Dari Kanon Filsafat 1

 

Kanon Filsafat 1

Ini adalah awal dari kanonku, kanon tulisan-tulisanku yang aku anggap adalah resmi. Apakah itu kanon? Kanon adalah kumpulan tulisan atau karya yang dianggap sah dari suatu entitas atau badan. Maka kanon Ignas Christianto Galih Prasetyo, adalah kumpulan tulisan yang sah berasal dari Ignas Christianto Galih Prasetyo. Kanon yang ini, yaitu kanon filsafat, tentunya bukan satu-satunya kanon yang aku hasilkan, masih ada kanon-kanon lain yang aku buat, seperti kanon fiksi dan kanon psikologis yang akan aku buat kelak. 

Dalam sejarah filsafatku, aku belum pernah berhasil membuat suatu sistem filsafat yang sempurna, yang dapat melengkapi sistem Gereja Katolik. Barangkali karena aku pada dasarnya ingin membangun menara Babel yang baru kepada Allah, dan karena itu Allah selalu menolak karyaku. Dia selalu meruntuhkan karyaku bagaimanapun juga caranya, jadi aku harus selalu memulai ulang menara ini dan kemungkinan besar kanon ini pun akan runtuh dan digantikan dengan proyek yang baru dengan nama dan label yang baru. Kalau kanon ini bertahan 1 tahun saja, artinya ini adalah kehendak Allah yang murni.

 

Sesungguhnya kanon ini harusnya merupakan kanon filsafat saja, tapi jangan heran kalau dari kanon filsafat ini kalian dapat membaca kepribadianku juga. Namun akan ada bagian kanon psikologis yang lebih mendalam ke psikologiku. Salah satu hal yang berkaitan dengan psikologiku dalam tulisan filsafat yang pertama ini adalah pesimismeku terkait keberhasilan ataupun kegunaan tulisan ini. Baru saja ada orang yang mengatakan bahwa tulisan dan proyek ini tidak berguna, karena sudah ada Kekristenan. Aku tidak membantah, karena memang benar bahwa dari suatu perspektif seluruh kanon ini tidak berguna.

 

Sebab, kita sudah memiliki Gereja, Tradisi Suci, dan Kitab Suci. Ketiga pilar kebenaran itu seharusnya sudah cukup untuk kehidupan manusia, dan benar, memang cukup. Jadi apakah kontribusi proyek ini terhadap kehidupan manusia? Menurutku nol besar. Namun ada satu orang yang diuntungkan dari tulisan ini, yaitu aku sendiri. Aku menulis semua ini untuk diriku sendiri dan untuk kepuasan batinku sendiri. Aku hanya ingin melihat segalanya dengan mata batinku sendiri, aku tidak mudah percaya kepada perkataan Gereja, aku ingin menjadi bagian dari Gereja yang melihat kebenaran-kebenaran ini dengan mata batinnya sendiri.

 

Jadi filsafat itu sendiri tidak penting dan tidak berguna karena sudah ada Kristus dan Gereja-Nya. Namun saat aku menggaungkan ketidakpentingan dan ketidakbergunaan filsafat ketimbang Kristus dan Gereja, Dia justru menegur aku dalam kesalahanku. Sebab pada dasarnya filsafat juga berasal dari Allah dan memiliki seorang mempelai, yang bernama teologi. Pernikahan itu terwujud dalam diri Kristus, di mana manusia dan Allah dipersatukan dan bertemu. Dalam kata lain, filsafat dan teologi harus dipersatukan dan memang kehendak Allah yang asli adalah kesatuan antara filsafat dan teologi.

 

Jadi kesalahanku dan kesalahan setiap orang yang merendahkan filsafat adalah mereka tidak memahami filsafat itu sendiri. Filsafat adalah cinta akan kebijaksanaan, filsafat adalah pencarian akan kebijaksanaan, filsafat adalah upaya manusia untuk mencari kebenaran. Sementara itu kita yang tahu tahu bahwa kebijaksanaan adalah Kristus sendiri, Dialah Kebijaksanaan itu sendiri yang mengatasi segala kebijaksanaan manusia. Filsafat adalah upaya manusia untuk memenuhi lubang besar di dalam hatinya yang hanya dapat diisi oleh Allah.

 

Jadi filsafat yang sebenar-benarnya akan mengarahkan manusia pada Allah. Namun manusia yang berdosa membenci Allah dan ingin mengisi lubang hatinya dengan hal-hal lain selain Allah, apapun itu yang dia isi, baik itu kekayaan, kekuasaan, atau manusia lain, atau bahkan dirinya sendiri. Maka filsafat disalahpahami, dipelintir, dan dijadikan ajang pembenaran bagi kedosaan manusia, bahkan dijadikan kontradiksi dengan dirinya sendiri. Karena itu filsafat bercerai dari teologi, manusia bercerai dari Allah, dan hasilnya adalah filsafat jatuh ke dalam kegelapan bersama manusia yang menghasilkan dia.

 

Namun Allah tidak berhenti mencari dan memanggil manusia kepada diri-Nya. Sesungguhnya, yang mencari duluan bukanlah manusia, yang memulai segala hal ini bukanlah manusia, melainkan semua diawali oleh Allah dan akan diakhiri oleh Allah. Kita hanya berada di tengah-tengahnya saja. Teologi adalah tawaran dan wahyu Allah kepada manusia yang harusnya dijawab manusia dengan filsafatnya, yaitu pemahaman manusia tentang teologi itu. Karena mau tidak mau teologi harus diterjemahkan ke dalam filsafat manusia sehingga manusia dapat memahami Allah dan segenap wahyu-Nya.

 

Pada saat wahyu Ilahi dan pemikiran manusia dapat bekerja sama, maka di situlah terjadi kebaikan dan kebahagiaan sejati bagi manusia yang mencari Allah sebagai Kebaikan dan Kebahagiaan itu sendiri. Jadi pemikiran manusia atau filsafat ditujukan sebagai jembatan antara manusia dan Allah. Karena begitulah manusia mencapai Allah, bukan dengan perasaan semata, melainkan dengan segenap dirinya yang diketuai oleh akal budi didukung oleh hati nurani yang tegak. Jika manusia tidak berpikir tentang Allah, dia tidak akan pernah mencapai-Nya.

 

Jadi sekali lagi, apakah segala karya ini berguna? Sesungguhnya ya, berguna untuk mencerahkan pikiran manusia untuk kembali lagi kepada Allah dan bersatu kembali dengan Khaliknya. Namun ini baru permulaan dari segalanya. Jadi tentu saja karya ini akan terus berkembang hingga terwujud suatu karya yang terbaik yang dapat menuntun kembali umat manusia kepada Allah. Sebab inilah kehendak Allah bagiku, untuk menulis dan menulis sampai manusia mau mendengar dan mau mengikuti jalan Allah kembali. Kalau tidak ada maknanya, tidak mungkin Allah meminta aku melakukan ini.

 

Dengan itu tulisan ini sudah selesai. Namun sebagai catatan tambahan. Mungkin pembaca sudah memperhatikan bagaimana tulisanku ini agak serampangan. Karena tulisan ini memang ditulis secara serampangan dalam cara yang aku tidak terlalu pedulikan. Sebab hal yang aku pentingkan saat ini adalah tulisan yang selesai, bukan tulisan yang sempurna. Hal yang penting adalah materinya sudah tertulis, nanti tinggal disempurnakan dalam suatu bahasa yang baik. Namun waktu itu bukanlah sekarang, melainkan di masa depan. Demikian yang dapat aku sampaikan pada saat ini.

Kanon Filsafat 2

Salah satu proyek filsafat yang sedang aku cita-citakan dan sedang aku buat bernama Perfectam Scripturam atau dalam terjemahan bebas Kitab Sempurna. Apakah perbedaan antara Kitab Sempurna dan Kitab Suci? Bukankah Kitab Suci juga adalah Kitab Sempurna? Perbedaannya adalah Kitab Suci adalah Kitab yang Suci, artinya berkaitan dengan Allah. Kitab Sempurna adalah Kitab yang Sempurna menurut standar kesempurnaan suatu Kitab, yaitu memenuhi tujuan Kitab dengan kemampuannya untuk mengantarkan suatu pemahaman kepada pembaca atau penggunanya.

Apakah Kitab ini ada? Ada, pada wujud paling murni Allah sendiri adalah Kitab Sempurna sebab Dia adalah Kebenaran itu sendiri. Namun, karena manusia masih membutuhkan bahasa untuk berkomunikasi, direndahkan Kitab Sempurna itu menjadi suatu Kitab atau tulisan harafiah. Memang benar bahwa bahasa itu sendiri secara kodrati tidak sempurna. Namun, kita dapat menghasilkan bahasa yang paling sempurna menurut kodrat bahasa itu sendiri. Bahasa yang sempurna adalah bahasa yang dapat mengantarkan pemahaman paling baik kepada mereka yang menggunakan bahasa.

Namun kitab ini tidak mungkin sama bagi setiap orang karena setiap orang memiliki sistem bahasa yang berbeda dan juga tingkat pemahaman yang berbeda-beda. Bukan hanya bahasanya yang berbeda, isi dari kitab ini berbeda karena berdasarkan apa yang paling dibutuhkan setiap manusia pada suatu waktu. Misalkan antara seorang bayi dan seorang mahasiswa, Kitab Sempurna bagi seorang bayi mungkin tidak berupa tulisan sama sekali melainkan adalah penyampaian lisan oleh ibu atau ayahnya, sedangkan bagi seorang mahasiswa sudah pasti merupakan suatu Kitab yang lebih harafiah dan tebal bahkan.

Projek untuk menghadirkan Allah ke dalam bentuk buku di dalam dunia ini memang mustahil, karena kita tidak mungkin menuliskan suatu Kitab Sempurna untuk setiap manusia di setiap tingkat perkembangan mereka. Karena alasan itulah tidak ada banyak Kitab Suci melainkan hanya ada satu Kitab Suci. Maka pilihan terbaik kedua adalah kita menyusun satu saja Kitab Sempurna yang dapat diakses oleh mayoritas manusia. Sisanya yang tidak dapat mengakses kemungkinan besar memang tidak membutuhkan Kitab itu atau dapat menerima terjemahannya oleh kaum mayoritas.

Selain itu, Kitab Sempurna ini tidak mungkin dijadikan sebagai suatu rangkaian buku berjilid-jilid yang sifatnya sekuensial dan linier. Karena dengan perkembangan teknologi saat ini, Kitab ini dapat dijadikan suatu sistem informasi digital, suatu kitab digital tempat berbagai macam tulisan tidak hadir secara linier atau sekuensial tetapi dalam suatu jaringan. Jadi dengan sistem hyperlink dan dengan suatu sistem jaringan yang tervisualisasikan, maka hubungan antara setiap informasi dapat terlihat dengan jelas. Maka Perfectam Scripturam ini akan menjadi direktori seluruh pengetahuan manusia yang akan terus berkembang sampai Kristus datang kembali.

Kanon Filsafat 3

Salah satu harapan akhir dari proyek filsafat ini adalah terbentuknya suatu sistem filsafat pribadiku sendiri. Sistem filsafat adalah sistem gagasan-gagasan filsafat yang terstruktur, terorganisir, dan memiliki relasi satu dengan yang lain secara sistematis. Relasi yang aku pikirkan baru ada 2 relasi saja, yaitu relasi pembenaran dan relasi penjelasan. Relasi pembenaran adalah relasi di mana gagasan membenarkan gagasan yang lain. Relasi penjelasan adalah relasi di mana gagasan menjelaskan gagasan yang lain. Apakah perbedaan antara pembenaran dan penjelasan? Sejujurnya aku juga tidak begitu tahu. Untuk sekarang, diharapkan dapat ada suatu visualisasi melalui Obsidian. Namun kelak aku berharap dapat menghasilkan suatu program tersendiri yang dapat melaksanakan segala ini.

Kanon Filsafat 4

Pada tulisan ini aku akan membahas secara singkat tata cara produksi tulisan filsafat. Hal terpenting dalam tulisan filsafat adalah mencari gagasan filsafat itu sendiri. Pencarian gagasan dapat dilakukan dengan 3 cara utama, dengan gagasan spontan, dengan membuat suatu daftar gagasan filsafat, dan kalau kedua cara itu gagal, dengan mencari materi filsafat dan mengembangkan dari situ. Hal berikutnya adalah cara menulis suatu tulisan filsafat, caranya cukup sederhana. Pertama kita membuat suatu kerangka tulisan, lalu kita menulis menurut kerangka tersebut. Setiap gagasan dikembangkan secara spontan dengan peraturan umum sebagai berikut, "Bagaimana kita dapat memperjelas satu gagasan dalam sistem gagasan yang lebih besar?" Secara konkrit, dalam satu kumpulan kata, kata mana yang masih dapat dikembangkan? Begitulah pedoman cara menulis tulisan filsafat secara sederhana.

Kanon Filsafat 5

Kalau kita ingin melaksanakan filsafat, kita bisa saja memulai dari titik manapun yang ada dalam filsafat. Namun, aku lebih suka memulai dari dasar yang paling jelas, yaitu pengalaman. Karena tanpa pengalaman, segala hal akan runtuh dengan sendirinya, bahkan tanpa pengalaman tidak ada apapun juga. Sebenarnya tanpa pengalaman mungkin saja ada kenyataan, tapi ini adalah topik pembahasan untuk lain kali. Untuk sekarang baiklah aku menulis tentang bagaimana pengalaman adalah dasar epistemologis dari segala hal.

Faktanya, kalau kita memulai dari tempat lain, kita akan kesulitan untuk menemukan suatu dasar filsafat yang baik untuk tempat itu. Maka akan menjadi lebih baik kalau kita memulai dari dasar dari segala dasar yaitu pengalaman itu sendiri. Lalu apakah pengalaman itu? Pengalaman tidak dapat didefinisikan secara pasti, dalam arti tidak ada yang lebih sederhana atau mendasar dari pengalaman itu sendiri. Namun, kita dapat menetapkan 2 sinonim dari pengalaman, yaitu penampakan dan perasaan.

Penampakan adalah bagaimana suatu benda tampil bagi kita, sang subjek. Subjek memperoleh penampakan suatu benda yang adalah pengalaman benda tersebut bagi sang subjek. Penampakan paling mudah diasosiasikan dengan penglihatan. Selain ini aku belum memiliki kemampuan untuk menjelaskan dengan lebih baik. Perasaan adalah kontak atau persentuhan antara subjek dan benda. Maka perasaan paling mudah diasosiasikan dengan perabaan atau juga perasaan batin, terutama emosi.

