The Philosophy of the Broken

.

.

The Philosophy of the

.

Broken

.

.

by Carl Baydala

.

Lately, I have been studying philosophy, concentrating on the important men in the field and their ideas. You will notice that I said men because I have not yet encountered any famous women in the field. This is a fact, and it is quite instructive a feature of the study of philosophy I think you will agree, but it does not lay at the center of my proposed Philosophy of the Broken.
.
I looked at the Greek philosophers, the so-called modern ones, and finishing up by considering the thoughts of the existentialists. I can relate a great deal to the personalities of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger et al. The first two philosophers are a personal interest because of their problems with women. Undoubtedly, their world views were influenced by their relationships with women, as have mine.
.

Schopenhauer was a misogynist and Nietzsche was dumped. I have had my own personal experiences with women that are not entirely positive. But, I do not hate women. Quite the contrary, I find them to be fascinating creatures and, for myself, they could easily form the basis of a personal life philosophy and view of the world. One, in order to survive has to think of positive things and not negative ones. I think that is where the existentialists fall down in their philosophies. In their quest for meaning and understanding of being, for example, they are far too negative in their outlook for man and of his ability to create a workable philosophy.

.

This does not mean that I am an idealist or that I would side with the Christians or any other person thinking that an all-knowing entity exists somewhere in the sky or in the far reaches of the universe. I am troubled by this belief in a Divine One, a Creator of all things. I don't think things happened that way at all.

.

The Greek philosophers were interested in understanding why they came to be and created ideas about philosophy that we still relate to today. Any serious modern or existentialist philosopher still considers the views of the ancients; that is how important these people were in the development of philosophical thought. Plato was an idealist and he proposed ideas about things that have existed forever, something called the Forms; these are abstract ideas and idealized perfect things that man only has to discover by thinking about them. The idea of a god would form such a view.

.
But, on the other side of the idealists are the materialists. These people think all life and ideas are formed from matter. Some of the early Greek were ' atomists ' which is the belief that all life is part of indivisible matter. Early materialists were the Greeks Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus. This is my conception of things as well. Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx were later materialists who challenged the Christian view of things in the nineteenth century. There is also something called Dualism which considers the relationship of the mind and the Spirit.

.
There has been a steadfast group of philosophers in the western tradition who still consider that God exists and this idea forms part of their philosophy. Most of the modern Renaissance men were Christians so it was hard to extricate this influence in their life. God had a role to play and he could be used to explain that mysterious force which controls all things.

.
In the modern context, however, philosophers began to think about this force as being some kind of 'Will' that propels man and his action. You can call it the 'Thing in Itself ' or just the main driving force of man. A philosopher's whole life can be consumed with the business of knowing and reasoning based on the information that is available.

.
But, whatever philosophy you subscribe to, be it Christian or god oriented or based on some materialistic conception of things there is, I believe, a central theme to consider. And, that is, that man is essentially broken. As a corporeal being and as a spiritual being. The existentialists concentrate on this notion of being, and I think that is the right approach to take. I am me. I am Carl Baydala, existing in the here and now. I know not from what or where I came from and neither do I know what my fate is in the future. My origins are unclear as well any possible future outcome. Everything is in doubt. If there is a God I am separated from him and I do not know him. The link is broken. And, in the materialist sense there is a brokenness as well. Why is there man and woman? Who or what decided that these two creatures should exist side by side and require the sexual cooperation of each other for the continuation of their species. Why?

