ON HISTORICISM, METANARRATIVES AND THE OPEN SOCIETY

In the course of this essay I will point out to you a complex set of overlapping concepts in regard to how society thinks and responds to its own evolution and progress as a whole and as individual people comprising it. In my investigation I will cover many aspects of how the mass consciousness of people generally can so easily be manipulated by the false ideas, ideologies and control of philosophers, politicians and psychological experts. I will also point out that even though a society is made up of a multitude of impressionable as well as non-impressionable people, it is still individuals themselsves that make up this mass of people, so it is the job of all individuals within this society to arm themselves with wisdom, truth, knowledge and the active know how of what it takes to shape the world for the better in the real sense. Even though the postmodernists have pointed out the disadvantages of having many metanarratives, especially the erroneous ones, the following metanarrative, for example, is true: that patriarchy has systematically exploited, oppressed and subjugated women throughout history, this is a fact that cannot be denied. The metanarratives that in general were created by religions as well as by historicist philosophers and politicians are in a sense the worst of them all, an example of which are those by: the muslim and christian religions as well as some of the ideas of Plato, Marx and Hitler, etc. Some metanarratives have been a type of false invention made up by its creator or creators and this has caused a lot of uneeded manipulation and suffering in the world by those who have either invented these metanarratives or followed them in some way. Karl Popper in his two-volume work entitled "The Open Society And Its Enemies" contrasts the concept of an "open society" with that of a "closed society". In an open society the government is responsive and tolerant to changes, the political mechanisms are flexible. In an open society the state exists in a condition in which there are no secrets, the public are informed of what is occurring in the state, it is a non-authoritarian society in which all people are trusted with the knowledge of all that is happening. In an open society the people have many political freedoms and the human rights laws are always in existence for the inhabitants or citizens of any state. Any knowledge in the finite sense can be said to be provisional, fallible and limited in its own way and so any society or state must be open to alternative points of view whenever possible. It is said that open societies are associated with cultural and religious pluralism, for example, an open society is in a sense always open to changes and improvements, because knowledge and ideal conditions are never completed, but are always in an ongoing process of improvement and change. In a sense, any type of democracy can be viewed as example of an "open society". Any claims to certain knowledge or absolute or ultimate truths, such as you find in metanarratives and historicism and its theories leads to an attempted imposition of one version of reality onto the possibility of a more harmonious and fair one. A closed society is closed to freedom of thought, speech and behaviour, etc. In contrast to this, for example, in an open society the citizens need to engage in critical thinking, they also need to make a strong commitment to the pursuit of wisdom and truth, this requires good ecucation in knowledge and morals, they also need the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this process. Totalitarian dictatorships, theocracies and autocratic monarchies are all examples of a "closed society". Certain intelligent people in the field of psychology know of many sophisticated and powerful techniques of mass manipulation and deception, some of these techniques have been used in modern advertising and in cognitive science by political operatives. The electorates perception of reality can easily be manipulated and deceived by clever people in positions of power and that this has been done before on many occasions is obvious. It is now time for the masses to wake up from their self-incurred immaturity, this immaturity is self-inflicted and does no exist because of a lack of understanding, it exists from a lack of courage and independence to use their own reasoning abilities, intellect and wisdom, etc. This immaturity to act without the guidance or manipulation of another who happens to be more knowledgeable than ourselves is the main problem with society and the masses today, it is our fear of thinking for ourselves and standing up for ourselves in all matters that is the cause of many of the problems in the world today. Any democratic political discourse cannnot lead to a better understanding of reality unless we commit to standing up for ourselves properly in the ways that I have mentioned. For example, many politicians will manipulate people and abuse their power rather than respect people and reality, this is so unless the public cares about the truth enough and punishes any politicians when it catches them in the act of deliberate manipulation and deception. Historicism in the sense that there is an organic succession of developments to actual events in the world, is a false hypothesis from the standpoint of free will and contingency, we always have the choice to alter events because of wisdom and free will. I have also pointed out that historicism is also false and unnecessary from standpoint of metanarratives. Historicism in the sense that local conditions and peculiarities influence the results of the direction of history in a decisive way, is only true to a certain extent, certain cultures have influenced the direction of history more than others, i.e., the Greeks, the Romans and the British, etc. If historicism is viewed from the perspective of "process philosophy" (i.e., that the essence of reality and nature consist of inevitable and contingent processes) then I think that more fruitful ground can be covered by historicism as a philosophical method. The concept of change (that all is flux) in the universe, is a very real one. The things that make any proper theory of change useful, is the fact that one can find consistencies, patterns and actual processes in these changes that are real and that lead somewhere, these things that I mention that exists