Analyze Decondition an introduction to systematic philosophy Fons Elders translation Hugo le ComteTABLE OF CONTENT ‘Translator’s preface 1 Meaning 2 Definition 3 Necessary Truth 4 Empirical knowledge 5 Theory of Argument 6 Causality, determinism, and freedom 7 Body, Mind, Death 8 The Existence of God 9 Metaphysics 10 People about people 1 Aaesthetics 12 Ethics. 13 Society 14 State 25 33 40 47 54 62 69 76 83 97TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE Fons Elders is not an academic philosopher who indulges in ingenious endeavours to demonstrate the dependence of humanity on the philosophies of a particular age and culture, Rather, the individual and collective identity of us human beings springs from human nature. The key to all problems and their solution is found in the universal principles of human nature. Fons Elders stands right behind ‘the men in the street who dances in the city square of Amsterdam, riot in Kent, U.S.A. or in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It is in the streets that he systematically hammers out his philosophy ~ and if philosophy actually prevails in the streets that we live in, then gradually, systematic philosophy may be dispensed with altogether. ‘Asa translator, I have accepted the challenge not only to translate the meanings but also to preserve the personal colloquialism used in part of the book to emphasize everybody's involvement in analysing and de-conditioning — thus lifting it out of the esoteric realm of pundits and their particular code of language. With this intent I have also translated as literally as possible reports from the Dutch press that the author uses to illustrate a point. Although, in the original Dutch it has a greater impact, the quotations are so apt that it seemed a pity to leave them out. This takes me to the second important point of translation; not only the writing but also the translating is an experiment: in order to demystify the traditional language of philosophy, translation itself has to be demystified. However skilful a translation may be, an English reader is likely to be held up by certain divergences between the traditional renderings of ways of human thinking and the manner in which similar ways of thinking are presented here. ‘As Fons Elders says ~ The problem of man’s knowledge concerning himself is not in lack of information, but in ordering and clarifying this information — that is, demystifying it ‘The ordering and clarifying has been done for us in the writing of this book and — in turn — in the translation of this book, and part of the job of demystification is up to the reader reading the book. Analyze Decondition, an introduction to systematic philosophy is, in fact, the very antithesis of what it sets out to do. Breathtakingly, Fons Elders walks the knife’s edge between two realities: the existing one and a plausible one, opposite to the events of our2 ANALYZE DECONDITION times and set out with such conviction in this book. ‘The thoughts in this book on such problematic questions on the one hand, language and the acquiring of knowledge, on the other the perennial issues concerning causality and freedom, body and mind, ethics and aaesthetics, society and state do not attempt to be a contribution to learning - Fons Elders is critical of certain forms of learning ~ but to understanding. It isan attempt to stand on its head the traditional way of thinking and to reveal a new understanding that will enable us to look at those aspects of the human condition that we only occasionally dare contemplate Hugo le Comte London-Amsterdam, 20113 ANALYZE DECONDITION 1 Meaning Since language is the medium that serves philosophy, I think it is meaningful to concentrate on language before analysing problems that do not have a direct bearing on Janguage. For language has its own rules and logic which we need to understand in order to liberate our thinking of unconscious assumptions. ‘The present course of philosophy is in two parts: the earlier chapters are concerned exclusively with language, in particular with questions of meaning and definitions of words. We take a look at laws of logic pre-supposed in all forms of thinking and finally we look at theories of argument and models of reasoning, ‘The second part is concerned with a number of problems of an anthropological, ethical, social and political kind: in-eradicable and eternal_ problems of philosophy posed from time to time by all of us not realising that they are referred to as problems of philosophy. ‘This course of philosophy will concentrate on problems as they are formulated by philosophers and not on the philosophers themselves. If the search for insight is directed toward thinking and toward profound aspects of reality, often referred to as perennial questions, it seems more justified to focus on certain questions and their answers than on the philosophers who have formulated the questions or answers. Philosophy is not the worship of semi-gods, but an attempt to acquire insight into our perceptions in order to live a more meaningful life The first single fact that has to be singled out is that people create language in the same way as they build houses of generate nuclear energy. That would seem a superfluous statement were it not that of old people have had the irrepressible urge to use words as if they are mirrors of reality, or more strongly, to treat words as reality itself. can use the word ‘electricity’ but that does not mean that [know what Tam talking about. ‘The question raised in this +hapter concerns the meaning of words or semantic The same thing holds for a great number of other words such as body, flower, racket, god, camera, language, nothing. ‘The way people over-value those who have at their command a rich vocabulary, indicates that people already exchange words for reality. ‘There isa form of magic in the use of language to identify words and reality as frequently used in religions, advertisements, political slogans and quarrels.4 ANALYZE DECONDITION In the Old Testament for example, God may not be mentioned by name, since the evocation of his name ~ according to many ~ is tantamount to touching and possessing God. Hence the creation of the subterfuge ‘Jahweh’, Also the commandment not to curse dates back to the belief in the magical power of language. In many religions words accompanied by a certain ritual are a creative force, We can conclude that people often do not behave in accordance with the argument that they themselves create language, because that have the feeling that words contain meaning and power independent of words. There exist three important theories about the origin of the meaning of words: 1 The theory of references, according to which words refer to things; 2 ‘The theory of behavior, which centres on the speaker’ influence on out behavior; 3 ‘The theory of ideas, according to which words are the expression of already existing ideas of universal meaning through which ever changing reality can nevertheless be referred to With the aid of the triangle of Ogden and Richards in The Meaning of meaning, the theory of reference can be explained. Asa referent I can use a symbol, for example the word ‘table’ in order to give expression to the idea of table. In the same way I can use the word ‘philosophy’ as a referent at the beginning of this chapter, which then stands for the symbol or sign for a number of ideas, and problems to which we can refer again with other word-symbols such as ‘logic, ‘theory of argument, ‘methodology, ‘metaphysics, et cetera. In each case the speaker uses a symbol and with the aid of that symbol (for example the word ‘hobgoblin’) puts across an idea. Triangle of Ogden and Richards thought or reference referent For new ideas, situations, or inventions, we like to use new words such as‘plastic. But the occasion for new words like ‘provo’ or ‘hippy’ does not have to mean that we are dealing with new phenomena. ‘Dazzler’ is a new word but that does not mean that it refers to a new washing powder.5 ANALYZE DECONDITION The cube of Bochenski people eo & the word syntactic other words In the same way as Ogden and Richards in their triangle start from the meaning of words. LM. Bochensky in Die zeitgendssischen Denkmethoden (Contemporary methods of thinking), Bern 1954, starts from semiotics, the theory of signs. In this cube he focuses on the word in order to make the connection with: : ‘The meaning of the word used; : ‘The person who uses the word and the person to whom the word is addressed; : ‘The other words in the sentence. We refer to these connections respectively as: : semantic, : pragmatic; and : syntactic. ‘The phrase ‘The only person your aggression pleases is yourself! does not contain information about the meaning of the word ‘aggression’ but about the antipathy raised in the speaker by this aggression. Such a phrase is not only an observation of aggressive behavior, but also a condemnation. This Bochensky calls the pragmatic aspect. In the theories of language just mentioned, it comes under the theory of behavior. The function of a large part of our language utterances is to modify each othe It follows that itis difficult to compare this kind of sentence with sentences that seek to describe a certain situation. ind of comment seeks to modify the behavior of the other person. This is what s behavior. Not the references to certain objects is central, but we are. ‘The sentence: ‘Somebody is a philosopher if he thinks systematically about the reliability6 ANALYZE DECONDITION of his utterances} is a description of the meaning of the word ‘philosopher’, while the sentence: “Everybody should think about the reliability of his utterances., constitutes a command or a wish. The sentence: ‘You will not kill, can be a factual statement in the sense that: you claim to want to committing this murder, but as far as | am concerned you will not. It can also express an ethical principle, i, that nobody has the right to kill. And so we come to the syntactic structure of the sentence. In the example: “You will not kill, the meaning can be factual as well as a command. In other words there are two semantic interpretations. The surface structure of the sentence, that is the arrangement of the words, allows two interpretations. Only in context and from the behavior of the speaker can we deduce what he means, ‘The analysis of the diverse functions of language is also applicable to words. When I say:“L love you’, the meaning of the sentence depends on what I mean by ‘to love’ and not on this word as if it has the same meaning for all people at all times. Yet many of the people do react to such an utterance as if they know what is being said, while often the person who says it hardly knows what he or she means by it. The meaning of emotionally loaded words is often unclear, because the intensity and the nature of these emotions depend on those who are subject to them. All this is in contrast with words that do not contain a reference at all, such as numbers. ‘Numbers can be applied but not found in reality, Numbers are a good example of the theory of ideas: they are present in our minds without reference to any object of behavior. While in Ogden and Richard's triangle, there is a distinction between symbol and thought, where numbers are concerned they merge. Thus there can never be any question of obscurity. For this reason perhaps, Wittgenstein declared that mathematics and logic necessarily contain true statements since they do not contain any references to a reality outside these statements. Even with a basic word like ‘table’ there are a infinite and one possibilities: size, form, color, materi are necessarily identical and in fact they never are, for one table is not the other. can conjure up the most diverse images since no two tables on earth For this reason we make a distinction between natural signs and conventional signs. The word ‘table’ is conventional sign, while the depiction of a table is a natural sign The word ‘flesh’ is a conventional sign, while a nude by Kees van Dongen or a picture of a pig are natural signs. There is a considerable difference between a conventional sign like ‘flesh’ and a natural sign like the picture of a pig. The word ‘flesh’ has a limitless number of possible applications because we abstract from all concomitant characteristics. It stands for an abstraction, an idea. In principle, a conventional sign can be substituted by any other sign. The word ‘flesh; for example, can be substituted by ‘kla’ in the same way asZ ANALYZE DECONDITION other languages use different words for the same idea. A depiction cannot be substituted in the same way by another. In origin, words are therefore arbitrary signs. The connotation of certain words are therefore arbitrary signs. The connotation of certain words like the word ‘pornography’, has therefore little or nothing to do with the word itself — nor has any depiction ~ but relies on the way in which we use such a word. Our reactions to the word ‘pornography’ are largely dependent on our socio-cultural environment and on ourselves, not on that word, The associations of a word are referred to as the connotations of a word. Words like‘ art, ‘techniques, ‘religion, bureaucracy, carry connotations that have little to do with the central meaning of these words. In discussions this can lead to a Babylonian confusion of tongues because people do not allow themselves to be aware of the differences in meaning. ‘The connotations attached to such words as ‘ youth; ‘death; ‘drugs’ tell more about the patterns of expectancy of the listener or reader, than about the meaning of these words. We are not always aware of the fact that we ourselves are responsible for the atmosphere around a word, A number of people cannot utter the word ‘negro’ in the same way as they can utter the word ‘protestant. ‘This has no bearing on the word ‘negro’, but on the connotations attached to it. The problems under review so far can be based on the following propositions: . People create language; : A.word is not a magic medium in itself, : A word can refer to an object; can be the expression of an idea that cannot be traced in empirical reality; can modify behavior; : Words are conventional signs, arbitrary in origin, ‘These propositions cannot be separated from the important proposition held by Karl Popper: concepts are not objects, but categories by which we order reality, make it comprehensible and manageable. The way in which we develop our ideas about reality, with words to help us, is selective. When we categorize animals and plants we do it selectively, based upon certain assumptions. If color was to be more important to us than variety of biological characteristics, we would not categorize into e.g. cats, mammals and birds but we would take all black animals together. If man were to have experienced himself always as an organic part of the cosmos or at least of nature, in all probability he would never have developed such concepts as ‘cosmos’8 ANALYZE DECONDITION or ‘nature’ — in the same way as Eskimo’s do not know the word for ‘snow’ but do have a variety of names for all kinds of snow. When we have to assess each other's social prestige, then income, social status and advancement play a big part as opposed to our character. We emphasize certain features and leave out others. When I use the word ‘tree, there are probably few readers who also think of the roots, while nobody can imagine a tree without branches. Our concepts are not copies of reality bur an ordering of it. Logically speaking it follows that our common use of language is a guide to meaning, not to truth. The word ‘whohmm? does not exist, but the sound of these letters suggest its meaning. The word ‘man’ has meaning, but has nothing to do with truth. The sentence “There are 3 billion people’ is meaningful, Whether the sentence is true depends on the point in time when itis uttered. ‘The sentence: ‘God exists, can be meaningful. Whether itis a true proposition, is another matter. ‘The proposition that common language usage is a guide to meaning not to truth, is not underwritten by all philosophers. In Martin Heidegger's essay Concerning the Essence of ‘Truth’ or in the Prologue to St, John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God itis pre-supposed that language is not only meaningful but also a guide to truth, According to some philosophers, language is even the key to truth. If we proceeds from this conception we readily arrive at the supposition that the word ‘nothing’ has its own independent meaning. Heidegger's and Sartre’s expression, respectively: Das Nicht nichtet, Le Néant néantise ‘Le Nothing nothings’ points in that direction Much more probable, however, is that the word ‘nothing’ does not carry its own independent meaning, but functions exclusively as a negation of something Por the word itself has no reference since it does not exist as an object. It is an abstract concept that exists in our minds, just like numbers. However, the difference between the concept ‘nothing’ and the concept ‘zero’ is that ‘nothing’is only thinkable as a negation of something, while zero’ functions by itself. In other words, ‘nothing’ functionsas the minus- sign for something; it does not refer to itself as is the case of ‘zero’. Of course, this example is no proof, However, it meaning, not to truth. an illustration of the proposition that language is a guide to As such our use of language has no single criterion for the correctness of its categories. We cannot, at the same time, construct reality into concepts and act as if the categories constructed by us are the only ones possible.9 ANALYZE DECONDITION In this connection the ambiguity or multiplicity of words does not lie within the words themselves but within their use, ‘The verb, ‘to mean’, with which we are concerned in this chapter, is, as such, an example of this use. In the phrase:* You mean everything to me, Alma; ‘to mean; is used as a synonym for value, ‘What is the meaning of this meeting?’ looks for the purpose of that situation. The sentence:‘What you analogous to the phrase: ‘Life is no longer meaningful for me. The sentenc have done means the end of our friendship, suggests that a certain act was the cause of the end, whereas in the sentence: “ A nuclear attack on Peking means world war, we take it that war is the result of the attack. In the sentence ‘Fifteen minus one makes fourteen’, fifteen minus one is identical to fourteen, When someone writes: ‘Long hair means work- shy scum such a pronouncement says a lot about the intention of the speaker and little about longhaired people, while the sentence: ‘An Easterly wind means drought, is a fact from experience in Holland ~ which means something different than a subjective intention. The sentence: ‘What does philosophy mean to you?” tries to explain the fact that you are reading these pages, while the sentence: “The question about my identity means the question about the self, is an implication, If we review the several meanings of the word ‘meaning’ mentioned in the nine sentences, then ‘meaning’ occurs respectively as: : Making sense. : Purpose. : Cause, . Effect. . Identity. . Intention. . Reference. : Explanation. : Implication, Our intention of language effects our view of reality directly. When I~ as I did now make it clear that I adhere to the proposition that the common use of language is a guide to meaning and not to truth, then I disconnect language and truth. I presume that reality is not a definite, pre-planned whole of which we with our understanding of language are part. In doing so I reject the contention that there is a built-in objective in the cosmos or in the history of mankind, If I do accept such an objective, it is obvious that our language forms the medium for this expression of that objective and thus takes up a key position in formulating that objective. The idea of an10 ANALYZE DECONDITION all-embracing objective is opposed to the idea that language consists of concepts designed by ourselves, including the concept of an all-embracing objective. Summary 1 People create language. 2 A word is in itself not a magic medium. 3 A word asa symbol of a concept can refer to an object; can be the expression of a concept that cannot be found in empirical reality; can modify behavior. 4 Aword is a conventional sign, arbitrary in origin. 5 Aword as a symbol of an idea is not a copy of reality, but an ordering of reality. 6 ‘Common language use is primarily a guide to meaning, not to truth. 7 ‘The ambiguity of a word is not in the word, but in its use. Conclusion Our idea of language decisively effects our outlook on reality.u ANALYZE DECONDITION 2 Definition The purpose of the second chapter is to look at how we define things and which are the requisites fora definition. The shortest definition for ‘definition’ that itis the description of the meaning of a word. When Socrates asks the question: ‘What is justice?’ he tries to find a definition for justice that will clarify the essential meaning of that word. When someone asks: ‘What is a cyclotron?’ he is asking for a definition. When someone says that man is an egoist by nature, he pinpoints one of the characteristics that will appear again in his definition of man. When we make ourselves aware of what ‘we mean by something, the verbalisation is an attempt to define i In the same way as there are several theories about the origin of the meaning of words, there are several theories about the origin of definition, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Husserl and many other philosophers are persuaded that a definition expresses the essence of what is defined. When they try to define ‘justice for example, the definition has to uncover the essence of ‘justice’ This school of thought is known as ‘Essentialism’ Another interpretation is that a definition of justice’ cannot pretend to be an explanation of what is supposed to be the essence of justice, but rather must be a rule or an agreement. This school is called ‘Prescriptivism’ literally translated ‘that what is prescribed or agreed upon! When I give an exposition about my idea of justice within the theory of Prescriptivism, I give a definition implying: that is what | mean it to be. In the Middle Ages the scholastics, who wished to undo the control of theology over science, often adhered to this theory. In this century philosophers like Russell, Carnap, Hempel, Quine and many other logicians adhere to Prescriptivism. Finally, linguistic theories pose that definitions are nothing but the report of word usage; a method used in dictionaries as well. When we look up the word ‘justice’ in the Oxford Dictionary it will show the different meanings currently in use, without pretending either to supply its essence, as in the theories of Essentialism, or to come to a fitting rules, as in the theories of prescriptivism. If we now concentrate on the theory of Essentialism and ask ourselves with Plato the12 ANALYZE DECONDITION question:‘What is justice?’ we appear to be confronted with the same problem mentioned in the first chapter, namely the relationship between a word as a symbol for an idea and the relationship between idea and reality. ‘Thus we arrive at the aforementioned statement A word can refer to an object; a word can be the expression of an idea that is not found in empirical reality; a word can modify behavior. If we try to accommodate the word ‘justice’ within these pronouncements, we know Plato thought that justice’ referred to the idea justice, which can neither be located in observable reality, nor, for that reason, can it be present solely in our minds. On the contrary, Plato was of the opinion that we can_pose the question about ‘justice’ since the idea ‘justice’ exists independently in the realm of ideas: We recall this invisible reality of the ‘justice’ idea and try to formulate this memory as precisely as possible. If we succeed, then we have expressed the essence of justice: ‘The same train of thought can be applied to the word ‘table’. The word ‘table’ stands for the symbol of the idea of ‘table: The idea of ‘table’ is not an idea that exists only in our mind, but has its existence in the realm of ideas independent from us. That is to say, our ‘words are expressions of ideas in existence prior to our existence. ‘This theory is difficult to refute and even more difficult to defend, since it moves in a circle. After all, according to Plato, the moment we have an idea, this idea has prior existence in the realm of ideas; not having that idea does not mean the refutation of the existence of the realm of ideas, because in that case our memory would have failed us, Plato builds his own self-validating system without actually proving it. A further discussion of the implications of this will be discussed in Chapter Four. ‘Weare able to explain the development of the idea like ‘table’ with far fewer problems and question-marks, namely by accepting that we invent words for objects and situations that are important to us. When we construct an object that we cal ‘table’ then we ourselves are the inventors of that object as well as the word ‘table’ No abracadabra is necessary. Ican ask myself whether this analysis is also applicable to the word justice’. To enquire into the essence of justice’ presupposes that the essence of justice’ is not dependent on a joint agreement we make about it. Supposedly the essence of justice exists independently from our behavior and our concepts for it. If this were to be the case then we have to attach the essence of justice to a God or to universal order, otherwise it would exist only in some minds and become arbitrary. Indeed, such universal divine justice’ is logically feasible in the sense of being conceptually feasible. Whether it is factual depends on the feasibility of demonstrating that God or a universal order does exist simultaneously with justice as an inseparable characteristic ~13 ANALYZE DECONDITION an idea advanced by Spinoza However, the existence of the idea of justice’ or ‘God? does not prove therefore that there is such a corresponding object or being, We can also have the idea of ‘triangularity’ in our minds without anyone accepting that therefore triangles lead a separate existence. In other words, the question ‘What is justice?’ can only be answered within the theory of Essentialism by pre-supposing a God or an universal order in which the idea is framed independently of us. In doing so the question whether such a definition can be supplied, has shifted to the question whether a just God or a fair universal order can be demonstrated. It follows that the conceptions of definitions cannot be separated from the more general conceptions of the relationship between knowledge, language and reality. Accepting the proposition in the first chapter, that our concepts are not copies ifthe reality but an ordering of reality, it also follows that the definition of a word is not the depiction of truth, but of meaning. When I define the word Justice’ in the sentence: justice is respect for each others rights, I indicate what I mean by the word. It is essential that we know clearly what we mean when we use words. Whether such words do or do not refer to objects and conditions outside ourselves is irrelevant. A definition does not concern itself ‘with the thing, but with the meaning of a word. Sometimes this word can refer to something, like the word ‘table’ and sometimes it cannot, like the word ‘centaur. Yet we can give a definition of the words ‘table’ and ‘centaur’: Neither a definition nor a word is a key to truth; it is a key to meaning. In order to clarify meaning, the word that has to be defined (definiendum) is not allowed to recur in the definition (definiens). For example: If I define the word ‘democracy’ by saying: ‘a democracy is the result of a democratic mentality and a democratic structure, then I have not clarified the word democracy (definiendum) but just used it again in the definition (definiens). If we take it that by defining, we attempt to arrive at as precise an agreement as possible concerning the meaning of a word, then we can do that roughly/broadly in two ways. The first way is ‘definition by description. It gives information about a word like‘asphalt’ or ‘table, closely following a generally accepted meaning. This way of defining things is close to the lingui cannot easily be explained in more ways than one, like ‘table’ as opposed to ‘love’ It is also applicable where the meaning of a word does not require exact analysis, like ‘floor’ as opposed to ‘contradiction. ‘The second way is ‘definition by stipulation’ It is a statement about the meaning that I give the word which is more of less independent of its common use. This way of defining s approach. It is applicabh all cases where the meaning of a word14 ANALYZE DECONDITION things is desirable in all those cases where a high degree of exactness is useful and necessary; as in the word ‘infinite’ or where the meaning of a word is vague and ambiguous as in the word ‘freedom’ ‘The reason why we can decide on the meaning of a word, depends on the acceptance that a word is not the key to truth, but to meaning. We have to decide on the meaning of a word, because we define a word with other words and in turn we want to define those, and so on. However, this an impossible process. A soon as we apply words, be it in a question, we use sounds with a certain meaning. The process of reducing words to other words is possible on the condition that we start form a few basic words or primitive terms which we use as if their meaning were clear. ‘Therefore we cannot define every word without finally ending up ina vicious circle. Again it is clear that the process of definition is necessarily connected with attaching a certain meaning to a word, in the same sense that: this symbol stands for that symbol, while we assume that those symbols can be understood by other symbols in the same or at least in a similar way. This understanding is only possible because the process of attaching meaning to words starts with pointing out that meaning. If | want to make clear to a child the meaning of ‘fire, then I point at it and I make him feel it and I tell him that people call this ‘fire. When I am at the traffic lights, I can say that the light is red. The child learns to call the red light ‘red! even if he himself sees it as green because of a defect in the eye. He will call ‘red’ what is green to him so that we do not notice that he sees another colour, He will stop at what I call a red light, even though it is green for him and he will drive on when the light turns green, although it is red to him. He has learned to attach functions to the colours that we attach to it He has learned to define them in relation to traffic although he does see them differently. Selecting things in order to name them is the most popular way of defining them. Such definitions are called ostensive definitions. In a definition we can make a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics. The distinction is that intrinsic characteristics can be left out. When we define the word ‘man, ‘language ability’ is an intrinsic characteristic, while ‘believe’ is an extrinsic characteristic. Someone who is of the opinion that belief is an intrinsic characteristic will have great trouble in accepting people lacking belief as his equals. ‘The intrinsic characteristics contained in the definition of a triangle are: three sides, closed and two dimensional; the side of the angles and the area are extrinsic characteristics. ‘The definition of a game can include a summary of a number of characteristics considered15 ANALYZE DECONDITION to be decisive. In the order K1, K2, K3, K4 for example: KA, rules that direct the activity of the games K2, one can wins 3, it is for fun; Ka, there are to be at least two players, et cetera, It will not be necessary for each game to have all characteristics. For example, K2 or Kd can fall away but not all characteristics can fall away at the same time, If we line up a number of words like ‘sal father, ‘mule’, ‘man’ we find that it is meaningful to distinguish different types or kinds of definitions. In the same way we have seen that a word like ‘table’ which is characteristically a referent, differs from words like zero’, which in turn differs from words with emotional content, like ‘happiness. Among the important kinds of definitions are intrinsic, relational, genetic and species- differential definitions. An intrinsic definition supplies the meaning of a word. For an independent fact, for example ’salt‘Salt consists partly of natrium and partly of chlorine? The relational definition supplies the meaning of a word for a fact within a relationship, for example father’‘A father isa man who begot a child: In other words the concept ‘child? is already contained in the concept ‘father’, in the same way as the concept ‘father’ is contained in the concept ‘child. ‘The genetic definition supplies the meaning of a word for a fact in which origin is of central importance, for example ‘mule’:‘A mule is a cross breed between a donkey and a horse. ‘The definition by species and differentiation supplies the meaning of a word for a fact that has a feature in common with other facts and can be distinguished within this common feature, for example: ‘Man is a rational animal’ in which ‘animal’ is the species and ‘tational’ the differentiation. ‘That it is important to know how we wish to classify certain facts or to what criteria we wish to attach importance, is already clear from the influence exerted by the formulation of a question on the answer. When [ ask: What is an enzyme, what is a car, what is consciousness, what is God, what is friendship? the question either suggests an answer in the direction of a spatial object or in the direction of an independent phenomenon. ‘The word ‘what’ has the meaning of something outside us ~ you can point at it: “That is what I mean. This problem is known as the ‘what — is question’ When [ ask: ‘What is a car?’ I am concerned with an object that is somewhat complicated yet clearly recognizable and a fact in itself. When 1 ask: “What is friendship?’ I am not16 ANALYZE DECONDITION concerned with a fact in itself, but with a relationship between people, which is tied to certain characteristics and attitudes. In this context the word ‘disposition’ can be used. Friendship is not an object, but the result of a shared attitude, So I cannot really ask:‘What is friendship?’ because then I am suggesting that friendship is something like a fact that can be isolated like a car ora cake, The question: ‘What is God?’ offers the same problem. If God were to be a person, we would have to ask: ‘Who is God?” The ‘what — is question’ however, forces us into the direction of an impersonal fact, while the question implies that we still do not know the answer. ‘The conclusion, therefore, is that quite often in the ‘what ~ is question’ we steer our attention unconsciously into the direction of an independent entity, even when such an entity may not be the case at all. We can even go further and propose that to put the question is only meaningful if it results in an answer or in any case has some chance of an answer. We can try to recover that chance by scrutiny of the presuppositions underlying our questions. ‘The importance of being aware of our pre-suppositions when asking questions and making definitions is also clear when we analyse classifications. ‘A classification is a systematic ‘species — differentiation’ type of definition of a group of interrelated terms. For example, if we classify the concept ‘Power of the State’ we can do this in a linear diagram which will include the concepts of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicature, The Executive is divided into the Queen and Government; the Legislative is divided into the Upper and the Lower House; the Judicature is divided into Prosecution, Defence and Judgement. (See diagram 1) ‘An example of mistaken classification runs as follows: starting from the concept ‘man’ we subdivide into concepts ‘Russians’ and ‘Women’; the ‘Russians’ we subdivide into ‘chess players’ and ‘women’ , while we subdivide ‘women’ into ‘Russian women’ and ‘taxi drivers! It is clear that such a classification conflicts with the ‘species — differentiation definition’ On the second line people are mentioned, but the concepts ‘Russians’ and ‘women’ are not mutually exclusive, as is the case on the third line, where the word ‘Russian’ is subdivided into‘women’ and ‘chess players’ or the word ‘women’ on the second line is subdivided into Ru word ‘Russians, the words “Russian women’ and woman ‘taxi drivers’ are not mutually exclusive. (See diagram 2) ian women’ and woman ‘taxi drivers’ “Russian women’ are already covered by the In short, every possible central criterion for a classification along the lines of x ‘species ~ differentiation’ is lacking. Yet these kinds of mistakes are often made.7 ANALYZE DECONDITION If four categories occur in a survey in the United States: Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Negroes, then according to the species differentiation definition these four categories should have one feature in common: the so-called ‘species’ feature and within this species feature there should be one differentiation. However, the species feature is lacking , since lining up Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Negroes means that they have been classified by religion as well as race. This leadsto the illogical conclusion that Negroes could not be Protestant, Catholic or Jewish, neither could Jews, be Catholic nor a Catholic a Negro et cetera. The categories fit the existing prejudices, and not the logically classification. Summary 1 A definition is a description of the meaning of a word. 2 A definition is neither true nor untrue buta key to meaning, 3 A definition cannot use for its explanatory terms (definiens) the terms which it seeks to explain (definiendum); or the definiendum cannot recur in the definiens. 4 Definitions cannot proceed ad infinitum; we have to accept the meaning of a certain number of words as primitive terms. 5 ‘The manner of definition , descriptive of stipulative and the kind of definition selected depends on the function if the definition. 6 ‘The making, ie. the ‘what — question’, exerts its influence on the answer. A dassification is a systematic kind of species — differentiation definition, which is indispensible in science and organisation systems. Diagram 1 power of the state executive power legislative power judicial power queen government upper lower prosecutor judge defence Diagram 2 man russians women chess players women russian women —_(Wwomen)taxi drivers18 ANALYZE DECONDITION 3. Necessary Truth ‘The third chapter is concerned with ‘necessary truth’ We shall have a look at propositions, propositional forms and logical principals basic to all our reasoning, One of the differences with the preceding chapters is that we no longer take the analysis of words as a starting- point, but the analysis of sentences. ‘The distinction between words and sentences is made by the fact that the meaning of a sentence does not dependent on separate words, but on their mutual relationships. ‘The sentence: ‘The football played with children the parents, has no meaning ‘grammatically, but as soon as we re-arrange the same words, we do get the grammatical sentence: “The parents played football with the children’ This kind of sentence is a pronouncement or statement. Each sentence assumes at least a subject and a predicate, for example: ‘we exist? ‘We can now construct the following diagram: 1 We distinguish between grammatical and non-grammatical sentences. ‘The football played with children the parents’ is not grammatical, while “The parents played football with the children’ is. Non-grammatical sentences are not considered for analysis, since the internal logic is lost in an arbitrary arrangement of words. 2 ‘A grammatical sentence can be divided into: meaningless and meaningful. A meaningless sentence is: ‘The sink loves the plumber’, because, although the grammar construction is correct, subject and predicate do not produce a meaningful relationship. ‘An example of a meaningful sentence is: ‘People are killed in Vietnam? Everybody understands its meaning. 3 A meaningful sentence in turn can be sub-divided into true and false. ‘People are killed in Vietnam) is a true sentence, whatever position one takes concerning the Vietnamese war. The sentence: ‘Nixon is a war criminal according to the laws of the Nuremberg tribunal, will be heavily contested as to whether it concerns a statement that true or false. The sentence: ‘There are now ten billion people on earth’, is meaningful — we know what it means ~ but untrue. In this connection we speak of sentences and propositions. ‘The proposition agrees with point 3 in the diagram; the sentence agrees with point 2. The sentence logically precedes the proposition, since a true or a false statement assumes a meaningful sentence,19 ANALYZE DECONDITION Dividing grammatical sentences into meaningful and meaningless seems easier in the diagram than it is in reality. The be drawn according to clear cut criteria, The sentence: “The sink loves the plumber, can become meaningful in a certain context. ‘The borderline between meaningful and meaningless cannot be permanently drawn, Nor can a meaningful sentence always be inction between meaningful and meaningless cannot classified arbitrarily as either true or false. The sentence: ‘God is love’, is meaningful, while we do not have to know whether itis true or false. (See chapter eight; summary point six.) Sentence Lf 7 grammatical ungrammatical (“Theparents played (Their football football with their played with children.) children the : parents?) meaningful meaningless (People are killed in Vietnam. (‘The sink loves the plumber.) I trhe untrue (‘People are killed in Vietnam.) —_ (‘There are ten billion people on earth’) ‘We can distinguish two kinds of propositions: analytical and synthetic. The unique feature of an analytical proposition is that it is always true in its form ‘A is A’ or ‘AB is A e.g. ‘a woman is a woman’ or ‘polluted air is polluted”. With this kind of propositions we do not always have to verify these propositions, In sentences like: ‘All fathers are men’, we have to know the meaning of the concepts ‘father’ and ‘man’ in order to know that the concept ‘father’ always presupposes the concept ‘man’. Since this is the case, we may call this proposition analytical, Thus there are two formal features that define an analytical proposition: : An analytical proposition cannot be negated without contradiction, For example, ‘love is love’ isan analytical proposition; the negation ‘love is not love’ is self-contradictory. : An analytical proposition is true not by verification with reality but by analysing words themselves. For example the sentence: ‘All fathers are men’ does not promise a medical check, but an analysis of the meaning of the words ‘man’ and ‘father’ in order to know that the concept ‘father’ subsumes the concept ‘man. The reverse is not valid: ‘man’ is not necessarily ‘father’ : A synthetic proposition is a proposition which is not analytical. ‘Love is human’20 ANALYZE DECONDITION is a true synthetic proposition; the negation ‘Love is not human’ is a false synthetic proposition. Ina diagram it looks as follow An analytic proposition is: A synthetic proposition is: ‘Love is love? ‘Love is human. The negation of an analytical The negation of the synthetic proposition: proposition: ‘Love is not-love? ‘Love is not human? is self-contradictory. Is false synthetic proposition. ‘Love is not-love’ is incomprehensible in itself, while ‘Love is not human’ is not incomprehensible. The distinction between analytical and synthetic propositions as outlined runs parallel with the distinction between the concepts'a priori’ anda posterior, ‘The meaning of the concepts‘a prior? and ‘a posteriori’ literally means ‘before’ and ‘after’ In logic they mean ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ If we live in Holland it follows a priori that we live in Europe; if we live in Europe it does not follow a priori that we live in Holland. We could also be living in Finland. If it appears that after all we do live in Holland, then that knowledge is a posteriori and contingent. In addition to the distinction between analytical and synthetic propositions, the distinction between simple and compound sentences is important. Examples of simple sentences ares‘ in their reaction’ —an analytical and syntheti Mothers are fertile’ or ‘Football fans are spontaneous ly proposition respectively. Compound sentences are: : IfGod exists, then God exists. : Ifyou shout, I will kill you. : Although this is a democracy, it is not really a democracy. : Ifthis is a democracy and democracy implies freedom, then freedom is freedom. ‘These compound sentences can be split into separate sentences. These separate sentences can be substituted by a symbol, for example the letters p, q, 15 et cetera. If we begin with the sentence just mentioned and systematically substitute them by letter symbols, then they are called propositional forms, not propositions. : If God exists, then God exists, or: if p, then p. : If you scream, I will kill you, or: if p then g. : Although this is a democracy, yet itis not a democracy, or: although p, yet not-p. : If this is a democracy and democracy implies freedom, then this is freedom, or: if p and p implies q, then q.an ANALYZE DECONDITION ‘The propositional forms are independent from the contents of the propositions. They are the formal structure of relationships, for example: if... then, either ... or, et cetera. ‘We cannot always say about propositional forms whether they are true or false, since we do not know the contents of the letters p, q or r. For example, if we replace ‘if p, then q° with the sentence: If this is a square then it is rectangular, then we know this to be true. If we replace it by the sentence:‘If you scream, I will kill you, then only after someone has screamed and someone has been killed do we know whether it is true or fals We must not reverse from the form ‘if p, then q to ‘if q, then p, because the ‘if-sentence? is not identical to the ‘then-sentence’ ~ as is the case in ‘if p, then p’ If something is rectangular it need not be a square. However, we can establish a priori that the form ‘if p, then q) can be followed by the form “if not q then not-p’ If the sentence ‘If you scream, I will kill you’ is true, we can say that not being killed or not-q must be preceded by not screaming, or not-p. We refer toa propositional form asa tautology if every pronouncement replacing the letter symbols is true. For example,‘p or not-p' or T exist, or ‘I do not exist. If we compare ‘p or not-p’ with‘p and not-p' the only difference is that ‘p or not-p’ does not give us any new information, but is a priori necessarily true, in contradiction to ‘p and not-p, which is contradictory within itself. Example three from the propositions ‘Although this is a democracy, yet it is not a democracy’, has the same form as ‘although p, yet not-p: All the same some people are convinced that such a pronouncement is meaningful, Perhaps unconsciously they let the meaning of the word democracy shift from the meaning used by others to a meaning which they themselves attach to it. Were this the case then the contents of the word ‘democracy’ would no longer be the same and would no longer fit the propositional form: ‘Although p, yet not-p’ However, it follows that the sentence‘Although this is a democracy, yet it is not a democracy’ is hardly ~ or no longer ~ comprehensible. If the meaning of the word ‘democracy’ is still the same then the user of such a sentence is guilty of an internal contradiction which does not differ from the sentence: ‘Although I am mad, 1am not mad If we have i ght into the rules that underlie our pronouncements, rules, moreover, that are symbolized in propositional forms, then it will be easier to gain insight into the possible truth-characteristics of our pronouncements. Afier propositions we shall now analyse situations. We distinguish three levels in a situation: 1 A situation is logically possible if the proposition about that situation is not self- contradictory;22 ANALYZE DECONDITION A situation is logically impossible if the proposition is self-contradictory. For example:'A woman bears a mouse’ is logically possible, since woman and mouse do not contradict each other. “The circle is square’, however, is logically impossible since they are mutually exclusive. In this instance we can actually say ‘the circle is square, without being able to think it. Sometimes we say what we cannot think — we also think what we can say. 2 A situation is empirically possible if it is in agreement with the laws of nature. For example,’A landing on the sun is an empirical possibility, since itis in agreement with laws of nature, ‘A woman bears a mouse’ is an empirical impossibility since itis in conflict with laws of nature. 3 A situation is technically possible if we are capable of using our technical knowledge of laws of nature and a situation is technically impossible if we are incapable of doing so. For example, iti technically impossible to land on the sun, while itis possible to land on the moon, Situations Logically possible Logically impossible (A woman bears a mouse) (A circle is square) Empirically possible Empirically impossible (Landing on the sun) (A woman bears a mouse) ‘Technically possible ‘Technically impossible (Landing on the moon) (Landing on the sun) We can see from the examples that a logical possibility is no guarantee for its empirical possibility. However, what is technically possible, is necessarily also empirically possible, and what is possible empirically is necessarily also logically possible. The level of logical possi worlds, We can develop utopias. In doing so our ideas and fantasies have to meet one condition: they must be not self-contradictory. ‘Many people can imagine something only when it has been technically realized like a car ora landing on the moon. Similarly there are people who can only imagine things when they are empirically possible. However, our dreams are proof that we do not have to limit is the most extensive one. At the level of logical possibility we can think up new23 ANALYZE DECONDITION ourselves to the empirical order. ‘The last and most important part of this chapter is concerned with the principles or laws which are pre-supposed in all thinking and reasoning. Aristotle has formulated these laws of thinking as follows 1 The law of identity: A is A. 2 The law of non-contradiction: something cannot be A as well as not-A. 3 The kaw of the excluded middle: something is either A or not-A. We can also formulate these laws as propositional forms: 1 Ifp, then p. 2 Not: pas well as not-p. 3 Either p or not-p. “fp, then p’is referred to as a tautology. Also ‘not: p as well as not-p’ and ‘either p or not- P’are tautologi ‘This means that they give us no information about anything whatsoever. It also means that they cannot be proven. The importance of tautologies is due exclusively to the fact that in each thinking process they are pre-supposed, otherwise we talk nonsense. ‘When I claim that you are mad and yet not mad, or that I exist and yet at the same time do not exist and I mean the same thing all the time with these words, then you do not know anymore what | am talking about. If you were to reply:‘Eriend, I do not know what you are talking about. You shall have to choose: are you there or not?’ And if I answer: ‘Both at the same time’ you may want to ask: Is this paper?’ I can then answer: ‘Perhaps, perhaps not? You will then say: Perhaps one or the other, but not both at the same time? dle. Were I to deny this law by saying: ‘It is paper as well as not paper’ you could ask in astonishment: ‘Is paper paper?” If Lam to be consequent I shall have to say: No, paper is not-paper’, which boils down to ‘Ais not-A, or‘p is not-p. In saying that I have denied myself the possibility of using even one word in a meaningful way because every word that I use does not mean what it means. Even the word ‘no’ will In this reply you are using the law of the excluded 1 the assertion lose its meaning: it can just as well mean ‘yes’ or even something else. In short, itis completely arbitrary in meaning. Thereby it neutralises itself. The sentence: ‘A is not-A, has become meaningless. This then is the reason why the fundamental principles of thinking cannot be proven. As soon as | utter the verb ‘to prove’ it must have a meaning if | am to use it. If that meaning is referred to as x — and not-xas well - and can ‘mean y or z, then nobody knows any longer what we are talking about, myself included. It is the same with words: we must stop somewhere and fall back on meanings that we24 ANALYZE DECONDITION cannot define lest we end up in a circle, which is as futile as listening to a corpse reading from a dictionary. ‘The three fundamental principles cannot be denied for the simple reason that a denial is only possible by accepting them first. There are people who use language in conflict with these three laws and calmly asserts‘to beis not to be’ the first time they useto be’ meaning something different than the second time ~ or they contradict themselves. Their use of a grammatically correct sentence has no more meaning than a parrot that has been taught to say:‘Polly is not Polly. Summary 1 Sentences are connected with concepts like ‘meaningless’ and ‘meaningful. Propositions are connected with the concepts ‘true’ and ‘false 2 Only a meaningful utterance, i.e. an utterance that is not self-contradictory, can be true or false. 3 Analytical propositions are a priori and necessary: synthetic propositions are a posteriori and contingent. ‘Tautologies are utterances true by definition. 5 We distinguish three levels of situations: a.Logically possible; logically impossible; b. Empirically possible; empirically impossible; c. Technically possible; technically impossible. 6 There are three principles pre-supposed in all thinking: is A; b. The principle of non-contradiction: something cannot be A as well as not-A a, The identity principles: at the same time; ¢. The principle of the excluded middle: something is either A or not-A. ‘These three principles are tautologies. 8 ‘These three principles cannot be proven since each proof pre-supposes them.25 ANALYZE DECONDITION 4 Empirical knowledge The difference between chapter three concerning necessary truth and chapter four concerning empirical knowledge runs parallel to the difference between analytical propositions which are a priori and necessary and synthetic propositions, which are posteriori and contingent. Empirical knowledge concerns itself with synthetic propositions. analytic synthetic a priori a posterior necessary contingent Empirical knowledge excludes the formulation of tautologies, because the truth of an empirical knowledge is not true by definition, Empirical knowledge has to be continually tested against the facts and because of its dependence on facts it has as provisional a character as fact itself. Iwill leave aside the possibility that synthetic propositions can be a priori, that is to say that they are pronouncements that tell us something about reality and yet at the same time are recognisable asa priori, as in the axioms: ‘A straight line is the shortest distance between two points; each event has a cause; 1 +1 =2;since these problems are nearly insoluble within this context. empiricist rationalist synthetic synthetic a posteriori a priori contingent necessary Empiricists are of the opinion that synthetic propositions are always a posteriori and contingent; rationalists think that synthetic propositions a priori are possible. Their standpoint is that we do deduce certain concepts from experience that is synthetically, although on reflection we do see that these concepts necessarily belong together as for example in extensiveness and colour. We have seen how important the distinction is between such concepts as logical and26 ANALYZE DECONDITION possible from the example: ‘A woman bears a mouse’, a logical possibility but empirically impossible, Until now I have not yet defined the word ‘empirical. The reason for this is that am unable to give a running account of all these concepts without being reduced to sham answers. ‘To clarify the word ‘empirical’ in terms of what is perceived, what is observed, or what is experienced does explain something of course, but not much, ‘One proposition of empirical knowledge is: empirical knowledge consists of propositions concerning a reality that lies outside these propositions. IfT now ask myself how I could define the concept of ‘reality, then I cannot give the answer, although probably everyone knows what I mean by reality’ Perhaps we can observe a few seconds silence in order to form for ourselves an idea of reality, because in all empirical knowledge this is what matters. ‘The last sentence of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922) says: “What we cannot speak about we must consign to silence, upon which Otto Neurath made the comment: ‘Indeed we must remain silent but not about nothing. None of us can give a definition of ‘reality’ if we take it that a definition makes pronouncements not on the question whether or not something exists, but on its specific characteristics. All the same, if we get the impression that we are faced with a real problem, it seems to me that the best way is to ask ourselves why it is that we cannot deal with it, ‘The word ‘reality’ like any other word, is an abstraction, that is to say, it is a symbol for reality, it is not reality itself, You could call this word, just like the word ‘goodness. a double abstraction, since there is no subject that can be clearly isolated from it. ‘The word ‘reality’ concerns ‘everything that is the case’ without, however, being able to say anything concrete about it. When empirical knowledge makes pronouncements about reality, it obviously does not mean total reality, but certain situations or part-realities. Empirical reality does not only deal with our existence, but also, for instance, provides insight into the functioning of a combustion engine and into the lethal amount of exhaust fumes necessary to kill us. Ifitis impossible to put reality into words, it may be because we cannot define truth either. If truth is concerned with reality and we do not know reality as such, but only all kinds of ities. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) declares a statement true if it corresponds to facts. We call this the correspondence theory of truth. part-realities, then our truth consists of part-rea For centuries, even unto today, people have regarded this definition as the only correct one: a statement is true if t fits the facts, The inescapable question is: what are facts? At this moment | am talking to you on your T'V-screen. You are invisible to me , while I am not visible to you. That you are watching and that this television broadcast is not a sham, rests entirely on my belief. Afterall, it is readable conceivable that no one is watching.27. ANALYZE DECONDITION In that case my position my assumption that I am talking to you is no longer a fact. ‘To put it a more elementary way: I am sitting down, That is a fact. But what kind of fact? My being seated presupposes, for example, that there is gravity and that I am subjected to it. It presupposes that I want to sit down, | can also stand up. We call sitting down a fact, because we distinguish it from standing up, walking, lying down, and therefore to us it means a situation different from other physical postures. Because of all these differences that are so important to us, we give names and subsequently wwe deduce from the name the related fact, as if it were an isolated thing. In the sentence: a spatial object, ic. my but also an agreement to “Lam sitting down’, we presuppose among other things: gravit body; an ability to hold myself in a particular kind of balane call certain postures ‘sitting down’ If sitting down is the result of so many factors, our understanding of such a result is empirical knowledge. Sitting down as a fact then, already appears to contain a whole series of assumptions. That which we isolate as ‘fact’ is our way of ordering of part of reality, in the same way as words order reality and are not part of reality. Neither facts nor nouns exist: ‘the’ cake does not exist; an awful lot of cakes exist. If we place a cake on the table, then that cake on the table isa fact, If we cut the cake into three, wwe have three portions on the table and then we have three facts. If we eat the three cakes then three facts have disappeared, not into the void, but into our stomach, where a chemical process of break-down and digestion enables us to have enough energy to walk to the bakery again, buy another cake and provide new facts. Itis clear that knowledge of reality will be less incomplete and more useful if we arrange the interrelationships of more bits of information at the same time. There is a jump between noticing that a child is sad and understanding why itis sad ‘The ‘why’ question is the origin of all empirical knowledge. If nobody ever thought:‘Why is this so?’ then we would not possess any empirical knowledge. Curiosity is the origin of, all wisdom and knowledge: it is unconditional love for the here and now. ‘We can ask ourselves: why does 1 x 1 make 1? why do people marry monogamously, while so few people really enjoy monogamy? why is ita approximately fifty ~ fifty chance that you will be a girl at birth? why are bananas curved? why is there a war in Vietnam? why don’t you float around in your space? why is‘A is A’ undeniable? If we begin with the last ‘why’ the answer is: only because A is Awe can formulate a sentence that I can understand, since ‘why’ is ‘why’ and not ‘John’; ‘is’ means‘is’ and not a‘throw-away bag, et cetera. Posing the question already presupposes28 ANALYZE DECONDITION that something is the case, what the case is, or that A is A. ‘The first ‘why’; 1 x 1 = monogamously, is more than an agreement. In order to answer this question, we need a Jot of empirical knowledge, that is to say an insight into the origin and structure of norms and values, and the functioning of such norms as monogamy in the group structure; the is an agreement, The second ‘why’: ‘why do people marry role of Christianity; the role of tradition, et cetera. Why is it almost a fifty — fifty chance that you will be female at birth?’ can be answered by referring to a lengthy and precise observa ion which establishes that the number of males and females are roughly in balance. But for statistical probability we do not even require this understanding. When children play word games and ask: “Why are bananas curved?’ and answer:‘Because they are not straight, then this answer implies that there is no answer to this question. ‘These are questions that cannot be answered, because an objective is presupposed that does not exist at all. Why is there war in Vietnam can only be met with ~ among other things —a thorough understanding of how the psychology of war functions in millions of people and of the unbridled striving for economic, political and military power of the military-industrial-political establishment. Why aren’t you floating around in your space” isa question of gravity; it is more than a probability; it isa law of nature. Empirical knowledge assumes that we can explain and predict. To explain and predict assumes insight into a network of phenomena: why carbon-monoxide is lethal can be explained; why people in the Rhine Delta have a five year shorter life expectancy than people in Holland can be explained. If this explanation is complete, then we can also predict what is going to happen next, provided that all conditions remain the same. In fact, the predictive value of an explanation is a measure of its completeness and correctness. For example, aerospace scientists can execute a landing on the moon with a fractional margin for error of seconds because explanation and prediction in the natural sciences are identical and technical control of knowledge has grown enormously. On the other hand, almost no one foresaw the Cultural Revolution in France in 1968, while a strike of ten million workers is indeed not a minor event. The bulk of information in the social sciences is overwhelming, but great obstacles arise in the sorting and ordering of this information into a general pattern of rules and laws. ‘The natural sciences work with causal explanations. Although this is also tried in the social sciences, it often fails, since human behavior con not be interpreted only from relations within origin and function, but also must be understood from within its own objectives. We distinguish causal explanations from explanations that are directed towards an objective.29 ANALYZE DECONDITION ‘The earth moving around the sun is explained without appe: migrating to the South in winter can be explained from instinctive necessity which we label as cause, although we can also refer to this instinctive cause as goal-directeds the fact that someone wishes to join the army can perhaps be explained by his longing to fight for king and country or for easy money. Either way it is his objective, his choice. Explanations with an objective in view are only possible if there are conscious beings who can develop and realize obje s. Many people interpret everything that happens to them as if someone is responsible for it; as if there are good and evil powers behind it all. In doing this they only change the whole of their environment into one great conscious living order in which everything runs according to certain objectives. They turn house numbers and stones into living creatures. The search for explanations in terms of objectives is characteristic of magical thinking. ‘Why do apples fall from the tree?’ Aristotle asked and his answer was: because they have an inbuilt longing for the earth: Why do we die? Freud asked and his answer w: he before Newton formulated his law of universal gravity and thus superseded an explanation ecause we have an inbuilt longing for death. (tle explained the falling of apples in terms of an objective. It was still to take centuries in terms of objectives. Freud’s supposition that man has a drive for death need not be correct, but it is an empirical possibility if we take it that man develops and pursues objectives. An interesting and important question is whether it is meaningful to have as our premise an all-embracing cause, and possibly also an objective, explaining everything that is the case. Christians who are of the opinion that the flood disaster of 1953, or the lightning striking a farm, ora polio outbreak, cannot take place without God’s knowledge and therefore his, will, think in terms of such an all-embracing cause. But not only Christians, also astrologers are inclined to deduce everything that happens from the particular positions of the planets at birth, And some politicians and economists have elevated the theory of development to a universal dogma from which springs forth all that is good and there fore justified. Their whole vision is determined by this dogma, even though Earth be destroyed in this process. Their approach is in conflict with the postulate in logic: “That which explains everything, explains nothing? If God, planets or growth of production and consumption have to explain almost everything that happens in our lives, they cease to explain any longer, because they have become unseeing powers. With such a God, or system of planets or dogma of growth, we cannot predict: ‘If anything can happen, nothing can be explained? If we answer the question why petrol burns and water does not, with: ‘God's will’ explains30 ANALYZE DECONDITION why, then this answer does not differ from the answer to the question: ‘Why are bananas curved?’- ‘Because they are not straight. Of course, there is a deep need in us for certainty and security but this need cannot be satisfied with answers that ultimately do not give any understanding, but, just like the authorities, function to forestall any further question: If get the same answer to my questions again and again, then I don’t feel the need to ask any further questions. If I dor’t ask questions, I dor’t think about things anymore. If I don’t think, I cannot explain things. If I don’t think, | have no understanding If I don’t have an understanding, | will believe anything. If I believe anything, I can except any explanation. Different methods are used to acquire empirical knowledge. The most common method in daily life is induction. This method is based on the observation of phenomena, e.g. water boils at 100 Centigrade and since we observe the same thing again and again, we generalize, so that it becomes a natural law. If it appears that water on top of a mountain boils a little before it reaches 100, the law is made precise: ‘Water boils at 100 Centigrade at sea level Such a generalization is the basis of the induction method. If Johnny has been stealing three times, he will probably steal for a fourth time, and often this does happen, if only because Johnny knows that everybody expects it of him. From a logical point of view the induction method, generalizing about some cases and ‘turning these into all cases, does not yield any absolute true knowledge. If, until now, the sun has risen everyday, there is no absolute guarantee that the sun will also rise tomorrow. Where this to be the case, than Earth and Star would be indestructible bodies. Moreover, the destruction of Earth by any enormous planet, would be ruled out. With good arguments the skeptic can show us that we would do well to trust that the ice will hold or that the floor of the house will also support us tonight when we are asleep. However, absolute certainty cannot be obtained until the ice or floor has actually held. Trust is something different from absolute certainty. During the case in West Germany of the damaging results of the thalidomide pills, lawyers for the manufacturers could constantly put forward that scientifically, it is not certain that thalidomide is responsible for the deformities. Here ‘scientific’ means absolute certainty, that can never be a conclusion from inductive reasoning. Hence it is misleading to use the term ‘scientific’ in such a context. Empirical knowledge oscillates inevitable between points of fantastic suppositions, for example, the time spent in the womb is decisive for our social consciousness; and almost3 ANALYZE DECONDITION complete certainties like laws of nature. But even Einstein who corrected Newton, was of the opinion that his theories, in their turn, are of a provisional nature. If we make ourselves aware that isolating facts implies one way of approaching reality, then generalizing about such facts and turning them into laws, is neither impermissible nor unproductive. But all such generalizations can be formulated as hypotheses. These hypotheses are accommodated in a theory in order to test them through the theory against reality. One exception is then enough to refute the hypothesis. This method is called the hypothetical-deductive method. In comparison with the induction method, it has the great advantage that it makes us more aware of the ordering part that we play while constructing as complete a knowledge of reality as possible, Therefore, we will not in all haste and naivité confuse the words ‘scientist’ and ‘science’ with certain and reliable knowledge. Before we can refer to an empirical proposition as a law of nature, four conditions must be met: : It must be an empirical proposition that is universal, in other words, applicable to all cases without exception: all iron rusts when exposed to oxygen. : Such a universal proposition must be formulated in a hypothesis, that is to say, in the ‘if...then’ form: if there is iron, then it will rust if exposed to oxygen. In other words, the hypothesis does not make a pronouncement about the factual existence of iron, but only about its definable, intrinsic characteristics. : A universal hypothetical proposition must not be subject to time and place. In other words, it is also valid in the future and therefore it has prediction values: iron not only rusts today, but tomorrow as well. : A universal hypothetical proposition is not separate from other universal hypothetical propositions. Formulated in a negative way: natural laws cannot be in conflict with each other. Natural laws and theories are not one and the same. Natural laws refer to known and ordered phenomena, while theories refer to constructions of phenomena that need to be ascertained: unconsciousness, atoms, electrons and genes play an important part in theorizing without ever having been observed. A theory attempts to set up laws. Laws are part of a theory. Theories are frameworks for interpretations. Such a framework must be coherent and consistent, that is to say, it must show an inner connection without inner conflict. In addition it must be verifiable for second and third parties. Whether such a framework is correct can be verified by applying the theory to new information. If this information conflicts with the theory then this theory has to be reviewed.32. ANALYZE DECONDITION ‘The broader the theory, the more likely it is to be incorrect. At the same time to aim for broader theories capable of embracing theories which are in conflict or in juxtaposition, is decisive for the advancement of our knowledge. Summary 1 Empirical knowledge consists of propositions about realty. 2 A statement is true ifit corresponds to facts. A fact isan ordering of part of reality. 3 The question ‘Why?’ is the origin of all empirical knowledge. 4 We distinguish causal explanations from explanations directed toward an objective: causal explanation does not presuppose self-direction; an explanation in terms of objectives does pre-suppose self-direction. 5 ‘The induction method is based on generalization: it supplies probable, not absolute and certain knowledge. 6 ‘The deduction method is based upon the development of a theory from which hypotheses are extrapolated that subsequently have to be tested 7 An empirical law is @ natural law when it is: a. universal; b. hypothetical — that is ‘if...then’; .not limited in time and places d. not in conflict with other laws. 8 ‘A theory isa framework for the interpretation of part-reality; it has to be coherent and consistent.33 ANALYZE DECONDITION 5 Theory of Argument In chapter four we were concerned with the question of how we can acquire empirical knowledge. In this chapter I especially wish to take up a number of very common arguments and lines of thought. I hope to change the mind of anyone who until now has thought that the analyses in the preceding chapters were mainly or exclusively meant for a particular kind of people, the so-called lovers of abstract thought. For man, argument or reasoning is as elementary a process of life as defecating. Bach day, from morning till deep in the night and even in our dreams perhaps, we are busy establishing relationships, solving problems, and convincing others and ourselves of being in the right. Until now I have been done exactly that in this course of philosophy. Communication with ourselves and others will be all the more fundamental the better we are able to succeed in fathoming the reliability of our reasoning, Without a doubt, my construction of reality is made up of a great number of unproven starting points, presuppositions, generalizations of individual experience, invalid reasoning and false conclusions. I will repeat this statement since its possible truth implies that my conviction about my insight into the relationships between thought, language and reality, is unjustified; ‘Without a doubt, my construction of reality is made up of a great number of unproven starting points, presuppositions, generalizations of individual experience, invalid reasoning and false conclusions’ ‘An example of an unproven starting-point is the proposition in the first chapter that the common use of language is a guide to meaning, not to truth. I have defined this proposition, but I am aware the defense has been extremely flimsy, Such a pronouncement concerning the use of language as a guide to meaning and not to truth implies that I disconnect truth from language, while in the same utterance, using language, I make a statement about language, a statement that T regard as true. This seems like abracadabra and, in a sense, this understand that each pronouncement we make and which can be very meaningful, originates from an entire series of presuppositions and convictions we cannot prove. is indeed what it is. Yet it is useful to In this chapter I do not wish to focus on the truth or untruth of certain starting points or premises, but rather on the way in which we handle these starting points; in other words,34 ANALYZE DECONDITION in which we argue. If we argue, we do this with a particular objective in mind. This objective can be to spur ‘on others to behave in a certain way, but also to structure part of reality in the strength of certain phenomena. On the whole such a difference in objectives runs parallel to what we call the subjunctive and indicative. The sentence “Make love, not war’ is a wish or a command, while the sentence ‘The second World War lasted from 1939 till 1945” is a description. In the first chapter about the theory of meaning the same point arose in connection with the origin of meaning of words: words can influence behavior and words can refer to ideas that do or do not appear in empirical reality, I think I do not exaggerate if I claim that most people’s use of language is primarily directed towards the modification of behavior of oneself and others, either through love stories, sermons, military comments and advertising or, to put it more crudely, through education from cradle to grave. And even a congress of professors in theology in search of divine truth, or a neuro- physiological laboratory in Buffalo in search of the functions of the billions of neurons in ‘our brain, is concerned with the development of a language of behavior. Their aim is to research into certain aspects of reality, not to modify the behavior of man. Their language is a combination of hypotheses and descriptions in the indicative, in other words, it is a construction of reality. But indirectly their theory, when accepted, will be transformed into concrete behavior, that is to say into a certain type of questions that we and they put, and answers that we and they give concerning our environment and ourselves. The way we handle the sources of energy on earth, is an example. The use of it in our practical behavior is also based upon scientific insight But in a narrower sense it is without doubt meaningful to make a distinction between sentences intended to give a description of a situation and sentences intended to modify a situation, For example ‘The Open University Broadcasts in Britain contain a cultural philosophy’ is a descriptive sentence and this statement does not mean that it is a truthful statement. “Itis the task of the Open University to develop a cultural philosophy’ is not a descriptive sentence but a wish or command. A common deception is that we express ourselves in descriptive sentences, a try through the quasi-objectivity of this description to influence the behavior of some else. if we are concerned with a certain state of affairs, yet, in fact, we ‘This double-barreled meaning is readily recognizable in sentences like:'I love you’ ‘Holy Mary takes pity on every repenting sinner’; “The Warsaw-pact troops outnumber the NATO troops’; We are the hollow men: Yet no one will regard a psychiatric report on a35 ANALYZE DECONDITION suspect as an analysis designed to modify the behavior of the suspect. On the contrary, the analysis sets out to explain his behavior. Yet the judge’s decision on the strength of such a report, will in all probability determine the punishment of the suspect. ‘The description of a situation or a certain state of affairs is an ordering of information. From the moment that the ordering of information is applied, the description shifts to the modification of man or nature. My premise is that all information means an ordering of facts, however minimal, and that an ordering of information contributes directly or indirectly to a pre-determined pattern of behavior. For example, it can hardly be applied to the television news section that they are attempting to influence the viewer. Yet the selection of news, information and the clipped, monotone style of the news reader only :leaves me with one impression: everything has the same value. ‘The style of the newsreader is the only, although meaningless, foothold in a totally random heap of facts. The objectivity of the facts seems established, but it is an objectivity that is totally arbitrary. Do we have to say that the style influences the viewer? 1 am inclined to say that this is the case. Influence presupposes that somebody describes a situation in more or less detail to somebody else who will draw his own conclusions. But itis just because television news does not give any insight into situations, that it influences indirectly the behavior of the viewer, namely by confronting him with a chaos of facts. ‘The borderline between description and norm can be drawn sharply if we take note of the indicative or the subjunctive structure of sentences. But the borderline between description and norm cannot be sharply drawn if we take a description always to be an ordering of facts; in other words, the description is the result of our perception of the environment. ‘This is the fundamental reason for the variety of opinions in the press, and of course not From this point of view it is nonsense to speak of one-sided information. only in the pres ‘The expression ‘one-sided information’ can only be applied meaningfully if a sharp distinction can be made between objective and subjective information. These sorts of problems can easily give rise to circular reasoning. An example of such a circular reasoning is clear in a column of a national Dutch newspaper‘Handelsblad-NRC, 28th July 1971. The author J. television, among other things as far as its structure is concerned, is referred to as a bulwark of conformism. I quote: ‘But from this comment the reader gets the impression that those members (of national television) understand critical journalism to be committed journalism. Committed journalism starts from a biased position critical journalism starts from no other position than that of discovering the heart of the matter and that nothing . Heldring is replying to a comment in which national36 ANALYZE DECONDITION must be taken for granted. Professional know-how is not necessary for committed journalism as such; itis a requisite for critical journalism? Itis clear from what he writes what the author wishes the words ‘critical’ and ‘committed’ to mean, He endows these words with their own clear meaning, There is no objection to this. On the contrary. This is what I have called a‘stipulative definition’ in chapter 2. lalso put forward that in all those cases which quickly give rise to misunderstanding, there are grounds for such a definition. But there is more. The author wishes to endow the words ‘critical’ and ‘committed’ with more than their own meaning. He defines the words as opposites: what is contained in one word is not contained in the other and vice versa. One word springs from a biased view, the other arises from the heart of the matter. One is obviously subjective; the other objective. Imperceptably we have moved from a stipulative definition which only refers to meaning, to normative statements that have as their starting point the division of reality into subjective and objective. This manner of argument is very deceptive. The flaw in the argument of the author is the suggestion that he establishes something which, in actuality, he has already built into his own definition. ‘To accept a case as proven while, in fact, it still has to be proved, is sometimes referred to as a‘petitio principii, or a bogus basis. Let us look at the following statement: ‘As with all kinds of freedom, the freedom of expression also has its dangers: Such a statement presupposes a dangerous side to the concept of freedom in order to apply it to the freedom of expression. In this way much is suggested, nothing is proved. Discussions about democratization are often carried out under the tacit supposition that whatever we understand democracy to be, itis at any rate something good. The result is that currently the word has a hundred and one meanings but people retain to discard it, for the word has force. In a discussion you weaken your position avoiding such a word. Whatever the case may be, it is advisable, when these words are used, to spot their meanings at once and to put every speaker and author to the test by insisting that he does not switch from one meaning to another. Probably the word democracy together with the word God has become one of the most elusive terms today. A. common flaw in argument is to disconnect words that make a pair within one concept or meaning, like ‘mother and child, ‘creator and created”, These terms are called relational terms. Those who say that a creator exists by pointing at creation, do nothing but incorporate the creator into the word creation. They cannot prove that a creator exists by talking about creation, since the fact that it is a creation is exactly what must be7 ANALYZE DECONDITION demonstrated. The concepts ‘creator’ and ‘creation’ are assumed in each other. The same is valid for the concepts ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’; they also are assumed in each other. In the column “These Days, 9th October 1971 in the previously mentioned newspaper ‘“Handelsblad-NRC; such a pair of relational terms was unjustifiably torn apart. I quote: “Sometimes - although seldom - this paper is praised by its readers, often because of its ‘objective commentary’ As receiver of this praise one does not have the heart to reply: Sir, you are mistaken: there is no such thing as ‘ objective commentary’; commentary is per definition subjective? And further on: * All perception is subjective. No one perceives the ‘Therefore the reproduction of fact can never be objective? ‘The author of the column ‘ These Days’ makes two mistakes: 1. He manipulates the same fact in the same we concepts ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ as independent concepts, although they are relational. One is unthinkable without the other. 2, In spite of the so-called ‘subjective’ perception, he keeps referring to the same fact, as if a fact were not an ordering of part of reality. And how does he know that it is the sanze fact if we all perceive it in a different way? Perception and fact are always interrelated. One nor the other is subjective or objective. A misleading argument which is probably as old as mankind, is the ‘ argumentum ad hominem, the argument centered on a person (the personal argument) rather than on the matter at hand. A good example of this is found in a small book Revolution and all that by Dr. N. Verwey, who attacks not just the theory of his colleague, the psychiatrist Foudraine, but Foudraine himself, by asking the question: “Does not this denigrating criticism of well-known researchers conceal his own conflict about authority? ‘This question has nothing to do with the issue. It isa technique often used by politicians, obviously with the intention that attacks on persons or groups are more effective, than making critical analyses. Kill the man and you kill his ideas. However, there is a way in which an argument centered on a person (the personal argument) can be meaningful. An example is the attack by Piet Grijs on the politician ‘Sicco Mansholt in the weekly’ Vrij Nederland” 29th January 1972: “Why, in fact, does Mansholt cut such a ridiculous figure?” Grijs writes that he is of the opinion that Mansholt in his television speeches utters the most enormous banalities which, moreover, are in conflict with his recent past. ‘The difference between the attack of Verwey on Foudraine and the attack of Grijs on Mansholt, is that in the first instance there is no connection between the personal attack and the attack on the issue, but in the second instance there is a connection. In his present theories Mansholt tacitly denies his past actions. In each case there is no proof that either38. ANALYZE DECONDITION Verwey or Grijs are right or wrong. We are exclusively concerned with the connection between the personal attack and the attack on the issue. In the first instance there is no such connection; in the second there is such a connection. One of the most common forms of reasoning is within the sequence of cause and effect. For example:* Since life is as yet not one big feast, I philosophize: You may wonder whether this is really my motive. Perhaps I philosophize because I am unfit for any other job. If you put it this way you are doing psychological research. Such psychological research is, important, but it can never result in absolute certainty. For every motive may conceal another motive. Its the same problem as with the definition of words. Sooner or later we have to stop the procedure, as we have seen in chapter 2, otherwise we could continue forever, taking for granted that we have enough words. However, in the first place we have not got a large enough vocabulary; and secondly, even if we did, it still would not provide a solution. We would end up in an endless sequence, the so-called regressio ad infinitum’, an infinite regress. From a logical point of view, the point where we stop with our research on motivation is arbitrary; from the psychological or empirical point of view it is probably not. However, at this point we are not interested in the psychological question but in the sequence of reasoning, To clarify the logical structure of the cause — effect sequence | will write the sentence: ‘Since life is as yet not one big feast, I philosophize’ into the propositional form: if p, then q’. We discussed this in chapter 3 concerning Necessary Truth, We then arrive at the following proposition: ‘If life is still not one big feast, then I philosophize\ or: “if p, then q. We have seen that we cannot reverse this propositional form; wwe cannot turn ‘ifq, then p, or ‘When I philosophize, then life is still not one big feast. I could have become a professional in the army, for example, But we can say with impunity that the denial of q, or not-q, must be preceded by the denial of p, or not-p: ‘If I do not philosophize, then life is still one great feast? Say that life has become one great feast and that [am still philosophizing, then I know with absolute certainty that I was mistaken when I said:* Since life is as yet not one big feast, I philosophize’ I cannot, at this moment, discover whether my reason to philosophize is the right one — since life is still not one big feast. But Ido understand why Tam unable to discover that and so T can also understand when Lam able to discover that. The analysis of the logical structure of such an argument gives me that insight. In the fourth chapter we concerned ourselves with the induction method. Although it was posed then that generalizing from some experiences or experiments will never provide39 ANALYZE DECONDITION the absolute certainty about their re-occurrence, this generalization on the basis of our experiences is so self-evident that practically no one will deny it. Ina discussion between two individuals this results in a continual play-off between certain sequences of each other's experiences and neither can appeal to that generalization, For example, a number of people find this course of philosophy difficult or incomprehensible; for some a good reason to say that from a didactic point of view the course is badly put together, while others are of the opinion that it nay depend on themselves. Yet another group think it a well-thought-out, systematic course from which they can benefit a lot. Nearly all these people will not regard their opinion primarily as their reaction to the course, but as a judgment about the course itself which is not just their own but that they share with all others. I now catch myself writing‘ Nearly all these people’. In other words, also generalize, even though I am careful or trained enough to prefix it with words like ‘nearly. Summary 1 Argumentation is as elementary a process of life as defecating 2 Argumentation always takes place with an objective in view: either modification of behavior or ordering of a part of reality. 3 If information is the ordering of facts, it indirectly contributes toa certain pattern of behavior. 4 A circular argument or a bogus basis sets out to prove something that is already built into its starting-points. Relational terms, for example subjective and objective, presuppose each other. 6 An argument centered on a person, argumentum ad hominem, is only relevant in ll cases where it concerns that person. 