P H I L O S O P H Y P A T H W A Y S ISSN 2043-0728
Issue number 70
2nd November 2003
I. 'There's Such a Lot of World to See' by Hubertus Fremerey
II. 'Thales and Creation' by Jurgen Lawrenz
III. 'Violence: Between Non-Esthetic and Stupidity' by Tatomir Ion-Marius
Today's issue of Philosophy Pathways goes out simultanteously with issue 1 of
Philosophy for Business.
If you haven't yet subscribed to Philosophy for Business and want to know what
you're missing, you will find issue 1 archived on the International Society for
Philosophers web site at http://www.isfp.co.uk/businesspathways/
Enjoy your reading!
I. 'THERE'S SUCH A LOT OF WORLD TO SEE' BY HUBERTUS FREMEREY
I begin with a passage from John 8 (KJV):
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple,
and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and
taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto
him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in
the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken
in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be
stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to
accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger
wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself,
and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let
him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And
they which heard it, being convicted by their own
conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest,
even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman
standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself,
and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where
are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither
do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light
of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in
darkness, but shall have the light of life.
This text displays all three important aspects of human mutual understanding:
(1) Through "social understanding" Jesus knew what the scribes and Pharisees
intended. This he knew -- as we all do -- by experience. And by the same token
he knew how to convince them by their own conscience. The evangelist describes
a credible reaction when they all leave. And Jesus understood the woman too:
She may have felt real love for her lover. We may safely assume that Jesus was
well aware of these things. Thus in this too he was "understanding". And of
course he was fully of pity, since he felt her great fear. She was just about
to be killed.
(2) But Jesus understood -- like the women -- that there had to be some social
order to be obeyed. Thus the situation has some practical implications too,
even if it is "only" to back up the social order. This is implied in the
justifying argument: "Moses in the law commanded us, that such (adulteresses)
should be stoned".
(3) And there is even a "metaphysical" understanding: When Jesus said "go, and
sin no more !" he did not say "forget about it, don't worry, they are fools".
He acknowledged that there was sin. But sin is a metaphysical term, not a moral
one. A moral term relates to the rules of humans. A term like "sin" relates to
the rules of God or to some other holy or supra-natural order of values.
Today many people jeer at such a thing. But after we have solved our practical
and social problems, there remains a third class of problems arising from the
questions "What are we doing as humans in this world? What is the meaning of
our existence and of our deeds and of our life and fate?" Humans are
metaphysical animals, not only intelligent ones. They ask -- they have to ask
-- questions transcending the physical world, the world of touching and seeing
and hearing. This is the meaning of meta-physical questions.
The moral realm is a practical realm in the social sphere. But the notion of
sin lies outside of this moral realm. The notion of sin relates to the
situation of any single person or to a whole society with respect to the whole
of being, to the overarching order of things visible and invisible. And while
this way of seeing things may be impossible to have for any "non-metaphysical"
being, it is unavoidable for a "metaphysical" one.
Animals live "under conditions" but not "in situations". Only humans can be
aware of "situations", because this awareness requires "metaphysical phantasy",
seeing not only an "environment" but "a world". "God" like "the law of
gravitation" is not part of our environment but of our "world" . What we
call a world is only to be seen and reacted to with the inner eye of
imagination or theory. There are no "sense organs" save spiritual and
intellectual ones for this sort of "transcendent reality".
Humans are always "interpreting" the world they live in, they struggle over
"the true meaning and reading" of "the past" and "the future" and even "the
current situation". Animals never could struggle over "interpretations of their
situation" in this way, since they know of no "world". To call a situation
"unjust" is possible only for humans, since this notion alone requires the
metaphysical concept of justice. Such a concept is neither "empirical" nor
"rational" but "conceptual": It is a pattern of things AS THEY SHOULD BE -- not
as they are.
The "environment" of animals is essentially "imprinted on them by their genes"
. The "world" of humans is not imprinted on them at all, but is suggested by
"collective knowledge and traditional wisdom" and by the language and its
concepts and by "stories" and "histories". Those all -- religions,
philosophies, sciences, sayings and folklore, ideologies, histories etc. --
build up "the world we live in". This is not so much a "genetic" world but a
"memetic" one, spreading cultural "memes" -- collective and private memory
contents -- instead of natural "genes" .
