Humanism and Profit-Seeking

Humanism puts the Well-Being of the Whole before the Profits of Individuals.  It essentially constitutes a Moral inversion of centuries.  It is arguably the decisive political issue in the United States of the moment.  It may seem similar to superficial positions.  But the significant point of distinction from those positions is if Profit-Seeking remains an option, then the Moral status quo is being maintained.

Global Capitalism and Global Electric Media

The term Global has come into currency via McCluhan, for whom it signifies Electric Communications. For him it signifies a contrast with Print Media, which has dominated Human society for centuries, beginning with the Gutenberg Era.  But he does quite comprehend the Individualism that that that that domination has bred, nor, in particular, the economic domination that it has enabled, e. g. the private property of the page in front of oneself.  In contrast, in Global telecommunication, interaction is shared and collective, a expression of the commonality of the electric medium.  Of course, the medium is still used for private mercenary purposes.  But as is the case with the Print Media, which is taking centuries to slowly become obsolete, so, too, is the use of Global Electric media to promote Global Capitalism.

Globalism and Economics

The term 'Globalism' is most commonly used as 'trans-Nationalist', and hardly signifying 'Global' at all. 'Global' connotes a holistic concept, whereas 'trans-Nationalist' is an Atomist concept, signifying as it did centuries ago, a conjunction of National markets.  Likewise, most 'Globalism' these days promotes trans-Nationalism, the Holism of which is betrayed by some Nationalist failure, notably protectionist, such as the recent Brexit.  In contrast, Globalism, connoting a Whole, begins as an Organic concept, and derives the economic well-being of its Parts from that Whole.  Plainly, Human society is a long way from real 'Global economics'.

Humanism and Humanity

The concept of Humanism requires a concept of Human, and thus far, the most prominent concept of Human is that of Evolutionism.  Thus, Humanism is a Species concept.  Accordingly, one mode of De-Humanization is social fragmentation, i. e. Individualization.  In other words, only the promotion of the Whole of the Species qualifies as Humanism.  Conversely, the promotion of fragmentation deprives all of a society, even those who benefit in some respect, of their Humanity.

Organism and Humanism

If a Species is the basic unit, and one of its Members is an Organism, then a Species can be conceived as a Super-Organism.  Likewise, an Organism that is part of a Organism is a Sub-Organism.  Super-Organism, Organism, Sub-Organism, are not absolute terms, just relative to one another.  They constitute a conceptual scheme necessitated by the jettisoning of Atomism, which is inadequate to Biological representation.  Thus, because Human Society is an organization of Biological beings, Political and Economical problems need to be represented in Organist terms if they are to solved according to Humanist principles.  Hitherto that has generally not been the case.  Instead, Human society has generally been interpreted as Atomist, i. e. as Individualist, with solutions to conflicts generally disjunctive.  Dialectics have attempted to present synthetic solutions, but these solutions are inadequate to a Biological concept of society, constituted by Organisms of varying degrees of complexity, the basic Atomism of which are still its fundamental terms.  In other words, in contrast with Evolutionism, Marxism remains an system of Individuals rather than of Species, and, hence, not committed to Humanist principles, even as they fight exploitation.

Philosophy, Organism, Political-Economy

The concept of Organism is only a recent appearance in Modern Philosophy, and the way it is treated is an indication of its inadequacy to what Evolutionism entails.  The two most prominent concepts of it are from Kant and Whitehead, and they share a combination of it, despite some differences, in terms of Efficient Causality and Teleological Causality.  So, in neither of these prominent cases, does Life, nor a One-Many structure seem, involved.  In other words, they seem bogged down by what seems to be irrelevant ancient Causality.  Spinoza at least seems occasionally to involve Formal Causality and Material Causality, which opens up the possibility of a One-Many analysis, though, he never seems to decide whether his concept of a Mode is an Atomist construction, or a Holist construction.  In either case, he never considers the possibility that the Species is the basic unit.  Consequently, Modern Philosophy has lacked the conceptual resources to resolve the Political and Economic problems that have been besetting Global society for the past several centuries.