7 ‘One can only say that p is the cause of q, if not only it is known that p is followed by q, but also that not-p is followed by not-q. 8 Generalizing from one’s own experiences is as much a matter of fact as it is unreliable.40. ANALYZE DECONDITION 6 Causality, determinism, and freedom The problems discussed in this chapter on causality, determinism and freedom are as old as philosophy, which, in turn, is probably as old as mankind. The views maintained in twentieth century philosophy do not differ essentially from those already held before the Christian era. All attempts to speak the magic word seem like trying to square a circle. The problem of determinism and freedom resembles the dog running in circles, trying to catch his own tails or it resembles the farmer who, because of his religious convictions, does not allow his cattle to be vaccinated and solves the problem by selling the cattle to his neighbor the evening before the vaccination and buying them back again afterwards. ‘Thinking in cause and effect is part of our mind habits. If the fuses at home continually blow for months and different electricians cannot find the cause, we do not conclude that the fuse box possesses a free will which takes pleasure in arbitrarily blowing the fuses. Ifa child is very bad-tempered, many parents will conclude that something is worrying him. If the mood persists, they will resign themselves to it, saying that it happens to be his. nature. They give up looking for a cause in order to explain it as a more or less unchangeable factor in the child itself. Why do they do this? Probably because in relationship to their child they are powerless. Whatever they do does not help. Time and again they appear to be mistaken in the solution of the problem. From their position of impotence, they conclude that there is no definite cause, at any rate no ise on which they can exert influence. They will be inclined to think this, even knowing that the same child was not ill-tempered and aggressive until he was four years old. If this reasoning is valid, then thinking in cause and effect is universal because we experience the «% feeling that we can influence each other. After all, relationships between people are ultimately nothing but an unremitting series of attempts to influence each other, whether from a position of relative power or relative weakness. A hungry baby cries until it is fed. If there is a quick and regular response to its signals, the first basis is formed for thinking in terms of causal relationships. From my experience of human relationships I do not recognize as irreconcilable. In other words, I can function in a causal relationship and feel free, whatever that may mean. Incteasing impotence in influencing a situation and yet feeling responsible for that situation, results in feelings of guilt. The notion of guilt the clash between impotence to4 ANALYZE DECONDITION effect a solution on the one hand and on the other hand the idea if being responsible for the ability or necessity to do so. ‘There is a big difference between the ways in which the word ‘cause’ functions in daily intercourse, as for example with the police and in the courts, as contrasted with the way it functions in the sciences. Ifa mother kills three of her children, everybody will regard her act as the cause of death. She hit the children on the head with a hammer until they died of skull fractures. But if the same children had died of skull fractures as a result of jumping from second-story windows to escape a fire in their house, no one would consider gravity the death of the children. Colloquial language seeks an individual and special cause, the so-called perpetrator. Scientific language attempts the reverse. In chapter four concerning empirical knowledge, the criteria for a natural law have been mentioned: among others, it is universality, that is to say, one exception is sufficient to discard it as a law. A natural law isa classic example of the structure of a causal relationship in which our will takes no part at all In contradiction to the meaning of the word ‘cause’ in colloquial language, which focuses on exceptions to the regular pattern, for example, the mother who kills her children, the meaning of the word ‘cause’ in scientific language focuses on the determination of a universal relationship. So far, I have refrained from giving a definition of the word ‘cause. Thousands of years ago philosophers already argued that every occurrence has a cause, which in turn is the effect of another cause ‘Questions concerning the ultimate origin of all causes and effects received answers ranging from ‘blind fate’ to an ‘all-knowing and almighty Providence. But since that moment when man first posed the question: ‘what is really the exact meaning of “A causes B” , the answer has become considerably more difficult. David Hume, an English philosopher of the eighteenth century argued that we speak wrongly of causality. What we perceive is nothing more or less than the continuous coincidence of phenomena in a certain sequence, According to Hume, the belief in causality rests on our expectations and associations. When one billiard ball hits another and the second ball ‘moves, we say that the movement of billiard ball A is the cause of the movement of billiard ball B. We call A the cause of B since A precedes B and A and B appear together regularly. ‘The question now is whether we can conclude justifiably that A is the cause of B. This42 ANALYZE DECONDITION question cannot be answered from observation, That which one person regards as sufficient reason to speak of cause, another may insist on describing as a continuing coincidence of circumstances. For example, if Mr. Smith has four years wound his watch at precisely four o'clock in the afternoon in front of the church, no one would conclude that Mr. Smith causes the church clock to strike four. Only when Mr. Smith does not turn up and the church clock does not strike and stops altogether, would some people believe in a causal connection between Mr. Smith and the church clock, although that belief proves nothing. For a description of such a coincidence of circumstances, it is not necessary to start from the principle of causality. One can always continue to say that we observe no ‘more than the simultaneous appearance of phenomena in a certain order ad infinitum. On that basis we can predict successfully and still maintain those predictions prove that what we are dealing with a simultaneous appearance of phenomena, but still do not prove anything about causality. Before advancing my arguments for the fact that it seems meaningful to me to accept the principle of universal causality, I want to give a definition of the word ‘cause’ Teall p the cause of q when, and only when, p is always followed by 4; if not-p is always followed by not-q; or: ip, then g; if not-p, then not q. ‘The principal of universal causality means that everything that happens has a cause, or, formulated more precisely: for every occurrence B, there is an occurrence A, such that A is the cause of B. If Laccept the principle of universal causality, itis for the following reasons: if I do not accept it, the cosmos, including ourselves, becomes an absolutely chaotic and, therefore, incomprehensible quantity of phenomena; the regularity which we think we observe is then nothing but a fiction. But even if I accept the chaotic cosmos as an actual possibility, and why not?, I have to exclude my thinking, including the statement “The cosmos is a chaos, from the chaos. Thinking is always necessarily and inevitably connected to the principle of identity: chaos is chaos. Itis linked to the principle of non-contradiction: something cannot be chaos and not-chaos, and to the principle of the excluded third: something is chaos or not Only through these three principles, which are presumed in every thought (as we have seen in chapter three about necessary truth) is the assertion “The cosmos is a chaos’ a logical, that is to say non-contradictory possibility. But a logical possibility makes no judgment atall about the question whether itis an empirical or factual possibility. I cannot say more in support of the principle of universal causality. For any appeal to the natural43 ANALYZE DECONDITION sciences, that can predict so much, will not help, since the natural sciences themselves make use of this causality principle. They presume it. I can never give empirical proof of causality, since every empirical argument itself makes use of it. ‘There is yet another reason why I cannot prove the principle of universal causality. If this principle were to be characteristic of total reality, which I believe it does, although we are unable to define total reality, then it would be impossible to demonstrate the universality of this principle. From this it follows that the principle of universal causality is a metaphysical principle, thats, it makes a statement about how reality is, while we do not fully comprehend reality. But non-acceptance of this principle is just as metaphysical, except that we deprive ourselves of any possibility to comprehend at least something of reality. For the lack of a universal causality has, as its consequence, chaos. And the proposition that the universe is a great chaos is also metaphysical, and therefore also unproven. What can be the reason why so many philosophers have rejected and still reject the principle of a universal causality? The reason is that this principle is regarded as the foundation of determinism. Determinism holds that everything that happens has its cause, and is therefore determined beforehand. But if everything is determined, nothing remains of man’s freedom. If everything is determined, the idea of moral responsibility, rights and duties is a phantasmagoria unless, for example, we accept the so-called ethical determinism of Socrates and Plato. This ethical determinism defends the thesis’ Virtue is knowledge; knowledge is virtue’ Applied to God, it means for Leibnitz: ‘The good must always be God’s guide’ By deriving insight into good from doing good, we start from the presumption that man is naturally and necessarily directed towards the good. Good does not make man un-free - he wants nothing but the good - provided he knows what good is. But by deriving good from freedom and knowledge from good, we derive all problems from each other and thus none are solved. In desiring the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil we have already squandered one Paradise. The tragedy of the conflict between determinism and freedom is clear from the question of whether parents, because of their religious convictions, have the right ~ or, in their own eyes, the duty - to deny their children immunization against polio, even if there is a polio epidemic. When such parents are prosecuted and they plead the Biblical adage ‘Not even a sparrow falls to earth without the will of God’ they are formulating the deterministic standpoint that God, as the all-determining cause, has pre-ordained everything. And which Christian would deny that? If the prosecutor still wants to hold the44 ANALYZE DECONDITION parents responsible, he can only do so by declaring their religious determinism unethical and unlawful. This is, of course, insuffi not only appeal to the Bible, but also to Diodorus Cronos, a Greek philosopher of the fourth century B.C., an adherent of logical determinism. {as a refutation. For the parents’ lawyer could Logical determinism proceeds from the thesis that every statement is either true or false. From the fact that something has taken place, reasoned Diodorus Cronos, for example a polio epidemic, it follows that it had to take place and therefore itis true that it was bound to happen before it happened. In other words, his conclusion is: the outcome is inevitable. ‘The prosecutor should take the trouble, if he is in a position to do so, to refute all these forms of religious and logical determinism, before he can prove his case against the parents. ‘This applies even more, since we have already seen that the parents can never act in the scientific sense of the word ‘cause. They have as much to do with polio as a cow with the sun. ‘The problem of determinism and indeterminism is summed up very well in Through the Looking Glass: ‘Cheshire Cat, said Alice, ‘can you please tell me which road I should take from here’? ‘That depends a great deal on where you want to go’ replied the Cat. “This and he pointed with his right paw-—-lives a hatter and this way’---pointing with his other paw ‘lives a March Hare. Visit whom you will. They are both mad’ ‘But I don’t want to visit mad people; said Alice, ‘Oh, then there is nothing to be done’ said the Cat. ‘We are all mad. 1 am mad. You are mad’, If we have another look at the way in which the judicial powers wield the concepts of determinism and freedom, we have the following situation. Often, if the suspect has committed an act which deviates too much from a generally current notion of normality and the act is serious, for example a sex-murder, a psychiatric report will be requested. In fact, the psychiatrist will then decide whether the suspect is to be held accountable for his act. If the suspect is accountable, his behavior falls under the theory of indeters in principle he can be held responsible for it. If the suspect is not accountable, his behavior ism and falls under the theory of determinism and the question is raised whether he is responsible for it. From the moment that we can demonstrate that all human behavior is completely determined, in the sense of there being no individual responsibility, every accused person should go free. But is it plausible that a sort of disease could exist, which you could call the free-will- disease? A disease, which you sometimes have and sometimes do not, and which can afflict45 ANALYZE DECONDITION some people all their lives? And moreover a disease which can and may be diagnosed only by psychiatrists? If so, then psychiatrists have assumed the role of priests. But then, the experience that you are sometimes in a position to influence your own behavior, or that of others, so fundamentally that you can speak of causing a change in behavior, is that sheer imagination? I don’t think so! Before advancing an argument in favor of human freedom, which in my opinion is not in conflict with my acceptance of universal causality, - including the laws of nature - Twant to give an example of the combination of determinism and freedom. Chess, a genuine war game, is an example of a combination of rules that are unambiguous, never give rise to doubt and with a freedom in the form of an endless number of combinations and applications of the rules. The development of new moves is only possible within the framework of the rules. These rules do not imply a limitation in the number of moves, but rather the conditions under which moves may be made. The rules are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an infinite number of related moves, although not infinite in an absolute sense. Although Iam not in a position to put into perspective all the rules regulating behavior, including our own, I will ry to show that it is sensible to accept the principle of universal causality or an initial deterministic viewpoint. Because man’s freedom has nothing to do with his physical of psychological functions, but isa direct consequence of, and inextricably bound with, his capacity for self-reflection. si By self-reflection I mean the ability of man to say “I” to himself. The sentence “I am I” is the expression of this. Because we can do this, we can reflect about ourselves, become conscious of our surroundings, of our death, and of the principles of logic, which are the basis of our thinking. ‘The concept of freedom has nothing to do with race, belief, political ideologies, physical or psychological characteristics, but deals exclusively with the ability of man to become aware of himself, to say’yes’ or ‘no’ to himself in whatever situation, I do not mean this as a sort of competition with the determining factors of human conduct, such as heredity or social milieu. I mean the capacity to become aware of circumstance and to learn to devise new moves. By such a process, we can perhaps also discover to what ex our behavior, that we find now circumstantial, really do define the limits within which we ent the causes of live our lives. If the rules are such that they, just as in chess, make possible an endless number of related moves, then the principle of universal causality and the principle of freedom, equality and46 ANALYZE DECONDITION brotherhood, are not as contradictory as many people believe, after all. Perhaps these principles presuppose each other, and can only be understood in their mutual relationship. However, we have only just begun to glean the first understanding of these principles. Summary 1 Thinking in cause and effect is universal, because of our experience of influencing each other. 2 In colloquial language, cause means a specific condition; cause in scientific Janguage means a universal relationship. Ifp is the cause of q, only then ‘if p then q, if not-p then not-q. 4 ‘The principle of universal causality maintains that every occurrence has a cause, which in turn is the effect ofa cause 5 Determinism means that everything that happens is determined ; indeterminism means that not everything that happens is determined Weare all mad. [am mad. You are mad, 7 Man’s freedom isa direct consequence of, and inextricably bound with, our capacity for self-reflection. 8 ‘There is no real conflict between the principle of universal causality and the principle of freedom, equality and brotherhood.a7 ANALYZE DECONDITION 7 Body, Mind, Death Slowly but surely we are moving into a fog of questions which everyone asks himself from time to time, but which seem to have no answers or only unsatisfactory answers. y of the human mind or, in this case, Itisa situation which is characteristic of the paucit perhaps also of its richness. When I say, as in the preceding chapter, that thinking in terms of cause and effect is universal because of the experience of influencing each other, what do I mean by ‘each other’? The answer seems simple, namely, ‘each of us. But what makes somebody someone? Is it his physical appearance? Is it his consciousness or his memory? What does it mean when people say, ‘I want to be myself”? So self-evident is the question, ‘What or who am I? and so difficult is the answer. It is the question about my identity, or about me, myself. When L ask myself why I address my self as‘T, and I know for certain that there is no one else in my shoes who can say’; then I have the feeling that my body is the cause of this. Running through the most diverse experiences, there is a continuity for myself from within and for all others from without, which means something like my ‘self which we refer to as'T. Someone can age, someone can change great deal, but we sill continue to see that person as the same man or the same woman. Otherwise we could not even say that he or she has changed so much. The sentence, You would not recognize her; she has become a totally different person’ can only be understood if you start from the assumption that she has remained ultimately the same woman. As with the question about causality, we can ask ourselves, with David Hume, whether the self is purely a bundle of consecutive experiences without a self behind all these experiences. If I were to reject causality, then logically and empirically I would also have to reject identity or self which arranges my experiences into an inevitable entity, into that entity that we call 2 In my opinion, acceptance of the principle of a ‘self’ is just as inescapable as acceptance of the principle of universal causality. We have to ask the question about the coherence of all our experiences, or we can no longer use the concept and word ‘I: If I can no longer use the concept I cannot even speak of experiences, since I could not know the person being48 ANALYZE DECONDITION those experiences. But we can justifiably ask ourselves, what sort of ‘self’, what kind of “identity, is most fundamental, If | regard my body as the cause of my identity, the inevitable conclusion is that my identity will be destroyed by death, or more precisely: death is nothing other than the dissolution of my identity. Death is the loss of my ‘self’ T can now ask myself what the sentence: ‘Death is the loss of my self’ means. My ‘self’ is, ors not. The principle of the excluded middle allows no other possibility. In a strict sense then, I cannot say ‘Death is the loss of my ‘self” You can lose something, by which act you no longer have it at your disposal. You then have no further power over it. But you can only say this if it still exists. | cannot lose myself, since there would be no ‘I to lose it. In this sense it is absolutely unthinkable to completely experience my death, even during dying, unless as the negation of what I still am. The ‘self? can never absent itself entirely, because the ‘self’ excludes the possibility of this thought process, Perhaps this is the most profound reason for never coming to terms with death, except by ignoring it, or by believing in an existence after death in one form or another, in which case death is not the total destruction of our ‘self’. Yet, physically there is a case of continuous confrontation between what we may call the principles of Life and Death. A living organism, the body is subject to a continuous process of breakdown and reconstructing. Inanimate substances, such as bread, potatoes, rice, and vegetables are converted into living substances, in the same way as living substances are reduced to inanimate ones, Nails, hair, and urine illustrate this daily. The body is a microcosm, a small world, that unites life and death in a way which is probably not so different from that of the macrocosm, the larger world, than we generally think, The concept ‘life’ is unthinkable without the concept ‘death’ Like the concepts ‘subjective’ and. ‘objective’, they presuppose each other. Life and Death are friends. The intimate relationship between life and death in our body becomes crystal clear, if we try to imagine that we will not die. For example, logically it is imaginable that people would proceed with the procreation and bearing of children without dying themselves. Everyone would indeed grow older, but no one would die. Slowly but surely, the earth would be overrun by an increasing number of people for ever growing older. The graying of the earth would assume such proportions that people would begin to loathe each other and collectively plead to be allowed to die. Or they would develop an ever-greater hatred for those people who still wanted to bear children, and try to climinate them and their children. It would indeed be unjustifiable for these aging people to allow even more people on the earth, if no one died. In this49. ANALYZE DECONDITION instance, the notion that birth, love and death form a cycle would slowly but surely be lost. By banishing death, love also would be banished, so making new life impossible. In their behavior, people would resemble robots more and more, telling each other stories about their ape-like ancestors who had not succeeded in attaining physical immortality. Another possible way is to imagine immortality as the suspension ofall life on earth. From the moment of total suspension, nothing would change: the trees remain bare if they are bare, and green if they are green. A skin will no longer change its complexion. Children will remain children. No one will arrive, and no one will leave. Food need no longer be digested and defecated. Every smile will freeze, caught in the mirror of invariability. Boredom would assume such proportions that we would do everything we could to change the situation, for example by organizing suicide squads. If all these attempts failed, we would try to erase from memory the remnants of the lust for life. In all our effort, we would finally succeed in looking like asphalt or concrete. Only spasmodically would we recall what we used to be about. Telling each other fairy tales, we would relate that of Sleeping Beauty who could only regain life through the Prince’s magic kiss and through death, life. Spinoza a Dutch philosopher of the seventeenth century, expressed the inner necessity to accept death: ‘A free man thinks about nothing less than death and his wisdom is not a meditation about death but about life. In the beginning of this chapter, I started from the assumption that my body is the cause of my identity. However, I did not give the concept ‘cause’ a close analysis. In chapter six I claimed that the word ‘cause’ in colloquial use denotes a particular condition, and in scientific use denotes a universal relationship. I will use the word ‘cause’ here as a combination of necessary and sufficient conditions. Although many people are inclined to identify ‘self’ or ‘identity’ with the body as a living organism, we can ask whether the body is a necessary condition for the ‘self’; if so, is the body a sufficient condition for the ‘self’? If the body is a necessary condition for the’self’ of the human, it means that, without my body, Iam not a ‘self? or an ‘identity: Therefore, my body is indispensable for the existence of my ‘self. In other words, if I die, my ‘self? ceases to exist. I no longer exist. Only people who do not regard the body as a necessary condition for the self can argue that death of the body has no effect on the continued existence of the ‘self But is this acceptable or, stronger, logically conceivable? Can we think of a human ‘self? without a body? No one thinks about a dead man without thinking about his body. In my view no one is50. ANALYZE DECONDITION in a position to think of a being without a physical identity and then still be of the opinion that they have something in common with human beings. A person cannot think of himself or of other people without assuming a physical self. ‘We can at the most imagine a person in animal form, as Gregor Samsa, who changes into beetle in Katka’s The Metamorphosis, Gregor remains the same person, but in the shape of a beetle, He is cared for by his sister. It should not surprise you that the family is very glad when the beetle dies, although the whole family knows that it is Gregor and no ordinary beetle. If we analyze this example with the help of the scheme of logical and empirical possibilities, it is clear that the metamorphosis of Gregor into a beetle is an empirical impossibility because it isa biological impossibility. But in itself such a mutation is very well imaginable, and is thus a logical possibility. ‘The continuation of man in another form after death, for example asa snake, as the Zulus of South Africa believe, is a logical possibility. But the continuation of the person after death without any sort of physical form, as many Christians accept, is logically impossible, if we take it that the human self necessarily presupposes a physical shape. ‘The teachings about trans-migration of the soul, or reincarnation of the body, do acknowledge this inevitable relationship between the human and the physical self, whereas Christianity does not. ‘The question of whether the body is also a sufficient condition for the explanation of the self has not yet heen answered here. The difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition is that a necessary condition must be present, but still does not give a conclusive explanation for a certain phenomenon. For example, vocal cords are a necessary condition in order to speak, but not a sutficient condition. | also need a tongue Lam of the view that my body is a necessary condition for my identity: I can thus not survive my body's death. But it is not a sufficient condition for my identity. Why not? In the first place, human thinking is only possible on the basis of the three logical principles: the principle of identity, the principle of non-self-contradiction, and the principle of the excluded third ‘These principles are true, independent of my bodily existence. They thus do not perish with my body. I conclude from this that my thinking is a universal identity, and is present in all people in the same manner. Since my body is not present in all other bodies, I can_ symbolize this universal self in the5 ANALYZE DECONDITION three logical principles, and not make them coincidental with my physical self. ‘This is one argument why I do not regard my body as a sufficient condition for my self. In the second place, the value-consciousness of mankind is universal, how differently we may think about all sorts of values. I am not in a position, nor are you, to experience a value and to believe in that value and to see that value as only the right value for me. Our value-consciousness is universal just as are the three logical principles, that is, a value is valid forall people. Even if you claim that a certain value is only true for yourself, you can mean solely that others do not share your value, You cannot mean that you alone regard the value as true, that is, not true for other people. You can say this, of course, but you cannot think it. It is logically and psychologically impossible to be convinced of the truth of a certain value, in order to subsequently find the truth of the value only correct for yourself. The truth of a value is indivisible. It is true for all people, even if they do not share your value. This is difficult to understand, probably because we are accustomed to the phenomenon of people thinking differently about all sorts of values. I challenge anyone to express his value-concept about, for example abortion, and thereupon to say to himself:“What is true to me, is not true for another’ This is convincing. ‘We establish that Mr. X thinks differently about it than we do, But now comes the crucial question: can we believe that Mr. X, whose value-concept about abortion differs from ours, is just as right as we? It seems to be the case, but I cannot simultaneously affirm and not affirm the same value- concept. That would be contrary to the principle of non-self-contradiction. From this it follows that we are not tolerant. We cannot be tolerant within the bounds of our value- concepts. We have only learned to recognize and to accept that people have different ideas about the same value-problems. We cannot, however, believe that we are all simultaneously right, even though we need not know for certain if our value-concept is the right one. Thus although I need not be convinced of the rightness of my values, I cannot let my value-consciousness stop at the limit of my body. This is my second argument why I do not regard my body as a sufficient condition for my self. In the third place, I have in the preceding chapter called freedom a direct and inevitable consequence of the capacity of man for self-reflection, Self-reflection is the basis of the human self, or of his identity. The freedom of man cannot be thought of apart from his capacity for contemplation of himself. ‘The sentence ‘I am 1’ is the basis of this. But the sentence ‘I am I’ assumes the awareness52 ANALYZE DECONDITION of other I's. The self-consciousness and the freedom of man are indissolubly bound with the notion that other men exist, I would replace the famous statement of Descartes, ‘I think, therefore I am’ with the statement ‘I think, therefore we are’ The ‘I think’ encompasses the consciousness of other I’s. My freedom is not dependent on other people, but it does assume their existence. This is the third argument why I find that my body is not a sufficient condition for my self. My conclusion on the basis of these three arguments is that my self is unthinkable without my body, but is at the same time unthinkable without accepting a universal principle. ‘That universal principle I call mind. ‘The mind is also a necessary condition for my self, just as my body is a necessary condition for my self. The mind is the arrangement of the universal, that is, something present in all people. Only in this way can we communicate with each other. One can, of course, use another word than mind, for instance soul or wind, but thi is not important. ‘The issue is whether we can explain our behavior if we don’t accept that man is body and mind, ‘The mutual relationship of these two is such that the disappearance of my body has as a consequence the disappearance of my identity. There remains no soul or mind. But the acceptance of this argument is only possible if we are in a position to understand each other just as fundamentally as we can understand ourselves, People stand mutually no further from each other than they stand from themselves. Just as the body is the cause of our individual, visible identity, the mind is the cause of our collective, invisible identity. Each person is nothing other than the visible embodiment of the invisible collective identity. On the basis of the notion of our collective identity, in Indian philosophy called the Great Self, I need no longer experience my body as the ‘small self as a fernced-in entity, that is, not relatable to other bodies. ‘The body as the cause of the individual identity can experience itself in two opposite ways. It can express the idea that Lam an absolutely isolated individual and react as such to other bodies, but it can also express the idea of our collective identity, symbolized in the slogan, ‘make love, not war. I shall die in fear if I think, feel, and act on the basis of the individual self, because I can then only lose everything. The idea of the absolute end of the individual self has to be horrible, incomprehensible, and unbearable.53 ANALYZE DECONDITION I shall die joyfully if 1 think, feel, and act on the basis of the collective self, because I have then in my thoughts, feelings, and actions renounced the idea that life only depends upon my existence, Iti in this measure that I experience my self as a part of the whole, that the submergence of this part, in this case my self, becomes essential and inevitable for the possibility of the existence of life, which is an indivisible process. Otherwise you or [wouldn't be here! Summary 1 The question ‘What or who am 1’ is the question of my identity; the question of my self. 2 ‘The acceptance of the principle of a ‘self’ is just as inevitable as the acceptance of the principle of universal causality. 3 ‘The ‘self’ can by no means think itself away, because it then excludes the possibility of thinking itself away. Life and Death are each other's friend. 5 Body and mind are together the sufficient conditions for the self. They are unthinkable without each other. 