Ethics-Archived

Introduction

The purest reality is the conscious and free reality, meaning it can realize and state itself as well as causing itself. Yet that knowledge alone is not enough in our philosophical journey, and now arises the question, what is all of this for? Perhaps reality is indeed the spirit capable of awareness, speech, change, and so on, but without knowing the purpose and utility of this knowledge which is also our true reality, it is useless. As such, before delving deeper into philosophy, we must explore what is named ethics.

Life

Ethics, the word, came from the word ethos in Greek which means a set of ideals or guide which becomes the direction of a nation. In philosophical context, ethics refer to the human meaning of life and what must be done to achieve a “good” life or be a true human. Of course in an absolute logical perspective, we are in truth describing mechanics and not purposes. However for the purpose of understanding and language, the term of purpose shall be used.

The question of ethics comes back to the definition of what is “good”, and this refers to the purpose of reality or the meaning of life. Of course what is good is that which fulfills the purpose of reality, and what is bad is what is against that purpose. The problem is that if we do not know the purpose, then all other things are meaningless. The good news is that the purpose of reality can be found with just the knowledge of consciousness and freedom.

The purpose of an object lies on what becomes the essence or basis of such object, or what could be said as the “design” of the object. Purpose here is different from human purpose, rather a determined mechanic of reality (though it is just as determined in the case of humans). That is the direction of change that happens. An exampe is a star, stars by nature are lumps of gas that condenses and in its core happens a process of nuclear fusion which produces energy in the form of heat and light. As such the purpose of a star is to be “a star” as said. In this sense purpose is not a problem of choice, rather of a final mechanics.

Based on the identity of reality as consciousness and freedom, the purpose of reality is not far off. That is to be conscious and free over itself, that is the purpose of reality. It is a certainty that reality shall be conscious and free, but what is the meaning of it? For that matter we must speak a little in human context. To be aware is to experience, understand, and know what happens and what is there in this world. Such that the concrete purpose of reality is to learn, experience life, and understand this world as ourselves.

Of course practical knowledge or skill is necessary in the fulfillment of ethics. For example cooking, we know not only how to cook, but we are also capable of cooking. The same goes for philosophy, we not only know it but also able to practice it in real life. However there is one other element of reality that is freedom. Freedom is somewhat different from mere awareness and requires more explanation.

If consciousness refers to the ability of statement and self observation, then freedom refers to the capabilities of self change. Freedom in a mechanical context is the capability to set one’s own direction in the mechanics of life. Though more accurately is describing freedom as the capability to change oneself, free and independent of external parties. Of course freedom means we can change without being affected by external things, and we can define the direction of change, but how must it happen?

True freedom is to change ourselves according to our true self that is the entity of reality. And since the entity of reality is of consciousness and freedom, then what must be the direction of change is freedom and consciousness itself. We must change something for freedom itself, or to increase freedom and consciousness. For one the act of acquiring skill and knowledge is and directed to achieve a higher consciousness and freedom.

In this matter it can be concluded that consciousness and freedom are two things that are almost identical. The difference is if consciousness is a condition then freedom is the act to reach that condition (process), or the capability of making that act. Figuratively, the free condition is the living condition or life. For life is one of the highest manifestations of freedom in reality, as shown in direct consciousness by humans.

As such the complete goal of reality is to study and understand reality itself. Then to change existing reality for the progress of consciousness itself and to increase the freedom of reality. In concrete terms, humanity lives, experience life, give meaning in life, and progress life from not knowing to knowing. From unfree to free, for the sake of freedom and consciousness itself as the fulfillment of the true human nature. What of the condition of unfreedom?

Death

So far we have spoke of ethics as a mere world mechanic, disregarding the free will within reality. That reality does not contain only what is right or good, but also what is not good, that is wrong and bad. These things are the opposite of life and ethics, that is death and unfreedom. Death, for dead things are things that are not free. Its movements are caused by other objects which are not dead, and its freedom determined by living things. In short, death and sin are all things that opposes freedom and consciousness.

The condition of being unaware and not knowing is the lightest form of death, which is the initial condition. Yet it is also the most essential form of death, as without knowledge nothing can be done. The same can be said when we have no knowledge of reality then we can not do anything, even say, about reality. Without consciousness, freedom is impossible and it is the most severe of deaths. As we do not even know the death that chains us.

The unfree condition is the form of death equal in scale but different in category to the condition of ignorance. In this sense, being unfree means we act not according to our nature as the entity of reality. We act not according to freedom and consciousness, but according to something else. In reality there are many elements and objects, but only one essence. Being unfree means to act not according to essence but according to specifics. One example are hedonists who live in the name of pleasure alone and not freedom.