Organism, Brexit, NAFTA

As has been previously discussed, Evolutionism establishes the concept of Organism as the fundamental unit of the Human species.  It is thus a Global unit, a Cosmopolis, with respect to Nations are Parts.  Nationalist Economics and Globalist Economics are incompatible, so, for example, the recent Brexit, and the upgrade of NAFTA, merely shift the incompatibility from Global Capitalism.  In order to eliminate the incompatibility completely, a radical adjustment is required--to an Organic concept of it.

Evolution, Human Species, Organism

One of the quiet implications of Evolutionism is that the Human species is the fundamental unit of its members, i. e. that it is not an association or a construction of fundamentally independent individuals.  Furthermore, it is a Biological entity, determined by Environmental principles.  Thus, the fundamental structure of the Human species is an Organism as a living Whole, of which it its members are its Parts.  This structure is not a recent happenstance, but has determined its history from its origin, and continues to to determine it as its history continues.  This concept of the species as an Organism eludes most hitherto concepts of Human history and Human Political Philosophy.

National Capitalism, Global Capitalism, Organicism

The implications of Extraterrestrial travel for Evolutionism are far from of contemporary Philosophical concern.  More immediate is the tension between Nationalist Economics and Globalist Economics, exemplified by the recent Brexit, but just as instantiated by NAFTA.  These are products of a contradiction of Capitalism that neither Smith nor Marx addresses.  Initially, the scope for Smith of the Free Market is inter-National, as a counter to intra-National protectionism.  But he eventually extends the concept to the National Market, without considering the potential for National ill-effects, e. g. the loss of domestic jobs when cheaper Labor is available elsewhere.  Socialist protectionism is no better than Capitalist protectionist, closing off access to inter-National markets.  What's needed is an Organic Global model, which breaks down rigid National barriers, and replaces the concept of relative locality with that of a part of a whole.  In this way, Free Trade is at the service of the Whole, a model that is plainly far from any of those inefficient ones that are currently extent.

Evolution and Terrestriality

Environmentalism provides evidence that the Human species is not independent of other species, thereby repudiating Aristotelianism, according to which it is a Terrestrial species, but independent of other species, and Theological doctrines, according to which its origin is celestial.  Now, according to standard Darwinism, a new species originates by adapting to a different environment via the development of some new characteristic, e. g. the Human thumb.  So, in that case, a principle that transcends merely Human behavior, e. g. involves the behavior of apes, too, determines the origin of the Human species, and the species is not independent of Terrestrial history or principles.  But something new has developed in the dynamics of Evolution in recent centuries.  Humans have begun extraterrestrial exploration, which is an apparently unprecedented event in what has hitherto been a long history of Terrestrial Evolution, i. e. it is a departure from all hitherto environments. Furthermore, the standard pattern has been broken--rather than a species adapting to a different established environment, it constitutes a species adapting to a wholly new, previously uninhabited, primarily unknown environment.  In the long term, these celestial realms may prove to have been inhabited all along.  But until then what seems a likely Evolutionary step to a new species, is also a step to a new environment.

Human History and Ecological Principles

What we are now just beginning to learn about Human history--that it is itself a transitional stage in Evolutionary development--so far transcends previous concepts of Human history, that any of those are knowable only as phases of that history.  Furthermore, since Human history has its non-Human antecedents, and perhaps has its non-Human consequents, e. g. a species that can survive in an environment that none has previously, properly speaking, the the history is no longer Human.  In other words, the undermining of Anthropocentrism that begins with with Heliocentrism is beginning its full fruition with extraterrestrial travel.  Of course, the completion of that fruition is likely at least millennia away.  But these long-term possibilities still have relevance to the current moment--their terms demonstrate that the Human species is, and has all along been, determined by Ecological principles, and needs to be more conscientiously adopting them as its own.

History and Ethics

In previous eras, the personal Highest Ethical Good has corresponded to the Highest Human condition.  For example, Aristotelian personal Highest Virtue corresponds to conduct in the divine realm.  Likewise, Kantian Highest personal Virtue corresponds to conduct in his Kingdom of Ends.  However, as has been previously discussed, the arcs of Human history that have been posited as determining any of the scope of these eras have been shown to be obsolete.  For, according to the best information, the Human species emerges as a descendent of apes, populates the Earth by, first, spreading out to all of its regions, then integrates via rapid telecommunication and transportation, finally departing the Earth via the development of new faculties, e. g. the ability to fly, the ability to breathe in the absence of oxygen.  Furthermore, what could be interpreted as the development of a new species, one that can survive long-term in an extraterrestrial environment, is projected as a nascent but realistic possibility.  So, the Ethical doctrines of the past are as obsolete as the concepts of History from which they emerged.