Of course there are "natural needs" in some way. There is hunger and thirst,
there is cold and heat, there is the need to sleep, there is illness and pain
etc.. But there are spiritual hunger and thirst "for justice" or "for truth" or
"for beauty" etc. too. There is spiritual illness and spiritual pain -- and even
a great spiritual tiredness and exhaustion sometimes. Thus human "reality"
always is an artificial one, a cultural one to a very great part. Not even
"hunger" or "sex" in humans are "natural", since otherwise the notions of
"chastity" and "fasting" would be meaningless. But they are valued in most if
not all religions. No behaviourist external observer could explain the
existence of monasteries and the vows to "poverty, chastity, and obedience".
This metaphysical longing is real and essential in humans. As I wrote
elsewhere: "Jesus was not teaching "group dynamics" nor guiding "encounter
groups" and not stimulating "good vibes". His setting was of a much greater
scale, even greater than the Roman Empire.'.
There is the natural eye, seeing the physical world with its physical objects
-- mountains, clouds, trees, animals, other humans etc. -- and there is the
spiritual eye, the imaginative eye, seeing worlds to be or to come or worlds
invisible. And these "invisible worlds" are not at all "mere fancy and
nonsense" or "delusion and superstition". Of course they are in many cases. But
how do we see the worlds of Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity" or of
Quantum Mechanics or of mathematics? Those are invisible worlds existing in our
theories and in our brains only. They have no visible mode of existence. But
they guide us to the right behaviour in technical things where cars and radios
and computers and other technical devices are impossible to have without those
Similiarly our social relations are usually formed and transformed or at least
modified in the light of some metaphysical concepts -- Christian or Islamic or
Buddhist or Confucian or socialist or liberal or in some other way.
This, then, is my question concerning "good society": What values and ideas
concerning human togetherness and human future should be picked from a vast
offer for getting at a better future for humankind?
What would we call a better future in this sense? I think we should call a
better future one that we could be proud of in the eyes of future generations
of human or non-human descendants in a distant future. And even if we make some
stupid choices this time, intelligent beings looking back from a distance of
some hundreds or thousand years should be able to grant us the best intentions
and the most serious efforts. The worst thing we should fear is to be valued in
a distant future as having been sloppy and egotistic and thoughtless and much
behind our own best standards.
The most important difference is not between "dreams" and "reality" but between
"good" and "bad" dreams. Humans are always driven by dreams. The important
question is whether you are loving and helping your neighbor in the name of
your dreams -- or suppressing, torturing and killing him. The important
question is whether you are loving the world you live in, or despising and
neglecting it for your dreams. So many people are full of hate when confronted
with the world and the future and with other people. They want to get rid of it
all and they enclose themselves in their dreams as in tanks and fighter-planes.
In this respect our evaluation of Plato and Plotinus and St.Augustine and Dante
may be ambivalent: While they showed us great visions of an ideal faultless and
eternal world, they tended to dismiss this imperfect world surrounding us as
meaningless and rotten, whereas Aristotle and Cicero and St.Thomas and even
Luther and Calvin and surely Erasmus and Kant and Hegel and Marx tried to keep
our eyes down to the requirements of everyday life without ever losing sight of
the greater ambitions of the human soul.
You cannot build up a better world of more mutual love and respect and better
cooperation and understanding if you don't love this world and its people and
its future. You cannot build up a better future without sincerity, honesty, and
love, accepting the fact that there is much hard work to do. And this explains
why Hitler and Stalin and their likes were not up to the task. They did not
like this world and they did not really love life and humans and not even the
future. What they loved most was their own power. They were full of fear and
hate, so they needed power to keep their hate and fear down. They were able to
spend millions of people and even the future of the world for their private mad
obsessions and their interest in human future and well being was only a pretence
to stay in power. It all was a great lie. What they lacked was love and the
sense of decency and humility flowing from it. You never will build a good
future or good society from arrogance.
See Don Quijote instead: Don Quijote -- while being enclosed in some delusions
about what we generally call "reality" -- was full of real love for what he
took to be "Gods creation". And in a similar way, whether he was right or wrong
on the real nature of things, St.Francis was full of love towards all creatures
too. Thus we all may be dreaming, we all may live in delusions, but to love or
not to love -- that is the question.
It does not matter whether we have a free will or not. We have to choose from
options, so there have to be options -- the more of them the better. Today we
call poverty a scandal and a sign of "backwardness", of historical and social
"under-development". But before "Enlightenment" nobody would have thought so.