When one lives in the influence of death, they will stop at the specific goal and not move anymore. It is possible their life will be directed towards that one element only and disregard all other elements. If there is no change, say by other creatures, then they may lose awareness on other things. As they only focus on one object only of reality, and thus forms what is called attachment. From attachment emerges stagnation and finally pure death.

Is attachment to life possible? It is possible, but to attach and serve under freedom and consciousness will automatically make us detached. For freedom and consciousness are the purposes that forbid attachment, and we will be continuously driven towards a higher freedom and consciousness. Attachment towards life shall liberate and attachment outside of life shall kill. Stagnation as the consequence of attachment that deviates from freedom is a trademark of death.

One may ask of the existence of death, why is there death if the world is by essence alive? Reality and life is not defined as merely the condition of awareness but also the capability to change that awareness into a higher state. As reality can determine its own existence, and as such can change. Freedom as the process of change implies a better and worse condition. A free change is the change from the worse that is unfree towards the better that is free. Yes there is no pure death, as the existence of reality is the most basic trait of life. However there is something more alive than mere existence, and death refers more to things far from freedom, while life things close to freedom.

Wholeness of Life

The next question is at a glance, a dilemma. If freedom demands us to realize and rule all things, does it not mean that we must realize the evil things as well? As if freedom demands us to approach those that further ourselves away from that freedom. If so, is not all things on this earth good as they as and must be glorified as well? It is true that even the most deplorable of sin must be realized as the fulfillment of freedom, or even the worst of sufferings. To reach life, we must understand and experience death as well.

However it must be understood that experiencing death is not equal to surrendering before death. To be aware of and rule death is not the same with stopping at death. Because true death is when we attach to it, and never change from death. While freedom does not only demand awareness, but also power over the dead. Thus we do not stop with realizing death, but also change it into what is life. As such what is more valuable is change and not just the results of change.

Of course in the “dilemma” of life and death does not mean we can chase death at all costs and use freedom as a justification. There is a time for death, but if the current death is still unresolved how can we chase other deaths? The point of freedom is not to chase death, but accept and be aware of death as an inseparable part of reality and in extension ourself. For many people try to avoid death and treat it as an inherently despicable thing. This attachment towards life is not free either, as we run from reality.

On the other hand, what we must do is not reject death or bow before death. Death as an object of reality deserves equal treatment according to the principle of freedom, that is to be realized and ruled. We realize death as something that is not right, not what must be, and to rule it is to change it into what is right and in concordance with freedom itself. As such to bow before death is inequal to realizing death, where one is death and one is life.

In truth chasing death on purpose for change is not completely wrong, as freedom means to realize and rule on purpose (by our own will). However chasing death does not mean chasing blindly, by will of death (attachment), or without order. As within ethics there is a hierarchy of freedom that must be fulfilled in order to achieve true freedom.

Ethical hierarchy here means the the order of knowledge or experience according to ontology or essence. Ontology meaning of being, thus higher things hierarchically exist before others. Essence is the same, but refers to the “essentiality” of a knowledge as part of the truth of reality. Though a hierarchy, all things in this hierarchy are equal in degree, meaning all must be treated the same, that is to be realized and ruled.

On the highest level is of course the knowledge of the purest reality. Or the realization and rule over the law of freedom and consciousness. The positioning of this law is very logical and should not be questioned. To achieve freedom, knowledge of freedom and why is required first. Without such awareness, all other awareness are impossible as they all hinge on the existence of reality, consciousness, and freedom. Only after freedom is realized can all other things realized and ruled as well.

The second level are all things good that supports freedom. This level is still connected to the first level that is pure freedom. The difference is that in the second level we chase practical and more complete freedoms. If at first our freedom is only theoretical and essential, we know search for the practical and specific. Practical freedom refers to social and empirical issues. As such it can also be said as empirical freedom, where we chase empirical knowledge for the sake of the consciousness and freedom of the world.

It is true that in the search of practical freedom we will encounter death, and we will realize and understand that death. However that death will become a mere stepping stone to achieve that freedom and not our main goal. While we might talk of death, it is only part of the journey to reach complete and practical freedom. Once practical freedom is achieved, that is the whole equality between reality and freedom, we can begin the third level of fulfillment of reality.

The last step that is the very last in hierarchy but equal to all others is the pursuit of death. While the main purpose is still freedom, but this time we realize and understand death more completely. Before we experience death but have not fully understood death as there is knowledge that we lack. With a more complete knowledge, we can understand the condition of death more complete as well. It is true that this time we realize death for the sake of realizing death itself, but in the end we still do this for the sake of a more complete life.

