Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Phil 3400
Bob Larmar
Mar 25, 2017
Modern day scientific materialists and positivists claim that any sound claim to true
knowledge must, by first principles, be based upon empirical and demonstrable evidence of
the physical universe. However, in this equation they leave out and ignore both the human
subject which also exist in the natural world and, to some degree, the grand canvas of
empirical evidence the overall articulated scheme the separate scientific disciplines detail.
In this essay I aim to discuss general patterns we see from physics, chemistry, biology,
ecology, linguistics and epistemology and suggest that information presented to us here can
form the basis of our intellectual and moral claims in the realms of metaphysics and ethics.
For the longest time the claim from the materialists has been that you cannot infer deeper
metaphysical meaning from basic epistemic data inferred from the natural world. However,
there is neither proof or evidence for this belief, and I am willing to argue, there is in fact,
inherent information written strictly within nature that directly contradicts this belief and that
can reveal that this belief is based on irrational motives and a political (that is to say power
based) impetus that utterly disregards the notions of objectivity and accumulative rationality.
Rather this worldview, which is rationalistic materialism, simply utterly avoids topics and
mystery and uncontrollable reality that they cannot contain in the vices of rationalistic mental
power.
That is to say, they deny the existence of anything they cant understand, because the genuine
existence of those types of things would steal reality from their grasp and question and
challenge the notions of their authoritative clasp on true, real, objective reality.
They like to think of themselves as the grand arbiters and rules of reality. They set
themselves up as intellectual gods which can determine and manipulate reality (that is, decide
what is and is not real) according to their all-powerful intellectual framework, methods and
models. I aim to challenge this power structure, and, using its own methods, show how its
Energy itself, though we are capable of observing, measuring and labeling it, and describing
how it functions, exists fundamentally beyond human intellectual capacity. In other words,
we are not capable of epistemologically penetrating its actuality, or, what it is at deepest level
of being.
We start off with the premise that what we have conceptualized as the material universe is
composed of spacetime and energy, and at more fundamental levels than that particles
and virtual particles. The issue with all of these ideas is just that, that they are abstract
formulations and they do not and cannot penetrate into the true epistemology of what things
actually are.
We here we are composed of mass energy and given that substance is an essentially and at
the deepest level mysterious to us. We must acknowledge that our fundamental starting point
when observing and considering the physical universe should be one of mystery and a
realization of our pure ignorance on a certain level. We should not be constructing ideas like
material and acting like they possess true or genuine epistemological content on the level of
metaphysics. And yet this is something like how the idea of the material universe functions
The only knowledge we can garner from our empirical observation of the universe is what
its like, how it functions and how we can relate to it. Knowing what something looks like
and how it works is not the same thing as understanding what it is. There is a deep level of
mystery that the modern materialist simply passes over and usually fails to integrate the
We have an awareness of reality, or, of our existence. This really should be the base starting
point for any philosophy: to realize that you exist and that you fundamentally have zero ideas
why or what you truly, deeply are. That we are, in fact, actually an experience of ourselves
and a deeply mysterious one at that, if we look properly at the reality of our existence. We did
not bring ourselves into being, but rather found ourselves within it. We were never given the
tools or capacities to know exactly what all things are, because such a thing would be a
contradiction. We can know, and do know however, that we do exist and that this existence
We can reconcile with ourselves that our awareness is fundamentally tied up with our
that mind exists within something that is itself not the mind, namely what we can call reality
or if we like the external world. We know further more that the reason this reality is
objectively something, than we are as finite creatures. We know that something exists,
therefore we know that something has to have always existed. Since for there to have ever
been nothing to exist, there never could have been the possibility of something existing.