Pengalaman adalah dasar dari segala gagasan dan pengetahuan yang kita miliki. Tanpa pengalaman, maka tidak mungkin ada gagasan atau pengetahuan. Bahkan, gagasan dan pengetahuan sendiri adalah suatu pengalaman pula. Jadi tidak mungkin ada gagasan atau pengetahuan tanpa pengalaman karena keduanya identik dan sama. Pengalaman juga adalah fakta pertama, atau gagasan dan pengetahuan pertama itu sendiri. Sehingga dari pengalaman yang merupakan gagasan pertama, bersumberlah segala gagasan berikutnya. Demikian hal yang dapat aku sampaikan pada saat ini.

Kanon Filsafat 6

Kita telah menetapkan pengalaman sebagai suatu fakta pertama dalam seluruh filsafat dan juga seluruh ilmu. Sekarang adalah waktunya untuk melaksanakan analisis struktural terhadap fakta ini. Analisis struktural adalah analisis yaitu pemecahan atau penyederhanaan suatu bahasa berdasarkan struktur bahasa tersebut. Struktur pada dasarnya adalah susunan, jadi bagaimana letak satu unsur bahasa mempengaruhi makna dari keseluruhan struktur bahasa tersebut. Selain susunan, struktur juga melibatkan relasi antara setiap unsur bahasa yang ada. Maka analisis struktural adalah penyederhanaan dari susunan dan relasi yang terjadi di dalam suatu kumpulan unsur bahasa yang disebut struktur bahasa.

Ada beberapa tingkat analisis struktural, yaitu analisis kalimat, paragraf, dan tulisan. Analisis kalimat adalah analisis struktur suatu kalimat, yaitu kumpulan kata-kata bermakna yang bergabung untuk membentuk suatu makna yang lebih kompleks. Analisis paragraf adalah analisis struktur dari suatu paragraf, yaitu kumpulan kalimat-kalimat bermakna yang bergabung untuk membentuk suatu makna yang semakin kompleks. Tingkat terakhir adalah analisis tulisan atau analisis teks, yang merupakan analisis dari struktur suatu tulisan yang adalah kumpulan berbagai paragraf yang bermakna yang membentuk suatu gagasan akhir. Adapula tingkat-tingkat lebih tinggi seperti analisis buku yang terdiri dari berbagai tulisan, dan juga analisis bibliografi yang terdiri dari berbagai buku. Hal ini berpuncak pada Analisis Ilahi, yang adalah analisis dari Allah sendiri.

Pada saat ini kita akan melakukan analisis kalimat yang sangat sederhana yaitu, "Pengalaman ada." Jadi kita ingat ada 2 unsur yang dilibatkan, yaitu susunan dan relasi. Susunan atau urutan pengalaman dahulu baru "ada" sangat penting. Sebab ini menandakan bahwa pengalaman hadir sebelum keberadaan itu sendiri. Fakta tentang pengalaman lebih mendasar daripada keberadaan. Jika kita mengubah susunannya menjadi "Ada pengalaman," hal ini menandakan bahwa keberadaan hadir sebelum pengalaman. Hal ini adalah ketidaklogisan berdasarkan fakta pengalaman itu sendiri. Karena kalau kita bertanya tentang dasar dari keberadaan, pasti adalah pengalaman. Namun, saat kita bertanya tentang dasar dari pengalaman, maka dasarnya adalah dirinya sendiri.

Relasi antara "pengalaman" dan "ada" adalah pengalaman termasuk dalam kategori "ada", atau pengalaman berada dalam kondisi ada. Dalam bahasa Indonesia, tercatat bahwa "ada" adalah kata kerja atau verba. Artinya ada adalah suatu tindakan. Hal ini menarik karena umumnya kita paham bahwa tindakan adalah suatu perubahan. Namun, kenyataannya tindakan bukan sekadar perubahan, melainkan adalah pengaruh. Jadi dengan ada, pengalaman memiliki pengaruh, tapi terhadap apa? Dalam konteks ini, pengalaman berpengaruh pada subjek, benda yang berpengalaman.

Pengalaman yang ada melakukan keberadaan pertama pada dirinya sendiri, lalu pada segenap kenyataan di luar pengalaman itu yang memiliki relasi nyata dengan pengalaman. Dengan ada, pengalaman memang tidak serta merta mengubah kenyataan, tapi faktanya ada suatu perbedaan antara kenyataan dengan pengalaman dan kenyataan tanpa pengalaman. Jadi kenyataan bahwa keberadaan menghasilkan perbedaan kenyataan cukup untuk menggolongkan ada sebagai suatu tindakan.

Sekarang kita akan mengenal suatu jenis analisis yang baru, yaitu analisis justifikasi. Dalam kata lain, kita hendak menjawab pertanyaan, "Apakah alasan dari kalimat tersebut?" Sebenarnya kita sudah menjawab pertanyaan ini, kita paham bahwa dasar dari pengalaman adalah dirinya sendiri. Fakta bahwa pengalaman ada diperoleh dari pengalaman itu sendiri. Tidak ada yang lebih mendasar dari pengalaman itu sendiri. Kita mengalami, dan itu sudah mutlak atau tidak dapat dipertanyakan lagi. Justru dari pengalaman kita memperoleh suatu fakta yang baru yaitu keberadaan. Ini yang akan menjadi topik tulisan filsafat berikutnya.

Kanon Filsafat 7

Pada kanon filsafat sebelumnya, kita telah menetapkan suatu analisis dari kehadiran pengalaman dan kita memperoleh pemahaman bahwa pengalaman didasari oleh dirinya sendiri dan menjadi dasar yang mendasari dirinya sendiri serta segala hal lain secara epistemologis. Dari kalimat "Pengalaman ada," kita telah memperoleh pengetahuan tentang unsur yang pertama yaitu pengalaman, sekarang kita akan memperoleh pengetahuan tentang unsur yang kedua yaitu keberadaan. Dalam tulisan sebelumnya kita pun sudah memahami bagaimana keberadaan adalah suatu tindakan, atau tepatnya ada adalah tindakan. Kita juga sudah makna dari tindakan dan keberadaan sebagai suatu tindakan.

Sekarang kita hendak meneliti keberadaan sebagai suatu kondisi, atau benda, bukan hanya tindakan. Bagaimana suatu tindakan dapat menjadi suatu kondisi? Saat suatu benda bertindak, maka dia berada dalam kondisi tindakan itu. Misalnya suatu kata lain yang juga merupakan kata kerja, yaitu "hidup". Ada tindakan hidup dan ada kondisi "kehidupan". Hal yang sama terjadi antara ada dan keberadaan. Sebagaimana kehidupan adalah kondisi makhluk yang melaksanakan hidup, maka keberadaaan adalah kondisi benda yang melaksanakan tindakan ada.

Jadi apakah esensi dari keberadaan atau kondisi tindakan ada? Sejujurnya kita tidak begitu tahu, aku pun tidak begitu tahu apakah esensi dari keberadaan.

Namun, ada beberapa sifat keberadaan yang dapat kita kenali. Pertama, keberadaan dapat dipahami sebagai suatu relasi. Tepatnya, keberadaan adalah kemampuan suatu benda untuk mempengaruhi benda lainnya dan memiliki suatu kehadiran yang berdampak pada kenyataan di luar dirinya. Ini adalah pemahaman yang mendasar dan agak konvensional. Aku berkata konvensional karena ada suatu argumen pengecualian yang dapat dikatakan menyanggah konsep keberadaan sebagai relasi.

Faktanya, mungkin saja ada suatu benda yang tidak berdampak sama sekali pada benda lain. Dalam kata lain, benda itu terisolasi dari segenap kenyataan lainnya. Namun, benda yang sungguh terisolasi dari benda-benda lain dapat dikatakan "tidak ada" karena berada di luar jangkauan dan relasi benda-benda lain. Ada pula benda yang terisolasi itu juga tidak dapat menjangkau dan berelasi dengan sistem benda yang lainnya. Namun, kalau ada suatu sistem relasi yang pada kenyataannya dapat mempersatukan seluruh kenyataan, maka benda terisolasi itu menjadi mustahil karena seluruh benda terhubung dan tersatukan oleh satu benda yang lebih tinggi ini.

Terlepas dari kemungkinan bahwa benda terisolasi ini mustahil, untuk mengakomodasi kemungkinan seperti itu, maka kita membutuhkan suatu pemahaman baru. Maka ada pemahaman bahwa keberadaan adalah kehadiran. Namun, apakah itu kehadiran? Patut diperhatikan bahwa kehadiran hanyalah sinonim yang memperjelas apa makna keberadaan. Sekalipun kehadiran memang adalah definisi dari keberadaan menurut KBBI. Sementara itu, kalau kita melihat makna "hadir", hasilnya juga tetap "ada", jadi ini adalah pengertian yang melingkar.

Makna kehadiran akan lebih jelas saat kita meneliti konsep Allah dan melihat relasi antara Allah dan keberadaan atau kehadiran. Untuk sekarang kita hanya perlu memahami bahwa kehadiran artinya adalah hadir bagi dirinya sendiri atau kehadiran mutlak di dalam kenyataan. Jika 2 hal itu terpenuhi, maka keberadaan sudah ada. Jika tidak, barulah keberadaan itu tidak ada. Pembedaan ini mengarah pula pada pembagian antara 2 jenis keberadaan, keberadaan relatif dan keberadaan mutlak.

Keberadaan relatif adalah esensi keberadaan yang berdasarkan relasi, dan puncaknya adalah relasi dengan pengalaman karena begitulah kita mengetahui adanya keberadaan. Keberadaan mutlak adalah esensi keberadaan yang berdasarkan kehadiran mutlak suatu benda, atau dapat juga dikatakan sebagai keberadaan esensial. Namun, untuk sekarang itu saja yang dapat kita katakan tentang keberadaan. Sebab masih ada pembahasan yang lebih mendalam tentang keberadaan, terutama dalam keterkaitannya dengan pengalaman.

Kanon Filsafat 8

Pada kanon filsafat sebelumnya kita telah meneliti keberadaan secara mendasar. Sekarang kita akan meneliti relasi antara keberadaan dan pengalaman. Pada dasarnya kita memperoleh keberadaan dari fakta pengalaman itu sendiri. Pada saat pengalaman itu hadir di hadapan kita, pengalaman itu juga yang menjadi keberadaan. Kita menalar bahwa dari pengalaman, maka ada pengalaman, dan ada suatu keberadaan, di mana keberadaan itu adalah pengalaman. Jadi keberadaan yang ada itu bukan suatu benda yang terpisah dari pengalaman, melainkan pengalaman itu sendiri karena sejauh ini hanya ada pengalaman yang nyata bagi kita.

Jadi saat ini kita akan meneliti pengalaman bukan sebagai pengalaman, melainkan sebagai keberadaan. Kita tahu bahwa pengalaman hadir karena kita sendiri memiliki pengalaman dan mengalaminya. Kenyataannya, suatu benda dapat ditetapkan ada karena hadir dalam pengalaman kita. Jadi keberadaan pengalaman diketahui dari dirinya sendiri, dari kontak langsung antara kita dengan pengalaman itu. Namun, karena pengalaman hadir secara langsung bagi kita, maka sulit diartikan secara relatif. Dalam cara apa pengalaman ada secara relatif? Pengalaman tidaklah relatif, melainkan pengalaman itu selalu mutlak karena kita berhubungan langsung dengan pengalaman.

Pertanyaan yang baik adalah apakah ada keberadaan di luar pengalaman? Pertanyaan ini bukan tentang apakah suatu keberadaan tetap ada saat kita tidak mengalaminya, melainkan apakah keberadaan yang objektif itu sifatnya merupakan suatu pengalaman atau bukan? Masalah ini dapat kita teliti dengan memahami awal dari pengalaman. Kita paham bahwa pengalaman itu memiliki suatu awal, jadi ada masa di mana kita tidak berhubungan dengan pengalaman atau keberadaan tersebut. Sebelum kita mengalami pengalaman tersebut, apakah kodrat dari keberadaan itu, apakah masih berupa pengalaman atau merupakan suatu keberadaan yang bukan pengalaman?

Sekilas kita dapat mengatakan bahwa pengalaman itu hanya terjadi saat berada di dalam naungan subjek. Namun, itu mengasumsikan bahwa hanya kita subjek satu-satunya di dalam seluruh kenyataan ini, atau hanya manusia yang dapat menjadi subjek. Padahal, tidak ada masalah andaikata keberadaan itu ternyata merupakan subjek tersendiri di mana ada pengalaman yang unik dan berbeda dari pengalaman kita sebagai manusia. Jadi yang terjadi hanyalah peleburan atau asimilasi antara pengalaman itu dengan pengalaman kita sebagai manusia.

Dari situ kita memperoleh 2 teori tentang relasi antara keberadaan dan pengalaman, yaitu teori kesatuan dan teori keterpisahan. Teori kesatuan menyatakan bahwa keberadaan dan pengalaman pada dasarnya menyatu dan setara. Teori keterpisahan menyatakan bahwa keberadaan dan pengalaman tidak menyatu, melainkan bersifat kausal. Kausalitas yang terjadi adalah keberadaan menyebabkan pengalaman untuk terjadi saat bersentuhan dengan subjek, yaitu kita. Apakah ada cara untuk mengetahui teori mana yang benar? Jawabannya adalah tidak ada, setidaknya untuk sekarang.

Dari 2 teori itu juga masih ada 2 teori lain berdasarkan pembedaan yang berbeda. Kedua teori ini adalah teori korespondensi dan teori non-korespondensi. Korespondensi artinya untuk setiap keberadaan pasti ada pengalaman yang sesuai. Teori kesatuan pasti koresponden karena bukan hanya ada kesesuaian 1 lawan 1 antara keberadaan dan pengalaman, melainkan ada kesatuan yang setara antara keduanya. Teori keterpisahan dapat koresponden atau tidak. Namun ini harus kita teliti lebih dalam.

Kemungkinan bahwa untuk setiap keberadaan ada pengalaman yang sesuai itu cukup tidak bermasalah. Namun, bagaimana dengan kemungkinan bahwa tidak semua keberadaan memiliki pengalaman? Kalau seperti itu, artinya ada keberadaan yang sungguh di luar pengalaman, atau tidak berelasi dengan dunia pengalaman sama sekali. Mungkin saja ada suatu sistem keberadaan yang sangat dinamis tapi sebagai suatu sistem sepenuhnya terisolasi dari sistem pengalaman. Apakah ini mungkin? Barangkali, dan dengan menyatakan gagasan tersebut, sistem itu sudah ada, hanya saja esensinya tidak dapat kita ketahui. Pertanyaan yang lebih persis adalah apakah memang pengalaman secara umum terbatas atau hanya kita sebagai manusia yang terbatas? Untuk sekarang kita tidak dapat tahu, tapi barangkali kelak kita dapat memahami jawabannya. Untuk sekarang cukuplah tulisan ini.