Aside from ethical hierarchy, there is also the ethical cycle which becomes a sort of common pattern within reality. It is called so as it never ends and is infinite. Though if we look at the whole there is a cycle which stops and never repeats, but that is not our topic of discussion for now. The first step of this cycle is death, but not just any death rather the purest death. Where we are not even aware of our death, and this is the most severe and dangerous of deaths. Yet it is not eternal and from initial death begins the process towards freedom.

Next is the realization of death itself, that is we are still ruled by death but we begin to understand it, that it is not what must be. Awareness can happen without rule, as will be discussed in another time. Regardless, awareness of death is significant as it is what enables us to rule and change death in the first place. Only after awareness of death rule and change of death can be done.

The change of death can be said as the main manifestation of freedom, that is the change of death to life. How the mechanics work is not our problem now, what is certain is as according to the definition of death and life, we unleash the shackles that choke us and be liberated. From the beginning of being ruled by it, we now rule it and then free it from its own shackles. It then continues forever until we truely experience life.

Life, is not the final condition in this cycle, as life here is merely a condition of higher freedom compared to the initial death. While there may be an absolute life, such as an almost absolute death, life here refers to higher freedom and not absolute. Life by nature is the awareness and rule of self meaning from the beginning we already realize life, and the next step that is awareness of life happens in parallel. Of course after that is the change or development of life into an even more free condition. Then the cycle repeats without end and without bound.

As such it is indeed true that to reach true freedom, even death must be celebrated. Yet death is not our final destination, rather a means of achieving life itself. And life is not an end either, rather a new beginning in the ethical development of reality. As said, what must be seeked is still the law of freedom and all things must be done under that law. Only then all other things can be pursued, for the law of freedom is our true nature.

Closing

With this discussion we can conclude several important things, that ethics is the goal of reality for all creatures as well as a formulation of our true self. This goal is based upon the essence of reality as a sovereign freedom and consciousness, as such the goal is to be free and conscious over all things in this world. To achieve that reality is to be free, rule, and reign over ourselves. And to run from reality is to die, be ruled, and be enslaved by reality. Yet to be enslaved and realize it is necessary, as a stepping stone to liberate ourselves from such slavery. With the first freedom, all things can be achieved. God bless.

Dismissed in preparation of a more complete writing.

Reality-Old

Introduction

Our first task in the execution of revolutionary philosophy is answering the basic question of philosophy of what is reality. Of course one of the expressed purposes in answering this question is to further revolutionary philosophy and to revive philosophy itself. After all, truth of reality is the first criterion of truth in the study of pure philosophy. From that highest truth emerges all other truths that will aid as well in the formulation of other philosophies. The existence of the first truth will greatly aid us in the restoration and the organization of classical and contemporary philosophy which are greatly divided.

There is also the goal of uniting all knowledge of the world which currently is in divide. The first truth is the first step to achieve it. In fact, even with just the first truth then all knowledge has been bound and made obedient to this truth. With more truths however, the relations of knowledge shall be made stronger and through the help of integral philosophy all sciences can be reunited. With that, an integrative and universal world conception can be created, which touches all aspects, empirical or idealistic, physical or social.

In the practical form, answering this question is the first step in the resolution of the global crisis. Today we know of the hardliners who wish to conquer the world in their own name, of the materialists who disregards philosophy and deifies empiricism, of the “tolerant” which are incredibly relativistic and subjective in ethics. Not to mention the concrete problems of threats of war, economic tension and the uncertainty which reigns across the world. With the right knowledge then we can know the right solution.

However, regardless of all that, the true purpose of answering this question is human life itself. Through answering this question, then we too have answered a no less important and no less asked question of “What is the meaning of life?” The moment we know the right purpose, then we are freed from suffering and we can grasp a truly better life. A life that is more meaningful, and more valuable. And this is the first step in reaching a more perfect life, not just for humans but for all beings of reality. As such, let us begin.

Existence of Reality

All things have essence, or a characteristic which defines that very thing. Or what makes such object different to all other things, and what becomes the base of itself. Reality as an “object” is no different and the task of philosophy is to know the deepest essence of reality. What differentiates the real from the unreal. And of course the first property that we can analyze as well as what must be determined beforehand is the existence of reality. Without any proof on the existence of reality, answers to all other questions, that is the demand for the knowledge of reality, can not be obtained.