Furthermore, since we know that something has always had to exist, we know that this
something that exists has existed endlessly. Since we know then, that reality has existed
endlessly, we can call it something that is line with this understanding, we can call it: the
infinite, or eternity. Here is the final piece of this logical puzzle. If we as existent conscious
awareness exist within a reality that is infinite or eternal, than we know that in some sense,
we as conscious awareness exist within that reality as parts and pieces of that reality. And
being that these reality are more objective than we are, we can fairly say, that to have an
awareness is more like being a property of the infinite that has awareness of the infinite. In
other words, that logically speaking, we are the infinites awareness of itself. This points out
and shows us that there actually is a real and objective nature to mind. That to be a mind, is to
exist as a critical function (awareness) within a reality that is objective (which is to say the
most real). And so because we contained within the infinite and are a function of awareness,
we are effectively something more objective than solely our own egos or intellectual
projections can encapsulate or for the most, fully comprehend. We exist, both in reality which
we cant know the nature and within a reality that is more objective than us, granting us the
reality as objective is equally so. The logical conclusion of this being that experience of the
mind as being a part of an objective reality is not an imaginative concept but rather a concept
So here we established two things: 1. There is no sense in which we can say what energy
actually is, and therefore, being that energy is what we are composed of, our existence is a
mystery impenetrable to the human intellect. 2. There is no sense in which we can deny the
objectivity of mind as it exists as a function within an objective reality (if we accept the
So then, lets take a look at the universe for a second and, drawing from the physical sciences
lets determine some things from empirical observation. For simplicities sake, I will visit
each discipline and draw from it just one fact to start creating the simplest concept unity that
we can create.
From physics we can see that all that composed matter is a singular substance, namely atoms
and the most basic construction of the atom (1 negatively charged electron and 1 positively
charged proton) is the hydrogen molecule. This molecule is the simplest building block of the
inhabitable world, that is to say planet earth. The principle we can pull from this is that at
neutrons and electrons, combining in different ways we get different kinds of molecule that
construct the world we live in. The principle we can take from this is that the uniformity in
nature allows itself to be added to, interlocked, interconnection, and built upon. In other
Jumping to biology, we can start off by saying that some of these more complex molecules
are cooked up in the alchemical furnaces of stars. Namely that of the carbon molecule, which
is the basic building block for organic life. A principle we can take from biology is that the
complexification of the uniform structure of atoms allows for the existence of animation, or,
Finally, moving on to ecology we can see that these animating structures, or biological
structures of life comprehensively relate to each other within a fixed and set system of
reception, transformation and distribution. The principle we can take from ecology is that
there is such a thing as symbiosis within nature. Symbiosis is defined as a relational system
of mutual benefit. With the final picture being that the sun warmths the earth, energizes the
plants, who photosynthesize the energy and create nectar for bees to enjoy. Plants also
generate oxygen which fuels animals that intake it and transform into carbon dioxide that
other plants in take and convert back to oxygen. When animals die, bacteria breaks down the
basic chemicals of the animals and it becomes part of the soil, which further nurtures and
feeds plant life. So, between biological organisms and basic chemical and physical reactions
(the sun, oxygen, carbon dioxide) there are mutually beneficial systems that allow for not
animating structures which can relate to each other in systems of mutual benefit that move
Near the end of Passion of the Western Mind, Richard Tarnas journey through Western
Philosophy he explains that with the Kantian worldview, order was simply an imposed
arrangement of the human mind (or brain) upon nature, that we possess incredible abilities to
assimilate, simplify (conceptualize) and concretize knowledge (turn it into language). This is
Kants answer to Humes problem of induction, of never having a sufficient logical basis to
explain the order we experience, in being that all of the content of our lives are merely
continuous transient experiences, from one to the next. Tarnas points out however, that the
next step of re-integration humanity must take should be a recognition of the human mind as
coming out of and as being an integral part of nature.1 In other words, he argues that the same
symbiotic principles and structure of creation that nature evidently possesses are inherent in
the brain.
This would suggest that our minds are not imposing order upon nature, but rather that nature
is imposing its own order upon own minds. I think this is an important understanding, as we
need to be able to re-connect the rational faculties of the human mind, with the physical
universe if we want to begin to make scientific arguments from logical experience towards a
coherent worldview.
1
Richard Tarnas, Passion of the Western Mind (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993).