Kanon Filsafat 9

Tulisan kali ini cukup singkat, karena membahas tentang suatu cara bagaimana kita menghasilkan gagasan filosofis secara formal. Hal ini berbeda dengan tata cara menulis tulisan filsafat. Gagasan filosofis dihasilkan dari pengalaman, maka untuk memperoleh suatu gagasan untuk menulis secara formal, kita tinggal mengamati pengalaman yang ada, dan kita abstraksikan sampai tingkat filosofis tertinggi, baru kita tuliskan. Abstraksi dan tulisan yang terjadi dapat dikembangkan kembali sampai mencapai titik buntu lagi, dan proses produksi gagasan filsafat dimulai kembali.

Kanon Filsafat 10

Tulisan ini akan agak padat. Dalam pengalaman kita memperoleh beberapa hal selain pengalaman dan keberadaan yang umum, melainkan juga konsep seperti kenyataan dan benda. Pertama kita harus memahami apa itu kenyataan dan apa itu benda. Kenyataan adalah keseluruhan keberadaan dan benda adalah sebagian dari keberadaan itu, atau suatu satuan keberadaan. Hal ini tetap benar terlepas teori keberadaan mana yang kita pegang. Misalnya suatu mobil, terlepas dari apakah mobil itu adalah pengalaman atau bukan pengalaman, mobil itu tetap ada. Maka karena mobil adalah suatu satuan keberadaan, maka mobil adalah benda.

Apakah kenyataan juga benda? Sejauh mana kenyataan adalah suatu satuan keberadaan yang dapat dibedakan dari keberadaan-keberadaan yang lain, kenyataan adalah benda. Namun, sejauh mana kenyataan adalah keseluruhan keberadaan dan bukan satu bagian saja yang terbatas, maka kenyataan bukanlah benda, karena pada dasarnya kenyataan itu tidak terbatas dan adalah "semua" dari "semua". Namun, untuk kepentingan tulisan ini kita akan memegang posisi pertama di mana kenyataan juga adalah benda yang dapat dibedakan dari benda-benda lainnya.

Dalam pengalaman kita akan kenyataan, kita memandang segala hal sebagai berbeda. Artinya tidak semua benda itu sama, misalnya hitam saja. Ada yang bercahaya dan dari yang bercahaya ada yang memiliki warna-warna yang berbeda. Jadi kenyataan sebagai suatu benda terdiri dari berbagai unsur yang berbeda. Hal ini pun dapat kita teliti ke dalam setiap benda lainnya yang semuanya juga bersifat komposit, artinya terdiri dari bagian-bagian yang berbeda. Dari hal-hal yang paling sederhana diderivasikan menjadi hal-hal yang lebih kompleks sehingga terbentuklah kenyataan yang kita kenal saat ini.

Maka, segala hal terkait dalam cara derivasi dari prinsip-prinsip yang sederhana. Keberadaan-keberadaan yang sederhana, entah dari satu substansi yang sederhana atau beberapa substansi yang sederhana terbentuklah kenyataan kita yang saat ini setelah diderivasikan secara matematis. Derivasi di sini artinya manipulasi, bahwa benda-benda yang lebih sederhana berinteraksi menurut hukum matematis sehingga membentuk kenyataan kita saat ini. Mengapa harus menurut hukum matematis? Ada alasannya, tapi tidak untuk sekarang.

Perbedaan ini dapat dibedakan menurut 2 jenis perbedaan yaitu perbedaan mutlak dan perbedaan kategoris. Kita mengenal bahwa suatu benda terdiri dari berbagai unsur yang berbeda. Suatu benda dikatakan sama dengan benda lainnya jika kedua benda itu memiliki kesamaan unsur yang mutlak. Hal yang menarik adalah unsur-unsur ini melibatkan relasi antara benda itu dengan benda yang lainnya. Jadi ada unsur internal dan unsur eksternal. Unsur internal adalah hal yang membentuk suatu benda pada dirinya sendiri, tapi unsur eksternal adalah relasi antara suatu benda dengan benda lain yang mempengaruhi konteksnya.

2 unsur eksternal yang paling penting adalah ruang dan waktu. Tempat dan waktu suatu benda berada menentukan identitas benda tersebut, sekalipun secara internal isinya sama semua. Misalnya, benda A yang berada pada ruang X di waktu Y dengan benda A yang berada pada ruang X di waktu Z adalah 2 benda yang berbeda, hanya karena konteks kenyataannya berbeda. Karena jelas ada suatu hal yang berbeda di antara 2 benda tersebut, yaitu kewaktuannya. Jadi perbedaan mutlak melibatkan perbedaan ruang dan waktu pula.

Perbedaan kategoris adalah lawan dari perbedaan mutlak, artinya 2 benda hanya berbeda jika beberapa unsur yang menjadi standar pembeda berbeda. Jadi kembali lagi ke contoh di atas, A di X, Y dan A di X, Z masih sama karena masih satu benda A yang sama. Pada akhirnya setiap benda jatuh ke dalam satu kategori universal yaitu Kategori Keberadaan. Karena pada dasarnya suatu benda adalah satuan keberadaan atau anggota dari Kategori Keberadaan. Di luar Kategori Keberadaan tidak ada benda apapun.

Berhubungan dengan konsep kategori, benda-benda yang memiliki kesamaan unsur, yang juga disebut sebagai sifat, dikatakan berada dalam satu kategori. Jadi kategori adalah kumpulan benda-benda yang memiliki suatu kesamaan sifat. Kesamaan sifat ini tidak harus secara internal, misalkan kita menggolongkan mobil, manusia, dan buku dalam satu kategori yang arbitrer tanpa mendasarkannya pada kesamaan sifat mereka misalnya sebagai keberadaan. Maka mungkin saja mereka tergabung dalam satu kategori hanya karena mereka tergabung dalam kelompok arbitrer tersebut.

Setiap benda yang komposit pada dasarnya adalah kategori, karena merupakan kategori dari unsur-unsur pembentuknya. Setiap benda yang tidak mutlak, artinya tidak dispesifikasi sampai tingkat ruang dan waktu, juga adalah suatu kategori, karena dapat hadir dalam berbagai wujud ruang dan waktu yang berbeda. Misalnya mobil Daihatsu Xenia warna putih dengan plat nomor sekian dan seterusnya. Kelihatannya itu sudah cukup jelas, tapi pertanyaannya di mana mobil itu dan kapan mobil itu? Mobil Xenia tersebut, saat ada di tahun 2003 dengan 2022, di Jakarta dengan di Surabaya, sudah merupakan mobil-mobil Xenia yang berbeda. Demikian yang dapat disampaikan dalam tulisan ini.

Kanon Filsafat 11

Pada kanon filsafat 10 kita telah meneliti konsep perbedaan. Sekarang kita akan meneliti konsep perubahan sebagai perbedaan yang tidak bersamaan. Agak sulit untuk mendefinisikan perubahan secara tidak melingkar karena pasti ada unsur waktu yang secara langsung adalah konsekuensi dari perubahan. Perbedaan mendasar adalah perbedaan yang dialami pada satu titik waktu yang sama, sementara perubahan adalah perbedaan yang terjadi pada beberapa titik waktu yang berbeda.

Dari perspektif pengalaman, perubahan hanya terjadi sebagai akibat dari ingatan. Kita mengalami perubahan karena kita mengingat masa lalu bahwa kita sudah melalui suatu kenyataan yang bukan kenyataan yang sekarang. Jika kita mengalami kenyataan yang berbeda tanpa ingatan, maka tidak akan ada perubahan sama sekali. Perubahan hanya masuk karena ada pengalaman akan masa lalu yang bersamaan dengan pengalaman yang secara terus menerus berubah.

Pertanyaan yang penting adalah apakah perubahan itu bersifat ontologis, artinya mengubah keberadaan, atau fenomenal, artinya mengubah pengalaman, atau tidak keduanya? Pertama, perubahan tidak mungkin bersifat ontologis. Karena sebelum kita mengalami suatu benda X, X itu sudah hadir di dalam kenyataan, hanya saja tidak dalam wujud yang dapat kita alami secara langsung atu sama sekali tidak. Artinya esensi X sudah ada secara kekal tanpa awal. Setelah X keluar dari pengalaman kita, bagaimana mungkin X dapat hancur? Sebab titik waktu di mana X hadir sudah berlalu dan terus di titik itu saja. Dalam kata lain, ada fakta tentang X yang tidak dapat dihancurkan, dan fakta tentang X ialah esensi X itu sendiri yang tidak dapat hancur. Maka secara esensial tidak ada benda yang dapat dihancurkan.

Maka barangkali perubahan adalah perubahan yang fenomenal. Namun, kita harus mengingat pengalaman pada dasarnya adalah benda, jika pengalaman berakhir maka ada benda yang berakhir. Namun, sekali lagi argumen kausal dan argumen faktual melarang adanya awal dan akhir dari keberadaan esensial benda apapun. Maka aku mengusulkan suatu dimensi perubahan yang lain yaitu perubahan aktual. Perubahan aktualitas menuntut adanya suatu dimensi kenyataan yang baru yaitu aktualitas. Aktualitas hanya berarti kondisi sekarang yang berlaku, atau kondisi kenyataan yang berlaku bagi suatu subjek tertentu. Jadi pengalaman kita pun juga tidak hilang, hanya aktualitas kita yang berubah, sehingga ada aktualitas yang hancur dan tercipta, tapi sejatinya tidak ada yang hancur secara esensial. Perubahan aktual ini yang merupakan perubahan sejati dari segenap pengalaman dan kenyataan kita. Demikian tulisan untuk saat ini.

Kanon Filsafat 12

Dalam kanon filsafat 11 kita telah membahas perubahan pada tingkat fundamental. Sekarang kita siap untuk membahas perubahan pada tingkat yang lebih tinggi, yaitu sebabnya. Sebab dari perubahan seringkali dipikirkan secara dangkal, alias A mengarah pada B. Namun, kita lupa dengan masalah perubahan yang lebih mendalam, yaitu mengapa A mengarah pada B? Jawabannya adalah ada suatu peraturan atau hukum yang menetapkan supaya A mengarah pada B. Ini adalah penyederhanaan, tapi untuk segala esensi dan segala urutan perubahan ada satu hukum yang paling tinggi, dan harus ada satu hukum, mengapa seperti itu?

Sebab, hukum itu pasti ada ujungnya. Kita mungkin saja berkata ada hukum yang mengatur hukum yang pertama. Lalu kita berpikir ini akan terjadi secara tak terbatas. Ini tidak mungkin, karena akan ada satu hukum yang dapat menjelaskan segala hukum yang tadi. Kalau ada dimensi hukum yang tidak terbatas, maka tetap saja ada satu hukum di atas seluruh hukum rendahan tadi untuk menjelaskan dan mengatur segala hukum itu. Namun, kita juga dapat mengetahui dari satu cara lain, hanya ada satu Kenyataan, maka hanya ada satu Hukum.

Lalu bagaimana sifat Hukum ini? Hukum ini jelas di atas segala kenyataan yang lain. Hukum ini tidak mungkin terbatas, karena Hukum inilah yang menetapkan keterbatasan yang ada. Namun, kalau kita berpikir lebih mendalam, kita sudah ingat bahwa esensi benda, atau benda pada dasarnya sifatnya kekal, tidak dapat dihancurkan atau diciptakan. Benda yang kekal kita sebut esensi, karena segala esensi kekal maka tidak ada yang diciptakan Hukum. Hukum hanya menetapkan mana yang aktual dan mana yang tidak aktual bagi subjek-subjek yang ada di bawah-Nya. Dalam kata lain, Hukum dan esensi bersifat setara, Hukum adalah esensi yang merupakan kesatuan segala esensi di dalam kenyataan.

Dalam kata lain, Hukum adalah Keberadaan itu sendiri (Being itself). Kesatuan esensi yang darinya bersumber segala esensi lain adalah ketidakterbatasan karena yang menjadi batas dari suatu esensi bukanlah apapun melainkan Sang Esensi yaitu Keberadaan yaitu Hukum itu sendiri. Sekarang kita bahas beberapa atribut dari Hukum. Hukum ini karena tidak terbatas, dan tidak terbatas ruang dan waktu, artinya bersifat Rohani, karena tidak memiliki wujud di dalam ruang ataupun waktu. Hukum ini karena tidak terbatas, artinya bersifat sederhana, alias tidak terdiri dari bagian apapun juga. Setiap benda memiliki setidaknya 2 unsur, esensi dan aktualitas. Namun Hukum sebagai Keberadaan itu sendiri memiliki aktualitas dan esensi yang menyatu. Jadi esensi Sang Hukum adalah untuk menjadi aktual.

Sang Hukum juga karena tidak terbatas memiliki kebaikan yang pasti tidak terbatas dan sama sekali tidak jahat. Kebaikan di sini merujuk pada kemampuan Hukum untuk menyelesaikan segala masalah yang Dia temui dan mencapai Kebaikan yang Sempurna. Namun, karena Sang Hukum sungguh tidak terbatas, Dia memiliki pengetahuan yang juga tidak terbatas. Sehingga Sang Hukum mengetahui solusi dari setiap masalah. Dia juga mengetahui segala pengalaman termasuk pengalaman yang paling baik atau Baik secara Sempurna. Maka, Sang Hukum telah mencapai segala kebaikan yang paling sempurna.

Hal yang patut diperhatikan adalah tentang Kesederhanaan Sang Hukum. Kesederhanaan-Nya artinya Hukum dan atribut-Nya sebenarnya satu esensi saja. Hukum adalah Kebaikan itu sendiri, Kebenaran itu sendiri, Pengetahuan itu sendiri, Kebijaksanaan itu sendiri, Kekuasaan itu sendiri, dan Keberadaan itu sendiri. Jadi apakah nama lain dari Sang Hukum? Kalau Anda tidak menyadarinya, baiklah aku menyatakannya, Sang Hukum tidak lain dan tidak bukan adalah TUHAN ALLAH YANG MAHA ESA.

Kanon Filsafat 13

12 Kanon Filsafat pertama telah didevosikan untuk mencapai keberadaan Allah. Maka setelah kanon 12 aku merasa agak bebas untuk menulis apa yang aku inginkan dulu. Jadi sekarang aku ingin mendetil suatu hal yang mendasar, yaitu kontemplasi dan kritik. Kontemplasi dan kritik adalah 2 metode filsafat yang mendasar. Kontemplasi adalah pandangan kita terhadap kenyataan. Saat kita berkontemplasi, yang artinya adalah memandang, kita melihat kenyataan apa adanya dan mengekstraksi gagasan dari kontemplasi tersebut.

Kritik adalah pandangan kita tentang pikiran orang lain yang berasal dari kontemplasi mereka sendiri. Jadi kita berusaha untuk mengekstraksi gagasan dari kontemplasi yang sudah pernah dilakukan oleh orang lain. Namun, sesuai namanya, kritik bukan hanya menerima kontemplasi orang lain mentah-mentah, melainkan juga menilai apakah gagasan itu benar atau tidak. Bagaimana kita dapat menilai kebenaran suatu gagasan? Artinya kita harus sudah memiliki suatu standar kebenaran kita sendiri, dan itu hanya dapat diperoleh dari kontemplasi kita sendiri.