For an existence is the most basic essence of all objects. If an object is nonexistent, then we could not even know or say anything of such object. Say a red apple, if that apple doesn’t exist then a formulation of that specific red apple would be not be possible. In fact we can not state the nonexistence of the red apple for the apple must be present and then disappear for us to be able to state its absence. If the apple exists as an idea, it still has an existence as it its material absence can be described.

However, what is the proof of the existence of an object or any reality? In logic, it is assumed that all true statements have a proof, yet the philosophical truth of existence which is recognized by all philosophers can never be concretely or directly proved. In a sense that a proof has been provided, but none have attacked the problem directly. Previously Descartes have made a formulation more commonly known as the Cogito Ergo Sum, or “I think therefore I am”. As a starting point, it is better if we look closely this basic philosophical statement.

The Cartesian argument is that he can doubt all things but not his own doubt. This argument is not false, and in this discussion our conclusions will not stray far from the Cogito. It is just that our approach will be in essence different from the Cartesian perspective. If Descartes took an approach of ego, that is in reference to his person, we shall take a transcendent perspective, which does not refer to any egos or person. And to prove the existence of reality we must take a starting point.

The true criterion of existence of reality has not been formulated, as such it is not false for us to take the empirical assumption that all things that exist are those that can be sensed. A logical conclusion, though must still be debated and questioned. Let there be a red apple, if we can sense it then it passes the existence test. Ideas of red apples are also accepted as they can translated to empirical form even if they have an idealist essence. One other criteria is if the object can be sensed collectively, meaning it genuinely exists, or personally, which means it may be a hallucination or illusion.

In a glance, the empirical criterion may seem logical and rational, yet a short analysis can show several problems. First, the empirical criterion relies on the human belief in the sensory organs, that sensory experience is the primary source of knowledge. Even though empirically, it is proven that while senses are good, they are not as perfect or accurate as we humans like to think. Sometimes empirical objects turn out to be false and so on. And of course, the greater problem of empiricism is the existence of humans itself, and the proof for the observer’s existence.

We can argue that the existence of humans as an observer is proved by the collective human sense, where each human guarantees the existence of their fellow humans. On the contrary, nothing can prove the collective existence of humanity, and even if there is we still need to question the proof of that proof and it continues without end. With this we can conclude that proving existence by external factors is not a good criterion, for it inevitably causes circular reasoning and infinite regressions.

Without a clear or concrete criterion of existence of reality, no existence can be determined logically and we can not state the existence of reality. Instead due to the doubt towards the existence of reality, and the lack of certainty of it, it can be stated that reality in truth does not exist. This answer may seem sufficient, but we must nonetheless examine that statement until its truth, or falsity is clear.

If reality is indeed nonexistent, we can formulate a statement of the nonexistence of reality. This statement would say, “Reality doesn’t exist.” Yet with the existence of such statement arises several fatal problems for our idea of nonexistence. If reality is indeed nonexistent, then how can we state it? As there is nothing that can observe this state of nonexistence. Then we assume that this statement is separate from the reality it is describing, even though in the process of creating this statement, a reality is caused. This statement has become “real”, and in fact we can also say something about this condition.

The statement of nonexistence of reality, while seemingly true is actually false for one thing, that the statement does not consider itself. This statement may be true if it speaks of everything outside of itself which may actually be empty. However, when it speaks of reality it must consider itself and its existence has been proven, no matter what. Consequently we can change that statement to “Reality exists,” or in relation to itself, “ ‘I’ exist,” and this is where our philosophical journey truly begins.

With this, the existence of reality is proven and guaranteed. What is interesting is that the existence of reality is not determined by anything outside of reality. And that this existence can state and prove its own existence, alike with the Cartesian conception of Cogito Ergo Sum. While there is not conceptual difference between our analysis and the Cogito, what differentiates the two is the expression. Where Descartes expresses it personally, we express this without person and detached from this thought. With the proof of existence, the next step is to determine pure reality.

Pure Reality

The primary essence of reality is indeed its existence, what exists is real and what is real exists. What differentiates reality and existence is if reality is a set, then existence is the quality of being within such set. Things outside of the set are not included within the set and is not the set either. This pure essence should not be debated, and neither have all philosophers or the common folk debate it. What is debatable is what comes next.

Generally speaking, people make the mistake of assuming empirical realities as pure realities even when no certain proof has been made in regards to our current reality. We only know the fact that reality is existence and vise versa, no more no less. As such we will also start from there, without adding or subtracting anything. The first thing that we can know is that reality is composed of a single statement which states itself. Since there is nothing aside from that idea, let us call it an entity.

The entity of reality, as the whole of reality and sole member of reality has several key traits that we can summarize as one word, consciousness. This is shown in the process of proving the existence of reality. First, reality can prove its own existence and can state itself, this means that reality as an entity can observe itself. In layman terms, the capability of self observation and self statement is called consciousness.

