the modern crisis put into context...

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

we have in philosophy, a history…
from the Pre-Socratic to today… and we can point to
some main themes in philosophy which tie into where we stand today…

If there was an overriding theme in Philosophy, it would be in the Platonic
understand of the two worlds theory…Plato taught that there were two worlds,
the impermanent, temporary, world of appearance that we live in right now…
and the second world, the permanent, forever world…

we have two worlds, the world of appearance and the “real” world of
which he called the theory of forms… there are two worlds, the physical
changing world of appearances and the “real” world of idea’s or forms…
and he says, in his famous parable of the cave, that even if we are able to
grasp the “real” permanent world of idea’s, we cannot then describe them to
those who are still in the cave…and thus unable to see “reality” as it is…

this two world problem has haunted philosophy for over 2000 years…

then we have Descartes… who advocated another form of the two world problem,
this time, the mental aspect and the physical aspect…the mind and the body
cannot, cannot interact… so how do we get them to interact? Descartes solution
was the Pineal gland… wrong, but an interesting solution nevertheless…

so Descartes brought back the Platonic two world system, in a more
“modern” form…

we see this two world system even today when we “see” a table
and then read what science has to say about the same table, it is almost
like reading about two different, distinct objects…
or we read the modern world, two world theory, in Quantum mechanics
and classical physics…the world of the very small, the micro world is
vastly different then the the macro world, the world we engage with
every single day…

and what do we seek in this universe? Salvation which is in this case,
the becoming one with the essential matter of the universe…
thus salvation is found when we have remove the two world system
to become one world…we see this in very different religious systems
such as Buddhism… the ending of being reborn is that being reborn is
the temporary, impermanent world and by finding enlightenment,
seeking not the bodily existence, but seeking reality true nature,
the attainment of Nirvana thus ending the cycle of death and rebirth…
becoming one with the one true, real existence…

and we see this within Christianity, the meaning of existence isn’t
the daily life of eating, shitting, fucking, sleeping…
no, the point of existence is to become one with god… to join
god in heaven and become “eternal”… thus the Christian rejects,
denounces the temporary, impermanent world that we exists in…
the same world rejected by Plato… to enter into the world of forms, plato,
is for the christian, to enter into the oneness with god…

we see this battle between these two viewpoints, all the time…
the question of the modern age is, how do we overcome our own
temporary, impermanent world of tables, chairs, couches, cars,
money, fame, titles, power… all impermanent, temporary matters
that matter not in 5 minutes time…

so the fractured time we live in, the modern age, is modern because
it has become fractured, separated from becoming one…
we are divided and fractured, from ourselves, each other and reality…
so this question of overcoming our divided and fractured self is really a question
of what do we do to rejoin or become one with… something…

how do we seek salvation by becoming one with, instead of separated
and fractured into partial pieces of personality and self…

IAM is actually engaged with the primary question of our times…
how do we overcome being fractured and separated/divided into
becoming one with? and what is/should that one be? to become one
with, we have to understand what that one ought to be… to become
one, needs a subject to become one with…

some have declared the one to be religion, and some have declared the one
to be nationalism and some have declared the one to be racism and some
have declared the one to be hate and anger…
the conservatives/GOP/TFH party has declared the one to join, in being
with conspiracies and tin foil hat theories of existence…
“the demo’s stole the last election” as being, somehow, the one we should
be seeking to become whole again…a unified theory of existence being
an engagement with unreality and conspiracies…

so, we have to seek a unified theory of existence… one that
removes the impermanent, temporary theory of our current reality,
which is impermanent/temporary… into a theory in which we
can see ourselves engaging in the permanent existence of reality…

we can find “salvation” by removing the two world system and making
it a one world system… but where do we look to overcome the two world
system? on which rock, do we base our one world theory upon?

how do we make the journey from a two world system, of basing
our understanding of existence upon two distinct and separate
understanding of the world… or to put it another way,
how do we unify the micro world with the macro world?
the Quantom world with classical physical world?
or the temporary world of chairs, couches, Tv sets, cars, money
fame, titles, fortune with the permanent world of reality that
does exist, yesterday, today and tomorrow?