Up to some 300 years ago "poverty" was simply part of normal reality and had to
be accepted. Thus "Enlightenment" has brought about just as great a shift in our
understanding of what "reality" is as has Christendom during the 4th century AD.
It is in our minds -- privately and collectively -- how we see "human greatness
and dignity". There can be no "objective" criteria. Our measure of what is great
and dignified is a collective and private vision checked against private and
collective experience. The great saints and sages and poets show us models of
man -- good ones and bad ones -- to sharpen our awareness of options to select
from. As Goethe once put it in a distichon for his little son:
Keep to the images of the great. Like shining stars did
Nature place them across the immensity of space.
No, we are no automata. We have to make choices since there are choices to be
made, so we are responsible for picking the better ones by our best insight and
understanding. If something is bad, mean, and disgusting, we should say so. And
if something is great, noble, and worth our best endeavours we should go for
it. But this is not "out there" for physical measurements, it is "in there" for
the visionary and admiring mind. But this mind is always deceivable by false
dreams and misguiding visions. And that is the problem. Nothing is more
deceivable than idealism. But the existence of false gold does not prove the
non-existence of the true one. There are many false saints, but there are some
real saints too. Even the Buddha found some ground to stand on. We have to find
There remains one strange question: Why do we try to improve ourselves and the
world around us and to build up a better future at all? Why not simply dream
great and lovely dreams using drugs ? Some say that we do this all the time
already, that we always live in a web of lies and self-deceptions --
socio-religious ones (Feuerbach), economic-political ones (Marx),
moral-erotical ones (Freud), and others.
In a certain sense there is this web of self-deception. There is "maja" in the
Buddhist sense and the web of collective self-deception and alienation in the
sense of the Frankfurt School . But this too is ambivalent. Of course you
may call love and honour and dignity and greatness "deceptive", as did the
behaviourist F.B.Skinner . But then take all deeds of love and honour and
dignity and greatness from the world and from history: What do you gain by
this? "Clarity"? What clarity? The clarity of materialism, of human rats
running in a lust-maze for some pellets?
The credo of Skinner, put on top of the page of the Skinner-Foundation, reads:
"The major problems of the world today can be solved only if we improve our
understanding of human behavior" (About Behaviorism, 1974). To this I could
subscribe. But not even Skinner knew what will be lost by applying this great
program in a stupid way. And that's the problem. There is always this danger to
get humans down to be "mere intelligent rats" -- which is not "realistic" but
simply plain stupid.
Sure: Culture can be seen as being nothing else than a man-made maze. And by
this one may even call "eternal bliss" a spiritual pellet and the whole of
Plato and Aristotle and Christianity and Islam and of Renaissance and
Enlightenment and all else comes down to nothing, and all those temples and
cathedrals come down to nothing too and fall in ruins. But once more: What do
we gain by this? Does beauty stop to be beautiful? Does truth stop to be great?
Does what is good between humans or between humans and animals and nature turn
sour? What do we gain by this "clarity" of the sceptics and materialists? We
still are humans carrying "our primate inheritance" with us. It would be the
worst of all self deceptions to think otherwise. Those "saintly robots" and
"super-humans" are not yet here.
There have been time and again those false dreams to be torn down. This was
what the Buddha and Socrates and Jesus and Kant and Marx and Freud and
Wittgenstein and some others always tried to do. But to tear down a house
before it comes down all of itself is not to deny the value of a house. We have
to tear down old houses, but then we have to build new ones. Humankind is
growing in history all the time -- so we need new houses like the snakes need
new hides. But there never will be "clarity" in the sense of the sceptics. The
clarity of the sceptic is a sterile sort of clarity begetting no offspring, no
charming babies to grow up and invent a better future and make it happen. The
sceptic is no artist or engineer. There need to be critics. But the best critic
is the artist and novelist and architect and composer and scientist and
philosopher and politician etc. whose work is better than those criticized.
Those creative people are all moved by visions and ideas that they want to
realize. They are inventive and trying to transform this world into a better
one in some way. There is not only a great hope and longing in the human soul,
but there is a great creative force driven by this hope.. If you mourn some
love you either light some candles on a grave or you build a Taj Mahal. Thus
you even may transform great pain into smaller or greater works of art or
science or politics. In this way humankind explores and transforms the world
and the future according to its visions.