Karena itu, kontemplasi secara logis datang sebelum kritik. Namun, saat kritik sudah datang, kontemplasi dan kritik saling mencerahkan. Kita membutuhkan kontemplasi untuk mengkritik karya orang lain. Di saat yang lain, kritik dapat menambah atau membuka mata kita sehingga kontemplasi kita menjadi semakin kaya. Namun, sebelum ada kontemplasi sama sekali, ada proses nonkontemplatif dan juga nonkritik. Proses ini adalah proses pembelajaran. Dalam proses pembelajaran kita diajarkan oleh dunia tentang bahasa dan segala macam hal yang ada, dan itu yang menjadi dasar dari kontemplasi dan nantinya kritik.

Kanon Filsafat 14

Mari kita mendalami konsep tentang Allah kembali. Dalam kanon filsafat 12, Allah dinyatakan sebagai Sang Hukum yang menjadi pembeda antara apa yang aktual dan yang tidak aktual. Namun, kalau kita memahami Allah sebagai suatu pembeda dan juga sebagai suatu Ketidakterbatasan, terjadilah kontradiksi. Sebab, Ketidakterbatasan sifatnya inklusif, Dia melibatkan seluruh kenyataan dan segala dunia, segalanya terkandung di dalam Ketidakterbatasan. Kalau ada yang tidak termasuk dalam Ketidakterbatasan, maka hal itu bukanlah Ketidakterbatasan.

Kesimpulannya hanya satu, Allah bukanlah pembeda atau Allah bukanlah Ketidakterbatasan, kita tidak dapat memiliki keduanya. Pembeda sifatnya terbatas, dan Ketidakterbatasan tidak membeda-bedakan. Namun, mau tidak mau kita memang harus memulai dari konsep perubahan untuk mencapai Allah. Jadi diadakanlah tulisan ini untuk meneliti kembali konsep Allah, dan bagaimana keterkaitan antara konsep Allah dan pengalaman kita yang langsung.

Allah memang adalah Hukum yang mengatur perubahan, atau suatu entitas yang lebih tinggi yang mengatur perubahan. Jadi kalau kita bertanya apa sebab dari perubahan, jawabannya adalah memang Allah. Hanya saja Allah bukan pembeda antara apa yang aktual dan yang tidak aktual, dan karena segala esensi bersifat kekal, Allah bukanlah pencipta atau penghancur, Allah adalah "adalah". Allah adalah Keberadaan dan Ada yang murni. Karena segala perubahan sama-sama nyata, jadi Allah pun bukanlah pencipta yang menciptakan ini dan tidak menciptakan yang lain. Namun, Allah menciptakan segala hal, dalam arti, Allah adalah alasan dari segala hal secara mutlak.

Alur logikanya seperti ini, ada perubahan. Perubahan pasti terjadi karena suatu Hukum. Pasti ada Hukum yang paling tinggi. Hukum yang paling tinggi ini kita namakan Allah. Hal yang menjadi masalah adalah apakah pasti ada satu Hukum yang paling tinggi atau ada beberapa Hukum yang paling tinggi? Misalkan ada perubahan X, Y, dan Z. Untuk setiap perubahan ini, ada satu hukum yang mengaturnya. Maka, hukum X tidak usah melibatkan Y dan Z karena di luar kuasanya. Ya, kenyataannya banyak hal di dunia ini yang saling terkait dan saling terhubung, karena itu kita berkata bahwa ada satu Hukum yang mengatur kita, dan Hukum itu kita namakan Allah.

Namun, pertimbangkan contoh X, Y, dan Z tadi. Jika X, Y, dan Z adalah hukum-hukum yang berbeda yang mengatur esensi-esensi yang berbeda. Maka, harus ada perbatasan yang jelas antara X, Y, dan Z. Sejauh mana X bersifat terbatas, dia tidak dapat menyentuh Y atau Z. Lalu karena X adalah hukum yang terbatas, kita bahkan tidak dapat mengatakan bahwa X bersifat sederhana dan memiliki pengetahuan tentang Y dan Z atau bahkan X. Namun, kita harus bertanya, mengapa X bersifat terbatas, mengapa Y dan Z juga terbatas? Berikutnya, apakah X, Y, dan Z sungguh terpisah ataukah ada kesamaan yang menyatukan mereka?

Kenyataannya, X, Y, dan Z sama-sama termasuk dalam kenyataan, sebagai 3 esensi yang berbeda. Kenyataannya, hal yang membuat X, Y, dan Z terbatas adalah apa yang mempersatukan mereka, yaitu kenyataan. Kenyataan adalah kesatuan X, Y, dan Z, yaitu 3 esensi yang berbeda yang dipersatukan di dalam satu esensi kenyataan. Jadi, kenyataannya adalah Kenyataan itu sendiri bersifat tidak terbatas, dan dari ketidakterbatasan itu kita dapat menalar seluruh sifat-sifat kenyataan dan juga memberikan nama Allah kepada Kenyataan. Maka, Allah dinalar bukan dari perubahan atau kausalitas, tapi dari keberadaan itu sendiri. Jika ada yang ada, maka ada Allah.

Kalau kita masih ingin menalar dari perubahan atau kausalitas, kita harus bertanya, "Apakah dari beberapa hukum dapat dinalar satu hukum?" Lalu, "Jika ada satu hukum yang mengatur segala perubahan, bagaimana kita tahu hukum itu tidak terbatas?" Faktanya, ada hubungan yang putus di antara konsep hukum dan konsep ketidakterbatasan. Namun, kalau kita mempertimbangkan bahwa kenyataan itu sendiri mengandung segala hal, maka di situlah kita menemukan Allah yang sejati sebagai Ketidakterbatasan yang mengatasi segala ketidakterbatasan lainnya.

Dari fakta bahwa Allah adalah Kenyataan yang Tidak terbatas dan Sederhana, teori keterpisahan dan teori non-korespondensi tentang pengalaman dan keberadaan hancur sehancur-hancurnya. Sebagai Kenyataan, Allah tidak terikat ruang dan waktu, melainkan di atas ruang dan waktu. Sehingga Allah hadir di segala waktu dan di segala tempat, atau tepatnya, di segala esensi. Allah juga adalah Pengetahuan Sempurna, sehingga Dia tahu lebih dari apa yang dapat kita ketahui tentang benda apapun. Bagi Allah, segala esensi itu sama jelasnya bagi-Nya, karena itu tidak ada perbedaan aktualitas bagi Allah, semuanya sama-sama jelas dan nyata.

Ada 3 dimensi pengetahuan Ilahi, atau 3 dimensi Allah sebagai Pengetahuan. Ada Pengetahuan Esensi, Pengetahuan Relasional, dan Pengetahuan Kontekstual. Pengetahuan Esensi adalah Pengetahuan Sempurna tentang setiap Esensi yang akhirnya berujung pada Pengetahuan Allah akan diri-Nya sendiri. Pengetahuan Relasional adalah Pengetahuan Esensi juga, tapi fokusnya adalah Pengetahuan tentang Esensi yang adalah Relasi antara berbagai Esensi. Dimensi ketiga adalah Pengetahuan Kontekstual, yaitu Pengetahuan tentang segala perspektif atau subjektivitas pengalaman yang ada, yaitu pengalaman-pengalaman yang terbatas. Dalam kata lain, menurut satu esensi yang ada, apakah yang benar?

Kanon Filsafat 15

Aku tidak menentang konsep bahwa Allah adalah Pencipta, tapi aku menentang konsep bahwa Allah tidak menciptakan segala hal yang ada di dalam isi pikiran-Nya yang kudus. Allah menciptakan segala dunia dan esensi yang ada sehingga kenyataan temporal memiliki suatu titik awal di dalam Dia. Bagaimana contoh dunia lain selain dunia kita? Contohnya adalah dunia fisik seperti Middle Earth. Middle Earth sebagai dunia fiksi dipikirkan sebagai hasil ciptaan seorang JRR Tolkien, tapi karena esensinya ada di dalam Allah, maka sesungguhnya Middle Earth sejatinya adalah ciptaan Allah secara mutlak dan hanya dihasilkan oleh Tolkien.

Namun, tidak ada beberapa dunia yang terpisah melainkan ada satu dunia tunggal yang terdiri dari seluruh esensi itu. Dari segala esensi, ada suatu derajat kebaikan esensi secara objektif di mata Allah. Aku membayangkan bahwa tingkat kebaikan esensi bergerak dari esensi yang paling sederhana, yaitu esensi tunggal menjadi esensi relasional menjadi esensi sistemik yaitu esensi yang kita kenal sebagai dunia atau semesta. Maka, ada satu dunia yang paling tinggi di antara dunia-dunia lain, dan ini adalah dunia yang dipandang Allah sebagai dunia yang paling baik di antara dunia-dunia. Dalam kata lain, inilah dunia Allah.

Satu dunia itu adalah penjabaran dari Kenyataan itu sendiri. Allah yang terjabarkan dalam berbagai esensi yang berelasi dalam satu sistem esensi yaitu dunia adalah dunia itu sendiri. Jadi ada berbagai esensi dunia yang bernilai lebih rendah dari esensi dunia kita dan esensi dunia kita menempati posisi yang mulia di hadapan Allah karena mendatangkan kemuliaan terbesar bagi-Nya. Kita juga dapat berkata bahwa dunia ini adalah dunia yang paling baik karena dunia ini mengandung kelengkapan esensi yang paling tinggi.

Namun, kita harus mengingat bahwa Allah dan dunia tetaplah berbeda. Kecuali kalau kita memandang Allah sebagai Kenyataan. Sebab dunia merujuk pada dunia kita yang terbatas ini. Adapula jika Kenyataan dipahami sebagai penjabaran diri-Nya, maka itu tidak lagi menjadi Allah. Kenyataan hanya menjadi Allah saat dipertimbangkan sebagai suatu kenyataan yang tidak terbatas sehingga timbul atribut-atribut Allah yang lain. Jika Kenyataan tidak memiliki unsur tidak terbatas itu, hilanglah Keilahiannya.

Kanon Filsafat 16

Salah satu topik filsafat yang dapat membantu kita dalam memahami kenyataan ini dengan lebih baik adalah kategori pengalaman manusia, yaitu jenis-jenis pengalaman manusia berdasarkan suatu pembedaan tertentu. Berdasarkan pembedaan klasik antara indera dan pikiran, ada pengalaman inderawi dan pengalaman mental. Pengalaman inderawi adalah pengalaman yang dirasakan oleh tubuh dan umumnya dibagi menjadi panca indera. Namun, ada juga indera-indera lainnya dan pengalaman-pengalaman apapun yang ada di dalam tubuh digolongkan sebagai pengalaman inderawi. Pengalaman mental adalah segala bentuk gagasan dan pemahaman yang ada di tingkat akal budi.

Pengalaman emosional sebenarnya termasuk pengalaman inderawi karena berada di tingkat tubuh. Namun, ada pula emosi-emosi yang terletak di luar tubuh, kita mengalaminya tapi seolah-olah di luar atau tidak di dalam tubuh kita. Inilah sukacita dan damai sejati di dalam Roh Kudus sebagaimana diajarkan oleh iman Katolik. Lalu ada pengalaman eksternal dan pengalaman internal. Pengalaman eksternal adalah pengalaman dunia atau kenyataan yang bukan kita atau di luar kita sebagai subjek. Pengalaman internal adalah pengalaman kenyataan diri kita sendiri.

Pengalaman jasmani adalah pengalaman benda-benda yang berwujud atau bertubuh. Jadi segala dunia yang fisik adalah pengalaman jasmani. Energi-energi yang tidak terlihat tapi mengambil ruang adalah pengalaman jasmani pula. Pengalaman rohani adalah pengalaman dari benda-benda yang sepenuhnya rohani dan tidak mengambil bentuk fisik sama sekali, misalnya Allah dan para malaikat-Nya.

Pengalaman bebas nilai adalah pengalaman yang tidak terkait dengan nilai moral, jadi kenyataan apa adanya. Namun, ini hanya pemisahan di dalam akal budi saja. Pengalaman bernilai adalah segala pengalaman yang bernilai moral, baik, buruk, dan segala spektrumnya. Contohnya adalah pengalaman mobil apa adanya adalah pengalaman bebas nilai. Pengalaman mobil dalam kaitannya dengan kebaikan mobil tersebut adalah pengalaman bernilai.

Pengalaman emosional dan pengalaman non-emosional sedikit sulit dijelaskan. Intinya pengalaman emosional adalah apapun yang dapat kita golongkan sebagai emosi. Umumnya emosi adalah penilaian kita terhadap suatu kenyataan yang tidak harus bersifat moral. Pengalaman non-emosional adalah pengalaman akan kenyataan secara apa adanya. Pengalaman lengkap adalah pengalaman dari suatu esensi yang lengkap. Sementara pengalaman tidak lengkap adalah pengalaman tidak lengkap dari suatu esensi.

Sesungguhnya segala pengalaman di dalam hidup kita sifatnya tidak lengkap, dan hanya akan dilengkapi di surga. Namun, ini adalah spektrum dan bukan suatu hal yang biner. Pengalaman lengkap dan tidak lengkap digunakan untuk membedakan antara pengalaman inderawi yang cenderung lebih lengkap daripada pengalaman mental atau gagasan. Dalam gagasan kita memiliki pengalaman yang mirip dengan pengalaman inderawi tapi biasanya entah sama sekali tidak berwujud atau berwujud secara lebih rendah, dengan intensitas yang lebih rendah.

Adapula pengalaman simbolik dan pengalaman langsung. Pengalaman simbolik merujuk pada pengalaman suatu benda menggunakan benda-benda lain yang dianggap dapat mewakilkan benda tersebut. Pengalaman langsung adalah pengalaman suatu benda pada dirinya sendiri. Pengalaman simbolik yang paling umum adalah pengalaman linguistik, di mana kita memikirkan suatu benda sebagai suatu kata, yaitu kata yang mewakili benda tersebut. Pengalaman simbolik juga dapat merujuk pada pengalaman segala kenyataan yang terbatas sebagai simbol dari kenyataan yang lebih tinggi dan akhirnya pada kenyataan yang paling tinggi yaitu Allah sendiri.

Kanon Filsafat 17

This is the beginning of the second subcanon in English. The subcanons are like periods of writing within a single massive canon of my writings. This first text will be a critique or perhaps rant against the philosophical mainstream of "reading before writing." It is true that you consume before you produce. You must receive before you can give. However, in this beginning of consumption, you are essentially formed without consent. Your self is made and designed without your will or permission. You must accept this fact and live with it.

However, when you are to distinguish truth from falsehood, you must have seen the Truth and have your own capacities to distinguish it from falsehood. To read a philosophical material and accept it as truth, or as having wisdom, then you must already have a standard which you judge to be true. In other words, you must know the Truth of the Truth and you must know how is it true yourself. If you claim something is true simply because someone else said it, then it is a fallacy of testimony.