we know, from Plato, that idea’s are permanent, so let us start with that…

the permanent is/deals with that which exists yesterday, today and tomorrow…

so that would be things like love, hope, peace, justice, honor, charity,
the values of being human, those values which has existed since human
beings have constructed them, are the values that make us human, truly
human…peace for example, is a value that has existed since human
beings began their temporary, impermanent wars to acquire
temporary, impermanent objects like money, titles couches, fame
and other objects of temporary existence…

you want to overcome our impermanent, temporary existence, the modern existence,
you can begin by the understanding of what are the temporary, impermanent
aspects of life…money, material goods, titles, fame, power, these things
have no value because they are impermanent, temporary, of the moment…

you want something permanent, seek values like love, peace, hope, justice,
charity, autonomy, beauty, compassion, creativity, growth, kindness, knowledge,
just to name a few values that are permanent and of value yesterday, today
and tomorrow…

solve the modern crisis and find salvation by becoming your values of choice…
be it justice or peace or love… seek the permanent by becoming
your values…

Kropotkin

2

the next question of modernity is this question of existence…
why is there existence oppose to non-existence?

this metaphysical question has no appeal or interest to me…
I just don’t care… we were, we are and we will be…
the question of why we exists simple doesn’t matter to me…
so the modern question, for me anyway, is what are the answers
to the modern questions of existence?

“what are we to do?” What ought we believe in?" “what can we know?”
“what values should we hold?” “what should we devote our energy to?”

accept the question of existence as a given and seek why/ what/who/ when
where and how… as questions of our current existence… why is there being
as oppose to non-being…isn’t a question we need to engage with to
understand what it means to be human… and what we are to do with our lives…

let us stop wasting time on irrelevant questions of being and seek answers to
the questions of “what does it mean to be human?”

Kropotkin

3

The human civilization is very infantile when you look at the animalistic tendencies we have… Covid is just another means to weed out the weak and inferior in an evidently super long process that we can imagine is possible, but are always held back due to the minority. There will be some progress but its taking a hell of a long time.

4

Maybe because we allowed ourself to think along those lines we could never really grow up?

5

ok, the “two world problem” revisited…

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Ne2 dxe4 5 a3 Be7 6 Nxe4 Nc6

now my wife who doesn’t play, and wouldn’t know what the above
means…it is a language in which we can envision something happening…

the language of course is Chess notation… I can mentally, if I am good enough, mentally
play out that game in my head… otherwise I pull out my chess set and play out
that game on a physical board…but think about it… we have two distinct
and separate things going on…we have the language, the inner understanding
of the chess game… which is possible only if you understand the language
and are able to apply it to the physical game of chess…the two things
are the language and the actual play…chess is the “two world problem” brought
to life…

I think to myself, I walk…and then I walk… but that is two different things…
thinking about walking and the actual walking…

this suggest to me that the “two world problem” that plagued both
Plato and Descartes is actually a problem of consciousness…
we can think about a cat… I have one… and I can walk over to the
cat and see the cat…thinking about a cat is different and distinct
from seeing an actual cat…but think about it from a Cat’s perspective…
the cat doesn’t think about me (except during feeding times)
there isn’t the two world problem with a cat because that
would require consciousness… being aware of me, consciousness, creates
the “two world problem” and thus it isn’t a problem for animals because
they aren’t conscious to the extent that I am conscious…

cogito ego sum is being conscious and something that a cat doesn’t have
and by being conscious, that very act creates ‘‘the two world problem’’…
I have my inner ‘‘voice’’ a consciousness and there is something outside,
beyond that ‘‘voice’’ that “consciousness”… a world that exists outside of
my own consciousness/voice…and how do the two ever meet or connect?

the “two world problem” is inherent in every human being because
of our consciousness… if we are not conscious, we are not engaged
in a “two world problem” thus people who are mentally disabled
do not have a “two world problem” there is but one world in their existence…

now one might say, correctly I might add, all I have are assumptions
and nothing more…

but let us follow this through… I say to my wife, I love you… which I did
about 10 minutes ago when she went to work… that is an mental act,
but how do I bring that mental act into the world???