1. To be precise: The FACT of gravitation is physical and empirical of course,
but the THEORY of gravitation is not. Before Newton's work (1687) there was no
THEORY of gravitation. Even today the "empirical" world is full of facts and
experiences we are not really aware of since we lack a proper theory to rouse
2. See Jakob von Uexkuell (1864-1944) on the environments of animals:
http://www.zbi.ee/~uexkull/link.htm and http://www.zbi.ee/~uexkull/cv.htm. From
the latter I cite: "His later work was devoted to the problem of how living
beings subjectively perceive their environment and how this perception
determines their behaviour. In the book Umwelt und Innenwelt derTiere (1909) he
introduced the term Umwelt to denote the subjective world of organism." Further
see: "Constructivism" http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/people.html On
"ethology" see: http://erl.ornithol.mpg.de/~fshuman/EngHomep/eindex.html and
http://kalan.freeyellow.com/ and look up the names of Karl von Frisch, Konrad
Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen in the list of Nobel-Laureates
and http://www.geometry.net/nobel/lorenz_konrad.php and
3. On "memetics" see http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/ and from this
http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/overview.html for a short history of this concept.
4. See Pathways Issue 66 as of Sept.7, 2003
5. On Huxley's "Brave New World" and on "happiness drugs" and "paradise
engineering" see http://www.huxley.net/
6. On the Frankfurt-School see
7. F.B.Skinner (1904-90) popularized his views in his books "Walden Two" and
"Beyond Freedom and Dignity" (1971). The title "Walden Two" plays on "Walden,
or Life in the Woods" published by H.D.Thoreau in 1854. On Skinner see
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/skinner.html where some further remarks on
"Walden Two" and on "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" are given.
8. On this see Ernst Bloch (1885-1977) "The Principle of Hope" (dt.1960)
A final note:
The title of this paper is taken from the song "Moon River". See
(c) Hubertus Fremerey 2003
II. 'THALES AND CREATION' BY JURGEN LAWRENZ
1. The oldest philosophical question known to us is associated with the Greek
thinker Thales of Miletos. I call it a question rather than a proposition
because we are hardly in a situation of certainty in regard to the origin of
the opinion, usually attributed to him, that water (or perhaps just moisture)
is the fundamental stuff. Our most reliable source, Aristotle (in his
'Metaphysics'), after affirming that such a view 'seems' to have been promoted
by Thales, then goes on to furnish explanations of the kitchen-maid type: well,
can't you see that we're all full of water, likewise all plants, and that, if
you look really hard, you can find water even in rocky and desert landscapes.
If this were the long and the short of it, philosophers would have to be even
more loony than they're often accused of being. But of course the point is not,
despite Aristotle, water as such, but that in Thales' proposition an underlying
question about our relation as interrogators of Nature is expressed. For
example: are life, existence, the world really intelligible? Are we looking at
a rational structure in our attempt to apprehend the cosmos? Are the
connections between all elements of which this cosmos consists reducible to a
single primordial substance; and if so, is reconstitution possible by
transformation upwards? Questions of this sort reverberate beneath the overt
suggestion that one answer might be 'water'.
Roughly speaking, then, Thales proposed not so much a question but an agenda.
The intellectual milieu in which he lived and worked was still dominated by the
'Just-so' stories of Chaos and Rhea, Uranos and Gaia and their ample menagerie
of anthropomorphised forces: which to an inquisitive intellect like Thales'
and, perhaps, others among the intelligentsia of Ionia, comprised a highly
unsatisfactory bundle of closed off explanations, tantamount in fact to a
refusal to explain anything. Reasoning should be able to do better than this.
Accordingly everyone who has ever written on Thales -- myself included -- has
pushed the philosophical barrow of principle and left the idea of 'water as
arche' to fend for itself or acknowledged it as, at best, a primitive means to
insert an intellectual wedge into an admittedly big and intractable cognitive
2. Still, inadvertence can do marvellous things on occasion. We are not
unfamiliar with spooky anticipations. Many of these are nothing more than idle
dreams -- but even as dreams and fancies they may convey hints to us about the
idiosyncrasies of thinking (e.g. Leonardo's helicopter). But to stay with
Thales' era, recall that Anaximenes substituted air for water as the
fundamental stuff. There is pretty sound principle behind this, namely that a
more malleable substance is needed to enable all the transformations to occur
which are required of an 'Urstoff'. In particular, a sort of tremulous
intimation of a continuum of matter states (phase changes) makes itself felt in
this substitution of gas for a liquid. We should not forget that Anaximenes
wasn't a chemist: it was pure guesswork on his part and it took about 2000
years to confirm that air and water share some of the same atomic matter in
their constitution. So the idea of a foundational matter of all there is begins
to sound a little more logical. We are not indeed compelled to dismiss either
water or air as candidates for serious philosophical contemplation. And now I
want to use this little fact to propose in my turn that -- albeit from a
totally anachronistic point of view -- Thales and Anaximenes had between them
struck the right idea after all.