.
The modern philosopher, if he is not a Christian is a thinking man. He is forced to be because he knows that no rational answer is available for the explanation of things. The Christian person can live a life of fantasy if that is his want, but he still does not know if the Entity exists or not. And, even his life is given to soul searching and becoming closer to God or of trying to understand him. He is making up ideas in his mind about something he believes exists, but cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the case or not. So, in a way, he is still separated from his god as well; he wants to move closer to the Entity. Just as the modern materialist philosopher wants to move closer to the truth. The atheist is not going to deny the existence of a 'God'. That god for him is going to be the culmination of his entire being and of this thought processes. Man could be God Amighty himself, or nature could be God. These are possibities among many. He doesn't know and that forms the basis of his knowledge. Man is separated from reality because he does not really know it. Man is limited by what he can know in the finite as well as the infinite. He is missing some information. He does not know if the infinite exists because he cannot imagine it. Man tries to get to the bottom of things through logic. That is his main tool and this is where the ideas about reality, being, and knowledge are thrashed about. He can, or will most likely work out a logical explanation of the physical world about him. But, it is like being stuck in a closed box in the middle of outer space and someone chucks an object inside of that box. His job is to explain that object and his next job is to explain who or what is responsible for placing the thing in his presence.
.
Man is a broken or separated creature. He is broken because he cannot truly understand his reality in relation to others and why he came to exist in the form that he did. He is detached from his God if he has one, and in everyday life must absorb the meaning and existence of the objects that surround him.
.
But, I really believe that understanding women may be the answer to all of life's mysteries. In women you find mystery in a whole host of ways. They are different in physical form and they can be challenging mentally as well. Call it love or lust as I mention above, but man is drawn into women for the purposes of sex and reproduction. Man and women are just matter, matter all broken up and split in two. Maybe the Greeks were right about man and woman originally being one entity. Maybe the entire universe was one solid mass at one time and then everything just broke apart; the galaxies and all the other phenomena in space were tranformed. Maybe the concept of life did not exist in the far past. Maybe life did just evolve from nothing as they say. Does that involve the work of the Almighty? Not necessarily I would retort. As a materialist I have to stick to my guns. I do think all things are created from matter, including thought. And, that is the true secret of the universe is it not? The origin and nature of thought I mean. If this theory is true then you would have to examine what the essence of thought is and upon discovering that you would have to say that some other form of matter at some time was involved in the business of thought. Can a rock think? If you are a materialist like myself you would have to answer in the affirmative. The philosopher John Locke, a former idealist turned atheist thought as I do in this matter. Can you imagine myself having to appear in a courtroom somewhere in the backwaters of space and defend such a notion such as that? Well, that is precisely what the Christians are doing by saying that God exists. And, all they are doing is defending an Idea.

.

I would begin my case by thrusting into the hand of each juror in that courtroom a piece of rock, a glass or a puddle of water, any burning flame or any other form of matter that I could get my hands on. And, I would explain to the court that these are the things that I know, that I know them as I know my own body. These are my realities as they are your own. You can understand the essence of these things better than any other thing including all of the ideas in your mind. These ideas in your mind may have essences and meanings I do not disagree. We both know what they are and that is how we understand one another - we agree on meanings. You must decide the case based on this issue and this alone. And, here it is. Does the idea that we both know exist forever ( say the notion of a Supreme Being ) or is the matter that exists forever in all of its various forms? If we both accept logic as the basis of our agreement then which is the more likely or believeable of the two? Matter does not die or disappear and neither does an idea in some instances.

.

But, there is a difference and an essential difference in the two. An idea can exist, but did it exist forever like the Forms of Plato? Again, the answer may be yes. But, I would qualify the response by saying that this eternal idea could not exist without the mind identifying its existence. Therefore, for this idea to exist required some matter to contemplate it. How do we know if God existed for an eternity if we do not create a concept for that to occur? Or, maybe you think that up in the skies the ideas talk to themselves as they stroll about on their merry way. Perhaps 'Beauty' herself is walking in the park one day and comes across 'Goodness' and wishes her a " Good Day. " And, similarly 'Goodness' responds by wishing her all of the happiness that she can muster up . And, the 'Lord God Jehovah' himself, perhaps even aided by 'Jesus Christ' would have have occasion to bid a " A Happy Good Morning. " to them both. This chance meeting could occur regularly if they are such pervasive ideas in the universe. Like radio waves maybe all they need is a receiver to acknowledge their existence. An idealist and believer in God would ultimately have to believe in these kinds of things if he is to be credible and consistent, and logical. But, an Atheist, on the other hand, would question the eternal nature of these sorts of ideas, and his primary proof would be that he never heard of such things until another human told him about them. He did not have occasion to imagine them for himself, but if he did he would most surely question why he is thinking these kinds of things. Can you perceive of some idea wandering about in space that exists without someone knowing about it? Why would a rational idea exist if someone could not recognize it? What would be its purpose in " life " if this were the case? Think about a beautiful woman prettying herself up to be noticed. Do you think her intended object of affection is another idea, or some human thing who is possessed by an idea about beauty and as a consequence of that would be able to appreciate the efforts of the female?

