Human Philosophy
The Individual and Society
In brief, the formation of human philosophy...
  provides the essence of a concept which until now standardized only either to be "thoughtful" or "existential" in its underlying and seemingly-contradictory assumptions. Each divisively explains man's knowledge and attempts morally to prescribe ethical human behavior with implications for man's psychology while begging the question of the formative truths which first and commonly enabled to explain the incomplete   development evident within both.
  It's then that Descartes's famous maxim, "Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am,")  most explicitly advanced the essence of the "thoughtful," while the Existentialists reversed the polarity contrarily to say "I am therefore I think." The latter similarly responded to the former's prioritization of "essence—" the necessarily-expurgated detachment which is thought—over the sentient existence which rationally enabled it. "Existence precedes essence" became their battle cry as they at-least-intuitively recognized this rational fact as well as the divisive applications and limitations of our thoughtful word-concepts.
  Yet even the Existentialists—whose very name formed from this point of difference—refused to take their logic further. They used the very human language which seemingly came second as the medium of thought to express their individual forlornness. They lamented the delusions- the standardized false word-concepts- motivating others who could believe there was a common ground either in their thought or—with seeming greatest authority—sensible experience.
  The humans' formative philosophy enables to explain these two essential and essentially-divisive belief systems which we can standardize formatively to be the essence of all previous conceptual "philosophy." It does so despite our apparent ignorance of its overriding authority as we could have but haven't expressed its tenets through language—the language of word-formatives rather than concepts. Through it we can understand to know that the particular essences we even-thoughtfully impose upon what we uniquely sense or have sensed need not lead us to social contracts of social Darwinism or Machiavellian duplicity and power plays. Similarly, we need not politically accept the authority of "moral absolutists" who'd otherwise impose their conceptualized belief systems—often framed as "religion—" upon us.
  Regardless, we also could have a fully-optioned and equal place for such moral relativists and absolutists where and when we'd commonly know with them that they'd not be politically authoritative within our shared geopolitical borders. We could because and if we'd also know the common essence of what first does enable and explain all our particular essences of division, their philosophical expressions heretofore only to show the intuitive imprint of its parent's own a priori place.
  That common essence assumes applications for what we commonly can describe as rational facts and prescribe as moral facts on the source page. Its practice truly could produce the rule of moral law politically rather than the rule of individual men-also intuitively—in the guise of that codified language in its rationally-factual and immoral stead. Yet we must thoughtfully choose sensibly to enact its moral prioritizations if we truly are to form the world's first morally-exemplary nation-state.
  Until we so act individually—in moral civil disobedience, if necessary—we'll at best remain the privately-moral individuals who'd abet the particular individual rulers by and of the persons whom we sanction politically to be immoral by default. Please join with us in our effort more widely to make our kind the truly moral species it can become as well as the limitedly-sovereign one it's always been in rational fact....
     Home    Contents    Communication    Top    

Thanks for visiting The Formation Quest
Last modified on May 8, 2000