6 ‘The human mind manifests its universal structure in: a, the logical principles, which are assumed in every thought; b. the value-consciousness which cannot be stopped by the boundary of the body. ¢. the freedom of man, which is indissolubly bound with the idea of the existence of other man, 7 If think, feel and act from the basis of the collective self, I shall die joyfully.54. ANALYZE DECONDITION 8 The Existence of God In the preceding chapter I have tried to find an answer to the question of the identity or self of man, that is to say, of anybody who can think and isa body. The question of the existence of God is more closely connected to this question of our identity than many people think. It seems as if the question of God finds its origin in all those thoughts, fantasies and emotions which we have experienced through the centuries such as the absence of suffering and death; total invariable peace; eternal father- and mother love, in short Paradise Now, but which we never have been able to materialize. ‘The strength of these longings is apparent: even when we believe less in God than in previous centuries. Religious themes recur in political ideologies, pop-philosophies anda new worship of nature. Yet it is not difficult to advance arguments against the proposition that the question of God finds its origin in ideas and longings that have never been materialized, because the question centers not on the human being but on whether God exists or not. Especially in the last two centuries, this question has become central; to the extent that even theologians have caught up with philosophers after more than a century, and developed the theory of God-is-dead, or God-atter-the-death-of-God, in order to give the question concerning the existence of God a modern slant. By modern I mean giving enough credence to the idea that man alone exists, without abandoning the magic of the idea of God. No wonder many believers get bewildered when theologians speak confusedly on the question of whether God exists. ‘We can have a long discussion about the question whether the “Existence-of-God! is more important than the'Essence-of-God’ Lam inclined to think that ‘Essence-of-God’ is more important than ‘It-Exists-Forever’, because ‘Its Everlasting Existence’ is only important through ‘Its-Manner-of-Life’ and not through ‘Being There Forever’, Against this we can argue that the ‘Being There Forever’ is out of all proportion to what we observe and experience in the Cosmos and in ourselves, to the extent that this ‘Unique-Fact’ alone justifies total acceptance. The remark in chapter four about the question: “What is a fact?” would not be applicable to this Fact. The meaning of the word has changed without enabling us to think of an alternative word that is meaningful ~ unless itis the word ‘God’ If Lam to remain consistent to my starting point within the framework of this course of philosophy, then I would have to continue by giving a definition of the word ‘God? For55 ANALYZE DECONDITION tes’ definition: example, I could cite Des lis the Cause of Himself’, a definition which, three centuries later, is applied to Man by Sartre: ‘Man is the cause of Himself’ Sartre is of the opinion that man has ascribed certain characteristics to God, which he should ascribe exclusively to himself, Man, so to speak, has projected himself onto God. Only when he applies all these projections, that is to say all those images and ideas that he had ascribed to God, to himself again, can he become man. Although this theory seems plausible, it does not, in this naive form, explain the centuries- old longing for God. People have always known that they themselves are mortal and God is immortal. | found a graffiti at Berkeley University, California that said: ‘God is dead’- Nietzsche. Underneath someone else had written the sentence: ‘Nietzsche is dead’- God. Under that we could write Gerard Reve’s text: ‘God is not dead, but He is very ill? Contrary to his knowledge of nature, man’s knowledge of himself has not increased, at least not enough mentioning. The idea of G for it to be reduced to the image of an individual indulging in spiritual masturbation. :d is too varied and its meaning too universal Returning to the attempt to define the word ‘God’ I think it serves no purpose, for two reasons. The first is that God is all those Special Characteristics for which we have no equivalent concepts in our own reality. Therefore, in religious traditions which understand God as the ‘Total-Other God is described in terms of ‘Not-This’ and ‘Not-That, especially in the writings of mystics. The second reason is that ‘God-Exists-Forever’ without a beginning and without an end, This fact places God outside any familiar framework of reality. To such an extent, that any definition that not concerned with existence but only with the determining characteristics ~as we have seen in chapter two ~ must necessarily fail here. For ‘God! the same applies as for the word ‘reality’: each definition fails, because a definition refers to the determining characteristics of part-reality and not to ‘All-at-Once? and not to ‘Existence-Forever. The problem of God falling outside all conceivable relationships to which the laws of thought and language are no longer applicable, is brilliantly understood by Anselmus, 1033-1109. Anselmus has developed a proof of God that is known by the name ‘ontological proof of God’ In this context the word ‘ontological’ means that the Existence or Being of God is the focus of the argument. Anselmus defines God as “That, for which nothing greater can be thought of”, He expresses himself like a mystic with the words: ‘nothing greater’ Since, according to him, it is certain that we can conceive such a definition, the existence of what we can think is a necessary characteristic. Because, if this was not the case, we could think of something more perfect ~ that could be anything that also would56. ANALYZE DECONDITION exist. Therefore, if we can imagine such a perfect creature, then it too must exist. In his own time Anselmus was already attacked with the so-called ‘Island argument. We can imagine an island that is bigger and more beautiful than all known islands. But who dares to draw the conclusion that such an island does exist? In other words, we can imagine God to be as perfect as we wish, but that does not mean to say that God exists. Anselmus reacted by saying that non-existence of such an island can be imagined and it follows that such an island is not ‘that for which nothing more perfect can be thought of” Therefore the comparison between God and an island is invalid. Immanuel Kant, 172401804, replied that the idea of perfection includes by definition its existence. On the strength of this itis self-contradictory, ie. in conflict with the logically possible, to deny the island argument, But Kant adds meaningfully that no one can force us to accept the idea of an all-perfect being. Language is perfect and can always formulate definitions that cannot be denied without coming into conflict with itself, such as ‘the circle is round’, which cannot be denied without the risk of talking nonsense. But, in the same way that the definition ‘the circle is round’ does not prove anything about the factual existence of circles, either does a definition about the existence of God, that puts existence ona par with God, prove that — outside that definition ~ there is a reality that fits it. Because if it did, all our problems would vanish in this air. ‘Thomas Aquinas, 1224-1274, acknowledged this problem. He attempted to theorize not with definitions concerning God which are likely to be exposed as tautologies, ie. statements that are true by definition, but with the viewpoint of empirical reality. Hence, his proofs of God are meant to be empirical proofs, the so-called five roads of Aquinas. I wish to follow three of Aquinas’ five roads in order to analyze the suppositions and the underlying arguments, thereby de-conditioning our thinking. In the first road, the argument from the viewpoint of causality departs from the existence of visible reality in order to establish subsequently that everything that happens has a cause. If this is the case, the cosmos itself must also have a cause. That cause is God. Hence, God exists. the causal argument ~ In chapter six I defined the principle of universal causality, It seems self-evident to apply Aquinas’ argument ~ namely that everything that happens has a cause —also to the cosmos. But that is deceptive. The word ‘cosmos’ is a receptacle of everything that happens ~ just like the word ‘reality’ and it also cannot be defined. The cosmos does not differ from the total of all those processes that are mutually causal. Itis not parallel to anything else. There is no cause exclusive to the cosmos, in the same way that the cosmos is not a separate individual reality, but our own idea. In this context it is meaningless to enquire into the cause of the cosmos. But even if we have to do so, since language demands it, and we describe God as causal, we can put the question: ‘Who is the cause of God?” Why should57 ANALYZE DECONDITION we stop at the point of God and not at the point of the cosmos? The causality argument for the existence of God is untenable. ‘The third road of Aquinas carries more weight. He says: ‘All that we see is transitory and therefore dependent on something outside that is not transitory: This is referred to as the argument of coincidence or the so-called contingency argument. But also in this instance there is a question of deceptive use of language. The concepts ‘dependent’ and ‘independent, or ‘contingent’ and ‘necessary’ presuppose each other, in other words, they are relational terms. Aquinas applies the concepts ‘necessary’ and ‘independent’ to God, after he has applied the concepts ‘contingent’ and ‘dependent’ on the visible reality as determining characteristics. But the concepts ‘independent’ and ‘dependent’ cannot be separated inside reality. My father begot me. 1 was, therefore, dependent on him. However, I myself begot children, who, therefore, were dependent upon me, In other words, we are dependent as well as independent. It is a process, and an interaction. Dependence and independence are two poles within reality. But even if we were to apply the concepts ‘necessary’ and ‘independent’ exclusively to God, the creator, then it follows that God as creator and creation presuppose each other, in the same way that father and child presuppose each other. There is only creation because there is God. They belong to each other and are inseparable, and this proof was not intended to reach this conclusion. ‘The fifth road of Aquinas, in which he claims that everything takes place according to plan and therefore reveals a cosmic goal, is the argument based upon purpose: the so-called ‘teleological proof of God’ In chapter four I made a distinction between causal explanations and explanations with an objective. The present argument is an argument with an objective in view. If only conscious beings can develop objectives and the cosmos itself is not equipped with that ability and yet reveals objectives, then someone outside that cosmos must be responsible for it. Who could it be but God? Aquinas’proof of God fits the deep human need to discover meaning or significance in everything, This need is a determining characteristic of our thinking. However, that is not to say that the cosmos projects an objective or plan that refers to God. Also in this context the argument applies that the cosmos is a series of processes, which sometimes do and sometimes do not reveal an order that we experience as meaningful. In the same way that the principle of universal causality cannot be deduced from visible reality, the plan of the cosmos cannot be deduced from it. We can only perceive an objective if we ourselves can think in terms of a purpose. All that I have said in chapter six concerning the principle of universal causality, applies also to the principle of a universal objective. It is a metaphysical principle, with no proof, at best just useful. In the same way that the principle of universal causality does not hold the proof of God, so the principle of a universal objective does not justify the existence of God. The argument from the58 ANALYZE DECONDITION perspective of an objective is untenable. ‘There have been many more attempts to prove the existence of God. But all evidence vanishes into thin air on closer analysis, It is a credit to philosophy that in the course of the ages, in which all proofs of God were formulated, philosophy itself also tore them to threads. If God is the reconciliation of all kinds of contradictions, it is very understandable that in our present situation we are unable to advance any proof whatsoever for the existence of God. To my knowledge, no one has as yet been successful in reconciling thinking and reality, ic. finding Absolute Truth. This is the reason why we have to presuppose certain principles without being able to prove them, such as the principle of universal causality or the principle of a universal objective. We refer to these principles as metaphysical, since they surpass our experience. They are presupposed, and we cannot factually prove them. Applied to God, it means there will never be proof, since God surpasses all experience. I do not think, therefore, that the religious experience in which God is described as: ‘the only One that means something from within Himself” as Gerard Reve writes in The Language of Love, can ever be proof for the existence of God. Mystics do not have that pretence anyway. The images of God as Eternal Peace, Water, Womb, Sun, Father, the Absent, Donkey, the Infinite, will never attain the force of proof of God, because ‘we cannot make the jump from the experience of such an image to its factual existence outside ourselves, Nothing and no one can stop us personally from jumping, but neither can we force anyone else to make the jump. Ideas and reality are not reducible to each other. It is as simply as that. In chapter three concerning Necessary Truth we made a distinction between a logical possibility and an empirical possibility. A situation is logically possible if the pronouncement concerning that situation is not self-contradictory. ‘A women bears a mouse} is alogical possibilitys‘a circle is square’ the original meaning of ‘circle’ and ‘square’ in mathematical topology. A situation is empirically possible if it is in agreement with the laws of nature; a situation is empirically if it conflicts with the laws of nature. ‘We are landing on Mars; is empirically s logically impossible, unless one changes impossible, possible; ‘a woman bears a mouse, empirically impossible. If we apply the distinction to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the Roman Catholic religion, we see that this dogma is logically possible and empirically impossible. Applied to Anselmus’ pronouncement on God: ‘That, for which nothing greater can be thought of, or to Descartes’ ‘God is the cause of Itself it means that all these pronouncements are logical possibilities because they are not self-contradictory. The question of whether itis an empirical possibility cannot be answered. Because unlike Mary,59, ANALYZE DECONDITION God does not belong to the empirical order, at least not in Christianity, Therefore each or improbability of God falls outside this order. It enquiry into the empirical probabili is less nonsensical trying to invent invisible paint as wanting to make an invisible God visible, We can only think meaningfully about God in the order of logical possibilities. Each jump to another level is a negation of what one has just attempted to express by saying that God should not be mentioned by name. Each proof of the existence of God presupposes an empirical level and is doomed to failure if God does not belong to this empirical level. Neither can we say that God is an empirical impossibility if there is nothing empirical about God, unlike women and mice. ‘My conclusion is that the question concerning the existence of God cannot be answered, either in the affirmative or the negative. If we consider God asa logical possibility, the question remains how we see the relationship between our reality and God as a logical possibility. The two extremes in the relationship between our reality and God are the transcendence and immanence of God. The transcendence of God means that God is the Total Other who cannot be described. This conviction is characteristic for the monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. ‘The immanence of God implies that God is present in all that exists: reality as such. In which way is the great debating point. Spinoza refers to God and the world as Deus sive ‘Natura ~‘God or Nature’ as one and the same reality, not essentially different from the vision of Ibn al--Arabi, 1165-1240, Pantheism, in the definition that everything is divine, is the extreme consequence of putting the world on a par with God as One or Oneness. Both positions are defensible; both outside the realm of empirical proof. Both positions presuppose a common tangent plane. God can never be just the Total Other, because that is unconceivable; that would be self-contradictory. Neither can God ever be identical to humans, because that would mean that we were strictly one with whatever exists. I do believe that any conviction about God necessarily contains a transcendental as well as an immanent element that does not differ conceptually from the difference between individual identity and collective identity in ourselves. Perhaps God is a conception within ourselves that we cannot dismiss by sa mistakenly refers to that as God wl still in search of his self and refers to that part as God which he has not yet been able to rediscover in his own reality. ing that man ich, in fact, he should refer to asa father fixation’ Perhaps man is ‘The question now is: “What is self / Self?” In the preceding chapter I have tried to find an answer to the question of human identity, or our own self. Perhaps God is the symbol of our invisible collective identity. We cannot deny our invisible collective identity because it is present in all of us. At the same time we60 ANALYZE DECONDITION are only dimly aware of this collective identity, either because we have forgotten, or because wwe are still unable to see ourselves as visible signs of the invisible collective identity. ‘The way in which my children discussed God when they were six and eight years old, illustrates this whole problem. ‘Do you believe in God?’ asks Job, the younger. ‘No, I don’t, replies David, ‘people say lots of things!” ‘I do says Job, for how did we get the word ‘God’?” Summary 1 ‘The idea ‘God’ originates from all those thoughts and longings that we do not understand and are unable to realize. ‘The idea ‘God’ cannot be dismissed as spiritual masturbation. 3 Defining the word ‘God’ is meaningless. Neither the ontological proof of God, nor the empirical arguments of Aquinas give proof of the existence of God. 5 We can only talk meaningfully about God within the category of the logically possible; not within the category of the empirically possible or impossible. 6 ‘The question of whether God exists cannot be answered either in the affirmative or in the negative. God is the symbol of our invisible collective identity.61 ANALYZE DECONDITION 9 Metaphysics “The chestnut tree under which I am sitting” raises questions in the same way that the existence of God raises questions. [believe that Iam sitting against a tree and at the same time I do not see that tree. You believe that you are looking at a tree, whereas, you are actually looking at a series of pictures on television that you have learned to call ‘tree’. Some of you will wonder why I'm sitting under a tree. It shows that you have a certain pattern of expectancy about a tree and about philosophy. ‘This pattern of expectancy is concerned with philosophy, but it has probably no relationship with the tree, assuming that a tree does not think and has no longings, and who among us has less right than another to determine what he understands to be the nature of philosophy? However, I perceive the tree as a metaphor for the riddles of being which the ancient Greeks classified as ontological questions. In the chapter concerning God, we only could think and express ourselves in language, as we have done. ‘The tree seems different. We can also point at the tree, smell it, touch it, and listen to the wind through its branches and leaves. We can see a tree as a suitable object from which to hang ourselves. We can look at a tree as a symbol of knowledge, of good and evil, as Adam and Eva experienced, We can analyze the tree chemically. We can estimate its function in its natural environment, for example, its part in the production of oxygen. We can look at it for its quality of timber and then chop it down for the sawmill. We can project all our emotions onto it, because a tree will allow us to do anything. The Lebanon cypresses of the Song of Salomon are the same cypresses that van Gogh painted, at Jeast this is what I think. From establishing the fact that obviously we look at the same tree in the most diverse and sometimes conflicting ways, must we conclude that it is not the same tree, buta different tree in each instance? If I were to say yes’ to this, then itis pointless to say that we can see the tree in a variety of One can only look at something from differing points of view provided that somehow or other it is the same object in each case. ‘This problem does not differ from the problem in chapter seven concerning our identity. Is our ‘self’ just a conglomeration of sequential experiences as Hume thought, or is there a ‘self’ behind those experiences? _In chapter seven I defended the position that the wa62 ANALYZE DECONDITION acceptance of the ‘self’ principle is just as inescapable as the acceptance of the ‘universal causality’ principle, Both principles are metaphysical; they make a statement of how things are, Without the acceptance of these principles we would not be able to put order into reality and make it manageable, starting from our ‘self All knowledge concerning physical reality presupposes a theory about ‘being, often referred to as metaphysics or ontology. The aim of metaphysics is to establish the true nature of things ~ what things are in the world ~ by doing the most fundamental research possible. This is done for example by attempting to answer the question of whether matter constitutes the very last reality, as the materialists assume. Such a proposition implies an answer of extreme generality. It cannot, therefore, be tested or proven. ‘This is the cause of the derogatory comment of many philosophers concerning metaphysics, since it calls for the questions that can never be definitely answered: they are neither verifiable nor falsifiable questions. That is why metaphysics is supposed to be unscientific, since it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and according to some philosophers equal to a series of nonsensical statements which can only boast grammatical correctness. ‘This position was defended by the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle in the thirties of the twentieth century. They were of the opinion that a principle is metaphysical if it is neither empirical nor analytical, in other words, neither verifiable from experience, nor in itself an a priori truth, All statements concerning reality must be verifiable, This insistence found its exigency in the principle of verifiability: all statements that can be tested as either true or false are meaningful; all statements that cannot be tested are not meaningful But the criterion of meaningful and meaningless statements, that is whether or not they are verifiable, is itself not a verifiable, but a normative standpoint. The principle of verification is neither an empirical statement, nor an analytical one and therefore, according to the criterion of the Vienna Circle, it falls under the category or the heading of metaphysics. Until now they have not been able to counter this argument with a satisfactory reply. This is the reason why there is little debate concerning this principle by the logical positivists. The principle of ver theory of knowledge and every methodology is based on one or more metaphysical presuppositions that can, indeed, be denied, but not dismissed. ability is an illustration of the proposition that every A metaphysician need not be a dark and incomprehensible figure, like the Hegelian Bolland, stripped to the bone by the Dutch author W.F.Hermans. A metaphysician is63 ANALYZE DECONDITION dialectician in the Platonic sense: ie. a human being who accepts nothing without question, not even the existence of even and odd numbers, a person who shows that all insight is provisional. In this sense it seems that the practice of philosophy without metaphysics is impossible, because when philosophy, among other things, is concerned with the question of the relationship between reality and our knowledge of reality, then it has no single standard of external criteria. Within metaphysics we can only demand internal consistency, that is to say a consistent internal structure of our statements. When Aristotle propounds that everything has an objective, he presupposes the metaphysical principle of universal objectives when Marx conceives of society as a class struggle, he presupposes the principle of universal dialectic, that is to say that everything produces its reverse and can only be understood from the premises of action ~ reaction. Also the principle of universal dialectic is metaphysical. It makes statements about reality with the aid of the dialectic method which, in turn, cannot be tested anymore than can the principle of verifiability. But if a society can only be understood in dialectic terms, does the dialectic spring from society or from our own thought?. ‘This problem is beautifully rendered in the following Zen story. Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four travelling monks appeared and asked if they could light a fire in the courtyard to warm themselves, While they were laying the fire Hogen overheard their discussion concerning subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: ‘Over there is a big stone. Do you think it is inside or outside your mind’? One of the monks answered: ‘From the Buddhist point of view the mind sees everything as an object, so I would say the stone is inside the mind. ‘Your head must weigh very heavy if you carry the stone around in your mind’ remarked Hogen, This story contains the kernel of the problem in this chapter, ie. what is reality? In chapter four concerning empirical knowledge I have said that we are not able to define reality but, at best, only part-realities. That is why we cannot claim to know the ‘truth; if ‘truth’ is to correspond with reality; we can only know part-realities. erred that there is such a thing as reality and that there is such a thing as the knowledge of that reality. But an intelligent man or woman can raise more questions concerning the problem of the relationship between our knowledge and the reality outside our knowledge than philosophy can answer. Tacitly ‘The first question is whether there is a reality outside our thinking. If we say ‘yes’ to this,64 ANALYZE DECONDITION the second question is: how we can be so certain? After all, everything we know about reality is dependent on the correctness of our information, and who can guarantee that our information covers reality as it really is? ‘Why is our observation more reliable than that of a fly which can only see black and white patches, or than that of a bee which can see the ultra-violet rays that we cannot see? Realism and idealism are two philosophical theories. They give opposing answers to these questions. The theory of realism premises that we perceive physical reality as it is, since the impression on our senses is caused by physical objects. I walk along the empty streets at night of downtown-Manhattan. I am surrounded by skyscrapers, streetlights and passing cars. There is nobody to be seen. Suddenly some men and women run into the street and put suitcases in front of a number of offices, banks and other buildings and then run of again. I look around me feeling as if I have become mad with fear. For a moment I doubt what I have seen, when suddenly enormous flames shoot up and thundering explosions set the street ablaze. One skyscraper after another collapses. ‘The moment I think Iam done for, { dream that I am in a hotel in Belfast. ‘Through the window I see houses on fire, I hear explosions at irregular intervals and screaming of sirens. [run into the corridor without my clothes, towards a red light saying: “Emergency Exit. The door appears to be jammed. However hard I pull, the door does not open. Through the intercom of the hotel I suddenly hear the announcement: ‘Lie flat on the floor’ I lie down in the corridor, and the floor starts to vibrate. I get the terrifying feeling of falling into an immense abyss. ‘At that moment I wake up with a head like concrete, not knowing for a few seconds whether Iam still dreaming, or not dreaming at all! In this dream, in which I dreamt that Iwas dreaming, I behaved like a realist, just as I do now. I rely on the fact that I am sitting under a tree, which you in turn, believe you see on television, and that I am not dreaming at this moment, But on what premise do I accept that I am not dreaming at this moment and that my story about New York and Belfast is nota reality but a dream? The most satisfactory answer is perhaps that now I feel able to verify my observation. If I doubt the existence of the tree, I touch it. If that does not convince me, [take an axe and chop it down. [burn it until the heat drives me away from the spot. If Tam doubtful I try to verify my observation by performing a series of actions of which 1 can predict the outcome, if this tree is a real one and not a hallucination. I place the tree in a group of sense experiences which altogether must supply me with the necessary certainty. This seems sufficient to obtain absolute certainty about the level of reality of my sense experiences.65, ANALYZE DECONDITION Assume, however, that we live in Orwell’s ‘1984’ or in Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’. Lam placed in a physics laboratory where they wish to carry out certain experiments on me, One of the aims is to disturb my sense of reality. With the help of electrodes certain brain cells are stimulated, causing me to have hallucinations which I take to be reality. This is so systematically done that all my attempts to detect either appearance or reality are doomed to failure. All actions that I perform in order to verify whether I truly see the tree are followed by a stimulation of touch and I do not just feel only the tree, but also the axe and the heat of the burning tree. The result of this experiment has a staggering success. When I leave the laboratory I see a tree. I walk up to it, touch it, and I take an axe, I chop. it down and I burn it. I begin to laugh. Very clever of those boys that they are able to make me do this. It is as if I can really see and feel a tree, also, see and feel the burning. On verification in the laboratory it appears that I am no longer able to distinguish dream objects from physical objects. It is all the more difficult for me when subsequently they try to de-condition me. Thave to go through the whole learning process in the laboratory anew, this time to discover whether they can make me cover the reverse sequence. They want to return the familiar feelings to me, Again I have to learn to distinguish between hallucination and reality. In this instance I have to learn to detect reality from the images that I mistakenly no longer accept as reality. This is all the more difficult since I have discovered in the mean time that I can have no conception of a physical object, except by sense perception. I shall never see a tree without eyes in my head, while with eyes I can see a tree that may or may not be there! Why assume more than the existence of my mind, all sense experiences included? How can I ever get to know more than what experience teaches me? The tree experience is dependent on my looking at a tree, in other words there can be no reality separate from my experience, ‘This is the theory of idealism. The difficulty of making a choice between realism and idealism also follows from the fact. that regular patterns in our sense experience are not strictly a copy of the structure of reality. If we had different senses our conception of reality and our reactions to it would be different from what they are now. The repetition of our experiences reveals more about ourselves than about the reality outside those experiences. | am not a bat. For me reality is different from what it is for bats, or at least, so I assume. Lam not blind, For me reality is different from what itis for a blind man. Not better or worse, but different, All that I am looking at as if | actually perceive, as if I can see, makes me identical to the Eye of God that perceives and sees through everything.66 ANALYZE DECONDITION And yet the Eye of God perceives only that which men wish to perceive through it Is there absolutely no solution to the dilemma of realism and idealism? It seems to me that there is. In the first place we have to be aware of the fact that the problem centers around the relationship between our part in the construction of reality and the independent existence of physical reality. By independent I mean independent from our sense experience. If we do not admit this distinction it makes no difference any more, whether we call ourselves realist or idealist, because nothing changes in our present situation If every observation is realistic then ~ within that realism — we would again make a distinction between dream and reality. Ifevery observation is idealistic, we would make a distinction between eating and thinking that we are eating, In other words, reality for us consists of a vast number of constructions but those constructions are only possible because reality precedes it. We can see the tree in a variety ‘of ways and base our actions on that perception, and all our different visions of the tree ate right because the tree obviously lends itself to all those different perceptions, Ifeach event has a cause that in turn is the effect of another cause, as with the principle of universal causality, then the number of viewpoints by which we can understand the-inter- causality is unlimited, In certain situations one viewpoint can be more advantageous for us than another. A still life with fruit by Cézanne is less practical than a dish of fruit in my room. But | am no more right than Cezanne by eating the fruit instead of painting it, although I prefer to eat it Lam inclined to defend the position in which our construction of physical reality can only beso vat from our sense experience. By universal I mean that everything that happens has a cause. My knowledge of physical reality is caused by my experiences. I can dream up images that T have never seen before. But those images bear constant witness of a physical reality of cd because the world is one interdependence, apart from our thinking and apart which Iam not a part. Should this physical reality coincide with me, as solipsism propounds, then I would be God and I could ask myself the question: why have I created such a immense collection of differing object and situations? Why not restrict everything to myself since I am everything? How are all those images to be explained, if they are me? ‘This raises the question whether reality is an arbitrary collection of bits of information, or not? Wittgenstein thought so. According to him, we are not justified in thinking that the first67 ANALYZE DECONDITION function of language is a descriptive one. We can distinguish all kinds of language games, cach with its own objective and very real on its own level. In other words, we all are justified for the individual way in which we look at a tree. It is incorrect to think that ultimately there is one true language — as every metaphysical theory hopes to find. Oras Russell wrote in 1931:"I think the universe constitutes all spots and leaps, without unity, without continuity, without connection or order or any of these characteristics of which governesses are so fond. This is the theory of pluralism. Another way of looking at reality is that of the dualist. A dualist sees reality as a radical and unbridgeable opposition, for example between nature and culture; between the natural and the supra-natural order, or between the material and spiritual order. Freud’ view of ‘man was dualistic: progress in culture through an ever-growing control over nature, forces ‘man simultaneously to suppress his primary drives and needs. ‘The dualist is seldom happy with his conception. He would rather be a monist. A monist. tries to understands reality asa whole, preferably based on one principle. As opposed to Russell the monist believes in the unity, deep continuity and simultaneity of the universe. ‘The principle of universal causality is not only an idea, but refers to one indivisible Reality. ‘That it is good to pursue truth is most fiercely defended by the logical positivist who cannot put ethics and aesthetics under the heading of truth, But their love for truth betrays that truth for them constitutes the highest value which they accept without feeling any doubt. Why then doubt the universal value of love? These philosophers are inconsequent and to be inconsequent is contrary to truth. They are metaphysicians, but without knowing it, as we all are. ‘To be something without wanting to be aware of it truth. conflict with wanting to know the ‘That it is good to know the truth, is the universal, all embracing metaphysics. Whoever denies metaphysics cannot be labeled, nor can he any longer label others. Summary 1 The reality of a tree is no less enigmatic than the reality of God, except for the difference that a tree constitutes a sense of experience 2 Our knowledge of physical reality presupposes a theory concerning ‘being’ often referred to as metaphysics or ontology. 