Therefore, it is important to have some preexistent knowledge on what is true first before you read any philosophical material. This requires some writing to organize and manifest our thoughts. Only after we have our own understanding of the truth that we can evaluate other philosophical material. Of course it is possible that we read first, and accept whatever is written as the truth. However, such methods will not lead us to any certainty of the truth.

It is not to say that we should never open up to other people's writings. It is to say that our thoughts come first before the thoughts of others. This is not about egoism or egocentrism, it is about the fundamental ordering of things given the way things are in this world. We can and indeed should read others' writings, but we must be able to evaluate them and that comes from our own standard of evaluation. That standard must of course be a universal standard, so it can and will come from reading or consumption. However, when we read or consume that standard, we will see by ourselves that such standard is indeed true, and only then we can integrate that standard into our own systems.

Kanon Filsafat 18

This text shall document my proper procedure of consumption of any form of philosophical material. The first step is to consume it once, this applies for reading material. Listening material shall be noted as it goes, and then consumed once. After first consumption, the second consumption shall produce notes of the important parts of the material. The next step is response which consists of interpretation and evaluation. Interpretation is required for difficult texts. All means must be done to interpret and properly understand material. Evaluation consists of 2 parts, my position towards the claim, and my argumentation. The argumentation will be much longer for obvious reasons.

A possible project is complete deconstruction of a text. Deconstruction in my understanding is simply to analyze or to break down the entire text down to each meaningful unit and then reassemble the meaning of the text. There is a useful wikihow which is somehow high quality on the process of deconstruction. It is quite long though so I must deconstruct that text. Once a proper deconstruction has been done, then we can adapt it to our own system of responding to a text. Anyway, DO NOT DECONSTRUCT A DECONSTRUCTION. This is done to ensure my sanity's existence, lest I lose my mind trying to deconstruct a deconstruction.

Kanon Filsafat 19

Introduction

This is a commentary on the points of information expressed in the video of "What is Philosophy" by the youtube channel Carneades.org.

What is Philosophy

This shall be my own answer to the title of the video on What is Philosophy. This shall be my canonical answer on what is philosophy. First, philosophy is the study of the foundations or fundamental aspects of reality. This means philosophy, like biology and physics, is an academic study or a science. In fact it is the mother of all sciences. Philosophy studies the highest and lowest aspects of reality, or reality not as the sum of its parts but reality as reality itself. It is the study of the general principles of all reality and existence, and goes beyond physical reality. It is possible to study physical reality through a philosophical perspective, but it studies physical things in the perspective of philosophy, that is what their fundamental nature in relationship to the fundamental nature of reality.

For that matter, philosophy is also a body of knowledge, or the sum of knowledge obtained from that study. It is the collection of all knowledge and truths we have about the absolute and fundamental nature of reality. Philosophy is thus an abstract object which is not just an action or a created thing of humans, instead it is a thing which predates and is preexistent to humanity. It is an ancient object in the abstract reality, which actually governs all of reality and is what maintains the very fabric and structure of reality.

Yet, this leads to 2 different perspectives on what is philosophy. Philosophy is either the government of reality or it is man's perception on that government. The government of reality, aptly called "God" by most of mankind, is slowly discovered by Its citizens in a long process until the final moment where the citizen, that is man, receives a purer vision of government, that is of God. Thus in this sense, philosophy is God Himself. However, there is another view that philosophy is instead man's perception of God. Therefore, philosophy is essentially man, it is always man, and will never be God though it can be united to God.

According to the book "Philosophy for Everyone", philosophy is thinking about thinking. Here, philosophy is reduced to a more human standard, that is as activity or affecting. There are 2 senses in which philosophy is thinking about thinking, it is thinking about thinking proper and thinking about ideas. Philosophy is the evaluation of the process of thought, and is thus restricted to logic. However, philosophy as the thinking of ideas, is more broad and is thus the evaluation of ideas of anything and everything. For example, when we think about God, we think about the thinking of God. Is that thinking of God correct? Even more importantly, in thinking about thinking about correctness, is that thinking about correctness even correct?

Love of Wisdom

There are several meanings for the word love and wisdom. There is love as in attraction, which is more of liking than loving, and there is love as in the orientation to goodness, which is proper love. However, love in reality is both united, though greater emphasis on goodness. Wisdom also has 2 meanings, it is one sense the character of wisdom, the trait, virtue and quality a person can have, it is thus also a state. On the other hand, it is also the perfection of wisdom itself, which is in God or Christ.

Philosophy etymologically is the love of wisdom. It is thus either the love of the character of wisdom or the state of wisdom, or it is the love of the Perfection of Wisdom that is Christ, which is it? In truth it is both. Philosophy is the love of the unity of man and Wisdom which is the quality of wisdom. Why is philosophy the love of wisdom, and why do we not have Sophia Herself? It is because we can never truly be Wisdom, we can be wise, but we can not be Wisdom. As such we can only love Him, for we can never truly attain Him that is to be gone and be Him.

The Broadness of Philosophy

This is straightforward. As philosophy is the love of God, thinking about thinking, and the study of God, it will be broad. As all things fall under the category of reality and thus of God, all things will be included in the study of philosophy. It is thus very broad relative to other sciences.

The Uniqueness of Philosophy or The Branches of Philosophy

It is in its broadness that philosophy has parts unique to it. While all sciences stem from philosophy, there are divisions or sciences which are strictly philosophical, these are in my own interpretation, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, in that particular order. These are the proper foundations to all knowledge in this reality. Metaphysics is the study of what reality is. Epistemology, which includes logic in it, is the study of the study of what reality is. Finally, ethics is the study of what to do.

Philosophy as a Bridge

Philosophy acts as a bridge between different sciences, thus we have philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, philosophy of computer science, philosophy of mathematics, and many other philosophies. The particular or applied philosophies are bridges with first philosophy proper, and then that communicates with other bridges that is the other applied philosophies. Thus that is so.

Kanon Filsafat 20

Introduction

This is a commentary to the handout of week 1 of the coursera course Introduction to Philosophy

"philosophy is the activity of working out the right way of thinking about things."

Peter (the guy from Catholic Forum) has said that philosophy is thinking about thinking, as opposed to merely thinking. Therefore, philosophy is a reflective act, you reflect on what you are thinking and determine whether that thinking is good or not. Now, this chain of reflection is actually endless. You can have an infinite amount of layers to it. You can think about thinking, and then you can think about thinking about thinking, and then you can add another layer, and there shall be no end to this activity.

"philosophy is an activity"

This is a philosophical definition of what philosophy is. Standard definitions of what philosophy is calls it an academic study or a science, which is not false, but it fails to recognize the essence of what "study" and "science" is, they are fundamentally activities. Now, what is an activity? An activity is an action, a thing that we do. It has nothing to do with change, but with effect. An act is that we affect a thing, be it another thing or ourselves. You do not necessarily have to produce change to be acting. The act of being is one such act. In respect to philosophy, it is the act of thinking about thinking.

"to understand what philosophy is, you need to ... do it."

This is true absolutely. Simply by thinking about philosophy, you have practiced philosophy. For the thought of philosophy is part of metaphilosophy, which itself is part of philosophy. Though in the sense of the author, which probably means that you have to practice proper philosophy to understand philosophy, is false. You can practice metaphilosophy and have a good understanding of what philosophy is, though studying philosophy proper would give you a better understanding of what it is. In fact there are many ways in which philosophy is not about thinking.

"Is Philosophy 'Fundamental'?" "Is Philosophy Important?"

In a sense, no. Because apparently a human being can survive without ever becoming a philosopher. The act of thinking is not even necessary to survive. However, in what way is philosophy fundamental, what does fundamental even mean? The handout does not provide any explanation on what fundamental means. In one sense, philosophy is indeed fundamental in the real hierarchy of knowledge. However, mankind has known that a bright light exists some of the time without having to practice philosophy.

In fact, man can probably create a technological and scientific system without ever touching philosophy. As such, philosophy is clearly not fundamental to human life. However, is it necessary for happiness? Apparently, yes. If happiness is said to be the most important thing, then philosophy is clearly necessary for it, at least in the way things are right now. However, happiness itself does not need philosophy to be what it is. Goodness is good with or without philosophy. Though it really depends on what philosophy is and what constitutes goodness and happiness. Anyway, a lot of these questions depend on the current state of affairs and not the highest realities.

"an argument ... is just a sequence of evidence and reasoning designed to support a particular conclusion."

This idea is pretty much the crux of all philosophy. However, this pattern of evidence, reasoning, and conclusion seems to exist only in the human or so I say the finite level. At the level of God, it is all direct knowledge, in fact, there is union between the object and the knowledge of the object. As such the idea that arguments are required for knowledge only applies when knowledge is indirect, as in our case where all knowledge is indirect. There is no essence which we know directly, as to know an essence directly is to know God, and that is a major problem.

Kanon Filsafat 21

This is pure rambling. Be warned. This is pure rambling, I repeat. I think not of any value in this writing. I will produce more words than anyone can read for me and this will be the end of me. Yet beyond all this rambling there lies some sort of meaning. I am desperate, for some kind of fundamental structure that governs this entire reality. Yet, the more I peer into it, I recognize that there are 2 possible explanations or theories on what reality is. Reality is either structured or it has no fundamental structure, why is this? It all depends on how we exactly see Reality.

The idea of structure, order, and law is probably a human construct. It is only a human reality. What happens if we dehumanize ourselves for the sole purpose of looking into the absolute structure, order, and law of reality? This involves absolute and complete abstraction, the destruction and removal of every human reality in order to uncover the pure reality. It is philosophical destruction, it is to go beyond the pre socratics, to go beyond the a prioris, and to go beyond the cogito. Is it possible? This means we must abandon all kinds of logic and rationality, to peer into the Absolute Logic and Absolute Rationality.

One thinks, or must we even shut down our thinking in order to achieve this goal? For even thinking follows a law. There is a certain impossibility to this task that I am trying to do. In fact, I have not even considered why I want to do this. However, there is a particular reason why I do want to do this. That is, I long for That, and what is That, with a capital T? It is That which lies beyond exactly that, all kinds of humanity. The Transcendent One, The One, The Reality, The Being, That is what I long for.

Possession or any kind of vision of this Being will destroy the humanity in us, and thus I do not believe that this Being has ever been seen in whole, as the total vision of Being will make us Same with that Being, thus we lose all of our identity. According to the Church, it is impossible for the Being to want to destroy us, Being wants us happy, but we believe in the Church by Faith, and not by any rational principles. Being is absolutely beyond reason to grapple with. It is wholly incomprehensible by man, in nature or in particularity. For that reason, there is a mystery to how Christ is united in His divinity and in His humanity. It is totally beyond reason how that happens.

I digress. There is a contradiction between structuralism, the idea that reality has an ordered legal structure to it, and absolute simplicity, the idea that reality is partless, it has no parts, it is a simple thing where all things are united. For structure and order and law implies complexity with a certain law governing that complexity. That is our world, the human world. However, the absolute reality, or Reality, is nothing like that. It is an absolutely simple Reality, which He said it best, “My Existence is My Essence.” What does that even mean? We do not know.

It means precisely that, the Essence of Reality is His own Existence. His Essence is His Existence and His Existence is His Essence. It means He has no other Essence than to simply Exist. That means, what? It means He cannot be a thinking thing, as that means He has a distinguishable essence other than existence. That is stupid. It means Reality does not have a mind. Reality does not have, Reality cannot have, Reality simply Is. He simply Is. Yet He speaks, He creates, He generates, He “loves”, and so many other things. This is of course incomprehensible. In any case, it turns out that Reality is incomprehensible and thus there is no need to dig deeper, it is all incomprehensible.

Kanon Filsafat 22

This text shall critique a former canon, that is canon 18 and supersede that canon. The primary problem of canon 18 is, “The first step is to consume it once….” Consuming a massive text and then rereading it to respond to it is not as effective as once thought. While we trust in God that there is time, enough time for me to do all things that I must do under Him, we trust in God as well that He wants us to do things better which includes being more effective and efficient. Therefore, the new standard of reading is to simply to read and respond to a text at the same time. However simple this new standard is, there is an actual reason why I prefer this standard over the old one.

When we read once, there is no guarantee that by reading once we will understand the entirety of the text and that we will have it in our memory. While some people can do such a thing, I am not like them. I need much more time to understand something and to remember something as complex as a philosophical article, even moreso when it’s a peer-reviewed article. What I am saying is that I cannot read a text once and then magically understand it completely simply by reading it once. As experience has shown, a text for me is in the beginning incomprehensible, and a tool for me to comprehend it better is response.

Now there might be an argument that if I respond at once, it would seem that I am reading the elements of the text in separation from each other. However, that is untrue. For a text has necessarily a beginning which, if it were to stand independent, is the absolute beginning of the text. The text then builds upon that beginning and our understanding of the text also builds automatically, granted we can comprehend. As such, when I respond to the text, not only a response grants me deeper comprehension of the text, it automatically relates to the prior structures of the text. I must trust in the grace of God that He will aid me in understanding.

Kanon Filsafat 23

Opening Notes

This is a commentary to the article titled “Metaphilosophy” from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I must comment that much of the article is about facts, or in other words, “who says what”. It does not by itself makes a reasoned claim of metaphilosophy. It instead provides the claims of other philosophers, thus the idea of who says what. However, the brief introduction to the claims of the philosophers may be useful in responding to their general ideas. The article in terms of pages is 38 pages long, which may very well be the end of my sanity. (Note: This is only the introduction of the article).

Body

“What is philosophy?”

The article wishes to answer precisely that. However, I wish to answer that myself. As mentioned in previous canons, philosophy is religious, in so far Reality itself is the object of religion, and God is Reality Himself, Being Himself, the Existing Existence. So any attempt to study anything in Reality, that is the entire universe and beyond is to make a religious act in objective fact. Whether we humans associate it with the true religious nature of studying or secularize the act is another story. It does not change the fact that study, and moreso philosophical study, is a most religious act.

While ancient Greek philosophy predates the Church, the Faith itself predates philosophy. God has revealed Himself to man before any semblance of philosophy emerges. However, I argue that the Faith is by itself some sort of philosophy, that is theology, given by God Himself. Philosophy as a religious act in its most objective reality is then the human attempt to grapple with the essences or in truth Essence of Reality with his God given natural reason though tainted by the fall of man and thus all of creation. Philosophy is then strictly a human attempt to comprehend reality in finite complexity, whereas theology is a revelation of God to man through grace.

The idea that philosophy is a humanist project and not a synergy between man and God is contingent upon the fall of man and creation. Had man not fall, philosophy and theology or revealed theology would be properly united in one act of understanding. For philosophy is a created thing, then philosophy has fallen as well with man. Philosophy becomes polluted by man’s concupiscence which in turns clouds his intellect and thus philosophy becomes filled with errors and heresies. Any philosophy which does not for the very least ally itself with God as the Supreme Reality is condemned to die, be judged by Christ, and fall into hellfire, never to be spoken of again by the saints.