Consciousness itself can be developed further into the concept of freedom. That the consciousness stands alone and is not determined by external entities, which is a condition described as freedom by common folk. This freedom also points to self causation and of course, reality is not caused by any entities outside of itself as there is only one reality that is the reality of consciousness and freedom. With that we can be formulate a general conclusion of pure reality, that is the most basic form of reality is an entity that is self aware and self caused.

Reality and Sense

The trait of pure reality as a free and conscious reality has been proven and determined, but the problem lies with one question, what about our empirical reality we hold today? Truely, all things that are seen are still seen, and what is sensed is still sense. As such all that we know does exist and is real, though they are often not in the purest forms of reality. The pure form of reality is as said, the entity of consciousness and freedom. Then what is the concrete relations between  pure reality and empirical reality?

In its core all things within reality are one, as such whatever we see are merely manifestations or expressions of that singular reality. All things in this world exists and is real within the set of reality. Even what can not be thought of is also real and exists, or those that have died, gone, or has not happened. Yet they still exist and is part of the whole reality, just as us humans and other beings.

Of course the formulation of reality as consciousness and freedom is insufficient to create a concrete relationship between empirical knowledge and pure philosophy. Only after the pure reality is known completely we can form a concrete integration between philosophy and empiricism. What is certain is that we know that empirical objects exist not because we observe, but we can observe them because they exist. Meaning they exist independent of observation, and humans too exist in this manner. And of course, God is real without requiring humans to sense the Lord.

Closing

With this our first task of formulating pure reality is done. Of course pure reality meaning the most essential characteristics of reality, that is freedom and consciousness. Through the questioning of all things we can find that reality exists and it is not determined by anything outside of itself. And the fact that reality can state itself is proof that it is a conscious entity. However our task is not done, as we must now seek the true meanings of consciousness and reality, as well as its relation to our current reality. For that, our journey has only just begun, God bless.

Note: This text is to be archived due to the release of a newer essay which addresses more critical problems of existence. However, it is possible that in the far future there will be newer additions to this same topic once the philosophy has been made absolutely clear. Thank you for your understanding.

Methodology of Revolutionary Philosophy

Introduction

Revolutionary philosophy as a new way of acquiring truth requires a clear methodology. Methodology means a set of well defined rules in doing something, and the methodology of philosophy means the things that must be done or controlled in philosophy or the search of truth. We know that philosophy is the study of the most basic and pure truth, which means the object of philosophy is independent from sensory experience, for we know that the human form is not the purest form.

For the very least, we know of one certain rule in philosophy, that is the scope of understanding covered. In that matter, philosophy only covers the realm of ideas, making it idealistic. As the pure truth is unbound to anything, for it is the truth that binds all things. Philosophy also studies only the essence, and there must be one philosophical theory that ties all other theories into one complete philosophical theory. However, we will require a more complete methodology if we wish this to succeed.

Pure Philosophy

Pure philosophy refers to the most basic form of philosophy, that is the formulation of pure reality in complete and whole form. For philosophy can be used for other theoretical problems, such as integration, interpretation, and evaluation. But for this part pure philosophy shall be discussed first. We know that pure philosophy generally analyzes idealist problems and not empirical. This is because of the fact that the most important laws of this world are laws that in their purest forms, are idealistic. Materialism is merely an expression or extension of that pure form.

Pure philosophy is also invariant in its theory, in the sense that it only has one logical flow that is true in philosophy. The main reason is that in philosophy there must exist a standard of truth. In classical and contemporary philosophy, the cause of divide is the lack of a standard of truth or methodology that can unite all philosophy into one coherent idea. As such, we can also formulate that in pure philosophy there must exist a criterion of truth. This criterion is something that can determine the truth value of an idea or thing. For example in empiricism, the criterion is the human sensory experience, and what of the criterion in philosophy?

In philosophy, the criterion of truth is indeed simple, that is reality itself. On the contrary, a lack of knowledge on reality inhibits us from doing that and thus we are relegated to a lower standard that is the law of contradiction. That what is true can not contradict reality and will not lead to contradiction if true. In addition, since philosophy discusses the idealistic, then what it means by reality is the truth of reality or the idea of reality. This right idea is our method of determining truth in philosophy.

And how do we develop this first idea into a clear and true philosophical conception? The method we use is the logical deductive method, which is merely the human expression towards a basic natural law. Deduction does not produce anything new, instead it exposes according to reality and elaborate beyond what can be seen. Deduction also guarantees the truth of all conclusion if the premises are true. Induction and abduction are not used as we do not dwell with the empirical.