in processes can be observed and analyzed by anyone who chooses to notice them. Many of the metanarratives that have been thought up by the people of the past have had a mystical foundation to them, this in a sense is what made a lot of them lack credibility. One of the problems of historicism as a method, is the obvious fact that if a person cannot know the whole of the state of affairs of the world and of mankind at any given point in time, then it follows that they cannot know the future of the world and mankind in its entirety, they cannot account for all the variables involved. Any useful method of historicism should be based on the constants that one finds in evolution, progress, mass psychology, sociology, history, political science and in any particular cases that it applies to as well as in all the processes generally involved in any case to be predicted. Any good theories of historicism should be able to account for any variables that may arise amongst the foundational constants that I have mentioned that are to be found in the universal and particular processes involved. Thinkers should learn to become skilled at accounting for the different types of variables that may arise amongst all the constant things that happen in events for any theories of historicism to be valid. All good historicism is either suggestive or predictive, whereas bad historicism is usually manipulative and biased as well as being incorrect in a lot of cases. In historicism we are only predicting and dealing in finite and particular situations and events, because when we study a thing, we select certain aspects of it. It is impossible for us to observe, Know and also to describe the whole of the world, so we are only dealing in a piece of the world in our predictions and suggestions. It can also be argued that we cannot even know the smallest whole piece in its entirety, since all our descriptions are necessarily selective and limited. Computer programs that simulate events have become very useful, but they have their limitations also. Some people argue that all events are unique in history and so therefore in historicism potential events cannot be predicted from a study of history, I think that the above argument fails to account for the elements of determinism as well as the necessary and contingent aspects of processes in evolution and progress generally, you cannot separate events from processes by calling them unique, events are unique because of the exact circumstances and processes involved, these processes and their potentialities can be analyzed and understood to a certain degree of accuracy due to the elements of processes that are constant and predictable. Prediction as well as probability is a whole aspect of human reasoning and can be found in mathematics and logic generally, it is not too far of a stretch to find that human beings will be able to become skilled at predicting potential future events and scenarios through higher forms of reasoning. Seeing as though in philosophy we are mostly selective and our analysis of things is usually limited and finite, means that if we are to do justice to our subject, it is required that we be organized, rigorous, systematic, meticulous and thorough, otherwise our endeavours will seem pretty sparse and superficial. An example of a manipulative form of historicism, is Nietzsche's belief that a lot of people might become more nihilistic once the belief in God starts to wane. In point of fact, the only people that really seem to have become more nihilistic since the belief in God has been waning are Nietzsche's followers themselves (i.e., the nazis and others), most postmodernists seem to have become nihilistic also, this is because postmodernists have been largely manipulated by Nietzsche's writings, especially concerning nihilism, morals, subjectivism and perspectivism as well as by his claims that a lot of claims of truth and reason can be associated with institutions of power, such as the church, universities and the government. Nietzsche in his writings always makes the mistake of associating everything with a desire for power, just like the sophists did before him, it never seems to cross his mind that truth, reason, objectivity and morals are necessary for all human beings irrespective of any so-called desire for power that most people are meant to have according to his analysis of the world. I mentioned earlier that all good historicism is either predictive or suggestive. When I mention that good historicism is suggestive, I mean that it represents a sort of "mass wisdom" on the part of most people in the world in the sense that they are able to constructively suggest things to each other as well as being able to make good and serious judgements as a whole that will benefit them and their children. Mass wisdom can only come from a need of most people to want to become more educated, wise, moral and constructive, etc., for them to want to shape the world according to the best ideas, policies and decisions that they are capable of making. Predictive historicism applies more to ambitious philosophers themselves and their ability to predict what paths the events in the world will take or should take to benefit society for the better. Historicism is only useful if it can be used to benefit society generally, that is, if it is progressive and positive in certain ways, because any historicism that is negative, is useless and is anti-progressive as well as anti-evolutionary. An attempt to understand patterns and logical consistencies in the consciousness of organisms and societies and all its events in the sense of how it evolves and progresses through history can be found in the conceptual system of spiral dynamics, which I think is a very interesting and useful system to study. When it comes to power, people are more interested in what they can do with the power, rather than with the power itself, the power itself for its own sake can only give a person a buzz that seems somewhat empty and devoid of meaning without something specific that can be done with this power. If people were interested only in power then they would relinquish it or give it to someone else that they cared about once they had got it . The desire for power is really all about control, manipulation as well as the ability to change the course of events in the sense of what can be done with this power once it has been attained.