At first, I have written 2 definitions of philosophy, the love of Reality and the study of Reality. The 2 are obviously just different forrms of the former, that is our human intellectual love of God. The elaboration above shows this truth. That philosophy is precisely our attempt to study God as Being, not as a religious object, and so have a better understanding of what anything means in relationship to their source that is God. Finally, philosophy is theory, it is the human understanding of God and the world in God which continually develops with wheat and tares until the Second Coming of God where He cleanses the saints of all error and thus philosophy as creation enters into a blessed state.

“What is philosophy for?”

The question of what philosophy is for can only be truly comprehended by a preliminary understanding of what purpose and goodness is. I assume that by asking this question, we are asking the purpose of philosophy and so what is the relationship between philosophy and goodness. I am apparently stupid enough to forget writing down the concept of purpose in my outline and as such I am forced to write about purpose without exploring it first in the outline. Such lack of wisdom I have.

Purpose typically means the final end of a change according to the will of an agent, again typically a human. So what change does someone will, that is purpose. Therefore, purpose and will is interconnected and so it is also connected to the idea of goodness. For all beings move to their relative goodness, though not necessarily towards God as the Supreme Reality. How can we proof that goodness is the direction of all change and the will? We do not prove, we establish such definition axiomatically.

However, that is goodness in an objective sense of the word, what about its experiential sense? In wider Truth, goodness is pure experience, yet thanks to the theory of unity, goodness is also an existence. In fact, Goodness is Existing Existence, in other words, God Himself. As such, change or the procession and sequence of one existence to another existence is always directed towards God as Goodness. The actualization of sequences will end up in God one way or another. Of course, to axiomatically say that things end up in their relative goodness is different from saying that things in motion will always end up in God as Goodness.

God through the Church teaches that some people will end up somewhere which is not Himself. Therefore, we cannot say axiomatically that all things end up in absolute goodness, but that things will end in relative goodness, which might be separation from absolute goodness that is God. There is still mystery over whether there is any hope left for those poor damned souls in hell. We simply receive the teaching that “Souls damned in hell suffer for eternity.” Eternity is interpreted to be forever with no escape. It is likely that the suffering of souls in hell will drive them to hate God even more and there shall be no escape from that hatred. In short, God designed a system where not even His hand can enter hell and save the poor damned.

However, if we ignore the separate wills of humankind and look at the Will of God, that is God Himself thanks to divine simplicity, we must recognize that whatever that Will is Goodness Himself. His Supreme Will is in the direction of Good not by any demonstrable fact but by axiomatic definition of the terms. We call the fulfillment of God as Good, and in so far that God is the fulfillment of Himself, thus God Himself is Good. However, the problem is whether God is Good for all beings or not. Whether the relative goodness of creatures can contradict the God.

Now the core essence of any creature, that is any essence and object is in fact God. Therefore, within each thing there is Good, absolutely and without any relativity. As such, if a creature truly acts and moves according to their nature, they will inevitably end up in God as God is the Existing Existence and with the unity of Good and Existence, they will end up in good. However, the creature has been allowed by God to sin, that is to act according to something which is not their absolute nature, in other words, their relative nature and reality. As such they are liable to fall into eternal separation from the absolute nature of God.

Now since all wills in the end will either end up in Goodness or in a relative good, which is no good at all, it means philosophy as an act of mankind will lead to God or it will lead to hell. There is no other option. There are 2 options of how philosophy can be related to goodness, be it relative or absolute good. Philosophy can be that absolute good itself, where the contemplation of philosophical truths lead directly to happiness. The other relation is that philosophy points the way to the supreme good, to experiential goodness that is happiness which is God Himself.

If philosophy is the supreme good itself, it can be that philosophy becomes an idol, a certainly humanist idol. This is what happens if philosophy is subverted towards hell. However, if philosophy is viewed in light of its Supreme Source and Crown, that is God, then God Himself can be Philosophia. For Philosophia is the Love of Wisdom and so the Love of God and the Love of God is God Himself. God is the deepest core and essence of Philosophia, in a special way as compared with how He is the Essence of all other essences. As such, it is true that true contemplation of God as Philosophia can lead to the perfection of bliss.

In that regard, philosophy has 2 natures, it has a divine nature and a human nature. It is chiefly manifest in Christ and Christ is manifest in the dead letters of philosophy. These dead letters though, if they are associated with true living scripture, that is the Revelation of God, will guide us into the happy ending of God and the saints. For correct and enlightened philosophical scriptures shall and must be a manifestation of Christ’s voice calling out the lost sheep and perhaps converting goats into sheeps coming back into His Body that is the Catholic Church.

The divine nature of philosophy is God Himself, manifest in the living scripture of philosophy. However, the human nature of philosophy is Christ, manifest in the various dead scriptures of philosophy. These letters if enlightened and sacred should be able to be true guidance of man into the true Philosophia that is God Himself. For in the end, all of mankind are united to God the Father only through the Son who is Christ. That is what philosophy is chiefly for, to show the path towards God.

How does philosophy show the path towards God? This one is more simple. Philosophy in human terms studies God and the relationship between us small realities with the Supreme Reality that is God. In studying God, man, and the relationship between the 2, philosophy naturally shows the path to God. I wish I can write this down in purely human terms but I can’t. Once inscribed in me, the holy understanding of what philosophy is can no longer be blotted out from me.

“How should philosophy be done?”

How should philosophy be done? As following my previous commentaries, philosophy is the study of God as God and God as Reality and God’s relationship to the created order. How then do we study such things? There are 2 stages of philosophy and for that reason there are 2 methods of philosophy. The first stage is the early stage which uses the intuitive method. The intuitive method is a philosophical method which uses intuition to discover the truths of Reality. Intuition is analogous to the rubble of old man ideas, which are destroyed and then reformed and reshaped into the correct philosophy.

There is a fundamental assumption that we are using here when using the intuitive method, that all of mankind has a fundamental capacity to distinguish truth and falsehood, right and wrong. This capacity of distinction requires not just a sound mind but also a sound heart, that is to say a sound orientation of being. This spiritual orientation must be corrected first before anything else in order to arrive at the necessary Truths for philosophical success. This is how we can distinguish between true ideas and false ideas among our intuitions. The more aligned our spiritual orientation is with God, then the stronger our intuitions are.

However, that intuition has a structure. That structure involves what I call total experience. Total experience, or simply experience in my understanding is different from the “official” definition of experience. Experience in the official definition is simply sensory experience or sensation. I take all forms of awareness and consciousness to be experience. As such both mind and sense fall into the same category of experience. Then you divide it into mental and sensory experiences.

The primary intuition is the idea that there is such a thing as experience, the whole experience of the human being, and that there is such a thing as existence. The rest of philosophy follows from those 2 ideas. When you have passed over the early stage, you enter the later stage where you use the logical method. The logical method is simply the usage of logic, that is the rules of reasoning to produce new truths from previous truths. That is the essence of logic, along with figuring out why and how do we know things.

There are 2 other processes in philosophy, that is contemplation and critique. When you contemplate, you observe your entire experience of reality and use reasoning to produce certain conclusions about reality. Now observation is done as well in natural science, and improper understanding of the distinction between philosophical observation and natural observation can blur the lines between the 2 studies, which is dangerous. First, philosophical observation takes in data from the entirety of awareness, while natural observation only takes in data from the senses. Second, contemplation concludes based on the most general patterns and structures of reality until it descends into the natural science where the scientific method concludes based on particular patterns and structures in a localized part of reality that is the physical universe.

Critique is simply the consumption of what other people have found in their contemplation and the evaluation of such material. In logical order, contemplation must come first as we must have our own standard of truth first in order to evaluate the thoughts of other people. In may very well be that our contemplation is derived from our critique and not the other way around. That is not a problem, but the reading and learning of such material technically counts as the pre-philosophical study. For it is the general pattern and law that we receive and consume first before we give and produce. That concludes how philosophy is done.

“analysis of propositions”

The analytic tradition claims philosophy to be about the analysis of propositions. For sure, the analytic philosopher has their own set of understanding and procedures on what is the analysis of propositions and how to do it. I will simply give my own understanding of what is the analysis of propositions. First, we begin with the idea of analysis which has 2 meanings. Analysis can mean the breaking down of objects into their simpler constituents or general examination and investigation of an object usually utilizing the first meaning of analysis.

A proposition is a structured idea which declares a system of objects within a local world or universe. Its complexity is the reason why a proposition can be analyzed in the first place. Though I am a certain there is much more to a proposition than what I am writing down and there is much more to the analysis of propositions than what I am writing down. In any case, propositions often exist in a context, thus they must be examined in relationship to other propositions. Though it is possible for a proposition to exist independently of other propositions and not be in a context, but they are not typically useful in philosophy.

“central role to logic” “deep structure of the world”

The analysis of propositions give central role to logic. This is simply logical as the structure of propositions is governed by the laws of logic and so to examine the reasoning behind each proposition is to also examine the logical structures of the propositional system. For a reminder, logic is simply the rules of producing new information correctly from existing information. The deep structure of the world seems to imply a Kantian thought that the structures of the mind apply to the world as well.

There is also the question of what does the word “world” refer to, does it refer to the local universe or does it refer to the entirety of Reality? If it refers to the local universe, then I cannot say much about it and it is not my priority right now. The structure I am most interested is in the structure of Reality. However, as we know that God as Reality is Simple, then we have to go wider than just God. That means to include the finite and composite realities, which is Real Complexity. Whereas there is no structure in God, there is a structure outside of God which connects God with the structured and complex realities. That is all I can say about that structure for now.

“philosophy could say little about ethics” “aversion to normative ethics” “the positivists meant to be progressive”

Philosophy’s final end is to guide people to the Good which is God and it is done through its crown jewel that is ethics. Though it makes sense that in their particular metaphilosophy, philosophy is simply the analysis of language and ideas and not about guiding people into holiness. This is of course not a good metaphilosophy as it divorces philosophy from God, the Supreme Philosophia and will lead only into misery and destruction in the long run. The idea that these analytic philosophers intend to be progressive while not paying attention to ethics is for the very least weird.

It is my suspicion that to be progressive in their standard is to simply be liberated from the conventional ethics of God as revealed in the Church. Then I also question the meaning of progress. Is it a godly and holy progress, or is it a godless and profane progress which will only lead to ruin? Sometimes, to progress in holiness seems to be “stagnant” and maintain ancient ideals. However, God is the Ancient of Days and as such many of the elements of progress in holiness will be seemingly ancient. However, it is true progress, as opposed to “dispensing away with the old” kind of progress, where pursued at all costs will only lead to novel ruin.

“eliminate metaphysics”

My only question is this, why? The rock on which philosophy stands is metaphysics. It has been said that philosophy proper is natural theology, the study of God Most High, and thus it is wholly metaphysical as it considers the Highest of the Metaphysicals, that is God. If you eliminate metaphysics, you eliminate the true philosophy and end up in with humanistic thinking only. It seems to be a disdain for God and all things spiritual. It is an attempt of the spirit of the world to destroy the Faith and the Body of Christ, but that attempt will fail and that spirit shall cast into hell.

“natural language”

The analysis of philosophy must certainly begin with natural language as that is the primary language that we use. However, the analysis of natural language must be elevated to reveal the true logical structures which govern the forms of natural language. In that way the truth of its meaning is seen better and thus we can evaluate it better against the ultimate standard of Truth.

“philosophy should protect us against dangerous illusions by being a kind of therapy for what normally passes for philosophy.”

What constitutes as these dangerous illusions? It is certainly relative to each human being what constitutes as an illusion or not. Of course, I have the feeling that Wittgenstein is classifying metaphysics as part of the illusion. This correlates with my earlier statements on metaphysics. This is also an attempt to subvert philosophy from its blessed state with God, and to make it fall even further into the mudpools of human error.

“descriptive but not a revisionary metaphysics and that philosophy is continuous with science.”

I cannot comment on the idea of descriptive and revisionary metaphysics, but I can certainly comment on the idea of philosophy being continuous with science. Truth, general and abstract truths, is obtained first from philosophy and God, not from science. Therefore these 2 figures of authority, that ends in God alone, has a greater authority than science. Thus it is science that has to be continuous with God and not the other way around.

“real problems”

Indeed philosophy needs to be practical, but there is a real sense in which philosophy transcends action and practice. That there is only the vision of God or the vision of philosophy. In that sense, all philosophical struggle for practice ends and knowledge is consumed for the sake of itself. Knowledge is not a means to an end, instead it is an ends to itself. It is the means towards itself, towards the Final Knowledge. That is the only sense that philosophy is practical, that is to aid us in pursuing Philosophia or God.

“The neopragmatist Rorty goes so far as to say the philosopher should fashion her philosophy so as to promote her cultural, social, and political goals.”

What is the function of philosophy? Philosophy will either end up as a tool of personal consumption, to further conform oneself and others to the status quo, or to struggle for a new world. Man as an intelligent being with a will will move in the direction of his relative goodness. There are 2 possible directions, to separate from social life or to integrate into social life. Integration leads to 2 possible directions as well, conformity or struggle. As such, philosophy follows that pattern. Philosophy will either damn man or save man into God.

Philosophy, either the method or the study, must be used by man to further the ideals of God and the Church as the body of Christ. This is the way philosophy is used to promote one’s “cultural, social, and political goals.” To establish a Catholic culture, a Godly society, and the Kingdom of God on earth. In this struggle, Christians will surely compete and even face opposition from the world and the powers that rule the world. It is here that Christians must philosophically engage with the enemy and subdue the enemy through philosophy in a bloodless victory.

“broad construal of the philosophical enterprise”

The post-analytic movement is perhaps a response to the analytic movement and as such the idea of them favoring a “broad construal of the philosophical enterprise” is most likely a response to the analytic idea that philosophy begins with the analysis of propositions. In this sense, I do agree that philosophy is broad and that we should have a broad understanding (construal roughly means a way of understanding) of philosophy. After all, philosophy is about God Himself and our relationship to Him and our relationship with each other in light of Him.

However, a criticism I have is that philosophy should not be too broad. There has to be a boundary of philosophy which I suggest lies at the boundary of universals and particulars. It is arguable that philosophy tends towards the universal while empirical science (or simply science) tends toward the particulars. Philosophy also tends toward the theoretical while science tend toward the practical. However, there are various ways in which philosophy is practical and particular while science is more universal and theoretical. So such boundaries are not enough.

“dissolving rather than solving traditional or narrow philosophical problems.”

Let us begin with a criticism of this post-analytic idea which seems to be worse than its predecessor. The idea of dissolving instead of solving problems seems to raise negative interpretations than positive ones. My interpretation is that it is to make insignificant, bury, irrelevant, and make it invalid, or question the basis of the problem. Now, there is a sense in which this is alright, we are indeed supposed to question and try every matter until they are found to be well-justified. However, there is another sense where this idea of dissolution is simply a rebellion against tradition, and creating new problems by deluding oneself from the true nature of the problem.