In pure philosophy, a method of absolute skepticism shall be used, in the sense of questioning and doubting all things until it is unquestionable and undoubtable. What is certainly true can not be doubted, as if it can then it is uncertain and a possibility of falsity arises. A hypothesis or assumption may be made, with the condition that it is tested and argued according to the pure truth and integrated with the truth. As from the pure truth we must take some assumptions and integrations with the material world to develop pure philosophy, or it will die.

As such it can be concluded that in pure philosophy reality is still used as the methodological guide. That all ideas of philosophy is produced according to the purest reality. This is expressed through absolute skepticism, so we only see reality and have no biases, through idealism to be independent of materialism and through deduction to arrive in the right conclusion. When our task of pure philosophy is done, the next step is the unity of all knowledge in the name of philosophy or integral philosophy.

Integral Philosophy

The goal of philosophy is to create an understanding of reality that is complete, whole, and pure. As such a unity between the idealistic philosophies and the empirical sciences of matter is required. The methods are not far different from pure philosophy, with the addition of interpretation. Empirical knowledge we have today may look separate and far from pure philosophy, but in truth they are expressions of the same thing, that is reality.

Thus what must be done is the connection of empiricism and philosophy, between basic ideas and the more complex empirical knowledge. And through that we can express all things in the terms of pure philosophy. Integration itself will be useful at times to develop pure philosophy itself, though in reference to empirical observations and not the empirical knowledge. The main goal is indeed to restore science and knowledge that tends to be separated and chaotic, such that the connection of all things can be seen.

With the achievement of integration and unity in the name of philosophy we can form a unified understanding of reality that is truely complete and connected. So that we know what must be done to reach a particular form. Though it must be understood that integral philosophy is the understanding of tendencies and laws, which are idealistic. On the other hand, the results of such laws are not covered by integral philosophy which are instead covered by interpretive philosophy.

Interpretive Philosophy

In a glance, interpretive philosophy may seem similar to integral philosophy, however as said integral philosophy merely analyzes the complete laws of reality. In the sense that it analyzes the constants and certainties of this world for all conditions, while interpretive philosophy interprets reality in the perspective of pure philosophy as well as a continual context, in concordance to what happened. For example in an event, then interpretive philosophy analyzes such event in detail and explains in terms of pure philosophy.

It is difficult to differentiate integration and interpretation, for both covers the same object that is the material world. The difference is the focus of analysis, while integration focuses on uniting knowledge, interpretation focuses on awareness or analysis of the true form of an event or condition. In other words, the right interpretation and view of an event, to know the meaning from such event. As a result, interpretive philosophy can be used to analyze historical texts and even literature.

An illustration that may help differentiate both is an analysis of World War 2. Integral philosophy will discuss the war from the material aspect, such as the loss of life, the destruction of civilizations, the ethics involved and so on. Intepretive philosophy on the other hand looks deeper into the pure conflicts and the meaning behind it. In theory it is often ambiguous, but in practice it is often made clearer.

Evaluative Philosophy

Evaluative or critical philosophy is the function and branch of philosophy which criticizes and corrects ideas or conditions that are not aligned with what should be. Critical philosophy is most useful in the contemporary ages as a revolutionary philosophy. Through pure philosophy we can evaluate elements of reality that are true or false in the current time, and evaluate ideas or concepts which are right or wrong according to pure philosophy.

Evaluative philosophy itself has a unique methodology in the evaluation or criticism or misleading concepts. This method is actually varied, but the most effective is to analyze the philosophical basis. Say a religion can be judged true or false as a whole through analyzing what becomes their basis of faith. Of course, as revolutionary philosophers we must remember that there are still values within a concept that may be misleading. As a consequence a problem must be understood wholly and evaluated as such as well. For that reason interpretive philosophy will be very useful in evaluative philosophy.

Unity of Philosophy

Truly this is merely one perspective on the wide methodology of philosophy. In the end all functions, branches, and methodologies of philosophy is still one in nature and inseparable. Through the whole and maximum utilization of philosophy we can find the whole and complete truth. The knowledge of methodology itself is still imperfect as the philosophy itself is undeveloped and unexplored. As such, the next thing that we must do is perfectly clear, that is to begin our philosophical journey, for a better world. God Bless.

Revolutionary Philosophy

Introduction

Since the days of old, mankind has always pondered with the questions of “What is the meaning of life?” and also “What is reality?” To question the meaning of life and to question reality are the most essential attributes of a human. In fact, it is what separates man from animal. Some may say that love is what makes man stand out, yet animals care for their offspring for the sake of collective survival. However, no beast can question their reality or their goal as humanity has. For to question reality is to question our identity.