I take some action, bring her flowers, or I clean the kitchen or I do something
else that “shows” my love for her…those are still two distinct things, my thinking
“I Love you” and my actions showing my love… I turn my mental thought,
“I love you” into a physical context… I show her my love through some physical
action…

If I am correct, IF, then the “two world problem” that has existed in philosophy,
for over 2,500 years is inherent within us… it cannot be solved because
it is “caused” by our very act of consciousness… I think therefor I am…

we cannot overcome the “two world problem”… so let us not overcome it…
let us simply accept it and move on…make it part of the human experience
as it truly is… we have two distinct aspects to existence… one part is
thinking/language… and the other part is action… the mental aspect
of existence and the physical aspect of existence…the “two world problem”

Kropotkin

6

if the “two world problem” is inherent in human existence,
then finding some sort of unity, becoming one with, is
not possible…we are inherently fractured due to the
“two world problem”… so what now?

much of what we do as human being is attempting to overcome
our fracture/divided selves that occur because of the inherent
“two world problem” for example religions like Buddhism
and Christianity are attempts to overcome the “two world problem”

to end rebirth and reincarnation to become one with nothingness
is the goal of Buddhism… but that goal only works if there is
some way to overcome the inherent fractured nature of existence
that lies within the “two world problem”

if there is no solution to the “two world problem” as I suggest, because
the “two world problem” in built within our own consciousness…
within cogito ergo sum, then our very goals we have seeking
as human beings since the beginning of time, no longer are worth
seeking…the seeking of unity that drive religion, philosophy, science,
history, economics no longer works or functions as a means of finding
unity or becoming one with, is no longer possible, ok, now what?

Kropotkin

7

we have seen that our ‘‘modern’’ era is different then
earlier time periods… the divided and fractured nature of modern
times, our alienation from ourselves, each other, the state,
society and nature is something that hasn’t happened before…

read the writings of someone pre-modern… say before 1800,
and you see one who is one with the world… and there are exceptions,
Rousseau for example, who feels himself separated from the
world… the first ‘‘modern’’ man because he is aware of himself,
he is conscious of himself in a way that people before him were not…
this very act of consciousness, creates ‘‘the two world problem’’

unlike those before him, Rousseau does not inherently see himself
as part of the world…that the world and himself are one thing…
the modern world see’s itself as two distinct and separate things…
unlike before Rousseau, where world and person were one thing…
we do not see ourselves as part of nature, nature and human beings
are two distinct and separate things… unlike pre-modern human beings…

this distinct and separate identity that exist between human beings
and nature, the state, society is part and parcel of being a “modern”
human being…a distinction that didn’t exist before…
before we became conscious, cogito ergo sum…

consciousness of self has created the “two world problem”

and what can overcome consciousness? nothing that I know of…

Kropotkin

8

we have various thoughts in philosophy…

for example, the idealism vs Realism that has gone
on for centuries is just another ''Two world problem"
and idealism vs dualism is another “two world problem”
as is idealism vs nominalism…

nominalism denies the existence, and therefor the reality, of
universals and the other denies, another part of nominalism,
denies the existence of, and therefore the reality of abstract objects…

is the world a mental construct? or is it physical? we cannot identify
the physical world without some mental construction of some sort…

you cannot identify a tree as a tree without some prior mental construction
of what a tree is…if you saw a tree without any prior engagement with
what a tree is, you cannot know or understand what a tree is…

you have a mental image of a tree… and you have a physical tree…
now the two don’t have to and quite often don’t appear to be the same…
here we are engaged with universals vs individual tree’s…I might have
an universal image of a tree but it doesn’t mean it is the same image
of an actual, real live tree that I can see…we have a “two world problem”
here… my mental image of a tree and the actual tree itself…
and quite often, what I think of as a tree is in fact, not a tree at all…
or what I think of as a bush, is in fact a tree… my mental image
of what a tree may be wrong and thus I am unable to correctly
see, know or imagine what a tree is…

the “two world problem” lies between my mental image of something
and the “reality” of something… the “true” nature of something vs
a mental image of a tree vs the “true” tree…an actual tree existing
in nature…

and we will have the “two world problem” as long as I can see myself
independently of the tree… if I have one image of me and one image of
a tree…as two distinct and separate objects…consciousness
of me as an independent object apart or separate from the tree, then
I exists within a “two world problem”…