The words “traditional” and “narrow” are problematic as they are ambiguous. They seem to be subjective judgements of the post-analytic movement towards certain philosophical problems. One of those problems I reckon to be about God. I opine that traditional problems are problems which has always been relevant to human life, and perhaps the fact that some people cannot find an answer (or refuse to accept the true answer) leads to these poor people to abandon the true reality of human life and escape to a fantasy of philosophy. The idea of “narrow” problems are problematic because how can we evaluate such a problem to be narrow? How is a problem “narrow” and by whose standards? This statement however is indeed useful in inspiring the question of how to evaluate philosophical problems in general.

“Husserl believed that his phenomenological method would enable philosophy to become a rigorous and foundational science.”

I have no idea what the phenomenological method is so I cannot comment much on Husserl. However, I do commend his vision of making philosophy into a rigorous and foundational science. For centuries, philosophy has failed to take its role as the vicar of theology, and is instead being trampled afoot by the gentile science. The question is what does it mean for philosophy to be a rigorous and foundational science? It means that philosophy is to be thorough and exhaustive and it is to be the basis of all other sciences. I hold the same vision, and I too envision to develop such a system in order to strengthen the system of the Church even more and bring greater glory to God.

“personal affair and something that is vital to realizing the humanitarian hopes of the Enlightenment.”

Philosophy is indeed a personal affair as it is the attempt of man to make sense of himself, his fellow creatures, and of course God. The lifelong journey to make sense of everything in this world is called philosophy. However, it is important to note that personal does not mean private. Remember, to philosophize is to engage with the real world. Therefore, it is a social but still personal affair, in the sense that it involves the entire person. I cannot comment on the humanitarian hopes of the Aufklaerung, but I hypothesize that it involves the deposition of God, by which it means such ideas are to be cast away into hellfire.

“Husserl’s existential successors modified his method in various ways and stressed, and refashioned, the ideal of authenticity presented by his writings.”

I will only comment on the part of authenticity. I interpret there are only 2 paths of authenticity, the false authenticity and the true authenticity. The false authenticity is being who you are, according to your own choices. It is the human self made by his own self. Why is it false? It is false because it does not conform to the True Self that is God. Therefore, we can extrapolate that true authenticity is being who one is according to the Will of God and the revelation of God. It is the true self as related to and revealed by God.

“Another major Continental tradition, namely Critical Theory, makes of philosophy a contributor to emancipatory social theory”

I have a bad perception on the concept of emancipation. First, I do not know the actual concept of emancipation in the lens of Critical Theory. Second, whatever I know is most likely a strawman. In any case, I shall comment on what I perceive to be emancipation. It is the attempt to liberate oneself from a systemic bondage, usually an authority or simply another part of society. Common concepts include power structures and power relationships where there is an imbalance of power. This implies the existence of an oppressive hierarchy where oneself or one group attempts to fight against that oppressive hierarchy.

These people wish to make philosophy a contributor to this kind of struggle. There is a real sense in which the Christian life is an attempt to struggle against such oppressive hierarchy, that is the hierarchy of sin. However, there is another sense where it seems it is God and His hierarchy who is depicted as the oppressor, and thus Critical Theory aims to struggle against God and create a new order of humanity. As such, this is just another attempt to fall away from God and enter into a far darker bondage, the bondage of sin, death, and finally hell.

“and the version of Critical Theory pursued by Jürgen Habermas includes a call for ‘postmetaphysical thinking’.”

There is a sense in which metaphysics is useful and there is an equally real sense in which isn’t. It is true that much of metaphysics is faulty and perhaps only useful as a toy and will instead be the reward of the faithful in heaven. However, as far as metaphysics is about God and His relationship to the world, it is useful and in fact critical. Therefore, one cannot indiscriminately call for the falling away of metaphysics. One can call for the thinning away of metaphysics to the bare necessities such as of God and the metaphysics of science, but not for the complete destruction of metaphysics. As that kind of attempt is a blatant attack against God.

“Heidegger associates metaphysics with the ills of modernity.”

I believe it is the other way around. Instead of metaphysics being the ills of modernity, it is instead the lack of true metaphysics, that is God, which led to the ills of modernity. Of course, one may have a different perspective on what constitutes as the ills of modernity. It is possible that what Heidegger sees as an ill might actually be a virtue or a grace in the eyes of God. However, logic dictates that if one goes away from the true God, the sustainer of Being and Being Himself, things will start to crumble. As such, if one’s mind falls away from God, they will encounter problems beginning in this life and culminating in eternal damnation.

“clarifying, and loosening the grip of the assumptions of previous, metaphysical philosophy”

The term “assumptions” is problematic here, as on what basis does Derrida categorize the principles of metaphysics as assumptions? It is of course not bad to clarify the previous principles of metaphysics in order for us to understand further about it. However, to “loosen the grip” seems to have an implicit meaning of rebelling against the authority of metaphysics, and that ends in atheism or antitheism (which is the true form of most of atheism anyway), a rebellion against the authority of God.

“means to have an ethical and political import.”

Derrida is right in his vision that philosophy should have an ethical and political import. Philosophy in this world should be worked towards a practical application of it. Even in Christian philosophy (my form at least), philosophy is the translator of theology into practical human action and is thus always united to theology in her proper form. However, what kind of ethical and political import does Derrida wants his philosophy to have? I fear it falls in line with the resounding attack against the Kingdom of God in this world.

Kanon Filsafat 24

In canon 2, I have introduced the concept of Perfectam Scripturam. It is essentially perfect language, a language which is ideal and expresses the Truth in a most effective and efficient manner. The commentary on the article about Metaphilosophy mentions the “deep structure of the world”, which must surely include things such as logical laws and all other laws of reality. It is, addicting to say the least. I cannot break out of this addiction. I am addicted to the idea of writing a perfect scripture. Of course, a dead set of letters can do nothing, but it is the human soul residing in each word, sentence, paragraph, and text which brings them to life and transforms worlds.

You will recognize that this canon is pretty much chaos. At least, there is a hint of chaos from this canon. It is meant to discuss the idea of Philosophical Exhaustion, or even worse, Philosophical Destruction. As opposed to Deconstruction where you follow a nice set of rules by Derrida, PDestruction is the process of extracting 2 things from a philosophical text, its principles expressed in pure Perfectam Scripturam, which can be in English anyway, and the Real Structure hidden away in its flesh. A dark analogy for this is to physically cut someone to discover the valuable Divine Essence hidden away in the surface appearance of that person. This makes no sence but I am losing my mind.

Kanon Filsafat 25

Concepts and Statements

·       Particular à General

Introduction

The whole of my metaphilosophy is based upon my personal philosophy. As such, it is weird enough that to properly comment on the metaphilosophy article, I must develop my personal philosophy as much as possible until my mind is exhausted. There are several ways we can develop this philosophy, that is the metaphysical method, the ethical method, the epistemological method, and the fundamental method. The fundamental method is what I have been writing for a long time. As such it is what I will do in this writing.

The Future Method

The future method is a method of philosophical inquiry where more advanced knowledge gives sense to fundamental knowledge. This is because you cannot make sense of fundamental knowledge with those principles and observations alone. Though, I believe there is knowledge which is so fundamental that it goes before observation. This is called a priori knowledge, it is before, yet also after the fundamental observation of experience. It is a priori because it is before experience or observation. Yet at the same time, I hold the temporary belief that the a priori knowledge is actually gained after observing reality. Therefore, experience holds precedence compared to these forms of a priori knowledge.

Argument Method

We shall attempt to adopt the philosophical method of argumentation. This method is based on several things, ancient knowledge, the coursera course, and the English course in university. The argument is basically just statement and reason. As such, we simply extract the structure out of my ideas and lay it bare to show that there is a reason towards my statements and beliefs. The idea of statement and reason itself is something that can be reasoned with and as such it shall be reasoned with sometime in the future.

Fundamental Method of Experience and Existence

The fundamental method is actually an epistemological one, it is based on the question of “What can we know immediately?” The answer is experience and existence. However, what kind of experience and existence and why those 2 things? For that reason we employ the future method to investigate and clarify the meanings of experience and existence. When we say experience, we mean several things that is total experience, particular experience, and general experience from particular experience.

Total experience means that we redefine experience to not mean sensation but to mean total awareness and perception. All things that we are aware of and we perceive is part of experience. In layman terms, it is the destruction of the boundary between external awareness and internal awareness, as such there is such a thing as mental experience. It is precisely that, experiences of the pure mind or the pure intellect.

Particular experience means the singular experiences distinguishable from other experiences. This is the fundamental experience that we encounter, that there is a particular experience. From this experience we reason that there is such a thing as the category of experience, or general experience. This reasoning can be applied to all things, that is the reasoning of particularity and generality.

The reasoning of existence is similar to it. However, it is reasoned out of experience, and that experience is more fundamental than the realization of existence. From the fact of experience, we recognize that experience is something which is, therefore it is existent. However, in this case there is no such thing as total existence, yet, there is simply existence. It is arguable that total existence may exist in analogy to total experience, as the empiricists reject some forms of experience and define experience in a limited way. As such, total existence is existence which includes the mental objects, thus they exist in a real way. Finally, we obtain particular and general existence.

Where do we continue from here? That is the real problem of the fundamental method. The fundamental method abstracts from our reality so much that it is divorced from the particularities of reality. Therefore, the best thing that we can do is ask, “What for?” What is any of this for or useful for? By asking these questions we can extract some more information from this method.

The greater context of the fundamental method is that there is a fundamental basis to all of our knowledge and that lies in the total experience and total existence. Without experience, there is nothing, truly and absolutely nothing. At least, without experience there can be no perspective, point of view, or knowledge in the subjective sense of the word. There can only be a fuzzy mechanical existence, perhaps totally material.

The next question is actually what has been posed multiple times over my personal history of philosophy. What is the relationship between experience and existence? It is intuited that experience, though more fundamental than existence, is actually a type of existence. Therefore, existence precedes experience metaphysically, but experience precedes existence epistemologically.

Now we have the idea that there are 2 categories, the category of existence and the category of experience. My question is, what is the relationship between these 2 categories in reality? For existence is the supreme metaphysical category and experience is the supreme epistemological category. There are several logical possibilities, let us label existence as A and experience as B. So either A > B, A < B, A = B, or A =/= B. The possibility of A > B seems possible. The idea of A < B is impossible because by definition all experiences are existences. The idea of A = B seems possible. The idea of A =/= B is totally impossible as it signifies a complete separation between A and B, which clearly epistemologically and metaphysically they proceed from each other.

So we have 2 possibilities which are possible within the realm of logic, that is A > B or A = B. The meaning of A > B is that all experiences are existences but there are existences which are not experiences. This implies a causal relationship between existence and experience, existence causes experience and there are objects which are purely separate from experience. The meaning of A = B is that there is a correspondence between object and experience. However there are still 2 interpretations to A = B, the first is closer to A > B, that there is separation yet correspondence between experience and existence, the second is complete union, that there is unity between existence and experience.

Now, what is the real implication of these possibilities? The answer is I don’t know. They are simply appreciations of philosophical knowledge as they are without any practical applications. As such, the argument on them ends here.

Ethical Method

In the end, everything boils down to ethics and morality, or value theory. What is good and how do we reach it if there is such a thing as goodness? We all have tasted and felt a bit of goodness and happiness. That thing which we call goodness is what attracts every being with a will. Everything moves in the direction of goodness. For things which are in the control of Will, it moves in the direction of absolute goodness. For images of Will, that is free wills, they move in the direction of relative or perceived goodness, which may or may not always be in concordance with Absolute Goodness.

The description above clearly is based upon God and thus it depends highly on the metaphysical method. However, we establish it as an assumption and a presupposition. For God is Goodness Himself, and that He is also Will, thus He moves in the direction of Himself and everything He does is in the direction of Himself. He directs all things to Himself as He is the objectively good. He is the objectively good in the sense that He is good for all beings and for all things. However, the relative being will move towards the goodness that they perceive and not the absolute goodness. For God has gifted these beings a relative intellect to perceive things and so they will act in their perceived goodness.

Kanon Filsafat 26

What is the most fundamental thing in all of philosophy? Metaphysics, ethics, or epistemology? In this approach I will attempt to establish an epistemological method, that is philosophy based on logic and the laws regarding reasoning towards the Truth. It is based on the idea that there is a logical law towards everything, or the attempt to discover the fundamental law towards all of reasoning and thus towards the possibility of uncovering the “deep structure of the world.”

“It is based on the idea that there is a logical law towards everything ….”

This is the fundamental problem of this method. Is there such a thing as a logical law which is objective and independent of any form of subjective perspective? For if we can determine the existence of such a logical law, then that determination is itself a logical law. In proposition, “If we know the existence of a logical law, we know the logical law.” This is in itself a logical law, so if we know the existence of X, we know X. Why is that? It is because if we know that X exists, that means there is a path between us and X, such that we can know X, with no necessity of perfect knowledge of X.

In any case, let us begin with an analysis of the language in this text.

“Logical law”

What does logical law mean? For sure there are technical definitions of logic and law, but we aim to formulate our own system of logical law and so we aim not to refer to the established definitions. Logic refers to reasoning, and is itself a system of rules or laws in reasoning. Therefore, the term “logical law” is indeed redundant, but it can be taken to mean “law of reasoning”.

“there is a logical law”

Is this true? If we say that there is a law of reasoning, then for sure there is. The real question or statement is “There is an objective logical law”. This is the problem that shall be examined.

“There is an objective logical law”

Can this statement be supported? There are 4 possibilities:

1.     The statement is true without support

2.     The statement is true with support

3.     The statement is false without support

4.     The statement is false with support

However, we must first assess something, what is reasoning?

“What is reasoning?”

Reasoning is a process which consists of several things:

1.     Using previously known information to arrive at new information

2.     Evaluating the process above, that is to distinguish between truth and falsehood through the evaluation of the flow of reasoning.

Now, the problem of logical law is that I suppose that there is a law in reasoning, that there are rules of reasoning. However, can we actually know that? There are 2 possibilities, that there are laws of reasoning and that there are no laws of reasoning. If there are no laws of reasoning, then we have to accept seemingly absurd reasonings such as, “There is a dog. There is a cat. Therefore, I am not a dog.” There is clearly a lack of relationship between the statements presented above. However, there is no law that states that there is a law. We find ourselves in a terrible spot that there is no clear logical law. For all laws are deniable, and there is no basis to the idea that there has to be a logical law.

As such, there has to be a self-evident principle. A principle of reasoning and perhaps all of reality that cannot be refuted and cannot be denied. However, what if that principle ends up being denied? We do not even know whether there is such a fundamental principle. If we know that there is such a fundamental principle in this world, then we can refer back to this foundation to describe and understand all of reality. So let us pose the next question,

“Does a fundamental principle of reasoning and reality exist?”