In history, humans have found various ways to answer these critical questions. Beginning with the polytheism of tribal societies and other traditional beliefs, then into a local wisdom shrouded in darkness. And within the cities of Greek, emerges philosophy as an effort to search for the most essential truth, and from philosophy emerges the empirical sciences. Yet from the three sciences, philosophy is still the most important science, for philosophy searches for the roots, independent of anything else and the most pure.

However, philosophy has experienced a terrible regression and in fact a division. The analytics degrade philosophy into a slave of empiricism, and the continentals continue the tradition in continual divide. The pressures of empiricism that often seem to provide more comfort and clarity dissuade people from philosophy which tends to be abstract. In fact, the view that philosophy is dead or perhaps useless is not entirely abnormal in the modern age. Regardless, philosophy is still important for it is what separates man from animal, and as such we must seek to understand the importance of philosophy.

Essence of Philosophy

An understanding of the importance of philosophy begins with an understanding of what is philosophy. As the study has long been ignored and left behind with the other sciences, the definition of philosophy itself is hazy and unclear. Compared with biology which is the study of life, or chemistry the study of matter, and physics the study of the most basic universal mechanics. Some say philosophy is the search of truth, some say philosophy is the clarification of thoughts. Regardless it is still that there is no defined answer.

By essence philosophy is different from empirical sciences and also different from religious sciences such as theology or sacred texts. However philosophy retains some similarities with the two. For one, philosophy is a rational and skeptical science just like empirical science, but also considers immaterial objects as discussed by religion. Of course, all three sciences have the same goal, that is to find the highest truth of this world, not just humans but of the entire world.

As such, it can be said that philosophy is a study which has the task of finding the most basic and highest truth of everything in this world. Yet has not the two studies of empiricism and religion provide their answers? Then what separates philosophy from them? Of course, there is one difference, philosophy has no one clear answer, there has never been a single answer agreed by all philosopher about what is right. Perhaps it may be argued that philosophy analyzes the roots of this world, but does empiricism and religion not do the same? From there begins the regression of philosophy.

Regression of Philosophy

In the current ages philosophy has shrunk into a sort of science only known by professionals and no longer the attention of public. One of the reasons is that philosophy is too abstract and unclear. Many philosophical texts are made with language that are highly academic, professional, and abstract that can not be understood by the average citizen. The ideas tackled by philosophers are so detached from the real word, and can not be related with daily life. The complicated language of philosophy merely complicates its understanding.

Aside from its abstractness, the lack of certainty makes this study undesirable to search for the truth. Many philosophers rebut each other, and with the complicated language they use, the problems and conflicts of philosophy becomes harder to resolve. Unlike empiricism and religion which often has a standard of truth, philosophy tends to not have a standard of truth. The only criterion is if a concept does not lead to contradiction, and searching for contradictions is not as effective as we think.

Apart from the above difficulties, perhaps the greatest factor in the regression of philosophy is the rise of empiricism. Religion and tradition may have been more established since long, but empiricism still has greater pressure on philosophy. Empirical sciences tend to be clearer in their theory, as what is observed is something that can be observed, or an extension towards something that can be observed in daily life. Obviously superior to philosophy which goes in circles and lacks clarity. As a result, empiricism is the better choice compared to philosophy. Yet empiricism admits that it has no answer towards the problem of ethics, and that is where religion and tradition comes in.

Religion here refers to more than organized religion, that is to the traditional and cultural views of ethics. It’s just that religion is the public face of cultural ethics. Unlike empirical sciences, cultural ethics doesn’t have a single universal answer, but is tasked to each respective cultures to organize their own society. This is much more comfortable than philosophical ethics, as a universal ethics equate the destruction of the old social system, and for many people that is the loss of their identity. For that reason, local culture and personal identity is more comfortable as an ethical guide than philosophy.

With that, isn’t philosophy no longer important? For empiricism and tradition is sufficient to provide a generally accurate view of this world. For the problem of ethics, simply follow what has been done by our ancestors traditionally, and keep to our own kind. From a glance philosophy is obsolete in the search of truth, but again, in a glance. Because in truth, empiricism and traditional ethics can not be sustained as a methodology to search for truth for the reasons below.

Beyond Empiricism

Empiricism that is the view that all truth can be know only through sensory experience is a dangerous view. As clearly empiricism denies all things immaterial that is things that can not be sensed, and of course it means empiricism is against tradition and wishes to destroy the current social system, replaced with a more “scientific” one. Of course that is not the main problem, but the shallowness of empirical views.

