Philosophy- the knowledge of the self

Philosophy is what is formed of the essential determination of thought. Essentially an idea exists for self-determination that it weighs as truth.The element of Philosophy is not abstract or non-actual but it is formed through abstractions though that the abstract thought has refined itself in the instantiation of something actual and moving from non-actual to actual we reach at the conclusion which forms the nerve of Philosophy. This whole movement constitutes what is the truth in Philosophy whether it is the idea of time or of being or of time and being. In either case, we begin with abstract non-actuality of time existing as discrete quanta and moves on to the exact instantiation of time as happening at a particular moment, So it is the appearance of time in the form of event in the time-space continuum that we confront that what has in effect brought in itself as truth.

From actual, we proceed to the knowledge of the self, the inherent seed of Brahman existing in nutshell as the unity of cosmos.The true is thus revealed to us in the form of knowledge of the self that we have moved or become actual from non-actual.So, in the end, we have determinate thoughts taking shape in the form of self-knowledge.

Beauty · Philosophy

What is beautiful and what is not?

Beauty as it seems is a reflex behaviour of nervous system as in the case of Narcissus the look or glare at beautiful object is a reaction to what is not beautiful.  Narcissus stares at himself for there is no other idea which makes him look ugly.So before we conclude the idea of beauty we must discourse upon what is not beautiful. To describe the not so beautiful object, there is one word mundane meaning its boring to look at non -beautiful objects which hardly means it is exhilarating to look at beautiful objects.

We begin with Narcissus what impels him to keep on staring at himself? Whatever it is ,it is surely not mundane and neither too exhilarating. It must be beautiful. So within the limits of mundane and exhilarating we find a moment when an object of our own device compels us to keep on staring at it as if it were our own fond object. Yes, an object is beautiful if we are fond of it. But beauty is more than that. Beauty is ideation about existence where the absolute of existence matters more than that of mere existence. The turning of an object into beauty for us is a moment where the existence of object is absolute such that any relative consideration about anything else is redundant.

What is not beautiful hence is what is redundant of an object that we can’t desire to have. So the beauty must be an ideal thought of absolute existence for which becoming into anything else is redundant. Thus for Narcissus there is absolute existence for him in his reflection and hardly there is any other essence about himself other than beauty.

what causes the objects to be beautiful is the super-symmetry, for every symmetrical arc of an object there is an equally symmetrical other arc which reinforces the structure of the object as primary to the essence of object. Such objects are beautiful and there is hardly any other reason to have anything as attribute for the object.


Differences between Philosophy and Physics

Nowadays there is assimilation of Philosophy into Physics and Physics has begun to play archetypal role Philosophy once used to play. Philosophy has begun to cave into the mathematical constructs of Physics as legitimate science to explain the phenomenon of the universe and the world alike. But at the core the functions of Philosophy and Physics are quite different and Philosophy by virtue of its distinct function might enjoy the independence and dominance it once had over the world till Physics grew on to explain much of the nature as we know today. The differences between Philosophy and Physics are as follows.

  1. Physics deals with complete body of knowledge while Philosophy has incomplete knowledge that has to be discoursed about. Physics presents complete set of understanding of nature while Philosophy demands the elucidation of knowledge about nature.
  2. Physics is synthetic in nature as it doesn’t depend upon linguistics to explain the workings of nature while philosophy is analytic that language must explain the working of nature through analytic judgement.
  3. Physics deals with formation of nature while Philosophy touches upon the conception. Physics describes the ‘form’ of nature as opposed to the essence that is basically talked in Philosophy in relation to existence. Physics wants to know the form of universe while Philosophy knows the concept of universe.
  4. Physics is with ‘howness’ while Philosophy describes ‘whatness’. Physics deals with how the nature works while Philosophy deals with what the nature is about.

So Philosophy of Physics is important as to see how a particular form of nature like for example quarks bring about concepts of being in the universe so as to explain the what part of quark is responsible in passing analytic judgement about the’ being in universe’.