Human History, Evolution, Extraterrestriality

According to the best evidence, the Human species did not originate on Earth in general, but at a specific location.  It spread out to all areas of the planet, and then began to integrate into a Cosmopolity, unified by telecommunications and rapid transportation.  But the arc of Human history transcends even that scope.  For, the origin of the species precedes that moment of appearance, preceding it in the guise of apes with less highly developed thumbs, for example.  And conversely, one fruit of that development has been the departure of some of the members of the species, into the territory of a new Environment.  So, when all the latest information is taken into account, previous prominent hypotheses regarding Human history--Aristotelianism, Medieval Theology--have become obsolete, not merely dubious.

Earth and Heaven

Despite their constituent differences, the Aristotelian and the Theological concepts of the arc of Human history share a similar destiny--Heaven.  One distinction is their starting point.  Aristotle's arc begins on Earth, whereas the Theological arc begins in Heaven, but falls to Earth, before returning to Heaven.  Now, both concepts of Heaven are finite.  In contrast, the currently predominant concept of Heaven is infinite.  This is the extraterrestrial realm that the Human species has just begin to explore.  So, superficially, the most recent concept of the arc of Human history is similar to some of its prominant predecessors, it is significantly different from them both in one detail, and in the verification of such details, in the empirical discovery of Heaven.

Evolution and Human Destiny

Evolutionary history far exceeds Ancient history and Theological history, so its scope of Human history far exceeds the destinies of the two combined.  In other words, the Aristotelian concept of Telos is only no more than a small phase of Human history.  Likewise, the Theological drama of Fall and Salvation are short phases in Human history.  Continued debates between these three are idle.

Extraterrestrial Travel and Evolutionary Destiny

According to Aristotelian Teleology, the destiny of the Human species is the Heavens, on the grounds that that realm and the deity that inhabits it are their perfection.  According to contemporary Astronomy, the destiny of the Human species, but not its Teleological Cause, is the exploration of Universe, as recent extraterrestrial travel has proven. As Modern Theology has affirmed, there is no deity that is the destiny of the Human race.  So, there is no current ideology that explains the plain facts that over the past 500 years Humans have engaged in unprecedented extraterrestrial travel.

Teleology and Theology

Because there have been two distinct reasons for the Modern repudiation of Aristotelian Teleological Causality, there have been two distinct Modern corrections to it.  One has pertained to interaction between objects, on Empiricist grounds, i. e. the denial of a Causality that occurs subsequent to a sensible event.  The other has pertained to the conatus of the Human species, on Theological grounds, i. e. the denial of the existence of a divine realm located beyond the periphery of the Earth.  A significant difference between the two is that the former is methodologically based, while the latter is replaced by a proposition with no methodological basis.  The proposition is the existence of an incorporeal realm that is absolutely segregated from the physical realm, and is now the location of many concepts of the Medieval deity.  Because of the absolute segregation, there is no Theological Causality between them even possible.  As a result, Kant recognizes only actual Efficient Causality and a heuristic Causality that originates in the non-Physical realm, exercising a heuristic Causality that is sometimes Efficient, sometimes Teleological.

Teleology and Emanation

1. As has been previously discussed, Aristotle privileges Teleological Causality in two respects.  First, in a modest practical context he conceives Purpose to be the primary determining factor.  But second, in Ethics and Metaphysics, he conceives the Telos of human development, either Theoretical Virtue, or Practical Virtue, between which he vacillates, as has been previously discussed, to be goal of human behavior.  Accordingly, there has been a double repudiation of Teleological Causality in the Modern Era.  First, in Locomotion, Teleological Causality has been replaced in Newtonian Physics by Efficient Causality.  But second, because of the severing of the Earth-Heavens contiguity, by Heliocentrism, so, too, is the severing of the Human-Celestial contiguity that grounds Ethical Teleological Causality, resulting in, for example, a Emanation doctrine of Spinoza the primary principle of which is its initial moment, not its final one.