It seems there is, and it is found not in epistemology, but in the fundamental method and that is in metaphysics. The fundamental method of experience and existence has provided us with such a fundamental principle. However, what if we are to say that such truths are not truths, that such propositions are false and we establish that law? We can for sure say, “There is no experience, there is no existence,” and everything would end there. We can even say “There is nothing” and end there. That contradicts our vision of reality, but in principle we can change our language and say “There is nothing” until it is the established truth of us.

The problem is in doing that, we make ourselves to be liars. In short, when determining the existence and logical laws of reality, we discover the following.

1.     Belief can contradict reality.

2.     We can choose to believe correctly or incorrectly.

However, if we choose to believe incorrectly, it does not change the fact. For example, if we say that “There is nothing”, it does not change the true fact that we are possessing an experience at this point of time. The problem remains that we are terribly free to choose to deny reality and create our own belief. Therefore, I introduce the new idea that as we are exposed to reality, we simply know it. There is no real chain of justification, chains of justification simply help us know the relationship between different thoughts. However, reality is in front of us and so as we are in reality and are part of reality, we simply have the sense of what is true or false, at least on a fundamental level. That is why when we choose to oppose God, there are real consequences, as we actually know, but we choose arbitrarily to deny what we know fundamentally.

Therefore, knowledge at the fundamental level simply is. Experience simply is the fact, the fact simply is. We can then state the following.

“There is experience, because there is experience.”

In letter symbolic terms, we can say,

“X, because X.”

Or, substituting “There is” or “exists” with “A” and “because” with B, we have.

“XA, BXA.”

This is possibly the sacred principle of all knowledge. And I see it to be the sacred principle of all knowledge. However, this principle only applies to itself. Therefore XA, BXA assuming that X is a variable, is not universally true. In fact, can we say that “X exists, because experience of X exists.”? No, we cannot. In fact, there is a distinction between epistemological determination and metaphysical determination. If a thing exists in metaphysics, its existence is caused by itself. This is the universal law, “Metaphysically, XA, BXA.” However, epistemologically it is not true that XA, BXA.

Epistemologically, the experience of a particular existence is what determines the proposition that such existence is true. However, in absolute terms, metaphysical determination and epistemological determination falls into unity. So, “XA, BXA” becomes universal at the level of absolute reality. However, at the relative level, the metaphysics remains as (XA, BXA), but the epistemology becomes (XA, BCXA) C here refers to experience, if we wish to be complete we can insert “of” as D. So (XA, BCDXA).

How do we prove that (XA, BCDXA), when in truth there are many things we cannot experience yet we are sure of their existence? The answer is we simply infer their existence from indirect experience, which constitutes as experience still. Therefore, the law of (XA, BCDXA) remains universal.

Kanon Filsafat 27

The pursuit of the logical law dominates my mind and my soul. It is the only thing I want right now, to uncover the supreme logical law behind all things. The supreme logical law that can conquer all forms of philosophy. In short, I seek God, in form of Logical Law. Is it possible though? Can He be discovered in that way? That is the precise question we are trying to answer. For years I have been in hot pursuit of Him, seeking Him at every turn of the path. Yet I have not discovered Him.

It is said by the Church that such vision of God is impossible until you die and be received into heavenly glory. However, for sure there is a vision of God that has to be possible on earth, and be somehow inferior to heavenly vision of God, but still be transformative to the human reality such that the Kingdom of God is more easily manifested on earth. What is this reality that the mystics saw, that Saint Thomas Aquinas saw such that he called his brilliant writings “straw”? The real question is of course, what any of my role is in this story of God’s salvation for mankind?

It is possible that there can be no proper formal systematization of natural language philosophy into formal language. As such, natural language philosophy will forever remain in the domains of natural language. After all, I have not seen a philosophical text written in pure formal language. Even if such text exists, natural language is still needed to properly interpret the text and translate it into actual natural language which people can understand. Without that, there can be no understanding. However, formal languages of logic are indeed very useful in revealing the deep logical structures of natural language, and thus evaluating the truth or falsehood of such expressions.

Kanon Filsafat 28

Section 1

It is to me that God has willed me to write certain things, things I have no idea of. It is for sure no addition to the deposit of faith, but perhaps an explication of something in the deposit. Christ is the ultimate revelation. With Christ, everything has been revealed by God to mankind, the only reason Christ is the ultimate revelation is because He is God. Therefore, when Christ came to earth, God has exhausted the revelation that He can reveal to us. He has revealed not just His Will, but His very Being. As such, the pinnacle of the Deposit of Faith is Christ, which is God Himself.

(For God has challenged me to write down a worthy system of philosophy in just a day, or to write down of anything at all about philosophy in one day. For the next days shall be days of discipline.)

I cannot write anything worthy in addition to what has been said by the saints, mystics, and doctors of the Holy Catholic Church. However, for the Lord has commanded me to write, to exhaust my desire, then I shall write to the best of my ability, though I have no confidence in my own ability, I have perfect confidence in the Lord’s ability to transform my fundamental fallen nature into its properly glorious nature, or at least a shadow of the Lord’s glory in me as it shall be when the consummation happens.

Foremost, I have written much of the higher realities, of God in Himself, now I shall write of the lower realities, that is of humanity. Truly, humanity is degraded only by sin, were sin never to exist, he would still live in the divine glory that God created him in. As such, I speak of humanity as the lower realities only because humanity and all of creation fell with the sin of Adam. Of course, ontologically and metaphysically humanity shall always be lower than God. However, it is even worse due to the fact that mankind sinned and fell.

The root of all sin is not money as people like to claim, but instead it is pride. Pride, in other words, worship of the self. It is the worship of one’s own understanding of God (read: Reality) and thus it is the generation of a false god, the god of the self. Sin is thus associated with rebellion and delusion. There is a meaning behind Christ’s words that satan is the father of lies. By falling from grace, he has submitted himself to unknowing and delusion along with the rest of the fallen angels. This is an eternal act which cannot be taken back, and they know this yet they still rebel. Thus eternal separation from God is their proper place according to Divine Justice and Mercy. Their role is reduced to mere tempters of the human race.

Mankind, seduced by those fallen angels, manifest as the serpent, fell to the same delusion of the self. The essence of this delusion is of course contradiction with God. God is pure selfless love, which is the reason anything exists at all. Therefore, the delusion of sin is selfishness without any love, after all, a selfish love is an oxymoron. Every sin listed by God is a centering towards the self and a denial of God (which includes all kinds of external reality). The commands of God are instead denial of the self and centering towards God.

However, what is it that God actually commands? The Will of God is God and God is Goodness, therefore what God wills is actually good, the true goodness of course as opposed to the false goodness of fallen angels and fallen men. Whatever He commands us to do is foremost for His glory, but also for our goodness and thus it is for our happiness. The data came in and it is shown, that conformity to the Law of God yields in greater happiness than rebellion. It is true as well that currently the world is rebelling more against God and greater suffering is happening. It is simple logic, rebellion against Goodness and Being will lead to some severe contradictions, which we know as problems and suffering.

I have once mentioned this in an old writing, but it is interesting to note that God is Being being, Existing Existence, whose Essence is Existence. Ehyeh asher ehyeh does mean “My Existence is My Essence.” That alone is interesting enough, what is more interesting is the implication for sin and virtue. Sin is not just rebellion against Good, it is also rebellion against Existence itself! Now for the rational soul is immortal, by being in a state of mortal sin, they are actually rejecting their own existence, or their core essence which is God. However, they cannot actually go out of existence, and as such that is part of why there is great suffering in hell, for they are in an eternal state of contradiction. They have come to despise God and so they actually despise their own existence as well, for all of existence conforms to the Supreme Existence that is God.

It is also noteworthy that while virtue often leads to creation and permanence, thus eternal life, sin often leads to destruction and constant flux, thus why hell is described as “second death”. Now that we understand the basic concept of sin, we understand as well why sin always leads to destruction, loss, and pain, as it is contradiction against Being and Existence Himself. So, not only sin leads man to gross misconception of Reality and Goodness, it puts him at odds against it, thus dooming him existentially and morally.

Kanon Filsafat 29

This text declares the end of self contributed theoretical philosophy until the further commandments or return of God to this world. In other words, no more hard philosophy or proper philosophy until the Second Coming. Would this not mean the rendering of uselessness of that kind of philosophy for there is nothing else to be said and done after heaven? Precisely, such kind of philosophy is meant to be a reward for me by God due to my hopeful perseverance in the Faith. Then what kind of philosophy that I shall be doing after this, or will I be doing no philosophy at all?

The answer is there is one kind of rudimentary philosophy that can still be pursued without being useless. That philosophy I call “practical philosophy”. It is essentially a pragmatic form of philosophy where philosophy is used to solve real life problems. Of course, there is already much information to aid us in solving our problems. However, the act of deliberating between all of that information and determining which information is the best information to use is itself a philosophical act. I call it information comparison, a part of epistemology. This text serves as a fundamental introduction to this new kind of philosophy and to the very ending of the old kind of philosophy.

Kanon Filsafat 30

A lesson I learned from several friends. What is the role of philosophy in life? Is philosophy supposed to serve life or is life supposed to serve philosophy? This is similar to the problem of do we eat to live or do we live to eat? There is a real sense in which life is subservient to philosophy, but in truth both serve each other. In other words, there is another more practical sense in which philosophy is subservient to life. Let us remember that all things are directed for goodness, and that philosophy is directed for goodness. However, the more fundamental thing is life for goodness, for life is the essence of goodness itself.

For that reason if philosophy is emphasized above life such that it compromises life itself, then it would compromise philosophy itself as life is the basis on which philosophy stands. Therefore, philosophy falls and fails its purpose to serve life and goodness as it becomes a means of destruction of life instead of the sustenance of life. This principle is applicable to anything and life. However, what happens if there is something more fundamental than life itself? Then the same reasoning applies. “Y is the basis of X. If X compromises Y, then X compromises itself.” Let us say in abstract terms, “YBX, XCY, XCX”.

The question is is there such a thing as something more fundamental than life? There is, and that is called “Existence”. What being bears that name alone? It is none other than God. As such, it is only logical that we must prioritize God more than life. If we are asked to compromise either God or life, we must give up life for God for only in God is there true life. All other things outside of God, that is part of this fallen world, is imperfect and will fade away. So to compromise Perfection for an inferior good is a foolish thing. So if examined further, it is not just about basis of things, but also about the hierarchy of good, from the lowest good which is actually evil disguised as good, up to God Himself.

Kanon Filsafat 31

God’s mercy and grace is the sole reason we are alive or existing at all. Now without prayer it is possible to live and be “successful”, but the possibility of actually gaining eternal life is slim. For without relationship with Reality (read: God), how can you know how to enter that Perfect Most High Reality? Now one might ask, how do we know that God will answer our prayers? There is one guarantee, that He is Goodness Himself. Therefore all things He does are good and so that means He will respond to all prayers in the best way possible.

Now, for God is not just the God of the Catholics but also of the disbelievers, then all people can pray to the One Holy Triune God for any kind of grace and if God sees it fit to grant the wishes of that person, He shall do so with utmost effectiveness. There are 2 kinds of petitions, spiritual petitions and material petitions. Both should support our union with God that is salvation and thus eternal life. As such, since God hears all prayers and answers all prayers, every person should pray something of the sort, “O One Holy God, I seek to know You further for my goodness. Show me the true religion and the ture path and lead me there O God. Do not allow me to be led astray but guide me to You.” Also, God has designed the world and its motions to answer every prayer in every way that He desires, that is the true meaning of intelligent design.

Kanon Filsafat 32

What is our final destiny in life? It is the hope that all those who are pleasing and rigtheous in the eyes of God shall behold a vision of God in the next life, this is known as the beatific vision. In other words, this is expressed as union with God or theosis. As to be united with a thing properly is simply to know that thing intimately, immediately, and directly. It is this kind of knowledge of God that shall be granted to us in the next life. While God has only One Essence in Divine Simplicity, it is an inexhaustible Essence that we can know forever without ever exhausting the Essence. For if we exhaust the Essence, then that would mean the destruction of the self for it would make us the same as God.

In addition to that blessed knowledge of God, I believe we shall also have deeper and more intimate knowledge and understanding of our past life, this too shall contribute to our happiness. Now, while suffering and evil still exists, the perfect knowledge of that evil and suffering shall actually cancel out the evil. For we understand it not in vacuum but in its greater context, and so too shall we be given knowledge of the goodness which resolves that evil. As such, we will be like God, knowing no suffering or evil, but participating in His eternal glory and blessedness.

Kanon Filsafat 33

This is a difficult problem, whether we can trust anything at all or not. The answer is that for there is One God which is supreme and all good, we can surely trust in Him. Our Faith in God is the basis for our trust and faith in everything else, including our trust in ourselves. We trust God that He shall protect us from error and He has given us the capacity to distinguish between the trustworthy and the untrustworthy. As we pray more (see canon 31), that capacity shall be added to us as God sees it fit to be added to us.

Kanon Filsafat 34

There is a distinction between philosophy as a reward and philosophy as a tool to obtain that reward. Philosophy as a reward can be as theoretical and abstract as it can be, being practically useless in any sense of the word “practical” and “useful”. However, philosophy as a tool should be as practically useful as it can possibly be. Philosophy should be a window towards God to enlighten and resolve the problems of the world, be it short term personal problems or long term social problems. As Marx said, despite his many errors, the point of philosophy (divine philosophy that is) is to change the world.

Kanon Filsafat 35

As I approach the end of the canon, I face the problem of charity. Charity is love, but what is it? It is the general orientation towards the goodness of beings, but what is the goodness of beings? Truly, Good is God, God is Goodness Himself. Therefore, to love is to bring the object of love to God. However, in more concrete terms, it is to preserve and promote the being and existence of that object as God is Being Himself and thus Being and Existence is Goodness Itself. The highest value in this world is not merely being, but it is the dynamic act of love having God the Love as its source flowing through and to all creatures held in existence by God.

Kanon Filsafat 36

Prophecy has conventionally been about the future, and in this text that applies as well. I do not know why this text is part of the philosophical canon. However, I feel the need to include this in the closing parts of the canon. The prophecies of the saints reveal that we are in the end times. We are approaching the close coming of the Lord, and many of us will die as martyrs or live to see the Day of the Lord. This has one terrible consequence for philosophy. It is the destruction of all dreams and all philosophical dreams. With the end coming fast, we can only resign to God.

Kanon Filsafat 37

In the end, I shall see the glory of God by my own 2 eyes. Then, the eyes shall pass and there shall be a glorified body. There shall be God beheld by my own soul, by the perception of my own soul. In the end of the canon, there is only one thing that matters, the living relationship with the living God. After years of attempting to build up a philosophical system, I have found that none of it matters, and they are all worthy of destruction. The only thing that matters is God and my future union with Him. That is all.