Empiricists act like they are the skeptical and rational folk, when they believe all their sense without a shred of doubt. A genuinely skeptical person should question their senses, and based on empirical research it is proven that human sensory experience is inconsistent and generally untrustworthy. Of course it is not wrong to rely on our senses, but to trust it without doubt is wrong and misleading.

As said, empiricism alone can not produce a consistent and genuinely-good-for-all-beings system of ethics. Because in the eyes of empiricism, ethics does not exist and can not be proven at all. About the scientific truth claimed by empiricists, these truths rely on the assumption that the senses actually exist and sensory experience can be trusted. Such assumption has no logical basis and thus we can not claim sensory experience as the only source of knowledge.

Moreover, simple empirical facts prove that pure empiricism is just wrong. That the existence of ideas and also the ideas themselves are more important than mere physical sensation. For example, an idea of an apple is clearly separate and independent of the media of information about that apple. An empiricist may argue that the idea of apples exist empirically as electrochemical reactions in the brain, but clearly that is just some arbitrary media for the idea of apples. The media may be empirical, but the pure idea can not be comprehended empirically and is in fact, transcendent.

In conclusion, empiricism can not stand alone as a source of knowledge let alone to find the truth. Scientific and empirical methodology is indeed important and good to be used for a mechanical understanding of this world, however it is not the only source of understanding and must be perfected with other sources. This other source of knowledge is philosophy, while empirical science analyzes the sensible and form conclusions of the sensible, philosophy analyzes “nonsense” and forms “nonsensical” laws.

Against Tradition

If empiricism can not provide a complete answer towards reality, then tradition which is based on heart and human emotion would do even worse. The most critical issue of letting each cultures decide their own ethics is the resulting contradiction. Because in essence, each culture will have ethnocentric and xenophobic tendencies, unless such culture explicitly teaches world peace and love such as Jesus or Buddha. As such we can not take a relativistic approach towards ethics.

Tradition is also not analyzed to its very roots to examine its truth. The preservation of culture and tradition is more often than not based on reasons of emotion and historical preservation, not because the social norms contained are actually good for humanity. The preservation of culture for intellectual reasons is not a false goal, but as a way to find the truth it is not right. As there can not be two things that are true yet be contradictory. X can not be –X , there can only be one truth, but different expressions.

Regardless, tradition will not help in achieving the truth of mankind. In fact some traditions and cultures become evidence of the darkness and evil of men. Of course, this does not make tradition and culture as useless, merely the role of it must be adjusted. The search for truth can be open to different expressions, or towards immaterial objects but must always be made rational. Before going for expression, the pure forms of truth must be seeked first, so we can have a standard of truth.

Failure of Contemporary Philosophy

What of the analytic and continental schools of philosophy in the contemporary age? To be honest, contemporary philosophy has also failed in finding the truth. Especially analytic philosophy which sides with empiricism and degrades philosophy itself. The view that all knowledge comes from sensory experience is the death of philosophy, which is supposed to be our primary method of searching nonsensory truths. What of continentals? They are much better, but still tends towards ambiguity and confusion.

Some branches of continental philosophy such as phenomenology attempts to create an integration based on collective human experience, but this requires an empirical method just more interpretive and addressing transcendental issues. From this analysis, we can know that contemporary philosophy is unreliable to search for the truth. An epistemological anarchism has spread across the sciences, and we need a revolution. A revolution of philosophy.

Revolutionary Philosophy

In the search for truth, we require a new philosophical methodology, a revolutionary philosophy one might say. Revolutionary for this new philosophy must fight all previous sciences, and change it towards what is right. With this we can redefine philosophy as a clear and independent study as well as clearer goal of philosophy. And through this revolution, all science must be reunited and be made obedient towards the absolute truths.

The goal of revolutionary philosophy remains, that is to seek for the truth of reality, or the purest knowledge of reality. What differentiates philosophy from empiricism is philosophy is the study of the purest knowledge, which is independent of our senses. A knowledge that can be known just with our minds alone, a rationalist knowledge or a priori. Revolutionary philosophy must also be clear in its answer and the rest are merely different expressions. And of course, the revolution must be able in uniting all conceptions and knowledge into a concrete form that can be understood by humans, not abstract.

Closing

The needs of a revolutionary philosophy has been made clear. And thus our task is to dive into that philosophy and assemble it one by one. With a new methodology of philosophy, we hope for the revival of philosophy among the sciences. For it is what differentiates man from animal. And through the revolution, we will know the goal of our existence. God bless.