One of the perennial problems of philosophy has been
this question of the universal vs the individual/singular…
As far back as Zeno, the question of change vs uniformity,
has been either front and center, or at the outskirts of
philosophy…
Think of the universal, a human being… that there seems to
be a universal idea of a human being… Two legs, two arms,
one head, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth…and 5 senses,
that is a universal description of a human being and yet,
and yet, when faced with the individual human being,
they quite often fail to match the definition of being human…
I am legally deaf, does that mean I am not a human being
because I have failed in one aspect of the universal definition
of being human? or what if I was born without legs, or arms,
then am I still human? The individual nature of human beings
quite often doesn’t match the universal description of human beings…
Or what if I was born without any memory? Am I still a human being?
I work with disabled people who have problems with past,
present and future… they can’t recall 2 minutes earlier
or think about two minutes into the future…
they just can’t… does that mean they are not human?
it is not unusual for individual people to fail to match up
to the universal idea of human beings… where does that
leave us? We are hard pressed to match up individual
human beings with the universal definition of human beings…
the next problem within the universal vs the singular is
this question of change… a universal, by definition,
is the same today as it always was and will be tomorrow,
but we know from our own experiences as a human being,
that if there is one fundamental aspect of existence,
is that change is the one constant of the universe…
everything changes over time… everything…
think of fossils… dinosaurs fossils…we have the bones
of dinosaurs who lived a couple of hundred million years ago…
and yet even they changed… as we have them today, they
are vastly different then they were millions of years ago…
a bone on a living creature is very different than a bone found
in the ground millions of years after it lived… inside of an
animal, the bone changes and adapts, and even after going into
the ground, the bone itself changes… the bone loses any
moistness it might have had and becomes brittle, after several
hundred million years in the ground…
Armed with this information, can we safely say,
that there is such a thing as a universal? something that
was, is and always will be the same? I can’t think of anything…
Even the sun was born, one time a long time ago, and it
will, a few billion years from now, it will end…
One should keep in mind, that in our present location in the Milky
way, there was another sun that supernova… and our solar
system coalesce from the leftover dust from that prior star…
Changed is built in the very system we live in…
what of the laws of nature? What about the law of Gravity
or evolution or thermodynamics?
Evolution is the law of change in living beings, such as ourselves…
how lifeforms change from one set to another set…
we human beings came from Monkeys, who came from another
species who came from another species and we can go back
billions of years… of entire species changing from one set form
to another set under the pressures of evolution…
even something as universal as light, can change…
Photosynthesis, is the process by which green plants and
certain other organisms transform light energy into chemical energy…
the key word here is transform… even light can be transformed…
and we know from Einstein, that matter and energy are interchangable…
that they can be converted back and forth, matter into energy
and energy into matter…
So, given all of this, what can we say is ‘‘Universal’’
unchangeable from its very beginning? but therein lies
the problem, ‘‘from the very beginning’’ implies
it was created, and anything created, has, as its heart,
change as its basis… to be universal, it must not
have any sort of beginning or any sort of end…
and everything has a beginning and everything has
its end…
and what does all of this mean for us engaged in philosophy?
that the ongoing search for certainty, for a universal concept or
belief, for a search for the unity of existence, is doomed to
failure… to suggest any sort of universal unity of existence,
requires that the objects in question have something in
common with all the other objects… and what sort of
unity can objects have if they are limited, of short duration,
changeable, not fixed…But Kropotkin, we human beings
by our being alive, is different than inanimate objects…
while we are alive, yes, but once we are dead, we become
inanimate objects… there is no difference between a dead
human beings and a rock or a boulder…
all of this leads us to the conclusion that there is no
such thing as unity or eternal or a universal…
that there is only the one, the individual, the singular…
the philosophical search for a universal value is a wasted search…
which means the search for god, the universal is going to
be a failure…as there is only the individual, the singular,
and there is no such thing as a universal, common to all
things in the universe…
and this knowledge changes the nature of what it means to
be a philosopher and what the goal or purpose of philosophy
is…
Kropotkin