Intuition as means to comprehend the scientific as according to Hegel

The scientific basis for truth is quite desirable but to know the absolute, man must depend on direct intuition of being, says Hegel. The intuition is the source of feeling which must complement the absolute. The absolute as it means to be the complete is the yearning of the soul to know what knowledge stands for but as Einstein has proved , the reality is though absolute in construction yet presents itself as relative to the other people as far as being is concerned. The absolute sought by Newton is what Hegel propounds but with unscientific in outlook.

Self-consciousness is the beginning of any comprehension but it might not be complete unto itself unless the transcendence into what is beyond the immediacy of thought or faith in thought is initiated and this alone cannot be done without pure intuition. Pure thought cannot exist as such since it might not yield the true nature of substance. So scientific study without the essential feeling and intuition is blind. What reason proposes is sought from logic and logic cannot take the being beyond the self-consciousness resulting from desiring knowledge. So any enthusiasm initiated by ecstasy of knowing the beauty is more relevant to comprehension than the notion of pure thought in scientific garb.

Hence in knowing the knowable, the mind has shed a part of itself which is sufficiently important to balance the intrepidness resulting from pursuing the feeling of beauty as sought in self-conscious state of acquiring the knowledge which could be divine but nonetheless never becomes divine.



Hegel ‘s method

We are concerned with a method that takes us along the direction of universality in knowing the particulars of subject- matter and in which the method is predominantly important.

Conflict is somehow inherent in the very nature of reality as it manifests to the naked eye.Like blossom is as important to the persona of life as is the fruit, it represents for the senses to satisfy what is obvious, the material gain which is elucidated by Marx himself in presenting a method is a far cry from knowing the limits of the things. Everything has a boundary within which it operates and beyond which it transcends itself. To know fully such a thing is hard and needs a method or a philosophical system which establishes the basic truths of things. The method Hegel employs is that of differential classification; differentiating the thing upon the basis of its general principles which must establish as a result the attributes of the thing. This further demands the method must enlighten through scientific means the true nature of the thing.

The scientific method employed to classify the thing must bear internal and external necessity to know the whole truth about it. So conflict must describe the inner and outer state of the system in which the thing operates. The inner necessity is to know the system deeply while the external necessity is that merely the system exists as it is. It is in the external necessity that essence of the thing must precede the internal necessity that is the ‘essence’.


Is what is necessary possible in History for Hegel?

Necessity is the requirement of any civilisation to mould itself and thrive more or less like a child from childhood into youth. We must concern with the idea of is what is necessary possible? Like now we need more freedom from ideas of 20th century that had jeopardised the freedom of man as could be seen in the rise of Nazi Germany. We must concern with possibility that implies is it possible to disassociate from Nietzsche’s idea of overman if Hitler had claimed himself to be one? So what really matters is the possibility of happening what is necessary. Next is actuality .

Is what is necessary possible? and if it is possible does it represent actuality of happening what could be termed as ‘real’ in reality. Here we more or less move towards the ideas propounded by science than arts. From there we proceed to the idea of absolute as in what is actually happening. The absolute must contain what is actual. While Hegel took the course of the universal as happening in the absolute as changing the History of the world, it might be assumed as unnecessary to look for the absolute among the History itself. So the necessary is not all together possible in History for Hegel.


From where Knowledge comes from?

Abstractions! More abstractions till you see a concrete building before your eyes which you call reality. Abstractions mine knowledge but from where does abstractions come from. From senses or from intuition. Senses lead us to illusion of knowledge as we measure up our experience to the correctness of concrete reality which usually we find short of deliverance. So we are left with initiation to describe the things. We don’t form reason to derive what we know because we already know sufficient without reason to begin with. What we already know is from intuiting with our instinct to know what we need to satisfy our instinctual desires for food, shelter and sex.

After our instinctual needs are satisfied we begin to amass knowledge through senses like we begin listening to reason. What we listen to reason comes a priori while what we experience from the senses falls into a posterior. So knowledge we collect either way through empirical derivations and deductions from logic.

Logic comes first before we make any reason and it is there prior to experience and even any fundamentals that we ascribe to a priori.We abstract from Metaphysics and from logic which we use to reason out reality.