It has been ages, since the dawn of the gaping birth of existentialism, gave way to the modern philosophies. Most of them signaled a springing away from blind leaps into uncertainty, most of them signaled a change of universal principles.
The idea of universals has had a long and varied history, setting the stage in the ancient world, simply put, as the one, and the many. The French, those great sceptics, were the first ones to doubt, everything but thought it’s self, and then the reflexively came to doubt thought , and replaced it with perception on the most basic level. To be, is to perceive. And existence philosophy was borne out of
the basic , still ongoing conflict, between the one and the many, the Dasein and the objective Truth.
With the one, at the lowest level of primary perception, comes a heavy price, of relative values.
The leap out of conflicting values, is not necessarily one with a clear objective in mind, as to the applicapability of them, but more importantly, a need to get across the styxs of trends of developing political processes. That is a universal necessity to gain depth to a nihilism , which is grounded to a personal and unique set of situations, conditioned by
having been ‘thrown there’.
To identify the uniqueness of a situation, hinges on a grave, yet understandably sustained concept, a reactionary throw back into transcendental idealism.
No wonder, Dasein , a Hedideggerian idea, came out of the culture of the romantic idiom, the likes of which, has been rooted in hisroricistic and aristocratic values. Existentialism , the reductions, and the eidetic bracketing, form a sustainable vision, upholding the dignity of man, within the contexts of historically determined conditions. Communism saw an opportunity here, of dignifying man, within the view of eroding values, consequentially derived, from a failing aristocracy.
Such arisrocracy will reoccur in a different dress, and values again will be unevenly distributed. Marx was shrewd enough to see the hypocracy inherent in anarchism for it’s own sake, therefore he devised equal distribution of values.
What does this say of the contradictions presenting themselves as fissures between political, economic philosophy, and the purported equal distribution schematic, in terms of identifying the conditions under which such events become possible?
The world wars proved that partition of aggregates, would not work on the long run. Still within the 1~many construct, the system which was constructed on the paradigm of social justice, of the material manifestation of the dialectic, with comeradship as the identifiable marker by which such justice was ferreted out by means of such simple nomenclature, was the one, the social one, triumphing over the puralism of the socially created marketplace of ideas, boundaries, nationalities and identities, -became the many.
When the former was abandoned , in the heyday of existentialism, what took place, was a delayed purification of communism into humanist-socialism.
The ground hypothetically stood firm, as a social experiment, where ontology, did in fact leap frog from the center to the periphery , in so called open societies. The duplex of the capital-welfare state was seen as necessary to benefit both types of economic constituency within the democratic-capitalistic world.
This happened in a period of time spanning approximately 80 years , from the beginning of the twentieth century, to the nineteen eighties, when
the ideological foundations of the political foundations of the divided world, gave way to pragmatic-utalitarian principles.
That, reactionary and painful processes would be caused by this upheaval of political ,ideological reverberations, necessitated the total abandonment
of the closed systems of economic control. The eidectic suspension of logical systems came under tremendous political and economic pressure, and as such, the transcendental categories giving rise to them, also collapsed.
The philosopher par excellence who saw the merit in holding aesthetic and artistic values paramount, was Kierkegaard, who either saw a possibility for total decline, or, growth.
Modern philosophy dismisses aesthetic and religious values, and the signs abound everywhere, in confusing either/or type possible leaps. His leap is not a call for return to the ideal, but a realization of adopting higher values, within any given situation. If such can be adopted by society on the whole, then, there would not be a need for social conflict due to unequal distribution of wealth.
Universal values of production and consumption, would suffice to satisfy basic human rights.
Beyond basic needs, the only other unhapiness would filter down to envy of those with much, or more than others. As soon as a society can be at one, then the universal problems with the many, can in deed, become more then just an either, or, proposition. (Either the nominal concept of the one, the ruling class, the ideologue, Or, the pluralistic, practical-aesthetic, of the coming new world.)
We must not live under the shadow, of past ideologies, constructs, reified conceptual ideograms brought down to ‘reality’. The modern philosophy, will, infuse a new brotherhood, out of the realization for saving the planet. The planet and it’s inhabitants, one with their plan of salvaging not only a world of diminishing returns, and rescourses, but a world, requiring care and maintenance in furtherance thereof.
That the schism, the fracturing of identity, caught between political and economic values needs to be evaluated on other then long standing criteria and nomenclature, in order to overcome the deepening crisis in the sense of alienation and mass disintegration of not only communities, but individuals upholding disintegrating ideas, within their own psyche. There does not seem to be a way back toward despair, other than the many realize, their one-ness, their unity. Countless lives, maybe even one hundred millions or more were shed in the last millennium, the 20 th century, in furtherance of what really became seen as a social experiment, the triad
Comminism, Fascism, and Capitalistic-Democracy playing the age old dance. Such an experiment, of say, 100 years in it’s brutality, (not longer then some prior European wars, like the Hundred Years War, or The War of the Roses, or the wars against the Ottomans)- , their cost could be somewhat justified, if, a lesson was learned from them. This is why, an objective ethics is a reason par excellence for a coming unified planet.
The other alternative of total destruction is totally unacceptable.