Essence and Existence III
By   Franz J. T. Lee

20th October, 1999  

Our Philosophy

            (A week later. Prof. Coseino sums up the previous debate.)

Coseino: Welcome back. It is a great pleasure to see you all, so eager, so inspired. As promised, we will continue our previous philosophical debate. Last time, Patricia had confronted us with a gigantic, compound question. In essence, she wanted to know the difference between our Philosophy and classical, traditional, official Philosophy. Furthermore, she wanted to know why a new philosophy should be developed. Is Philosophy, as we know it, obsolete, did it achieve its "historic" task? Can we still learn something from traditional Philosophy, as it was generated by the superstructures of ancient slave-owning societies, of feudalism, capitalism and socialism? Finally, she was worried about the Future of Philosophy, and the relevance of Philosophy for the Future. Some of our students voiced their opinions concerning these quandaries. There were theological, scientific, literary and artistic views concerning the essence of current or future philosophy. Now, let us expound other views related to the essence of philosophy in general. I note that William wants to enrich us further. Well, you had a whole week to reflect, to think!

William: Obviously, Philosophy refers to the superstructure, is a social product. And, Society concerns the human psyche, has to do with Psychology. In Greek Philosophy, doctrines concerning the psyche, the mind, were in the centre of Philosophy. Even much later, at the time of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, around the French Revolution, eminent philosophical titans like Hegel tried to illuminate the "Phenomenology Of The Mind". Psychology itself became an independent Social Science, and, among others,  Sigmund Freud, C. G. Jung, Alfred Adler, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich and Frantz Fanon made invaluable philosophic contributions, with regard to the fields of ideology, indoctrination, manipulation, fascism, racism, pathology, psychoanalysis, psychiatry, alienation, brainwashing, etc. The theories of Reich, especially the "Orgone Theory", are indispensable for the formulation of new vistas. In fact, various surreptitious projects, like the Orion, Manhattan or Philadelphia Projects and Experiments, had already applied his theories to realize exactly the opposite of what he had in mind: An Orwellian, Maquiavellian, Hobbesian Future.  Consequently, a New Psychology has to be part and parcel of the Quidditas, even more so, of the Quodditas of a New Philosophy. I notice that I am going beyond the definition of "classical, traditional Philosophy", but this is deliberate, because I don't think that the heavy bulk of Slave-Owning, Feudalist and Bourgeois Philosophy, being taught at Universities around the globe, has any emancipatory relevance for the Future, for Future Emancipation. Of course, there are precious invaluable things hidden under the sewerage, but we first have to get rid of the ideological rubbish.

Coseino: I notice that your twin brother, Bill, there in the epicentre, wants to add more fuel, more oil, to the burning crucible of future Philosophy.

Bill: Linking up with what Karl had stated before, I think that Internet is the solution to our problem. We could very simply delete the diverse communication problems of the past. We could eliminate all space and time inconveniences, by navigating in Cyberspace, transmitting instantaneous messages, via AOL, ICQ, mIRC, Yahoo, E-Mail and Voice-Mail. This is really a Cyber Revolution! We could develop a Cyber Philosophy! A Philosophy for the Third Millennium, for the New Information Age, a Global Philosophy. Prof. Coseino, is this the New Philosophy, which you have in mind?

(After a merry laughter, coming from the excited student crowd, Prof. Coseino, with a friendly smile on his face, ushers in the next section of the debate.)

Coseino: I noticed, that all of you are already fascinated by e-life, e-philosophy! Also, that the latest title-page article of Newspeak, sorry, a Freudian slip of the tongue, of Newsweek, had convinced you that "Internet Is Changing the World". Also it seems that "a mobile virus" has already affected our seminar, perhaps we need Dr. Norton or Dr. Solomon to inoculate or to cure us. In fact, Newsweek warns us, that there is no turning back:

"THE INTERNET IS NOW TRANSFORMING HOW WE LIVE, THINK, TALK AND LOVE; HOW WE GO TO SCHOOL, MAKE MONEY, SEE THE DOCTOR AND ELECT OUR LEADERS. THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE FUTURE -- IT'S ABOUT THE HERE AND NOW."
(October 11, 1999)

In fact, a pioneer Virtual University, organized by dedicated New Renaissance people, already exists in Cyberspace, and it has my full support, due to its educative and emancipatory endeavours. Nonetheless, my real beloved students, it is about time that you attend my virtual philosophy classes on Internet, don't you think that this would be an excellent idea?

(A heavy protest wave comes from all corners of the classroom.)

Patricia: We have nothing against the Virtual University! It is not our problem. It is not what you or Wilhelm Reich is warning us about. Still, we prefer this Philosophy Seminar, our own New Philosophy!  However, can it be, that our Philosophy is directed exactly against the voracious ideological typhoon, called Globalization? Professor, George wants to ask a question.

George: I am not an expert on Nihilism, but I noticed that in your philosophy, you excel or transcend towards Nothing. Could you, very briefly, explain to us the Quidditas of Nihilism?

Coseino: Interesting, interesting! No nihilist around, but certainly, some anarchists and existentialists. However, here is a brief explanation of Nihilism. The concept comes from Latin, from nihil, "nothing". Nihilism has a long tradition, dating back to Gorgias of Leontinoi, a Sophist, who philosophically had negated Being three times. Later, the term was applied to various heretics of the Middle Ages, and it was reflected in the philosophy of scepticism that originated in 19th-century Russia during the early years of the reign of Alexander II. However, even in Pre-Socratic Philosophy, only in Protagoras and Gorgias a variety of nihilism, of radical scepticism about the possibility of knowledge can be detected.