3. Consider the following:
(a) In our dictionaries, all entries beginning with the
prefix 'hydro' have a denotation of liquidity. Its Greek
root word means "maker of water".
(b) This is not coincidental, for hydrogen is after all the
dominant element in water.
(c) Now hydrogen is the simplest and lightest atomic
element in the periodic table and a completely colourless
and odourless gas.
(d) The hydrogen atom owns just one orbital electron, on
which account it is called 'symmetrically ambivalent', for
it may donate or accept an electron from other atoms.
(e) This ambivalence, however, makes hydrogen highly
active. There are more compounds involving the hydrogen
atom than any other (carbon comes a close second).
(f) It is supposed that hydrogen is dispersed throughout
the universe and accounts for roughly 90 per cent of the
whole complement of atoms contained in it.
(g) Moreover it is believed that hydrogen is the source of
all matter in the universe through fusion processes in the
interior of stars. More particularly hydrogen is present in
all animal and vegetable tissue.
(h) Most crucially, however, hydrogen decay is a multistep
process, and every now and then a carbon atoms is ejected
from this furnace. -- No carbon, no life: so clearly
without this byproduct of hydrogen fusion we would not be
here to discuss the question.
Returning from this 'scientific' excursion to home waters, we might wish to
draw some philosophical conclusions. Essentially the problem, when viewed from
such a perspective, reduces to a criterion of relevance: what do we mean by
'stuff'? Whose answer, the physicist's or the chemist's, shall be espouse?
For a long time now we have inclined to the former, bewitched by the vocable
'fundamental'. Somewhere along the line we forgot that this expression is
mortgaged to infinite regress -- a hard task master. Since my perspective here
is governed by the Thalesian agenda, I'm inclined to reject the knee-jerk
agreement between fundamentals and physics, though not without a short sideways
glance at some pretty cogent reasons.
First: one might be tempted to say that every time we look, yesterday's
fundamental particle has been demoted by today's new candidate. However, if you
keep looking, you will eventually detect some telltale signs of pretty queer
goings-on. Just consider how many 'particles' in this zoo have zero mass, zero
momentum, zero everything, and you may get more than an inkling that the idea
of a 'property' in this context describes exactly the Emperor's new clothes.
Accordingly there is observable, even among physicists, a strong drift away
from the billiard ball model of fundamental particles and over to the concept
of a 'field'. Yet I shall propose that even this turnabout is not completely
satisfactory -- not the answer to a philosophical conundrum.
Therefore I'm tempted to suggest that the concept of matter is in such dubious
shape as to be almost meaningless. This wasn't always the case; as I said we
seem to have lost track of what we were looking for when the notion of
fundamentality took on a life of its own. But to come to the point: I would
suggest that the concept of matter is completely misapplied when used in a
subatomic context. All the items below that line represent (to revert to an old
Aristotelian distinction) nothing more than a potential for matter. To satisfy
the criterion of a 'matter state', this potential requires actualisation; and
there is but one avenue for this to eventuate: namely assembly in an atom.
That the particles making up such an atom are its constituents is neither here
nor there -- this is precisely where the spectre of infinite regress rears its
ugly head. For it is easily shown that 5000 electrons do not by themselves
comprise anything remotely apprehensible as matter; but the same 5000 electrons
distributed into formal arrangements among atoms tell a different story. For in
such an arrangement they become members of chemical aggregates, that is to say
clearly defined and articulated, 'actualised' matter.
What we have been doing, in our emphasis to locate fundamental particles via
physics, is to keep looking for constituents of constituents of constituents,
without taking care of the concept with which we began, and which indeed
disappeared from right under our nose. Analogously one might have defined all
mankind as one big brotherhood, and then begun reduction of the term to nation,
province, neighbourhood, club and family -- but somewhere along this line the
idea of a brotherhood meets its inevitable limit. A person is not a
brotherhood, though they might be a member of many.
Concluding: matter is minimally defined as one atom. And this where our search
ends. Below that level a different -- radically different -- concept reigns.