3 ‘The objective of metaphysics is to determine the true nature of reality. 4 Every theory of knowledge and every methodology is based on one or more metaphysical presuppositions.68 ANALYZE DECONDITION Asa theory concerning the ultimate structure of reality, n neither verifiable, nor falsifiable. metaphysics is by defini Our construction of physical reality can differ to such an extent, ‘because the world is one universal interdependence, That it is good to know the truth, is the universal and all-embracing metaphysics69 ANALYZE DECONDITION 10 People about people ‘As Thave mentioned earlier, in dealing with the subject raised in the last chapters we are attempting to answer questions that everybody asks himself at one time or another; they are important to everyone but it is difficult to agree on the answers. ‘The subject of this chapter is the question of why we refer to ourselves as ‘human beings’ traditionally formulated in the question: ‘Is there such a thing as human nature’? If you ponder this for years you could probably end up as did the old Zen master. At first he thought he knew what mountains were, but then he was not so certain anymore and finally he came to understand that mountains were indeed mountains. When you are a child, people are people to you, although you have difficulty in understanding why they are cool towards each other and why they wage war on each other. ‘Then you think that there is no such thing as ‘human beings. You have seen, heard, read and gone through too much to be able to give a common denominator to all those faces and reactions in a meaningful way. Finally you discover that there must be such a thing as ‘human beings’ because the differences between human beings would otherwise no longer exist. Before we try to formulate some questions and try to find an answer to them, we must first be aware of the fact that everyone of us knows a great deal about the topic of this chapter: after all we are ‘human beings’ ourselves! The problem is that we are incapable of categorizing and clarifying this vast amount of information, Important questions in philosophical anthropology, the theory of man, are: the existence of human nature; the relationship between group and individual; determinism and freedom ‘The German philosopher Feuerbach, 1804-1872, was of the opinion that anthropology should take the place of theology. What we have always subscribed to God, we should now subscribe to man. Nietzsche's ‘God is dead’ means that man himself now responsible for his fate. Predestination and the providence of God should now become characteristic of ourselves. Age old questions in theology become anthropological problems in the nineteenth and twentieth century.70 ANALYZE DECONDITION Let us begin with the most difficult question: is there such a thing as human nature? Before we know whether there is, we have to know what we are looking for. In other words what do we mean by the concept human nature’? ‘The words ‘human nature’ have the same meaning as the word ‘human beings. Why do we refer to ourselves as human beings? If we give the answer: because my parents are human beings, we can ask why they are human beings and so on. This does not solve anything. We shall have to put forward characteristics that we consider intrinsic in the concept ‘human beings. These characteristics are the ability to think and pro-create. The abil Human nature is identical to the ability to think and pro-create: the outward signs are y to think is manifest in the use of language; the ability to procreate in progeny. language and progeny. Anyone who possesses these characteristics is a human being, Anyone who does not possess these characteristics, but is born of man, is still called a human being. Why? Probably because we pay attention to all kinds of other aspects, such as two arms and two legs, growth of hair, certain bodily shapes. But all these aspects are not sufficient to describe a human being. We only call somebody a human being if he can avail himself of language and progeny. We end up in a vicious circle; somebody is a human being, because he is born of man. But in order to know who or what constitutes a human being, we have to establish criteria such as language and progeny. Language and progeny are the visible means of communication with other people: language with the people around you; progeny with the people after you. Weare probably made up out of hundreds of millions of cells. Some of these cells multiply. T have five children for example. Five of all the hundreds of millions of cells in me will continue and together with their ancestors form a string over a period of more than a quarter of a million years. If I did not have any children, or died without progeny, the chain of life that binds me to ‘homo sapiens’ a chain of some 50.000 years, would be broken. But this severance of the chain of life in me, or silence in the presence of others when I cannot speak, does not mean that I myself no longer belong to the human chain of life. However it will be difficult for my fellowmen to know who I am. If they judge me solely from the point of view of my usefulness for my kind, also on the pretext of considering my own interest and happiness, they will oust me or perhaps even kill me. If they regard meas a part of themselves and they make themselves aware of the fact that I can think and feel without the use of language and I can love them without the propagation of myself, they will not kill me. Therefore it is meaningful to separate the ability to think from its visible sign which is language, and the ability to pro-create fromz ANALYZE DECONDITION its visible sign, progeny. ‘We can also reason in reverse order and ask ourselves what we are to do with ourselves if wwe have to relinquish the idea of human nature. In this instance we have no way at all to describe ‘human beings. The mutual relationship among human beings becomes completely arbitrary; in fact more arbitrary than the relationship that exists among apes. It is embarrassing that the situation on our small planet resembles this state of affairs. The acts of war, the uprooting and pauperizing of millions of people during the past century is unparalleled. Although, of course, a thousand and one causes can be mentioned, but the lack of awareness of the unity of men does not seem to be the least important. The question is whether the awareness, or lack of it, of solidarity can ever constitute an argument for or against the unity among men. In itself it does not constitute an argument. If we have the feeling that the earth is flat, the earth does not become flat. If we have the feeling that all people look alike, it is not necessarily the case. Neither our awareness of the fact that men prey on each other, nor our awareness of men’s passionate love for each other, constitutes proof for or against unity among men. These kind of feelings are often a generalization of personal experiences. They can easily be ignored by others. ‘The idea of human nature characterized by the ability to think and pro-create does not give us any foothold in answering the question concerning our mutual relationships. Where do we start in order to find out how our relationships are made up? If we say ‘yes’ to the question concerning the existence of human nature, the next step is to look at the concrete way in which the unity of men is apparent. For centuries men have searched for norms and values that could be universal. A poor example is the Ten Commandments, because they are still a command rather than a practical commitment to life. And what is not a commitment to life can hardly be seen as a value shared by all people. The only norm of practical universal application is that of incest. But even this norm is sinned against so often that it cannot be used as an example. Moreover, it is only a rule that forbids something and it seems impossible to base the unity of men on a series of prohibitions. Perhaps we are not going about it the right way by trying to find concrete values applicable to all people. Human behavior cannot be compared to a soft wood or a hard wood ie. to constant and predictable characteristics. On the contrary, we must try to make the differences in behavior comprehensible.72 ANALYZE DECONDITION If we can do that, then perhaps we can also understand the possible unity among people. ‘The differences in behavior in one and the same man or woman, can only be understood by accepting the fundamental freedom of that man or woman. That freedom does not consist of choosing between a Daf, a Volkswagen or a Fiat, because horses also have their preferences for certain kinds of grass. That freedom is concerned wholly with man’s ability to think. Man can look ata tree in a variety of ways. He is unable to create a tree himself, but he is able to learn to comprehend a tree, cultivate it and enjoy it. ‘Man's ability to think does not place him outside reality, but it does enable him to organize that reality, himself included, in difierent ways. ‘This implies that he can also understand himself in different ways. There are a fantastic number of possibilities in looking at oneself. If you area child, you can grow up in any given milieu; you can learn any language; you can learn to understand any religious belief; you can accept any political non-fiction. Adults call this ‘education’ Each child can familiarize him/herself with the most diverse patterns of culture, ‘The child can do this through its ability to think, Man’s ability to think. does not resemble a passive copying machine, but it is like a bird continually circling around his own nest, then leaving the nest for a long time in order to return, if it has not perished on his way. In chapter seven I referred to this ability as the ability to reflect on the self. The sentence ‘Lam I’is an expression of this. No species outside man can develop such a form of ‘self”- consciousness. But the ability to reflect on myself does not in itself give me insight into myself or into nature. It only explains why Iam able to change my mind constantly. It places me in the situation of somebody who can say yes’ as well as ‘no’ to himself who can say'yes’ or ‘no? to other people, even if he does not understand why he does so. Being able to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is the result of being able to see myself from a distance, Man can address himself in many ways; he can adorn himself in many ways; he can set up many gods for himself, Each time he may think that his construction of reality is the only possible one, for he does not realize that he is not a copying machine but an architect who can build different homes with the same material. ‘What the outcome of the analyses of self-consciousness appears to explain is limited, ie. the vast differences in viewpoints and appreciations of people, but so far it does not give us an answer to the question concerning the unity among people. Upto now people in their mutual behavior resemble animals in an immense 200, animals23 ANALYZE DECONDITION that broke away and, ever since, have preyed on each other, or subjugated each other, or escaped from each other, with only this difference, that the outward characteristics are not very far apart, although the patterns of behavior are. My analysis does not carry us much beyond the comprehension of the arbitrary character of our insight and behavior. However, I started from the point of view that an explanation of the difference in human behavior could contain the key to the possible unity of men. If the difference in insight and behavior between people is connected with the human abil form a collective identity on the condition that: y to take up a new position vis-a-vis oneself, others and nature, then men can only 1 the human structure of consciousness is universal, 2 the factual bond is universal. By the universality of consciousness I do not mean that all people have the same ideas and the same preferences. In fact that would mean the opposite to being able to say yes’ or‘no” to one and the same thing. T mean to say that human thinking does not function in a strictly arbitrary way, but presupposes principles, like the principle of identity, the principle of non-contradiction and the principle of excluded third. Moreover, human thinking does not function like a senseless machine, but like a computer in Jove. Night and day, in the consciousness of our dreaming and waking hours, we are ‘occupied with organizing all our sense impressions and longings. This ordering process does not take place in a void. If we regard our insight, that is to say our knowledge of truth, so highly, then surely our love for truth must be the expression of an all-embracing value. The ability to lie, the ability to be mistaken in our analyses of physical reality and in ourselves is only explicable if we can also speak the truth, Truth is insight of universal application and is not just a neutral kind of universal applica Who will claim that the knowledge of truth is not just or good? By our knowledge of truth Lalso mean that we have insight into the structure of our comprehension and the underlying unity of total reality. If our thinking is not insensitive, but applies itself with love, and therefore with interest jon that we experience as just or good. to everything that comes its way, then it is indeed understandable that we develop widely divergent visions, be these different religions, different scientific theories or political convictions. ‘The awareness that we can do this, that we can still distinguish between truth and fabrication and the fact that we can keep making this distinction, even if we have been mistaken for centuries, means that the human structure of consciousness is less divergent74 ANALYZE DECONDITION than we often think. People form a unity because they can differ among themselves and are aware of this difference, Human thinking is in love with truth. It can only lie because it can also speak the truth, Falsehood and truth are our unity, All these analyses can simply be put together in the proposition: each one of us could have been an Egyptian in the time of Ramses II. Each one of us could have been the slave who had to help build the pyramid, but also Ramses II who ended up in it. If this is true, is there then no fundamental unit among men? Not as a visible reality, but certainly as a possibility. The second condition for the unity among human beings is an actual universal bond. This, bond comes out most clearly in the biological order. We are all connected to our forebears through one long chain of cell divisions. If, roughly, we put the succession of generations at twenty five years, we only have to go back a thousand cell divisions in order to come to the pre-historic era. No one wonders at you going to a football match of Ajax versus Feyenoord with thousands of other people, but everyone would wonder if you tried to do something similar with your ancestors Yet such an approach offers delightful perspectives. After some calculation it appears that Mao and Nixon are distant cousins. It is typical of distant cousins not to be in touch too frequently, until such time as the estate has to be divided. Then it seems that family consciousness is revived, Perhaps our growing consciousness of our biological unity would have the same effect if we all had to share the earth equally. The big problem is that the earth is already divided and even the division of the cosmos has begun. A lot has to be said about this division. At any rate, it seems clear that the division resembles the hierarchy in the time of the Egyptian pharaohs, who put to death the builders of their pyramids in order to ensure eternal life through their pyramids rather than the slogans of twentieth century democracies. If, in this chapter, | focus on the unity of human being through the ability to think and pro-create, I do not do this in order to disguise the problem of the hierarchy in human society. Few societies are known, certainly not within the history of Western culture, that do not have a social, political, economical and cultural hierarchy. The capitalist system in our own time is a clear example. The glorification of the individual in our culture historically and psychologically, has a lot to do with the capitalist system. By capitalist I ‘mean the focus on private property expressed in the term ‘capital. The glorification of the individual is a result of the glorification of property, not the reverse, Otherwise all of us together would begin to manage all that property. Our consciousness of value is riddled with aggression amongst ourselves, and with isolation from each other as symbolized by mile long traffic jams.5. ANALYZE DECONDITION We must not confuse our individualism with originality, with uniqueness. E.g,, the thing in which everybody is unique is his body odor. And even that we try to make unrecognizable with deodorants, Our individualism is symbolized in the double beds in our bedrooms. Even in the places and at the times that we make love and conceive babies, we do it in isolation, preferably without being seen. We have learnt to behave in an individualistic and anti-social way. That is why we talk of our most intimate feelings. But if everybody has the need for love, what does this intimacy mean other than: for me yes, for you ‘no’? I believe that the individualism of Western culture is one of the biggest lies ever conceived. ‘The only reason that there is a contrast between each of us and all others is because we have learned to experience it and think it, in the same way as we have been talked into believing that it is good to die for your country, even when you are miles away from home. Indeed, the unity of men stretches out for thousands of miles and over thousands of years, but not necessarily to the exclusion of each other. How could we otherwise wage a war? After all you can only wage a war with your own kind, Each human being in his capacity to think and in his ability to pro-create reflects all other people. Descartes, the philosopher who made the statement at the beginning of this book, was mistaken when he said:'I think, therefore I am: It would have been better if he had said: ‘Tthink, therefore we are. Summary 1 ‘The problem of man's knowledge concerning himself is not in lack of information, but in ordering and clarifying this information, 2 Human nature is identical to the capacity to think and pro-create; the visible signs of which are language and progeny. 3 The ability of man to say'I’to himself, also makes it possible to say yes’ and ‘no’ to himself and other people and to change his mind all the time. 4 Men are a collective identity through the universality of the structure of their consciousness and of their biological bond. Each one of us could have been Ramses 11, but also his slave. ‘Truth and falsehood are our unity. ‘The individualism of Western culture is one of the biggest lies ever thought up. Bach man in his capacity to think and pro-create, reflects all other people. eu ae76 ANALYZE DECONDITION 11 Aaesthetics When one tries to look for about halfan hour at someone standing in a meadow, wearing, a morning-coat and analyzes one’s own reactions, then you have a chance to answer the questions that are dealt with in this chapter. This morning-coat in a meadow presents all the problems that have to do with an aesthetic judgment, i.e, a judgment concerning beauty and art, If one looks at the meadow with the eyes of the impressionist Monet then it turns into a large field full of light-green hues; if you look at it with American pop art eyes, it turns into a vivid perfectly flat green plane; if one looks atit with the eyes of Michel Foucault, one sees a seventeenth century Dutch landscape painting. This meadow looks beautiful if one perceives it beautiful it looks ugly if one perceives it ugly. We can now ask ourselves whether you are beautiful, when I think you are beautiful; and whether you are ugly, when I think you are ugly. Iso, what should we conclude when I think you are beautiful and somebody else thinks you are ugly, accepting that we agree on what is meant by beautiful and ugly? Ifnot, then your beauty does not depend on my opinion or on the opinion of somebody else, and neither is the beauty of this meadow dependent on your perception. Itis clear that we cannot solve the problem by saying that appreciation of beauty is solely dependent on someone's opinion. If, in a narrow sense, this were true, then the meadow itself — on which one can now pass a certain aesthetic judgment — has no bearing on that judgment. One might as well give an opi for example, a horse jumping from the highest floor of the Empire State Building in New York, or even about a film of the horse jumping. ‘One can formulate the problem in a different way: is Rembrandt's ‘Night Watch’ art, when nobody looks at it? If people say itis only art when people look at it and think it is beautiful, then at night, when the museum is closed the ‘Night Watch’ is not art. ion about something that one cannot see at all, The person who defends this position is an idealist. In chapter nine concerning metaphysics we have seen that an idealist defends the position that there is no reality outside experience. In this connection it means that there is no beauty outside my aesthetic experience. ‘The person who says that Rembrandt's ‘Night Watch’ is art independent of my aesthetic experiences, behaves like a naive realist. Reality exists outside my experience. In this77 ANALYZE DECONDITION connection it means that there is beauty outside my aesthetic experience. But how did the “Night Watch’ ever become art? At least the aesthetic experience of Rembrandt had to be necessary! If it is your opinion that this is not the case, then everything that man has made is art. Whatever exists is art. Reality is art. We are catgut between two opposing standpoints. The idealistic approach makes every pronouncement concerning the beauty of part-reality solely dependent on our aesthetic experience. In other words, it translates the beauty of part-realities into our aesthetic experience, ‘The realistic approach makes every pronouncement concerning the beauty of part-reality solely dependent on that part-reality itself. In other words, it translates our aesthetic experience into the beauty of that part- reality, In chapter nine I have attempted to exclude idealism as well as realism by defending that reality for us consists of a large number of constructions and that those constructions are only possible because a reality precedes it. Applied to the question of why something is beautiful, my proposition is that the beauty of something exists for us in an aesthetic judgment, ie. in our construction of beauty, but that an aesthetic judgment is only possible because a part-reality precedes it. ‘On these premises I would define beauty as follows: beauty is the harmony between our aesthetic judgment and part-reality. ‘This talk in terms of idealism and realism, questioning under what conditions Rembrandt's ‘Night Watch’ is art, does not seem very meaningful, Yet the question is important. Every time you have bought an article of clothing, one tells one’s neighbor who does not care for it very much: ‘there is no accounting for taste’ and by this one means that something like this is entirely personal and subjective, One defends the proposition that Rembrandt's ‘Night Watch’ is only art if one thinks it beautiful. In fact, one does not make the pronouncement about one’s clothes at all, but only about ‘one’s digestion or about one’s mood at that moment. ‘And yet this last instance is not your intention. If one thinks one’s recently acquired article of clothing beautiful, then one certainly means that that article of clothing is beautiful. There still exists the unsolved contradiction between the conviction: there is no accounting for taste’, and the conviction that certain clothes or Rembrandt’s ‘Night Watch’ are beautiful, aso when one or one’s neighbor think they are not. ‘This is the same problem as the one raised in chapter five concerning Theory of Argument, i.e. the relationship between subjective and objective. The sentence: “each observation is subjectives nobody observes the same facts in the same way, suffers from the contradiction78 ANALYZE DECONDITION between the proposition that every observation is subjective and the proposition that the fact in question is still the same fact. It then raises the question of how the author of this sentence could know that itis still the same fact if we all perceive it in a different way. If someone claims that each of us perceives the ‘Night Watch’ in a different way, or insists ‘on speaking of the same ‘Night Watch; then he is involved in trying to square a circle, In my opinion we can only extract ourselves from this problem by sta from the principle of universal beauty. It follows from the principle of universal beauty that everything that exists, including our theories, lends itself to an aesthetic judgment. When I accept this principle, itis for the following reasons: were I not to accept this principle, then each aesthetic judgment is a random guess. For then, there is no question of any relationship between my aesthetic judgment and the part-reality to which my judgment refers. Itis irrelevant whether this part-reality consists of a number of ideas, the ‘Night Watch’ of, Rembrandt or a meadow. One can object that, however annoying the nature of part-reality can be, it does not constitute an adequate argument for the acceptance of universal beauty. It is conceivable that our aesthetic judgments have nothing to do with part- realities, but are just so many regurgitations of a number of hallucinations. In that case all our pronouncements concerning the beauty or ugliness of certain things are stripped of any information about them. If this were to be the case, it means that an aesthetic judgment has no longer any relevance to anything, not even to ourselves, But that is a logical impossibility. We cannot consider something beautiful and establish at the same time that this consideration has nothing to do with anything or anybody. At least it must have something to do with ourselves, But if it has something to do with ourselves ther gives information about ourselves. And if an aesthetic judgment can give information about ourselves, then no argument can be put forward why it could not give information about something else as well. ‘The knowledge and appreciation of ourselves implies the same capacity as the knowledge and appreciation of all reality. The principle of universal beauty is a metaphysical principle, i. it makes a statement about everything that exists without the possibility of proof for such a statement. If Tsay that [ think this meadow or Rembrandt's ‘Night Watch’ is beautiful, then I am already assuming that they lend themselves to an aesthetic judgment. I cannot prove that everything that exists lends itself to an aesthetic judgment, because each reference to such. a judgment rests on the assumption that such a judgment is possible. But the non-acceptance of the principle of universal beauty is also metaphysical and its79 ANALYZE DECONDITION negation therefore cannot be proven. The difference between acceptance and non- acceptance is that we deny ourselves every possibility of understanding at least something of our aesthetic experiences. If we are to deny our aesthetic experiences, then we are equally justified in denying all our experiences. The principal of universal beauty does not merely state that all that exists lends itself to an aesthetic judgment, but also that our understanding cannot avoid considering ‘objects, with which it is preoccupied, beautiful and ugly. In the same way that we cannot avoid thinking in terms of cause and effect, can we also not avoid thinking in terms of beautiful and ugly. ‘The beautiful-ugly spectrum, just like the cause-effect spectrum, is applicable to everything that exists, be it the traffic jams in Los Angeles; the moon landscape named after Descartes; a mathematical theory; the American Forest Lawn cemetery; a thatched farmhouse or naked men, women and children on horses. The thought and experience of beauty is an intrinsic characteristic of human nature. Thinking is not only geared towards truth, but also towards beauty. Anyone walking through a city, not just to get home without mishap, like a car that has to remain unscratched outside the front-door, but to saturate himself in its atmosphere, to respond to it, to love or to hate it, is a man with aesthetic judgments, Anyone who sees beyond the functional use of his workbench, or of his animals that he works with, is a person with aesthetic experiences. ‘The phenomenon arises from the moment somebody has the urge to give expression to his impressions of a city or his workbench or of his animals; the moment somebody translates his emotions and ideas into music; the moment a woman decides to play the part of a ‘femme fatale’ In the widest sense of the term, Art is everything made by man. André Gide refers to a work of art as the only natural thing in the world, Art is the