Later, Nihilism, its sceptic variety, was philosophically reproduced in Russian Anarchism. In his novel, What Is To Be Done? (1863), N. G. Chernyshevsky tried to find positive, affirmative aspects in the nihilist philosophy. Similarly, in his Memoirs, Prince Peter Kropotkin, the famous  Russian anarchist, elevated nihilism as a symbol of revolutionary struggle against all forms of oppression, tyranny, hypocrisy, artificiality and exploitation, which paves the road towards individual freedom. But, originally, what did the Greek philosophers understand by Nihilism?

Gorgias attacked the philosophic view to assign existence or non-existence (with all the metaphysical implications) to what we perceive around us. In other words, for him Being, as we perceive it, simply is not. Out there, there is simply nothing to perceive, and we can't even prove it. In other words, Quidditas Is Not, Being Is Not! There is nothing out there, which Quodditas could relate to, could think about! As we will see, modern nihilists were not quite so radical.

Firstly, Modern Nihilism represents a philosophy of "negation" of all forms of patrian social sciences and classical philosophical systems; secondly, it is a raw version of anarchism, positivism and  mechanical materialism; and thirdly, it is a rebellion against the status quo, against the Establishment; it negates all authority exercised by the State, the Church, and the Family. As far as this is concerned, Nihilism in general, has very little to do with our Philosophy. But, in particular, it has another aspect, which partially interests us. It based its quidditas , its What-Is, on nothing but scientific truth; it is convinced that science has all the cures for social problems. All evils, nihilists think, are derived from a single source, from scientific ignorance. Of course, nihilist "Science", which is Bourgeois Science, and our Science are not compatible.

The major problem of Nihilism, the precarious position of "man" located between Being and Nothingness , Pascal had portrayed  as follows:

"We burn with the desire to find solid ground and an ultimate sure foundation whereon to build a tower reaching to the Infinite. But our whole groundwork cracks, and the earth opens to abysses."

Jeanette: But, Professor, what has Nihilism got to do with Existentialism?

Coseino: My dear Jeanette, a lot. It breeds on Nothing. What are the substantive, cosmic issues in Existentialism? - The Ontology and Mode of Human Existence! What do these mean? Very briefly, Existentialist ontology is mainly interested in the primacy, which the investigation of the "nature of existence" gives to the concept of "possibility", and not to "reality", whatever this is supposed to be (see Kierkegaard and Husserl). They understand this concept, Possibility, as ontic or objective possibility, which is supposed to be the very structure of human existence; hence, a specific modality of the famous "human being". Heidegger and Sartre even claimed that "existence precedes essence". Quodditas comes before Quidditas. What a zigzag, tictac, spatial-temporal nonsense!

Jeanette: Kindly tell us about the views of Heidegger and Sartre concerning the concept "possibility".

This simply means that the "Human Being" does not have a cosmic nature, a quidditas that determines his modus vivendi et operandi " but that, rather, these modes are simply "ghostlike" possibilities from which, probably at random, he may choose some of them, and on the basis of these "chosen few" he can then project himself. This the reason why Heidegger stated that: "Dasein is always its own possibility," and why Sartre added:
"It is true that the possible is -- so to speak -- an option on being, and if it is true that the possible can come into the world only through a being which is its own possibility, this implies for human reality the necessity of being its being in the form of an option on its being."

Well, Jeanette, this needs no explanation, because it is beyond possible logical explanation. I note that Martina wants to comment something.

Martina: I am simply eager to know what existentialist "possibility" has to do with the future, with the future expectations of Humanity.

Coseino: According to the Existentialists, as Possibility, Human Existence (i.e., their strange Quodditas) is (not exists) anticipation, is projection of the future. The Future is the fundamental, temporal "dimension" of Possibility. The Past and Present, as only secondary factors,  are subordinated to the Future, to the Expectation, as Possibility; Human Existence always directs itself towards the Future.

Patricia: A week ago, Prof. Coseino, you have explained to me that You transcend Nothing, or, You excel as Nothing. This seems to me to be basically nihilistic and existential. Kindly clarify the issue.

Coseino: I am amazed what excellent students attend my class. Your question is indeed to the point. According to the Existentialists, as Possibility, Existence is also Transcendence, Being Beyond. All its constitutive possibilities organize it beyond itself. They argue that to transcend implies to move toward something that is not one's own existence. Whereto, they are not clear about, about the quo vadis?

Of course, there are many varieties of Existentialism, Sartre,  e.g., in a Hegelian manner, even distinguishes the for-itself mode of being of man's existence from the in-itself mode, i.e., the being or reality of things that he identifies with their utilizability. There are even religious forms of Existentialism (Barth, Jaspers and Marcel), but I want to rescue us from this "transcendental terror".

The "bottom line" is that Existentialism does not relate Being (Cosmos) with Existence (Einai), Nature with Society, Science with Philosophy.

This, Heidegger, in his famous essay, Was ist Metaphysik? (1929), affirmed emphatically:

"Human existence cannot have a relationship with being unless it remains in the midst of nothingness."

Patricia: It is now obvious that existentialist "transcendence" has no relation to your philosophical category, or rather triagory "Nothing".

Coseino: Now, to your question, asked earlier, concerning our own Philosophy. I also have noticed that you yourself have already referred to "our own Philosophy"; also, in reply to Rose, who insists on identification, on definition; let me say the following: Firstly, our philosophy is not the opposite of anything, it is not the negation of "classical, traditional philosophy", it does not participate in senseless duels or ossified dualism, it is not directed against idealism or materialism; in fact, scientifically  a n d  philosophically, it is not worth the trouble, to engage in any of these useless  ventures, or to participate in any of these futile adventures.

(The bell rings. End of the Seminar)

Coseino: What a Pity! We will continue with the illustration of our Philosophy next week.
 

(CONTINUE)