Epistemological Constructs: Foundationalism and Coherentism
outlines the two main approaches to epistemic truth that have been historical pursued. The
first is foundationalism: the search for basic beliefs or beliefs that can be reasonably
grounded in experience of the world: empirical data in other words. The second is
coherentism, which acknowledges the necessity for empirical grounding but also stress the
extent to which all genuine epistemological content (knowledge) exists within a framework,
There is no such thing as knowledge that exists outside of the context of a logical set of
relationships, between at minimum one idea and another. This is how knowledge, finds its
ground in language and the way in which epistemology (the study of knowledge) relates to
He summarizes the basic position that the discipline has come to as fundamentally trying to
find a rest point between these two qualifiers and surmises that the closest we can get to
achieving the truest beliefs possible by a method of inference to the best explanation. He
notes that in the scientific method, given a range of data to explain we formulate the best
adequacy and theoretical elegance.2 In other words, the general consensus is, the closest we
can get to a kind of knowledge is by having the most coherent set of beliefs (logical
2
Michael Williams, Problems of Knowledge (New York, Oxford University Press, 2001)
Albert Einstein sums up the position neatly by stating that the grand aim of all science is
to cover the greatest possible number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the
smallest possible number of axioms or hypotheses.3 These are the criteria I am using to build
my argument.
Now, bringing this all together what do we have? Well I would submit that we have a basic
pattern and that pattern is: distinct parts in nature function together to become more coherent
wholes.
organisms), in Ecology (organisms relating in such a way with the molecules in the air and
In my final estimation of this pattern I would argue that this pattern can be called symbiosis
in that two basic parts of a system function in relation to each other and the result of the
functional relationship is a newer and more complicated whole. I would argue that this is the
In his essay Science and Philosophy, Alfred North Whitehead speaks of the psychology of
3
Albert Einstein, Relativity: the special and the general theory: a popular exposition (Whitehouse
Station: Bonanza Books, 1961).
unification of a plurality of things which are other than ourselves.4 In other words, we are
not our hands, eyes, nose, feet, chest, brain, skin or bones but yet these things are what make
up our selves.
Being that this is how we perceived ourselves, it is also how we perceive reality and how we
make our coherent systems of thoughts and beliefs (formulated through languages) about
reality. Indeed, even if one considers the notion of knowledge we find knowledge only exists
at minimum in the form of a sentence, which is to say knowledge must necessarily contain
some explanation of a functional relation between at least two distinct things. Here we can
see that the same pattern intrinsic in Physics and Chemistry all the way up to organic beings,
is also intrinsic in the formation knowledge and language (distinct parts in a functional
relation making up a new coherent whole). Considering Tarnas claim that we should begin
All of this is to say, that there is a basic structure and pattern in nature (or in mass-energy)
that tends in the direction of a more functional coherent whole. Even up unto the point where
human consciousness and its awareness of the infinite objective reality comes into play.
Furthermore, that the very process of the function of mind is to unify a plurality of things that
are separate and synthesize them into singular wholes. All of this within a system of energy,
mysterious but also has in it intrinsically the powers to create all of life in nature, even the
human mind and these very sentences to exist. The picture begins to reveal that the
4
Alfred North Whitehead, Science and Philosophy, (Random House, New York, 1947)
materialistic notion of a universe of incoherence and randomness is out of step with the
Having made the step to suggest that coherent logical functions and relations between words
is in fact a manifestation of a pattern within nature, suggests that more logically coherent
belief systems are actually more in step with empirical reality. And here I believe is the
beginnings of what you could call a scientific argument for the basis of rational philosophy.
I only had a few days available to write this essay so Im sure there are holes and flaws or at
least unsubstantiated evidence or claims but this is a brief outline of an argument I am going
to continue working on and a beginning attempt of bringing philosophy back to the forefront
of the battlefield.
Bibliography
Tarnas, Richard. Passion of the Western Mind. New York: Ballantine Books, 1993.
Williams, Michael. Problems of Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
North Whitehead, Alfred. Science and Philosophy. New York: Random House, 1947.
Einstein, Albert. Relativity: the special and the general theory: a popular exposition.
Whitehouse Station: Bonanza Books, 1961.