Teleological Causality, Theoretical Virtue, Practical Virtue

Teleological Causality has primacy for Aristotle in two respects.  First, it is the primary determinant in the making of something, i. e.  the purpose that something serves determines its shape, what material it is made of, and how it is shaped.  Second, Teleological Causality is the fundamental Psychological principle of humans, driving them not towards the earth, but upwards toward the heavens.  Thus, divine Thought Thinking Itself is the Highest Virtue, i. e. Happiness, equivalent to Self-Sufficiency.  But because humans have not the Self-Sufficiency of the divine, they must settle for Practical Virtue and Friendship,  Aristotle seems to vacillate between which of the levels of Virtue he ultimately privileges.

Reason, Formal Cause, Body

According to Aristotle, as opposed to Descartes, Reason is not the only part of the Soul.  Thus, according to the former but not the latter, the Body can be influenced by causes other than Reason.  These are inner organic causes, that are parts of the non-Rational parts of the Soul--the Nutritive and the Locomotive parts, i. e. processes that strengthen the Body, and processes that secures the sources of strengthening.  Now, Reason can influence these processes, by improving nutritional processes, and by making the Locomotion that secures them more efficient.  But it is by imposing Balance on the Body, via the principle of Golden Mean, that Reason functions as a Formal Cause on the Matter of the Body.

Body and Rationality

Aristotle's concept of Body as essentially passive has had considerable influence on the subsequent history of Psychology.  For example, Behaviorism and Emotivism both follow from the premise that the Body is essentially passive.  However, neither of these includes the further dimension that the Active dimension of Aristotle' theory is Reason, i . e. the principle that the Body can be determined by the Golden Mean--by a balance between Deficiency and Excess.  So because of the strong contemporary influences of Emotivism of and Behaviorism in the U. S., Rationality does have a low value there.

Matter and Body

Aristotle asserts that the Soul is the Form of the Body.  It thus follows that the Body is the Matter of the Soul.  Hence, because Matter-Form are in a Passive-Active relation according to Aristotle, so, too, are Body and Soul.  Aristotle's concept of that relation is not the only prominent one that conceives that relation as such; in Genesis 2, absent the breath of the deity, a human is mere dust.  So it is not surprising that when Medieval Theology and Modern Philosophy unite in Descartes' theory, Corporeality is conceived as Soulless, and remains as such until Spinoza unites Deity and Nature.  But because of the marginality of his doctrine, it is not until another century or two that Body is conceived to be Active in its own right, i. e. with the rise to prominence of sub-Atomic Chemistry and Biology.

Matter and Sub-Atomic Particles

As has been previously discussed, within a limited context, Material Causality can be interpreted as a dynamic process.  However, in an unlimited context, it still seems passive, ultimately determinable by Formal Causality, e. g. the transposition of paint from palette to canvas, the transformation of ore into raw metal, etc.  Regardless, recent studies of Matter confirm that it is inherently dynamic, and in a dynamic relation with Formal Causality.  For, it is now known that sub-atomic Matter is constituted by electromagnetic relations, some of which are stabilized, others of which are not.  Accordingly, in any interaction with an Aristotelian Formal Cause, an Aristotelean Material Cause is not passive, but dynamic, and exerts Force back, even clay against a hand that is shaping it. Thus, there is no inherent distinction between Formal Causality and Material Causality based on an active-passive distinction. If there is such a distinction, it can only be on the basis of a Unity-Multiplicity distinction.

Creativity and Material Causality

A divine creator creates Matter ex nihilo.  A human creator cannot create Matter ex nihilo, but still can radically transform Matter so that something that previous was not there is now there.  For example, the organized paint on a canvas was previously on a palette unorganized.  Likewise, the ink on the page of a sheet of Philosophical writing was previously in a well or a cartridge.  Considered relatively ex nihilo, the Matter in these cases functions as a Material Cause.  Such relative Material Causality contributes to a wide range of processes that are factors in manufacturing operations--transforming natural resources to useful products, changes of state, e. g. liquid to gas, and building a machine that consists in a radical complex of parts.  Common to these cases is that despite the wide variety of their products, they are relatively but greatly ex nihilo creations, or, equivalently, examples of relative Material Causality.