face of its creator in rhythm and matter. Of course, it is hardly possible and hardly meaningful to establish criteria to which a man-made piece of work has to conform in order to gain the right to the affix ‘Art. I wish to mention only one example. Monroe Beardsley sets up three rules: unity, complexity and intensity. These seem to be meaningful rules. Yet these three rules, in the final analyses, are no more then three concepts that will only reveal their meaning if we apply them to man-made pieces of work. What is clear is that an aesthetic judgment precedes each work of art, but does not presuppose the creation of a work of art. There is no aesthetic criterion to draw the line between an aesthetic judgment and a work of art as appears from the urinal which Marcel Duchamp placed in the museum as a so-called ‘ready-made’ Or the instance of a moss-80 ANALYZE DECONDITION covered stone that you picked up for your friend who had given it your name, because it looks like you. Aesthetic judgment vacillates between two extremes. One extreme of aesthetic judgment ig the usefulness of what is useless. By this, I mean that attaching beauty to something or someone is not the means to an end. Attaching beauty to something or someone is significant in itself. The other extreme of aesthetic judgment is the ecstasy, the mystical experience, in which you find yourself transported into a reality that you experience as all-embracing. The consideration of beauty disappears, because as such it is no longer important, The experience of oneness absorbs whatever judgment. Aesthetic judgment is a fine example cof what Spinoza called ‘amor intellectualis’: loving understanding. If there is a paucity of aesthetic experiences, it means that we do not have an active emotional relationship wit ourselves and our environment. If their is a paucity of aesthetic experiences, we resemble the cars we drive. We become obsolete, just like cars, but, like cars, we do not grow. If we house everything in a museum, as we have been doing feverishly since the beginning of the nineteenth century, whether a Romanesque crucifix, an African death-mask, a Salvador Dali or God himself, we ourselves develop the characteristics of a museum, Our mind becomes a collection of data. As with the sciences, with art we are developing the ideology of freedom from values. The freedom from values has become the all important value. That is to say, although we can appreciate a lot of things, at the same time we find no use for these beautiful things, neither in our cities and villages, nor in our houses and churches. The museum is placed at a similar distance from our lives as the factory, the town hall and the church. ‘The more intense the connection with the vital processes of life, like birth, love and death, with nature, scientific theories and religion, the more will art leave the official art palaces and form part of all our daily patterns of life. To the extent that human nature remains constant throughout the centuries, so art, representing all those centuries, wil be accessible to us in its basic meaning. As in human nature, so in art, there is no question of progress. The invisible collective identity in the structure of thinking and in the awareness of value and freedom, becomes apparent in the artifacts that people forged thousand of years ago. Alter all, a vase dating from the Chinese Chou dynasty in the time of Confucius, tells as much about us as Andy Warhol's film ‘Flesh’ tells about the old Chinese. ‘The aesthetic experience loses its autonomy the more it becomes intense and human. What is exactly meant here, | wish to illustrate by my “Message to the dead’ rather than going on to explain it theoretically.81 ANALYZE DECONDITION Message to the dead ‘Thinking of death, I have to resist the inclination of wanting to paint a large, white square with a tiny blot of ink in the centre, This seems to me a correct depiction of my relationship with death. As long as the inkblot is tiny; I can speak of ‘death’ instead of ‘my death’ Is death really only an objective thought as, for example, in the instance of the absence of signs of life? In actual fact, no training in medicine is necessary to establish this. Or is death the component of our life, the starting phase of a new process of transformation in which we~ facing the crocodile in the zoo- have only two possibilities to choose from: to identify ourselves with the fish which are slowly and agonizingly being mashed between the huge jaws; in other words, being the killer’s victim, or identifying ourselves with that glassy eye with the satiated look of the fish eating crocodile? Sitting around a deathbed we are in the position of that glassy crocodile eye: we slowly . That is to say, we do not force him into the force the patient into that yawning cavity direction of that yawning cavity, but the patient pushes us into the position of that glassy eye. We look radiant, while in him the rigor sets in and everything becomes slow and heavy; his hands become swollen and unreal, his legs immovable, till the moment ~ in which we are further removed from him — he is so suddenly sucked into that awful depth, that we are, willy-nilly, dragged along, as if in a vertex or a whirlwind, through an open door, without the certainty of any floor or light behind that door. At that moment, I, the dying man, am your master: like puppets you stand at my deathbed. You hardly move, out of respect for my immobility. However, you do notice that my bed isa bath, filled with violet-colored water, in which you are let loose, the doctor first, like so many small fishes. The doctor swims around and contentedly thinks: a quiet deathbed, no panic, no fear, sending the bill is now no longer such an embarrassing matter. It suits me to leave the doctor under that impression. After all, he cannot help it to be swimming around in my death-bath with all my family behind him. He also is merely a human being who has to write out prescriptions and accounts for tumors, diarthea, thrombosis, ingrown toe nails and who has to look at a patchy skin and then to give the wrong diagnosis. It is better that he continues to swim in my death-bath in order to be able to write bills afterwards, in the same way that my garage sends steep bills for a relative cheap car like the Deux Chevaux. Death itself is cheap, but the modern way is to pay dearly for it these days. In actual fact, the horror of it all is, that all that small fry, doctor first, have no inkling that they are nothing but small mechanisms reacting completely automatically. In the moment they will close my eyes, they will kiss each other and tell each other I was such a nice and82 ANALYZE DECONDITION talented boy, whose loss will be difficult to fill in. ‘They are not aware that they themselves are dying while they speak all those words, They are like small clocks but - with a few fins and scales — exchanging signals with each other, but who are not aware that their powerlessness to die with me, in fact means that they are not alive, or at least, no more alive than that shoe over there or the stone that we took from the lake in Yugoslavia. That stone was born from fire and sulphur, long ago. It petrified when the fire died: it was warm and therefore alive; now it is cold and therefore dead. The problem is, so the dying man mused, that nobody in this room can know, at least with a great deal of certainty, whether he is dead or alive. If live is warmth and ‘movement, then we are both the living and the dead, in turn, according to the degree we communicate. As communication peters out, the death phase starts. In actual fact I am not dying, so the dying man thinks, but they are dying, because they are not communicating with me and hardly with each other, while my bed is a bath in which they are allowed to swi not especially ~ the rigor of my hands, legs, the hair on my head turned to dry hay, but the stiffiess of the thoughts in all those healthy heads, which think a lot about how death Is death identical to total rigor after all, not just ~ and could be softened, but do not dare to communicate with the dying themselves? ‘This mental petrifaction constitutes real death, so the dying man thought, and neither the doctor nor the family understood him. They closed his eyes. Rest in peace. Summary 1 Someone, standing in a meadow, wearing a morning coat, represents all the problems that have to do with aesthetic judgment and art. 2 An aesthetic judgment is our conception of beauty, and as such only possible, because itis preceded by a part-reality 3 Beauty is the harmony between an aesthetic judgment and part-reality. The principal of universal beauty means that everything that exists, including our theories, lends itself to an aesthetic judgment. 5 The principle of universal beauty is a metaphysical principle. Thinking of and experiencing beauty is an intrinsic characteristic of human nature, Thinking is not directed toward truth alone, but also towards beauty. 7 Aesthetic judgment vacillates between two extremes: one is the usefulness of what is useless, the other the ecstatic and mystical experience. 8 ‘The aesthetic experience loses its autonomy the more intense and more generally human it becomes,83. ANALYZE DECONDITION 12 Ethics Ethics is concerned with norms and values that regulate our behavior. When a mother neglects her baby the whole neighborhood is outraged. When a mare neglects her foal we might be speechless with astonishment, but, in all probability we would not be outraged. Why is this? Why do a number of American soldiers in Vietnam receive a decoration, like lieutenant Calley for example, for a number of killings that would have cost an ordinary citizen either his life or a lifetime in prison? Why, when the police fire fatal shots, do newspapers not describe it as murder, whereas it is a different case when a man poisons his wife? Why are killings on the roads, in factories and in hospitals never killings but always fatal accidents, even though there is sometimes just as much blame as in the case of a robbery which results in murder? Why are Defense Ministries no longer called Ministries of War, although they have the same purpose as before, with even more deadly means? Why are you allowed, in principle, to choose anybody you wish to marry, while after the event you lose that choice? Why should priests have talked for centuries about the Ten Commandments, revealed by Jahweh to Moses on Mount Sinai, if we had not continued to break them throughout the centuries? Why do we break laws if they are good for us? It would be naive to think that people have the same opinions concerning good and evil, justice, happiness and moral responsibility. Philosophers have always attempted to find answers to these questions. However, the inability to arrive at adequate understandings is, so great that many prefer to concentrate on the analysis of ethical concepts rather than on the question of which values in our behavior we should focus on. For this we use the term ‘meta-ethics! For example, ‘the truth of fundamentally moral statements can only be known through intuition, or, ‘moral statements are expressions of emotions, are mea-ethical statements. A number of philosophers, the logical positivist for example, claim that all statements about ethics, aesthetics, social and political philosophy, that is all statements discussed in84 ANALYZE DECONDITION the four preceding chapters of this book, are meaningless in so faras they uphold a certain norm of value. Meaningless here means unverifiable. Ethical or aesthetical values cannot be tested in the way that ‘facts’ can, Iti the difference between the commandment have been killed’ The distinction between ethics and meta-ethics is meaningful. “Thou shall not kill, and the statement: ‘six millions Jews Yet one of the serious misconceptions of twentieth century philosophy is to make the distinction between the observation of facts and value judgments absolute. No clear line can be drawn between facts and values. Ifa fact is an ordering of part-reality, then such an ordering always implies a certain evaluation, With each fact, for example that of a television, itis assumed that we have isolated it from the totality of reality in a certain way. You would be astonished if horses were to jump through the screen into your living room. Ido not wish to claim that your description of a television is arbitrary, only that the fact ‘television’ implies a number of assumptions. Also the sun, a car, and the rules of a game can be referred to as facts, but if by this we mean more than just that they exist - and we do, otherwise we would refer to them as ‘objects’ or ‘concepts’ then there is question of a structure, Each structure presupposes understanding, and understanding presupposes evaluation, In chapter nine concerning metaphysics I upheld the principle that our knowledge is based on certain preconceptions about reality which, in the final analysis, cannot be verified. Weare faced with the puzzling paradox that in our behavior — even as soldiers or gangsters —we always betray a certain value consciousness, for example, that itis good to carry out orders or that it is good to look after our own interests exclusively. Yet at the same time we have to acknowledge widely differing opinions about important ethical questions like military conscription. In the same way that man cannot avoid thinking in terms of cause and effect, and in terms of beautiful and ugly, he cannot avoid thinking in terms of good and evil. But thinking of good and evil obviously does not mean that we think alike about good and evil. At the tribunal in Neurenberg and Tokyo Germans and Japanese have been sentenced for deeds that they probably saw as noble and morally responsible. Many people claim that President Johnson and President Nixon must be deemed war criminals according to the norms and rules of justice at these tribunals. It is important to make a distinction between thinking in terms of good and evil, often referred to as the normative consciousness, and what the concepts ‘good? and ‘evi? imply. If someone says:‘I can only kill myself’ he appears to make a statement that concerns him alone. This is how it seems. In fact, he also says that he cannot kill anybody else but himself, the reason being given: ‘I do have a right over my own life, but nota right over the lives of others, Although he puts himself in the position of an independent individual, in making85, ANALYZE DECONDITION a pronouncement about himself, he cannot avoid making a pronouncement about all other people. He also says that other people are not allowed to kill him. ‘Then someone sa} ach man has the right to his own life’ he makes a pronouncement that he wishes to be valid for all people. If we try to clarify such a pronouncement by adding: ‘nobody is allowed to kill, it seems clear what we mean by this, But what to do if there is one cynic who does not share this opinion? I can then imagine this dialogue developing concerning the commandment: ‘Thou shall not kill. Mr. A says:‘you are not allowed to kill. Mr. B replies: ‘as far as Iam concerned, everything is allowed, including killing somebody. A: You are not allowed to kill, except for reasons of self-defense, that is called defensive killing. After all, every man has the right to his own life!. Bs'‘As far as I am concerned everything is allowed, also offensive killing. A: You are not allowed to kill; yet, in some cases, the right to self-defense could entail preventive-defensive killing. Br'As far as Tam concerned, everything is allowed, even the use of nuclear weapons. I don't mind’! A: ‘You are not allowed to kill, but put in that way, the right to self-defense implies a preventive-defensive war with nuclear weapons as a final resort. Br ‘We will agree in the long run’ What is striking in this little dialogne is that A requires many more words than B in order to elucidate his statement that one is not allowed to kill. The reason is clear: he defends a position that he does not really believe in. The position that A takes up is characteristic of large groups of people who shiver at the thought of bringing into question the commandment: ‘Thou shall not kill, but who at the same time do not wonder at the existence of the army and the police. ‘The same is valid for people who think that you are not allowed to kill, but that you are allowed to have an abortion; or that a country may defend itself, but that a mother may not defend herself. We must be made aware that often we are illogical in our opinions concerning a fundamentally moral principle such as being allowed to kill or not. Anyone who defends the position that he is never allowed to kill, must be of the opinion that this standpoint is not only valid for him, but also for all other people, although he does know that many people are of a different opinion. Anyone who defends the position that he is allowed to kill, for example for self-defense, must also be of the opinion that this right to defend oneself is applicable to all people ‘Thinking about values that have to do with people, cannot be restricted to one person or to justa few persons, unless one no longer regards the others as people.86 ANALYZE DECONDITION ‘The Nazis referred to Jews, Roma and Slavonic people as ‘Untermensche, the low people, by which they indicated that they no longer regarded these people as people and fellowmen of equal standing. ‘This is why they could kill them of like dogs. In chapter seven I defended the position that we form an invisible collective identity, ifa person makes a pronouncement concerning good or evil, for example concerning whether or not to allow killing of people, he never makes that pronouncement solely for himself, but for all other people. For this reason alone it is tragic that we cannot agree on the contents of our value consciousness ‘The fact is that in his normative consciousness man is intolerant. The consequence of being tolerant is placing himself above or below his fellowman or being guilty of making paradoxical statements. The intolerance of the ethical value consciousness is connected with the structure of our ethical thinking. If I believe a certain principle, for example national independence, to be a common good, then I must believe this to be true for all people. All people will have to respect such a principle. If they do not, then we will defend ourselves. In this instance can only be tolerant in so far as I doubt the truth of such principle, ifonly because I changed my mind on other occasions. Someone who says; ‘I think abortion is permitted in certain cases, by making such a statement accepts the principle that killing is allowed. He can endeavor to limit the killing as much as possible, but in principle he thinks it is allowed. The same principle is valid for anyone who subscribes to the right of self-defense, individually and collectively. ‘The principle: ‘one is allowed to kill, without being illogical — cannot be granted to one man or group of men and denied to others. Ina strict sense the principle cannot be delegated. If we insist on doing so, or others do this for us, then there is question of a double morality. As in aesthetics, in ethics we have to deal with the tension between a free floating subjectivism in the vein of: everybody can find out for himself what is good; there are no values generally valid ~ and an extreme objectivism that regards any value to be valid for all people. In my opinion we can only extricate ourselves from this by starting from the principle of the universal good. ‘The principle of the universal good implies that everything that exists, including our theories, lends itself to a moral judgment. My acceptance of this principle is connected with the same reasons by which | accepted the principle of universal beauty. Were I not to accept this principle, than each moral judgment would merely bea random guess, Yet it appears that each moral judgment that we make, for example: it is good that87 ANALYZE DECONDITION people help each other, isin principle valid for all people. I may be aware of the fact that many people do not share such an ethical value, but in my normative consciousness cannot avoid making statements that have a valid bearing on every human being. Moreover, with every moral judgment | wish to make a statement not only about the of certain behavior but also about the meaning and purpose of that behavior. desirabili A moral judgment contains information about ourselves and even about nature. ‘The Chinese philosopher Mencius who lived in the fourth century before Christ tells the story of the man from Sung who, impatient about the slow growths of the wheat, pulled at it every day to make it grow faster, The man from Sung to this day is seen as the prototype ofa stupid man, Our behavior in connection with nature does not differ morally and mentally in many aspects from that of the man of Sung, When a moral judgment gives information concerning myself and therefore also about reality, insofar as I understand it and use it, then this is of importance for other people, especially to the extent that I have more power. The reverse is also valid: every moral judgment on your part isin principle my concern, especially to the extent that you have more power. ‘The principle of universal good is a metaphysical principle, that is to say it makes a pronouncement concerning everything that exists, - our theories included — without the possibility of proving such a pronouncement. When I claim that a national sovereign state is a common good, or that the principle: “Thou shall not kill’ is an important commandment, I cannot prove it by referring to the existence of sovereign states or to the numerous wars on our small planet. T can never prove that everything that exists including our theories — lends itself to a moral judgment, since each reference to such a judgment is based on the presupposition that such a judgment is possible. It would be better for me to say: a moral judgment is inevitable. Even a block of flats cannot altogether escape this inevitable judgment. The way that people live together in a flat, the rent they pay, the relationship with nature, have aspects that are ethical. If we deny our ethical experiences, we can deny all our experiences with just as much justification, Thinking of and experiencing good is an_ intrinsic characteristic of human nature. Thinking is not only directed towards truth and beauty, but also to what is good. ‘We can analyze ethics like a system of rules that does not differ from the rules of a game, like chess or football. The analogy of the rules that regulate monogamy or other marriage arrangement, with the rules in sport as for example in football, is that the partners to a marriage and football-players know what is and what is not allowed. In relationship to each other they develop patterns of expectancy on the basis of these rules. Thanks to the88 ANALYZE DECONDITION rules everybody knows what to go by and what he may expect from others. Also there is a difference between the rules of monogamy and football. The rules of football merely determine the relations between the players. But the rules of marriage do not merely determine the relation between the partners, but also between them and others. What is applicable between partners in marriage is not applicable between them and others. The rules of marriage not only allow certain possibili 3s, they also, in principle, exclude certain possibilities, such as sexual relationship with others. The law of marriage is a law of contract with specific rights and duties on both sides. ‘To put it ina more concrete way: you can be a football player, a chess player, card player or someone who does judo ~ the rules do not clash ~ while at the same time itis difficult to have the nationality of several states or to be married monogamously and polygamously. ‘The ethical rules in the communication between people are nearly always of restrictive nature. They show the characteristics of a closed system, while the rules in sport have the characteristics of an open system. The rules in sport allow for an infinite number of possil goal of one team at a football match were to be smaller than the goal of the opposite team. ilities with equal chances for everyone. Everyone would think it is ridiculous if the Moreover everybody has a sound understanding of the rules while the result of the game is not established on beforehand. No one can predict the result of a football match with certainty. ‘The rules of social interactions among people show opposite characteristics. They are less transparent, while the results are on the whole predictable, Many people have little ‘understanding of their life and work conditions and therefore have the feeling that they can exert little influence on their state of affairs. Hence the enthusiasm for sport is very understandable. It is a strong need of human nature to have an understanding of the rules that regulate our behavior; to make these rules valid for all people, in other words not to enlarge or reduce the goal of the other team; not to be able to predict the result of the game on the basis of those rules, in other words, to be able to influence the result ourselves. This is the crux of what I wished to demonstrate in chapter six concerning the relationship m on the one hand and freedom on the other. between determi A universal ethic acceptable to everyone is only conceivable and realizable insofar as ethical rules and principles do not favor or injure one man above another; insofar as these rules enlarge rather than limit the possibilities of our mutual game, and insofar these rules are clear for everyone. From the principle of universal good it follows that a moral judgment ~ that is our construction of good — is only made possible because a part-reality precedes it. Good or89 ANALYZE DECONDITION goodness I would like to define as follows: good is the harmony between our moral judgment and part-reality. In other words: there is no good without people, but neither would good exist without the reality that precedes each one of us. In the same way that the ethical experience loses its independent effect the more intense and generally human it becomes, so the moral judgment loses its independent effect the more intense and generally human it becomes. We forget about ethics at the moment that we act in harmony with each other and nature on which we are mutually dependent. Summary 1 Ethics is the theory of principles and values that must regulate our behavior, No sharp distinction can be made between facts and values. 3 ‘Thinking in terms of good and bad does not mean that we think the same about good and bad. 4 Normative consciousness i aan intrinsic characteristic of human nature; b. universal, ie. every ethical pronouncement is valid for all people. ¢. intolerant (see b.). 5 ‘Thinking is not only directed towards truth and beauty, but also towards good, 6 The principle of universal good entails that everything that exists, ‘our theories included, lends itself to a moral judgment. ‘The principle of universal good is a metaphysical principle. 8 ‘The ethical experience loses its independent effect the more intense and generally human it becomes.90 ANALYZE DECONDITION 13 Society Philosophy resembles more and more “The man without qualities” in the novel of that title by Robert Musil, playing the most disparate roles, just as we all do. The man without qualities is preoccupied with language, logic, theory of argument, determinism and freedom, metaphysics, anthropology, ethic, social and political philosophy. Philosophy plays as many roles as you and I do, Lam Dutch, male, thirty five years old, husband, father, friend, teacher, breeder of horses, philosopher, lover, resident of Amsterdam, author, uncle, son, cousin , car driver all roles to which is attached a certain pattern of expectancy of the environment and of myself. We are, as it were, the sum-total of all these roles, while at the same time we remain the same man or woman, at least so we assume, A fundamental problem in social philosophy is the relationship between oneself as an individual and society. The concept society belongs to the category of words that is used frequently and vaguely. The word society has to do with the family, but also with the army; it concerns a pop festival but also a giant business concern, It touches on all affairs in which individuals form a group. Hence, also ‘society” cannot be delineated. As with the ‘good’, we cannot encounter ‘society’ in the street. Social philosophy concerns itself with the state, but from a certain position of enquiry, for example: Can a social system be better understood by applying the ‘harmony model’ rather than the ‘conflict model’ or vice versa? Are their universal characteristics common to all human groups? Can Utopian societies be developed in which mutual relationships are so peaceful that the lion lies down with the lamb? Can norms and values of universal human significance be developed? What is the meaning of such terms as ‘social justice, ‘social contract, ‘sovereignty of the people, ‘public spirit, ‘alienation, ‘mobility; ‘participation, et cetera? Moreover, one can ask whether many of these questions constitute the right kind of enquiry. The question ‘What is an ideal state’ is just as impossible a question as ‘What is the ideal man’ It suggest a ready made product that can be judged by fixed criteria. At the same time it is clear that such a question arises from the need for another society rathergt ANALYZE DECONDITION than from the need for the present one. The question betrays a longing for paradise-like conditions that cannot be clearly visualized, let alone achieved with any certainty. But, instead of asking ourselves what conditions have to be met for a social system which everyone finds livable, it would be better to evaluate the existing social system. Any design for a human community must take into account basic human characteristics, such as man’s ability to know and criticize himself, his creativity, his need for sympathy, et cetera, The most important problem that has to be resolved is the relationship between the individual and the group. The size of the group is, for the moment, irrelevant. In the preceding chapters I have tried to show that each human being has an individual, as well as a collective identity. Everyone can be aware of the fact that he belongs to an indivisible chain of cell divisions and of the fact that, through the structure of his consciousness and value judgments, he applies an outline of thought that has a valid meaning for everyone. Yet, the universal structure of human thought and value-consciousness and the common biological bond do not preclude differences of opinion, conflicts and wars. Man can devour his kind like a sow her young pigs. Hobbes,1588-1679, was of the opinion that human society resembles a war of all against all. ‘Marxists are of the opinion that each society is based on caste or class war. To what extent this position is acceptable is not only dependent on an empirical survey of the structure of all existing societies, but also on the opinions concerning human nature. If we restrict ourselves to social systems in Western culture, then — in spite of the long tradition of all kinds of freedom -ideologies — we have to acknowledge that there has always is based on structure and a cultural pattern of ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ people. The mutual relationship of people in our society is based on more freedom, more development and more income for certain groups, at the cost of other groups, It is a mutual relationship of masters and slaves. been, and stil is, question of caste and class. To put it more succinctly: our societ ‘The German philosopher Hegel, 1770-1831, has already pointed out that, for his self- consciousness and feeling of happiness, the master is dependent on the slaveand the slave, in turn, can only feel like a slave by acknowledging a master over him. Slave and master presuppose each other, like creator and creation. ‘Masters would often rather kill their slaves than let them become their equals. Slaves fear death more than slavery, so that they are prepared to remain slaves. The moment they choose to risk death, rather than an existence of slavery, they become free men. ‘They no longer acknowledge the division of people into an upper and lower kind as humane. ‘This does not imply that they will win the battle, like the Vietnamese battle for freedom,92 ANALYZE DECONDITION or