OF LANGUAGE AND ITS USE

In my view there are three main reasons of why language was created and developed by our human ancestors: The first was so that they could express themselves as individuals and what they felt and thought, i.e., hunger, thirst, fear as well as to describe places, etc. The second was to communicate ideas about the world and themselves. The third was that it had a type of practical utility that was useful in the sense that words have exact meanings that do not alter, unless by consensus, these words represent ideas to be described that are either abstract or tangible about the world (cosmos) and this aided them in their day to day affairs. Words themselves are contingent, particular and temporary and languages are this way also, a defect in a language can hinder more rigorous forms of communication, so we can say that particular languages and words are of less importance than our own ability to describe things in the world and reality generally. Mathematics and logic are more complete than any verbal language, yet these things are also limited in comparison to the universe and the laws of nature, so mathematics and logic are never absolute forms of knowledge, they are always limited (finite) and flawed in their own way. In some ways language can be said to be an extension of physical behaviour, we even make physical gestures to fit the things that we want to express and communicate through language. The more articulate and clear we can be using language, the better, language should serve us well for the communication of ideas as well as our own inner thoughts, feelings and desires. A cynical view of language can be found in the works of thinkers like Nietzsche and Derrida, they attempt to make out that language is largely meaningless and not really a proper representation of the ideas of reality, but this is an absurd and unnecessary view, it is a type of sophistry, if people convince you to think that language is meaningless, then it gives them the opportunity to use more sophistry on you, real philosophers do not accept this conclusion, real philosophers know that language is logical and expressive and represents the ideas of reality adequately. Are ideas, language, grammar, logic, diagrams and mathematics a representation of reality? I am sure it is, for how else are we to represent and understand the truths of the reality that we inhabit. Nietzsche in his writing has attacked the validity of language, mathematics and logic as adequate representations of reality, he viewed these things as subjective fictions that do not represents truths, so if NASA send men to the moon using language, logic, science and mathematics, then according to Nietzsche's opinion it was just a fiction and not a real moon landing. When I mention that language represents reality, I mean to show that language corresponds to reality in the sense that it represents reality objectively and externally aside from our internal subjective conditions, otherwise language and its use would be divorced from events, facts and circumstances and would simply exist only as a subjective type of communication amongst people and would be totally divorced from objective and external events, facts and circumstances altogether. The following quote by Martin Heidegger, that "man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man" aptly leads me to a hypothesis that I have for a long time felt strongly about, in the sense that its truth seems so clear to me in my mind and of which I have no doubt is real. The hypothesis which I choose to impart to the world of which I feel so strongly about, is the fact that language increasingly becomes more efficient, logical and mathematical in nature, because language over time sheds all those vague, redundant and wooly aspects of itself that it no longer needs, language we must remember, is designed to aid communication as well as having a sort of utility to it. Those aspects of language that is most expressive for people, will in a sense be the most difficult for humans to lose control of, but in general human beings will have to adapt to a language that will become more efficient, logical and mathematical generally. There are many aspects to language development, so it is always necessary to do a thorough investigation of all the different ways in which languages are formed, if one wants to understand them. Even though some thinkers of the past have claimed that language does not represent and refer to objects in the world, they were wrong. Language does represent and refer to objects in the world, language has a type of utility in this sense. If the word cup does not refer to an actual cup in the world that we are talking about, then what does it refer to? Our use of language can only refer to the cup that we describe, our description of a particular cup that exists in a certain place can only refer to this cup and to nothing else. It is only when we are lying or when we are mistaken do our words not refer to an object, phenomenon or event, language has a dual aspect to it in the sense in which when people use it, is either true or false in its assertions, it also has elements to it that are neutral in this regard. In the philosophy of language we speak about the words that get their meaning because they represent and refer to things in the world, this aspect of language produce pictures and visualization in our minds when we think about how specific words relate to actual things in the world, we also discuss which words this applies to, this is because it cannot apply to all words in a language, they do not all produce specific or distinct pictures. Some words in a language can be considered to be more abstract and difficult to define in its usage and in how it refers to any particular thing in the world. Apart from the meaning of words and how they apply to things in the world, we also speak about the "use" or "usage" of words generally, words have a type of utility or usage in that they express many things in language as well as in how it applies to the world and ourselves generally. Words that do not have a physical or abstract counterpart in the tangible world, such as: God, hello, difficult, and, etc., can seem to be more difficult to define and concretize than other words that apply to specific things, for example, what is difficult for one person, may not be very difficult for someone else, a greeting such as hello may be genuine or it may be just a meaningless pleasantry. It is a well known fact that language shapes our minds as well as our understanding of the world generally, language shapes our whole conceptual framework of the world, yet any individual who can think for themselves (i.e., to think for oneself means to think in one's own way unaided by conventional standards of thinking, in the sense that no one is able to do your own thinking for you) can be largely shaped by their own concepts and developments in thinking, these people are able to transcend the limitations