And since hydrogen does possess the properties mentioned above, it qualifies as
'the fundamental stuff'. Maybe 100 per cent fundamentality was aiming too high
in the first place. But in every other respect, water was a pretty good guess
for someone living about 2500 years before the technology was available to
pronounce with finality that it was just a guess. But all the same, only a near
(c) Jurgen Lawrenz 2003
III. 'VIOLENCE: BETWEEN NON-ESTHETIC AND STUPIDITY' BY TATOMIR ION-MARIUS
Greetings dear mr.Klempner,
Here is something I wrote on Peace. I would be glad if it
would be published in philosophy pathways.
Anyway, doesn't matter. Enjoy it:)
"They shall see the door of life, and they will enter with
great joy in their hearts, and they will find peace."
Introduction: The way.
The future of human rights depends on us, to create a more enlightening and
stronger foundation for its support, through education and promotion of the
true values of the human race -- of which the most precious is peace, the
integration and continuation of history with this holy crown and divine gift.
Mankind's duty is to obtain it, keep it, and to never lose it...in a global
harmony to work for the equality of the social classes, for the disappearance
of differences, fights, misunderstandings, in preparing the inauguration of a
new Era -- the Era of the human, where we shall have only one truth, only one
master, only one reason to lead the life:
1. the only Truth -- the Light,
2. the only Master -- Goodness,
3. the only Reason to lead the Life -- to share truth and goodness with all
We need peace.
To cry, or not to cry...that is the question...
Daily reports inform us about crimes and explosions caused by criminal hands;
children, old people, young people are losing their lives in suffering, for
they have no food and water, while the big players of international politics
spend millions of dollars on armaments and military equipment and actions...
Interethnic wars, pollution, disease, accidents, earthquakes, floods -- there
are so many aspects of the human tragedy -- why are these "players" blind, what
kind of blindness has covered their eyes, that they do not see all these things?
They do not hear, they do not see...we must put the question...really, why do
we need such statue-like leaders, without sensibility, without shame, without
Well, you will surely ask me, what do I mean by 'human feelings'? I will answer
By human feelings I understand the normal predisposition to be merciful and
peace loving, to put the interests of society first, and all that these
interests consist in: the healing of pain, giving a helpful hand to all who
need it, homes for the homeless people, to build and not to destroy -- and only
charity can do it -- to bring consciousness as closely as possible to the notion
HUMAN, to give education and set an example to the youth in this spirit, to
discover, to appreciate, to understand, and to practice the values of this
We need peace.
Now, I will show you, what I think on violence.
The violence, the destructive force, which characterizes a great part of the
world is a form of suicide of mankind.
And our duty, the duty of those of us who are peace loving, constructive
people, is to stop this degenerative process which poisons the hope of the
future of our children, and like a nightmare is spoiling the beautiful dreams
that we build for them.
How can we let these things happen?
Everyone must see the horrible, hideous, repulsive face of violence, its ugly
apparition, with its typical effects: death, torture, mutilated people, tears
from the eyes of mothers, sons, wives, fathers, children without childhood; and
more than that, not just to see, but never accept, use or make concessions to
Homo sapiens must to become "Homo Pacificus".
I am sure you have observed the stupidity of violence -- because it is a form
of self-destruction of the human race, and of the planet. It is between the two
negative philosophical categories of stupidity and the non-esthetic that I place
Just to build, just to construct, to elevate -- just in these actions the
esthetic takes part, and any distancing from these principles constitutes the
contrary of peace, the beautiful, the esthetic, and the approach to violence,
to the ugly, to the non-esthetic, in other words:
Stop the violence.
In conclusion: to prefer violence is to love self-destruction. To assimilate it
is to choose the category of the non-esthetic -- an absolutely abnormal
decision, which rational people will not do.
To say things accordingly: Violence-loving people are blind (without spiritual
sensors), and more than that, stupid (without the capacity to have a good way
of thinking -- the rational way of Descartes Cogito, ergo sum...).
No nation needs leaders promoting violence -- but Justice in constructive way.
We need humans, not statues without feelings,
we don t need segregation, but unity,
and this unity is possible to find through mercy, charity, respect towards
human rights and values.
May God bless us, all the peoples believing in the constructive principles and
in the supremacy of peace.
(c) Tatomir Ion-Marius 2003
Philosophy Pathways is the electronic newsletter for the
Pathways to Philosophy distance learning program
To subscribe or cancel your subscription please email your
request to email@example.com
The views expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily
reflect those of the editor. Contributions, suggestions or
comments should be addressed to firstname.lastname@example.org