.

To prove my case in its finality I would say the following: For an idea to exist in its eternal manner required the former existence of some matter. That idea became an extension of matter; it is the objective reality of matter and hence becomes a real thing to the creator, which in this case is man. This is where all ideas reside and is the home of the Christian God as well. Logically, it can be no other way. That is why there are a multitude of gods and religions in the world, because there is a multitude of peoples thinking differently about ideas such as gods and religions.

.

Ideas are the abstractions that become mirrors for man; they allow him to see himself. The consciousness of man created these things. Did a piece of matter wake up one day and say: today is the day that I am going to create an idea so that I may better understand myself. Maybe not a piece of matter, per se, but most likely the coming together of a multitude of matter, and combined with a catalyst ( some other form of matter ) allowed the entity of man to be finally formed, culminating in a brain that could think, and create ideas which are meanings for him; they are his tools of understanding. How can he understand himself if he cannot draw a picture or envision an idea which makes sense to him? He does these things to understand himself and his condition in the universe. His actions are the recognitions and expressions of his thought; his thought is that thing that enables him to know. His ideas and those of others are his only means of knowing. I am thinking right now. How do I know this? Because I formed an idea or something that described this phenomenon for me. Thinking is the abstraction of the reality; it allows to me to understand; it is my meaning provider. I do not know that my Being is real until I can devise a method to test this out and prove it. Thinking does that. Do you think God is planting all of these ideas in my mind or is mind, which is composed of matter, doing all of the work? Maybe we should check the sparks of electricity and the chemicals reacting to one another in my mind to determine whether or not they are coming from outer space or whether the source is inside of my brain.

.

The Christians, I know, would counter with the argument that God the 'ClockMaker' made it all come together and that is how man and the universe were created. Think about what the Christian is doing with his philosophy here. He is using ideas, not facts to explain his case. His arguments are flowery and fanciful, but they are only speculation and imagination. They can be nothing else because his god is an imaginary one. First, he has envisioned his God in the sky and now this objectification takes on further meaning for him; it allows him to override all logic and place this mystical god on a pedestal - he becomes the Supreme Ruler and Creator of all things. But, he is still just an idea and no more. Each individual person has to decide for himself or herself if that idea existed forever without the benefit of the human brain discovering it. If you did not exist you would never have heard of the notion of the Christian God. This does not mean that " He " did not or does not exist. It just means that you are never going to find out in any human way that we know about; to the human mind God is only an idea.

.

But, to return to my final argument. Man is matter broken up into two pieces, man and woman. The Greeks did it and so did the Jews. They made woman separated from man, but originally part of him. Why? Because all matter is one. Maybe that is why the Jews settled upon a monotheistic religion as opposed to the polythiests; they wanted to bring it all together again.

.

The Will, the Force, the God, the Love, the whatever you want to name it are things that attempt to explain the whole thing for us. Man desires woman. He does not desire the idea of a woman. A woman for him exists. She is a real object that is separated and different from him, physically. The Christians explain to her that she was created out of man. What kind of a life is that for a woman? How is she supposed to react? Maybe that is why she was given the role of childbirth; to become equal with man in his ability to create things. Does this mean that God is a fair God then in this regard? Does fairness enter the picture as a dominant theme in understanding? You can believe this if you like, but more likely the psychological theme would be that woman is separated from man. They both appear to desire one another and to become whole again, and they want to continue on living forever. And, so they create children. If man cannot live forever at least his progeny can. Man desires to be whole and sexual union is part of that desire. He also like the idea of eternity as well; so maybe some pleasurable experiences have aided him in this desire. And, if man had not heard about God and the Devil and Hell do you think he would be so concerned about death if he did not " know " it?

.

