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.