insurrection, such as in American cities, so easily, but it does imply that they have extricated themselves from the master-slave relationship, ‘The master-slave relationship can be found at various levels, for example in self- glorification or self-destruction; in the man-wife relationships in offices, factories and schools; in the relationship between citizens and the State. The hierarchical relationships in society are reflected on a personal level in an authoritarian and authority-demanding self-consciousness. Every society that is hierarchically ordered, such as ours, necessarily develops an image of man and society in which there is little or no space for an experience of our collective identity. ‘The question is whether an authoritarian-hicrarchical social system meets the demands of fundamental human characteristic or... find myself being inclined to describe the opposite, as often happens, in terms of ‘non- authoritarian’ and ‘non-hierarchical’ Anyway, itis saddening to have to acknowledge that we know how not to do it rather than how to do it. It is inadequate to talk about a society in which everybody is equal. For it cannot be the intention to convert the equality of man, based on the unity of human nature, into uniformity of homes, dress, knowledge, possession and gender. The equality can be intended merely as a rejection of the master-slave relationship and, through it, the rejection of the social hierarchy. The relationship between individual and collective identity can obviously appear in many ways. The liberal view of society, that has reigned supremely over the last two centuries in ‘Western society, is based on a view of man in which the central values are: individualism on the basis of self-respect and sel achieve and to acquire property. Society is the totality of individuals who all try as much as possible to live for themselves, The liberal opinion holds that all men are equal. They all obey the same regular pattern of interests and needs. ‘The mutual relationships are the result of the sum-total of single individuals. Within the liberal view of man, there is no room for ‘multiplication’ or‘multiplicity. We are all intent interest, sexual self-control, ambition, the urge to on our self-interests, if possible harmoniously, if necessary in conflict and war. Our humanity may biologically originate in the womb, its result is very much a process of cutting the umbilical cord. In the liberal view of man, the emphi identity, necessarily leads to an emphasis on tolerance and the acceptance of a plural and parallel system of norms and values. Of course, this tolerance does not extend to those opinions that undermine the ‘liberal’ on the individual identity, at the cost of collective93 ANALYZE DECONDITION standpoint. The tolerance of the liberal view is partly passive and partly apparent. The tolerance is passive because it is based on the adage: ‘Each for himself and God for all, whilst an active tolerance is based on the conviction that we may err in our opinions, but it is not based on the premise that our opinions should apply exclusively to those who hold them. Tolerance becomes a sham insofar as an undermining of liberal values is not tolerated. You have only to listen to what Udink of the Dutch Christian Union Party had to say in ‘August 19705 “We must observe with patience everything that is presented, including at the universities, asa genuine innovation and genuine concern for a new society, but we must track down, expose and fight with great determination the new anarchism, because it is aimed at the foundations of our existence’ Even if one is a supporter of the liberal view, one has to acknowledge that it has not been able to protect citizens from an ever-growing and more powerful bureaucracy; from political centralization; from the concentration of banks and multinational corporations, and the accompanying liquidation of an independent sector, under which farmers, small businessmen, shopkeepers and free-lance workers. By the year 2000, the independence of the citizen will then, more than ever, only benefit a relatively small group in power. The power of the people to create and influence their own climate for living has dwindled rather than increased. The hierarchy is becoming more and more complex and its enforcement is not diminishing. Even the houses that people are occasionally able to buy themselves are usually not designed to their specifications. ‘The liberal view of Man and Society has failed to make tangible the equality of Man in theory and practice, and has therefore completely abstracted the freedom of many people. ‘The failure of the liberal view has far-reaching consequences for society. ‘The power of this view originated in focusing on the individual as opposed to the group. ‘The rise of the bourgeoisie in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries seemed to confirm the correctness of the liberal view. Only now that this class is disappearing the limitation of this view, that is the lack of a group philosophy, is becoming apparent. The collective identity of all people has become a forgotten reality. The result is latent social anarchy. The weak bond and involvement of people with their work and political events are clear. The hierarchy in almost all social sectors and the concentration of economic power can only strengthen anarchy. Nothing more is required than an afternoon television broadcast of a football match to stop factories, offices, schools and Parliament from functioning, as happened on the fifteenth of March 1969 during the football match Ajax vs Benfica in Paris. Anarchy is the twin brother of alienation. Alienation is the clash between needs that we94 ANALYZE DECONDITION can feel but cannot cope with. If self-knowledge, self-criticism, creativity, the need for sympathy and loyalty are intrinsic needs of man, then no one can be surprised at the anarchy and alienation present everywhere. ‘The blocking of these needs in the daily life and work situations of millions of people manifest itself amongst other things in the fact that most people confine happiness exclusively to their private lives. It seems that the term ‘happiness’ is no longer applicable to social life. The proletariat consists of all those people who do not determine the course of their own lives. ‘The alternative to the present anarchy and alienation can possibly be discovered by analyzing why exactly itis sport, as opposed to work and polities, that keeps millions of people spellbound. In my opinion there are three reasons for this, all three in stark contrast to the working conditions, and to a lesser extent to the learning conditions, of most people. In the first place, the rules in sport are the same for all players. It is out of the question that one has to run the hundred meters, whilst the other runs fifty. This can not be said of the social opportunities of people. Secondly, the rules in sport are perfectly clear to anyone who will exert himself a little, including such questions as strategy of the game and tactics. Social rules, however, are very unclear for many people. Many people have no fundamental knowledge of the organization in which they are working. Political organization remains a closed book for many people. Thirdly, the outcome of the game according the rules is unpredictable. In other words, the rules allow for a large number of possibilities that can be used in all kinds of ways by the players. The way the game is played on either side determines the result. One’s own effort and resourcefulness are greatly stimulated by this. If, in the area of social intercourse, contracts of pay and conditions are drawn up over the heads of the workers; if organizational planning, choice and quality of the products take place without the actual influence of those who produce them, then the producers are ‘working ina situation the outcome of which has no meaning for them, since they cannot exert any influence over it. This engenders apathy and anarchy. It is contrary to the creativity of thinking, feeling and acting that every man has at his command, because creativity ~ like freedom ~ is inextricably bound up with man's capacity to think, It is not a characteristic that is separate, like an appendix. As long as people see their fundamental needs satisfied solely in sport, society will lack an inspiring social philosophy.95 ANALYZE DECONDITION ‘The kind of social philosophy that can best solve the problems of authoritarian and hierarchical systems, of making individual identity the absolute at the cost of collective identity, and of blocking self-knowledge, self-criticism, and creativity, is liberal-socialism or syndicalist anarchism. Liberal socialism attempts to find a balance between the individual and the group, which is precisely the opposite of the existing relationship. A group, be ita family, a class, a factory ora neighborhood, can force each of his members into a certain role that will only partly justify his personality. Such a group exploits its members. It stimulates neither the independence of the self nor of the group bond. The ‘moment that some individuals, and here the size of the group is of importance, wish to carry out a project based on taking every member of the group seriously, such a group will stimulate the integration of its members from within and from without. If, on the whole, people are individualistic without being original, they will now be stimulated to be original without flaunting their individuality. A group of four people, A, B, C, and D respectively, can constitute eleven possible relationships, ie. AB,AC,AD, BC, BD, CD, ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD, and ABCD. All these relationships can be observed from the point of view of one as well as from the other: A experiences his relationship with B and may try to understand how B experiences his relationship with him and vice versa, In a group with four people this may result in twenty ight different perspectives. In a group of ten people we already arrive at over five thousand perspectives, all connected to the way in which members of the group stand in relation to each other, Such a network of relationships offers many possibilities for the individual, provided that the members of the group try to understand and trust each other. Liberal-socialism emphasizes the possibilities and freedoms of aware that the mutual dependence and bond is not a harness to make them play a ividuals by making them particular role, as is at present the case. Latent anarchy in society can readily be explained if one starts from the supposition that the economic system sets people against each other rather then units them. Making the right of property the central issue may then go hand in hand with the minimizing of property for large groups of people. Making the individual the central issue may then go hand in hand with a minimizing of say even in neighborhoods and home aff ‘Making the individual the central issue, separate from the community, has the same result as releasing frogs in the desert. The flight of self-consciousness from individualism into private property and consumer lust, leads to cars and other goods becoming the dominating picture, rather than the intermingling of ideas, emotions and bodies. Fear of cooperative control of the means of production js, in the last analysis, only96 ANALYZE DECONDITION comprehensible through fear of each other. s from the dogma of unlimited development of production and consumption, under which wwe expire in our own dirt and millions of people die of hunger, to the five thousand or more points of view of a group of ten peoples ing the focus from the economic to the cultural issue: putting those sectors on which all people depend under cooperative control, and therefore have to decide cooperativelys struggling free from the so often stifling private sector and sterile isolation, would mean an integration of individual and collective identity. Collective identity is not something separate, over and above one’s own independence. It is the consciousness of the inevitable bond of mankind with each other and with his natural environment. ‘The social philosophy of a society mirrors the lives of its individuals. If we no longer gather together in the streets and on the squares, we will also lose the ability to look into ourselves. The revival of a street culture is the beginning of a new society. If people once again occupy the streets and squares to meet each other and together sort out their interests, then we shall discover that aesthetics does not exist in a vacuum, and that people themselves are indeed beautiful. Summary 1 A social philosophy must start from the intrinsic human characteristics, such as man's ability to gain self-knowledge and self-criticism, creativity and loyalty. 2 People can devour each other like a sow her farrows. A society that is ordered hierarchically suppresses the idea and experience of our collective identity. 4 The liberal view has failed to materialize equality and freedom. 5 Anarchy and alienation are stimulated because: a. the rules are not the same for everybodys b. the rules are not clear to everybody; c.the result of the game is pre-determined. 6 ‘The alternative to anarchy and alienation is liberal socialism or syndicalist anarchism. 7 ‘The fear of the cooperative management of the means of productions is in the last analysis only comprehensible through fear of each other. 8 ‘The beginning of a new society is the revival of a street culture.97 ANALYZE DECONDITION 14 State In many respects social and political philosophy are interrelated because society and state have long been closely integrated. According to Jiirgen Habermas, Marx’ interpretation of a class society in which the bourgeoisie uses the power of the state to its own end, has been superseded. Social integration has not left the class structure untouched. Since the Middle Ages a continuous shift of relatively independent sectors has taken place in the direction of an ever growing state power and control, even in our capitalist society. Social alienation ~ which is the result —is only surpassed by political alienation, aptly put bya child: Politics is just talk, except that you cannot understand it. In a country like The Netherlands politics has become the social management of an orphanage with sixteen million children, Yet we must continue to make the distinction between the concept ‘state’ and ‘society: The social philosophy of the Soviet Union differs from that of the United States, however, the political philosophy is nearly identical. North Vietnam has a different kind of social philosophy from Greece, however, the political philosophy is nearly identical. The philosophy of sovereignty of the people closes them off from other people behind territorial boundaries. Moreover, it is a philosophy in which the people’s sovereignty only recognizes its own borders as inviolate — and how could it be otherwise. Ifa state is powerful then there is a good chance that it will not acknowledge the border of another state. Thucydides, a Greek historian who lived two and half thousand years ago, has described a dialogue between Athenians and Melians that focuses on this problem. ‘The Athenians demand that the Melians give up their neutrality and become an ally. In reality this treaty will mean total subjugation of the island Melos to Athens. The Melians refuse and thereupon their iskand is totally destroyed by the Athenians. The Athenian follows: defense of their position prior to the destruction of their island, i “What lays within our power, we must accomplish what is possible in accordance with the real thoughts of both of us, since you know as well as we know that what is just is arrived at in human arguments only when the necessity on both sides is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, while the weak yield what they must.98 ANALYZE DECONDITION ‘The Melians reply as follows: ‘As we think, at any rate, itis expedient -for we are constrained to speak of expediency, since you have in this fashion, ignoring the principle of justice, suggested that we speak of ‘what is advantageous- that you should not rule out the principle of the common good. It is also necessary, just as you force us to abandon all pleas of justice and seek to persuade us to give ear to what is to your own interest, that we, too, tell you what is to our advantage and try to persuade you to adopt it, if that happens to be to your advantage as well. How, wwe say, shall you not make enemies of all who are now neutral, as soon as they look at our case and conclude that some day you will come against them also? And in this what else are you doing but strengthening the enemies you already have, and bringing upon you, against their inclination, others who would never have thought of becoming your enemies?” ‘This dialogue is for all times. We can apply it readily to the Americans and the Vietnamese respectively: “.. what is just, is arrived at only when the necessity on both sides is equal... as an expediency’! ‘The idea of sovereignty of the state finds its origin in the theory that the state is a person. ‘This person can be a king, a dictator or the people, either taking sovereignty from God — as the Dutch Queen still reigns by the grace of God - or not, But in the last instance wherever sovereignty is vested, it remains an extreme notion, “The sovereign people’ has all the characteristics of the Old Testament God who does not acknowledge any other God than himself. In the same way that God is accountable to nothing and no one, in relation to other states the state conducts itself as a body that need not be accountable. In the medieval concept everyone is still subject to the law - emperors, kings, Popes and the Godhead not excepted because the character of the law is strictly objective. To the extent that king and law converge, the idea of the sovereign accountable to no one except God, is conceived. If, in the end the king gives way to the people, the people are vested with divine qualities without, in any way at all, actually having these qualit The result is a mystification of the independence of peoples and territories that is in conflict with the collective identity of all people. Sovereignty rests on a misconception and a great abuse of power. When sixteen millions people in The Netherlands decide that no one has the right to cross the borders without their permission, then they make a pronouncement about the Germans, the Chinese et cetera, who have never been consulted by them about this but are nevertheless subjected to their pronouncement, if they have enough power.99) ANALYZE DECONDITION ‘This is arbitrary and illogical, A pronouncement that is relevant to all people, must also give the same right to all people. If not, then people are turned into subjects. This is exactly what the modern sovereign state is about, ‘To the extent that people live less and less in social and working conditions in which they get to know each other intuitively well, the state penetrates the life of its citizens more and more. Every day the state affects our lives in the form of bureaucracy, judiciary, the police, social services, tax laws and housing policies. The state is the invisible father and mother for whom you cannot even nurture an Oedipus complex, because the state has no gender. The fallacy of the theory which accepts the state as one person resulting in the fundamental equality of all states, is also apparent in the poor relationship between the sovereignty of the state and individual human rights. In the Preamble of the United Nations Charter the belief is expressed in the dignity of ‘man; in the equality of the right of man and woman as well as of nations, be they large or small. But in the second article, subs one and seven , the sovereign equality of every state and the injunction against interference, on the part of the United Nations in all affairs that belong to the internal affairs of a state, is acknowledged emphatically. This implies that when the rights of a citizen are flaunted by the state, the accused state can appeal to its sovereignty in order to invalidate and in practice often neutralize, any action, South Africa’s policy of apartheid was a shining example of this as well as Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians. It also is a straightforward contradiction to pronounce as sovereign an individual or any collective of individuals. Moreover, itis in conflict with the collective identity of all people to pronounce anyone or anything as sovereign. ‘Anyone, who accepts the sovereignty of the state without reservations, denies himself as an individual his responsibility for himself and all other people, and in relationship to the state he places himself in a master-slave relationship. The relationship between state and citizen calls into question, among other things, to what extent the citizen is able to acknowledge the state, including its system of justice, as the highest authority. Situations can arise whereby the affairs of state force its citizens to actioy s that are in conflict with their conscience. By what standard can such a problem be approached? T have held the position that man has an individual as well as a collective identity. The concept ‘collective identity’ is not in opposition to the concept ‘individual identity’ but is the latent empathy in each one of us for all people. ‘The moment the state encroaches upon the fundamental unity between all people, it100, ANALYZE DECONDITION encroaches upon the collective identity of all people and therefore upon the best that each man is within himself, that is to say, upon the visible sign of his humanity by which each man can recognize himself as human being. From the point of view of the philosophy of justice there can be little doubt about the right to resist and rebel against authority and the state when fundamental principles are at stake, The Calvinists around William of Orange were the first to acknowledge that service to God must come before service to the king, in this case Philip II of Spain. If ‘God? is the symbol of our invisible collective identity, it means that the violation of this invisible collectivity by the state gives each citizen the right to resist the state. The conscientious objections in the United States to the war in Vietnam are an example of this. Itis clear that to establish the point at which the right to resist the sovereign state begins, is extremely difficult. The problem is already enclosed within the construction of the sovereign state itself. It formally implies an encroachment upon the collective identity of all people. We are in a position to make ourselves aware of the fact that the problem of the relationship between us as citizens and all of us as humanity, can never be solved by placing the state asa sovereign power between us and over us. Prom all sides I can now perceive raised eyebrows and angry looks. lam talking as if there is no question of democracy. After all, the word ‘democracy’ does mean government by the people, However, the problem lies in the fact that the meaning of the word ‘people’ changes over the centuries. If the people, that is to say all inhabitants of a country, are supposed to wield political power, how can it be explained that they have little say in many of their most fundamental living conditions such as the conditions of work? If in most social strata hierarchical structures exist, that is to say a lot of power for the few and litle power for the many, is it so surprising that political power shows the same picture? If we do have to say ‘no’ to this, there are two possibilities; either political power has little or no influence on the socio-economic conditions, or the powerlessness of the many is what they desire. Moreover, both possibilities do not exclude each other, on the contrary! One cannot draw more and more power away from the councils and from all kinds of services within the councils, and at the same time expect that the process of growing centralization and bureaucratization helps to increase the enthusiasm of the citizens for various kinds of political participation. Going to the polling stations in which people elect. a government while standing with their backs turned to one another, resembles more a visit to a private brothel than common political decision making,lor ANALYZE DECONDITION ‘The individual made absolute at the cost of collective identity can be found in this liberal conception of humanity. The quiet of polling stations is symbolic of the quiet in political discussions among citizens, And why shouldn’t they be? Afterall, they do not decide upon their taxes together either. They do not decide whether the neighborhood requests a school, or not. Have they any say over the land on which they live together? A democracy that does not strive for self-government in as many situations as possible for as many groups as possible, is a sham democracy. ‘The necessary decentralization for this process goes right against the concentration of ‘economic power in ever fewer hands, Political government may try to catch up with this, but without being able to provide adequate protection for its citizens and without being able to arrange this process of concentration in as rational way as possible. All political philosophies that write about democracy take it that there must be a direct contact between people for them, to be able to rule themselves directly. A Greek city-state was never bigger than ten thousand citizens, often not bigger than just a thousand. Plato developed a model for political self-government for five thousand and forty people. In present day terms this means that we have to decentralize on a large scale if we take the validity of the Greek conception of democracy seriously. No self-government is possible without the people's direct and intuitive knowledge of each other, although of course, this knowledge can be deepened enormously with the aid of the media if people own their media, But in spite of all criticism of the state’s sovereignty and the poor functioning of parliamentary democracy, we cannot deny that the state fulfills a necessary and useful role. Or, as Kolokowski says, parliamentary democracy is the least of all evils; up till now we have no better alternative. Nothing much can be said against this, except for the admonitions of Thomas Paine in the eighteenth century that people do not form a society to be worse off than before renouncing th society to protect themselves better. ‘This conception, highly praised in the eighteenth century , dates from the ‘concept of contract’ as a natural right. The state must defend the existing rights better. A famous ‘example of such a concept of contract is the Declaration of Independence on the fourth of July, 1776, in which the American fighters for independence formulated their rights in the face of English domination. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.~ ‘That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’ It isa coincidence that you are born an Americans itis a coincidence that you are christened a Catholic; it is a coincidence that you live in an environment of farmers. None of these right, but they form aLoz ANALYZE DECONDITION factors must be decisive for your position as a citizen. If the basis of the theory of contract, by which all people share the same rights, is worked out logically, it can never lead to the justification of slavery on the grounds of the right to property. ‘The moment that the right to property, for example the right to your own house or your ‘own business, implies that someone can possess thousands of houses or can buy up dozens of companies, then it is a right to property that flaunts, in many instances, the right of property of other citizens. The crux of this problem, which has no sharp demarcation lines, is that the idea and the norm are made one-sided by turning them into absolute rights at the expense of other legitimate rights. In the same way that the independence of a people is made absolute in the sovereignty of the state, so the right to private property is made absolute in the form of multinational corporations and banks. ‘Turning the right of an individual entity into an absolute right at the cost of the collective identity, makes the individual lose his moral justification and gives the people the right to rebel. Everything that I have said so far in this chapter concerning political philosophy, focuses on the relationship between our individual and our collective identity. It also focuses on the question to what extent can we turn such concept as ‘society’ and ‘state’ into absolutes as if they were independent entities, separate from individuals and separate from ci In order not to limit myself to theoretical criticism, I wish to end this chapter by making few concrete proposals for intensifying the relationship between citizens and politicians ns, in short, as if they were Platonic ideas. and between the citizens themselves. Politicians should work one month a year in factories, offices and on farms for the current pay at these places, They should also live in the vicinity of their work-mates. Moreover they should pay regular visits to jails and mental institutions in order to remain informed ‘on which grounds and with which effects citizens are internalized, ie. expelled from the ‘open society. Moreover, if they take their electorate seriously they should strive to reduce their power for the benefit of self-government in boroughs and wards, and they should stimulate the collective management of the means of production If they fail to do so, the electorate is held down in a position of dependence which does not differ from the master-slave relationship. Even a kind master remains a master, In order to stimulate contact between citizens the square in the centre of Amsterdam should be made available especially for dancing people, except on the evening of the fourth of May which commemorates not only W.W. II but all wars. One day a week private cars103, ANALYZE DECONDITION should be banned from the inner cities in order for people to rediscover walk and quiet. A thousand citizens should have the right by means of signatures to give a foreigner citizenship. ‘The Civil Defense should have the job of teaching people again the elementary survival techniques, On the one hand it will sharpen the awareness of the awful results of war, on the other it teaches the people to live more soberly and independently as compared to the consumer urge of the present system. In the streets, in schools and in cafe's chess will be played in order to teach the children at an early age the analyses and control of a war game. In schools the teaching of systematic philosophy will be stimulated in order to increase the awareness of the insolubility of many problems; to strengthen the skepticism of our opinions; to promote intercommunication and tolerance; to develop a well-founded mistrust of the state and, at the same time, to see the state as an expediency in setting quarrels among ourselves. Perhaps the teaching of systematic philosophy can come to an end when we have reached utopian conditions under which people no longer have to resort to all kinds of institutions in order to protect themselves from themselves and from each other. Summary 1 ‘The idea of the state’s sovereignty originated from the theory that the state is the equivalent of a person. ‘The sovereign people bear all the characteristics of an Old Testament God, who does not tolerate any other God but himself. 3 When a citizen acknowledges the sovereignty of the state without reservations, he places himself in a master-slave relationship in regard to the state. 4 Although each state owes its origin to an insurrection or revolution, this, realization is suppressed as if it were original sin, 5 ‘The sovereign state is an encroachment on the collective identity of all people. 6 A democracy is a sham if it does not strive for self-government for as many groups as possible in as many situations as possible. 7 An individual right, which is at the cost of the collective identity, loses its moral justification. 8 The teaching of systematic philosophy can perhaps be ended when people no longer have to resort to all kinds of institutions for their mutual protections.Log ANALYZE DECONDITION Analyser — Deconditioneer, Fen Inleiding tot de Systematische Filosofie. Polak & Van Gennep. Ist print July 19725 2nd print October 1972 © 1971 Fons Elders, Amsterdam © 1972 Van Gennep NV, Amsterdam