Essence  a n d  Existence II  

By   Franz J. T. Lee

19th October, 1999  

Science & Philosophy

Coseino: Dear Students, as usual, now the most interesting part of our seminar begins. I want to remind you that you could voice anything concerning our central topic, which has remained obscure. Of course, you are at liberty to defend any opinion in a scientific-philosophic manner. All views are welcome.  I see Patricia wants to contribute something, or to ask a question. Okay, Patricia, what do you have on your mind?

Patricia: Last night, until the early morning hours, our study group had a fervent discussion concerning a philosophic talk, between classes, which I had with Professor Coseino yesterday, while we were going on a spree in the University Park, trying to relieve ourselves from the permanent burden of academic stress. Last night, more and more questions popped up. In the end, we all remained confused. Let me start by asking a central question, which bothered all of us. Professor Coseino, why do you and your "Pandemonium Crew" develop a new philosophy? Has official philosophy become obsolete? Should we discard it totally, or should we enjoy it cum grano salis? Are we experiencing a New Renaissance? Is Philosophy obsolete? Has it already fulfilled its "historic" task? Quo vadis? Where do we go from here? Professor Coseino, could you, please, expound your general views concerning these questions?

Coseino: Yes, Rose, I notice you want to add something. What is it?

Rose: Sorry, I don't want to sound pedantic; also I don't want to nurture sophistry, at first, please, explain to us what you understand by "classical, traditional philosophy", and by your "new philosophy". This will enable us to compare, to differentiate the two world outlooks.

Coseino: Thanks, Rose. I have exactly that in mind. Surely, Rose, we are focusing here on "Words" or "Concepts" and their meaning, their Thinking Contents. The Cosmic Thing, das Ding, and the Ontic Thing, das Gedankending, are not identical. The first one is natural, it acts. The Earth revolves around the Sun. The Sun shines. When you and I voice the above, think the above, then the Earth, the Sun, become Ontic Things, classically called Gedankendinge. Of course, the above focus presupposes or postulates an objective and a subjective reality, formal-logically demarcated, where both are aspects of the same reality, normally of the Spirit, or the World Spirit, or God. Hence, there is a difference between a Cosmic Rose and an Ontic Rose. To call a Rose a Rose, it must firstly be a Cosmic Rose, and secondly must exist as a Cosmic Rose 
a n d  an Ontic Rose. To be a rose, it must have the cosmic elements of a rose, for example, it must not be a cloned ware, it must be fragrant, it should smell sweet. This also applies to spades, or to wines. Similarly, we have to ask: What Is Philosophy? Now, to define "Classical, Traditional Philosophy", I think you, as philosophy students, are the experts. Please tell us, what do you understand by the concept "Philosophy"? Yes, Adam?

Adam: I want to make a contribution to the question, asked by Rose, "What Is Philosophy?" I am a student of Theology, and I want to become a Roman Catholic priest. Of course, I am interested in Philosophy, especially in Catholic Philosophy. As far as I am concerned, Catholic Philosophy has its roots in Platonism and Aristotelianism, in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Philosophy reached its most beautiful blossom during the Middle Ages, in the works of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Hence, for me, the Essence, the "What Is", the Quidditas of Philosophy can be found in the Holy Bible, the Holy Scriptures, the Credo, the Paternoster and the Catechism. Certainly, although not a Divine, but a Philosophical God, Hegel's "World Spirit", at best, explains the Essence of Philosophy: His Logic is the "Thoughts of God, before the Creation of the World". As far as the common folk is concerned, philosophy came into existence when Adam and Eve ate from the "tree of knowledge", thereafter, they began to think, to become ethical, to differentiate "good from evil".

Coseino: Excellent! Agreed! Any other views, what Philosophy is? Yes, Albert. What do you think?