Recreativity and Genius

Human Recreativity, i. e. which instantiates Divine Creativity, must have at its source Genius.  Kant attributes Genius to Nature, but his Dualism, unlike Spinoza's Pantheist Monism, presupposes a dichotomy between deity and Nature.  He also restricts the Recreativity to products of Art.  But that restriction is based on distinguishing products of Genius that are objects of contemplation, from those that are objects of potential use.  However, the essence of Creativity and Recreativity is that they bring something into being that has not previously existed.  So it is the distinction between Contemplation and Use that is inessential to Genius.  Indeed, functioning as an object of Contemplation, as a cultivation of Morality, as Kant characterizes it, could be classified as a use.

Skill, Proprioception, Parallelism

Skilled behavior is continuous, but that does not preclude that it also consists in discontinuity.  It is still constituted by multiple coordinate components, the multiple coordinate parts of each leg, and the coordination of those groups, the balancing of the arms, the guidance of the eyes, etc.  So, skilled behavior consists in a Unity of a Multiplicity, or, a Totality.  In a Totality, neither its Unity nor its Multiplicity is privileged, so to maintain balance, some internal function is involved  In motile beings, Proprioception is one such balancing function.  But Proprioception is the Idea of the Body, in Spinoza's doctrine.  So, apparently contrary to his Parallelism, Mind does exert Causality on Body, especially in the performance of skilled behavior.

Metaphysics and Intuition

As has been previously discussed, the moment in which something is learned consists in a transition from a Discontinuity of Motion to a Continuity of Motion.  Other such moments of learning consist in a transition from a Multiplicity in general to a Unity.  These are experiences in which one suddenly realizes a solution to a puzzle, or to a mystery.  These moments seem to occur instantaneously, and, hence, are simple, thus defying analysis.  So, if anything is an object of Intuition, it is not, as Bergson proposes, Continuous Motion, but the transition from Discontinuous Motion to Continuous Motion, which is simple.  Likewise, if anything signifies a Metaphysical realm, as Bergson proposes, it is not Continuous Motion, but the moment of transition to it from Discontinuous Motion. More generally, the perception of any instantaneous transition from Multiplicity to Unity can only be Intuition, and only insofar it is simple.

Continuous Motion and Skill

As has been previously discussed, Bergson's classification of Continuous Motion as Metaphysical implies that Discontinuous Motion is Physical.  A different concept of the relation between Continuous and Discontinuous Motion is evident in ordinary experience.  A familiar experience is learning a skill--walking, playing a musical instrument, plying a tool--and there is usually a moment at which the phase of learning transitions into the phase of learnt.  Distinguishing the two phases is usually the Discontinuous Motion in the process of learning, and the Continuous Motion of an acquired skill.  But, whether or not the learner has passed from a Physical realm to a Metaphysical realm, a more modest explanation is that Learning is constituted by the application of a Formal Cause to a sequence of Motions.  It is once that Formal Cause is incorporated in the sequence of Motions that the Motions evince Continuity.  So, from ordinary experience, the Continuous Motion-Discontinuous Motion difference can be discerned in the contrast of skilled behavior and unskilled.

Motion, Physics, Metaphysics

Modern Physics is the study of the quantification of Locomotion, the fundamental unit of which is Velocity, on the basis of which Acceleration, and, thus, Force, is defined.  The concept of Velocity is that of the average change of Distance of Motion over a period of Time, and the concept of Acceleration is that of the average change of Velocity over a period of Time.  Thus, in Modern Physics, Continuity of Motion is only approximated to, e. g. as change of Time approaches Zero.  But concrete Motion is continuous, so the inadequacy to it in Physics is due to Quantification, constituted by discrete Quanta.  So, the study of the Continuity of Motion is not Modern Physics.  Instead, probably the only alternative that has been proposed has been by Bergson--Metaphysics.  Now, the apparent peculiarity of that characterization is derived from the common use of the term as connoting a Super-Natural realm.  But if Dualism is rejected, then pure Motion can be conceived as immanent, and so, too, can be Continuity of Motion, and, thus, unquantified Force.  Now, the subject of Motion is Matter, so Spinoza's concept of Proximate Cause, in which Matter, e. g. ink on a surface, is caused to change location, can be classified as Immanent Metaphysics.