Kropotkin

9

Peter , could Mr.Nietzche’s overcoming be the attempt to really solve once and for all the transition from the cogito to it’s modern , positive resblamce? *

-just musing, hope you find it not too amusing

*as a support for the proposition above , this:

“Nietzsche claimed the exemplary human being must craft his/her own identity through self-realization and do so without relying on anything transcending that life—such as God or a soul.”
iep.utm.edu › nietzsche

10

as I see Nietzsche as an ethical/moral philosopher, I didn’t
engage with him in terms of the “two world problem”
but now that you have mentioned him, I am rethinking this…

we have as an ethical/moral standard, a mental construct as it were,
thou shall not kill…and then we have reality, the business of living
our lives and within that reality, that existence, we may, or may not,
find ourselves forced to kill or we may see the “two world problem”
within such debates as abortion and the police violence against civilians,
as a “two world problem” we have the mental image of no violence or
no killing and then we have the practical reality of the police murdering
over 1000 innocent, unarmed civilians every years…

so does “thou shall not kill” apply to policemen also?
or to soldiers? or to the state claim that it is the
arbiter of justice and is within its right to employ
the death penalty… and what justifications do
we/the state/the police use to overcome the mental
maxim of “thou shall not kill”…

what is the reality vs the mental construct of “thou shall not kill”…
it is clearly a “two world problem” the mental construct vs the
reality… the mental vs the physical…

ethics/morals are of the “two world problem” because we have
a mental construct of ethics/morals and then we have the reality,
the physical actions in the world of our day to day living…

a mental construct might be to have, no violence,
but in reality we might have to fight, to engage
in violence to protect ourselves or our families…

this “two world problem” of the mental image
vs the reality/the physical side of existence
is part of and indeed an integral part of Christianity…

the difference between what jesus says and what actually happens
in real life, in our physical existing world…

thou shall love thy fellow man… the mental image vs what
actually happens… love isn’t on the modern agenda…
hate and violence and anger seems to be the modern speed…
not love…

so we have the words, the mental image of Jesus and we have the
physical reality of existence, where we hate and fight and even kill,
even in the name of jesus… the one who put forward the notion that
“thou shall love thy fellow man” and we kill and have violence in
the name of jesus… the “two world problem” made religious…

the mental image of peace and non-violence vs the physical actual
day to day world where we engage in violence and death…

we have ethics/morality that exists in our minds and then we
have the reality of death and violence in our day to day lives…

the “two world problem” is an ethical, moral, legal, and philosophical problem

Kropotkin

11

we can even see the “two world problem” here on ILP…
we have those who speak about general, in the mind thoughts,
and we have those who want to bring that general, mind thoughts
down to earth… the mental contraption vs the actual physical existence
of something… you say, “we should love our fellow man”
and that is great, but and this is important, what does that
mean on the ground, given our current reality…

how exactly does this “Love our fellow man” work in the real world?
as oppose to being a mental construct?

we have this “two world problems” in every aspect of our lives…
we hold mental constructs of what is, being moral, for example,
and then we have the actual, in reality happenings of ethics/morality…
which doesn’t match what our mental construct of ethics/morals is in
any way, shape or form…

bring our mental constructs down to earth and point our in a “real”
way how that moral constructs actually works in the “real world”…

virtually every discussion on ILP is a variation of the “two world problem”

the mental construct of say, ethics/morals vs the actual day to day life experience
of ethics/morals…

what does it mean to be an ethical/moral person in a day to day existence?

and not just within our mental construct or mental image of what it means to
be ethical/moral…

bring it down to earth…

Kropotkin

12

beginning to see where you’re going with this…