of their own language and culture in certain ways, not being able to conceptualize yourself limits you to conventional thinking, imagination is an important feature of being able to conceptualize reality in one's own way. I explained that language gets most of its meaning from representing things in the world, I also mentioned that some words in language are harder to pin down in this way, they exist more in their usage than in their exact distinctness to represent things in the world, language it is true, has many pitfalls, redundancies and ambiguities that need to be overcome, yet when language is used properly in a logical way, then most of its pitfalls can be overcome, the most useful way to overcome the flaws in it is in the ability of its users to become more articulate, clear, distinct and exact, they should endeavour to eliminate all the pitfalls that are to be found within language generally. Language also becomes effective when "context" and "description" become important features of how language is used, we should learn to make language apply to different contexts in the world and we should also use language to be highly descriptive about these contexts and situations in the world that we want to understand and explain. Language in its usage in general can never really be said to be pinned down to anything in particular, this is why language sometimes has a type of freedom to it that seems like an unending process of expression and application. When we use language in such a way that it becomes formal and contextual in the sense that we apply it this way to most situations, then this enables us to overcome this excessive freedom aspect of language. We know that language has rules. All languages are universal in the sense that they are based on reason and objectivity in that they are based on things in the world, this is why you cannot have a subjective language of your own invention that applies to anything that transcends the universal aspects of languages and how they apply to things in the world. Any proper study of language shows that in general if you can describe reality contextually and in depth, then this is a far superior tool than many complicated abstract concepts and theories concerning it, concepts and theories concerning the world should be simple and contextual, this is because reason, explanation and description are able to do so much more than conceptual generalities, philosophers in the past have confused many people with their vague concepts and generalities of the world, this in some ways has caused more problems in the world than these concepts and notions have deserved due to the true worth or merit that these concepts and notions actually have. All languages are particular and need the context, time, place and culture that they exist in to have any type of utility, for example, each language relies upon certain sounds or words that exist as a signifier to represent signified things in the world, like an object, thing, situation, event, etc., this is so even though the thing may be abstract or tangible or simply exists in the language as a word of usage only and is not that specific as relating to any particular thing in the world. A language in some ways can be said to exist separately from the world, any language that seems separate from the world, still has a type of universality to it that applies to the real world, so its separation from the world is only particular and circumstantial. Earlier in this essay I mentioned that mathematics and logic are more complete languages than verbal languages, I have reached this conclusion because any analysis of languages generally is going to be relative, seeing as though there are no absolutely complete languages in existence. I also mentioned that mathematics and logic are not absolute or absolutely complete in themselves. Mathematics and logic are more complete languages than verbal languages because verbal languages change and alter due to the semantic meaning of words and terms, whereas mathematics always retains its consistency and expansive nature, the same can be said of logic also. Mathematics and logic are not absolutely complete as languages in the fullest sense of representing reality, this is because reality in all its manifestations cannot be contained by any languages that are essentially linear, piecemeal and selective. I must point out that language is nearly always communicated in a linear fashion, a word follows a word, a few chosen words make a clause or a sentence, a sentence leads into another sentence. Language is always selective and limited in its linearity, this is why its is necessary to be careful and consistent in our use of language, otherwise our sentences can so easily be misunderstood or taken out of context. Noam Chomsky's concept of a type of universal grammar of language, exists I am sure, because only a certain number of sentences that make any logical sense can exist for any particular thing that is said that has an exact meaning as such, all other combinations of words or sentences that attempt to express this particular meaning fails to make any logical sense. All logical patterns that have meaning and express meanings in languages are finite and become a type of universal grammar. The meaning of a word is objective and contextual in the sense that the objective meaning of a word is a type of standard that everyone who uses it is able to understand and agree on, yet the meaning of a word also has a contextual element to it which depends on how the standard objective element is altered to fit the context and situation in which the word is used for any particular setting in which it gets used. I have spoken many times of the ambiguities, vagaries as well as the inaccurate expressions that exist as part of language, which I mention because of the necessity I feel that requires that we overcome the flaws inherent in the different forms that language takes on in its usage. Language needs to be improved so that we can be clear and accurate when we communicate with one other seeing as how language is inherently descriptive, logical and most useful within the context of discussions and arguments. Flaws in language tend to occur in its forms and expressions and how they are passed on and perpetuated due to laziness in language usage. As long as language adapts to fit the meaning and content of spoken ideas then language has a better chance of improving.

OF EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE GENERALLY

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

NOTES ON POSTMODERNISM

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

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

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

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

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

ON THE METHODS OF ANALYSIS, HYPOTHESIS AND SYNTHESIS IN PHILOSOPHY

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