But, I think the Christians are on the right track in a round about sort of way. Woman was created of man, just like the idea was created from matter; it can be no other way. That is why the concept of a rock doing the thinking is a workable one. Man the rock or the earth creates something; in this case a woman. This may or may not be true, in the Biblical sense. But, it is revealing and supports our argument that matter is primary over the idea. Even the Christian God or his originators are admitting this fact. They have revealed themselves through their logic and their fables. Their cause and effect uses the idea of matter as the primary thing and not the other way around. The woman becomes the same thing as the idea. And, ideas can be very powerful things as you can well imagine. Think of the angst of man this way: not only was he responsible for the creation of woman ( according to religious imagination ), but he is also responsible for the creation of the idea. He wants to reconcile these things in his mind. In the first instance, he is dealing with something that he wants to be with and sometimes needs, namely the woman. She is different and she is separated from him. He does not understand why this is so, but the fact perplexes him. He needs to rationalize his existence with her; is she a physical need only or is there more to it than that? Morality and consciousness enter the picture and he decides that there is more to the relationship than meets the eye. Ideas and philosophies further enter the picture; his working mind is producing ideas for him, as regards his conduct and relationship with the woman. If he believes in something like a Christian God his task is simplified for him; all is explained.

.

But, an atheist has a different problem on his hands. He is confronted by physical woman and different notions about things. If he senses that all is created out of matter, including ideas, then his approach to the woman and to life is different. This is not to suggest that his morality is any different than that of the Christian. Not at all. They may in fact be identical. But, the difference between the Christian and the atheist is different in the way they understand the world; their meanings of things differs. Girls and boys are different things, sexually that is. They live out their lives in love or lust and then they die. They return to the earth or the sky from whence they came. And, once again we are stuck with the difference between the idealist believer in God and the atheist. The soul of the believer goes to Heaven. The soul or consciousness of the atheist does not. His matter is broken up and scattered throughout the universe; his consciousness " dies." When his consciousness dies it cannot produce anymore ideas. These ideas that I am relaying to you are being presented by a living person composed of matter. My brain is thinking and transferring thoughts into something that you can perceive and understand. Does the Christian work in this manner? In direct communication, I mean? Or does his message get transmitted third hand by someone's idea about him? You cannot know God directly, only indirectly. Is that good enough for an enquiring mind that wants to know the truth?

.

You have to ask yourself at what point in the womb of the female does the new baby become a human; when does it begin to think? In the process of the joining of the egg and the sperm something was created; we like to call that thing life. An egg cannot think, but it can exist. You would think nothing of walking upon an ant and squishing it to death, something which is composed of the same things as you and I, namely matter. It even has a tiny brain and may have some feelings, or at the very least, knows when danger appears and what it 'means.' Think about it, a tiny little creature going about the business of surviving just like you and I. An ant is a life form. Why do the idealists have such trouble grappling with the fact that an ant is matter like himself; a creauture that is possessed to succeed and to destroy something else in the process if this other thing should stand in the way of its 'will '?

.

these thoughts by yours truly,

Carl Baydala

.

* * * *

.

Here is a very fine essay that I discovered after I wrote the above thoughts. This article is part of a format on the study of Plato and of his dialogue The Symposium. The dialogue is considering some aspects of love.

.

Foundations of Philosophy
By Professor Emil J. Piscitelli
Education and Dialectics

.

I bring this essay to your attention because this author thinks like I do. He makes a statement earlier on his writing and states:

.

To appropriate the attitudes of openness to understanding, openness to knowing, and hope along with the fundamental orientations to the meaningful, the true, and the good requires a foundational decision and commitment that can best be described as a conversion or a series of conversions because the higher viewpoint or the authentic human self is always the result of a withdrawal from inauthenticity rather than a complete identification with the meaningful, the true, or the good. The reason for this is twofold: first human beings will never be able to understand or know everything about everything or be involved with everything that is really worthwhile and secondly human persons are de facto a conscious reality in tension with their own radical inauthenticity. In a word we are finite and alienated from ourselves, from others, from nature, and from God.

.

Source Here

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest" (Proverbs 6:6-8).

.

Ant Facts

.

My Home Page and Blog Organization

.

Dear Diary

.

Today in History 24 Years Ago

.

.