Albert: With all due respects, without being rude, without causing  any ill feelings! Adam, in which world do you live? Have you left the Dark Ages already? Ever heard about the Copernican Revolution? About the Renaissance, about the Reformation? About the French Revolution? About Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein? About Science? For me, Science, scientia, episteme, is the Essence of Philosophy. This the ancient Greek philosophers, the so-called "Pre-Socratics", already knew; after all, episteme, science, is their discovery. Furthermore, already in the 18th Century, episteme, elevated to scientia, had declared Roman Catholic Theology as being obsolete. Adam should call "a Rose a Rose", should call Pure Theology by its name. Surely, Philosophy is the matrix, the alma mater of Theology. Aristotle was its Socratic midwife, aided by Platonic surgery. It grew up on the Aristotelian Right, as Neo-Platonism. It plagiarized various elements from ancient mythology and it matured in the teachings of the "Fathers of the Church"; in other words, it saved itself from the "original sins" of Philosophy, and it became a divine creation of itself. It preoccupied itself with Belief, Hope and Revelation. Science fortified Knowledge, Technology and Revolution. Now, as far as I am concerned, episteme, scientia is the essence, the "what is", the quidditas of philosophy. Philosophy exists as Science  a n d  Philosophy.

Coseino: Why do you relate Science  a n d  Philosophy?

Albert: You have taught us that Quidditas IS, and that Quodditas EXISTS. Something that IS, is not related, it can be identified as such. Something that is related, for example, hydrogen  a n d oxygen, exists, exists as water. As a totality, water can be identified, but intensively, as the chemical compound, H2O, water exists related, it can be differentiated. The same applies to abstract things, ontic things, to existence, for example, the Kantian categories, space and time, to spacetime. This Einstein had explained very well. For this, I don't need beliefs, rather scientific and philosophic knowledge. As a natural scientist, I know something, I am scientific. As a theologian, I believe in something, I am religious. Like Laplace had remarked to Napoleon, as a scientist, I don't need the hypothesis, God. As a philosopher, I have to intellectualize 
a n d  to reason cosmic things, ontic things, thinking and thought. This is the reason why I relate, why I differentiate Essence  a n d  Existence, Science  a n d  Philosophy. I state this, fully respecting Adam's views. I listen to them, I think about them. I invite him to do likewise, to think likewise. only then, we can chat, debate, discuss.

Adam: Agreed!

Coseino: Patricia, I do not understand why your study group was confused. Here, in our class, its members are faring very well. Excellent. Continue. Soon I will become "obsolete".

Patricia: Perhaps, I have to correct myself. We were not quite "confused", we had problems to formulate our own ideas, new ideas, to think of, for and by ourselves, to philosophize.

Coseino: I see. I get an idea of your situation. Any other ideas what Philosophy is or should be about? I see, Alfred, you have something to contribute!

Alfred: I am a student of the Arts, of Humanities, of Advertisement, Amusement, Cinema. I also like reading Edgar Allan Poe, Agatha Christie, Arthur Conan Doyle and Raymond Chandler, scientific mysteries and detective stories. As far as I am concerned, important, elemental factors concerning "What is" in Philosophy, are the "detective elements", the mystery, the unexpected, the unknown, the lone frontiers, the "frenzy" figures, the psychic factors, "birdlike monsters", and the "twilight zones" in the "black holes" of official, traditional philosophy. I think these should be included in our New Philosophy, in New Renaissance Thinking.

Coseino: I agree. Karl, I see, you have something to offer too.

Karl: I totally agree with Alfred. We also have to include Science Writing, not Science Fiction. Something which already bothered me for a while, is the question, whether Marxist Philosophy, whether Marxism still has a Future, whether it could be beneficial towards an emancipated Future? Is Marxist philosophy, is Marxism obsolete? Can it further the New Renaissance? I think that a Virtual University, Marxism and Science Writing belong to the Essence of Philosophy.

(The bell sounds. The class is terminating.)

Coseino: Well, students, materialized time is money, but it is also an academic nuisance. Next time, instead of an introductory lecture, we will directly continue with our philosophic debate. Till then, take care!

(CONTINUE)