truths aswell having a stable foundation from which to work from. There are even academic philosophers, and thinkers today who don't think that a person has the right to consider themselves a philosopher who does not have a degree, and profession in philosophy or does not use the methods of academia as if the philosophers of antique greece who stood around street corners debating the truth were not true philosophers. And it is this technical, modern, and erroneous attitude of academia that attempts take away the joy, and organic creativity out of philosophy, and it also tries to rob the individual person, or philosopher of his true essence, character, inner identity, and will. True philosophers have never claimed to be academic, or scientific, and have never claimed argumentation to be an important thing, they have merely claimed to be lovers of wisdom, and truth and they have attempted to figure it out, and describe it to others. A person can clearly change their own behaviour through conditioning, but it is much harder to change their own nature. A homosexual person can change his own behaviour, but he cannot change being a homosexual. We it seems can only partly change our own nature and we can only do this with those parts of ourselves that are least ingrained within us, we cannot change what is most ingrained within our own nature.