Tractatus Philosophicus (B.N. van Eikema Hommes)

Concerning the picture of god I connect myself gladly too the ideas of Spinoza, yet I will not follow him concerning his causal determined world view where everything exists necessary and within there is no place for the free will of people. Spinoza sees as the highest virtue, knowing nature (god) and the resulting acceptance of the necessity of the existence (there is no place for the free will). In the philosophy of Spinoza god is defined as the infinite substance, where everything necessary results from. This substance reveals himself in an infinite number of attributes, of which matter and consciousness are two of them. In fact both matter and consciousness are two expressions of the substance. One can understand this by considering the two attributes as two different dials of the same bell. The two attributes have nothing in common, but are different revelations of one and the same substance (bell). In this elegant manner Spinoza solves the dualistic problem of the spirit (consciousness) in the machine (matter). This dualism was, as it happens, a problem, which existed already centuries long and about which many philosophers (among them Descartes) broke their head. Because how is it nevertheless possible that the spirit (the consciousness) has influence on the body (the matter), whereas both have nothing in common with each other?

Regarding people we must assume the same form as the substance, yet we must disregard infinity in the case of mortal people (as an entity). A human being as an entity reveals himself as a being in the form of matter and consciousness. Yet matter and consciousness have no direct influence on each other (they are two different indicators of the same bell). This is also the reason why one will find no consciousness in the brain, the consciousness belongs to another category (attribute). One must expect no wonders of the human consciousness; if the materiel entity of a human being is lost (mortality) then also the consciousness of this same entity is lost. At sleeping and certain brain disorders we notice a same loss of the consciousness. The consciousness keeps in parallel progress with the matter (both are revelations of the same entity, the indicators on the different dials are indicating the same time). The consciousness only includes the notion of the existence (reflection), knowing that one knows. The will and the idea belong already to the matter. It is only very absurd to talk within the matter about wants, there everything is causally linked and as a result of that there is nothing to want. Also an idea without consciousness (notion) is also without meaning. Terms such as the will and the idea just really get content/meaning if they are considered in the light of the consciousness. If now a human being would only be thought as matter, then a human being would be a component of the causal world and this would mean that he cannot exceed the level of the matter (matter simply can not step outside itself), so that one does not realise that one exists, so that a free choice (want) in that world is not possible (materialistic vision). Yet the ingeniousness of the consciousness and the matter as revelations of people lays in the fact that this combination brings about as it were a synergy that gives to people the possibility to step outside themselves so that they realise that they exist. People can take distance of the things and because of this choices can be made. For lower organisms the consciousness will be of less value, then for the higher organisms such as people. The brain must give space by means of the senses to be able to realise something effectively. The consciousness is more at right when there is more to realise (higher organisms) by means of the brain in teamwork with the senses. By a just born baby the consciousness is still at a very low level, the brain gives not yet sufficient space for notion. Later this consciousness will develop fully by making parallel progress with the development of the brain. This means, that if people are able to create a being (robot), that offers just as much space for the notion as by people, then the consciousness will be automatically present.

The moment when by a just born baby the umbilical cord is cut through, man is an independent entity with a free will, as a result of which he (if adult) can be put responsible for his own actions. Of course every man is a child of his time and his will is formed by the culture within he has grown up and the information that he gathers. Under forming the will, we understand the available possibilities from which the will can choose. In their life people get involved with causes, which they can not handle or can handle with great difficulty and these have an influence on them (culture, natural disasters, impulses, sickness etc.). But more and more are people able to make use of the matter and form this to their own will. People are however not able to create matter or consciousness, they can only use it. And this leads us too the picture of a man who is like a shipper on a ship which is led by a stream to the direction of the sea, the end aim is fixed, but underway the shipper has the possibility of manoeuvring to his own insight within a certain band width. As the technical development advances this band width will become wider.

People such as they exist at this moment, have not always existed in the current form, but this is the result of millions of years of evolution. The homo sapiens have been built from the same construction pieces (molecules/atoms) as for example a stone, so that we can say in this respect that there exists an affinity between both. The question remains, if life formed itself out of dead matter or that life can only be produced through life. The big bang theory which is considered at this moment as the most dominant theory on the existence of the universe, states, that at a certain time (just before the big bang) the universe such as we know it now was concentrated in one point (singularity). Within this one point no life existed. Everything (both dead and live matter) which makes up our actual universe, must have found its origin from these singularity. We can draw but only one conclusion, namely that life has originated from dead matter and that both the people and the stone have the same causes of existence (ancestors). Nine and ninety per cent of all types which have ever lived on the earth have meanwhile died out. Several large mortality periods have occurred and because of this a lot of types have disappeared. This was always caused by natural disasters and nature has not shown a lot of pity since. The same could happen to modern people (the homo sapiens). We frequently imagine ourselves as very important and we give ourselves a special place and rights. Yet for nature we are no more than a lot of ants on an anthill. If the evolution pursues an aim, or all exists by chance, about this we can say the following. If now the infinite substance (god) is the beginning cause as a result of which everything exists and if matter follows the rules of nature, we can conclude that the evolution followed fixed causal patterns within which no freedom existed until the existence of the aware people, so that the form and the position of the matter followed necessary from the substance. After the existence of aware people these fixed patterns changed and other patterns were started up, because people also got influence within their relatively restricted horizon on the position and the form of the matter. This does not mean however that after the existence of aware people the world had been completely handed over to the random choices (chaos) of these people. People can work eventually only within the framework of the laws of nature which are fixed eternally. Therefore eventually god (the infinite substance) nevertheless stipulates the rules of the game such as that can be played. Probably there is, however, no evolutionary end aim, but it is an ongoing process which continues infinitely. However, it is clear that certainly concerning the development of mankind we can talk about an upward process, but this is no aim in itself. The evolution has produced a being, who is himself aware of its existence and that now he himself is able to influence the evolution by means of genetic manipulation. Modern people are also more and more able to prevent natural disasters to guarantee the conservation of the modern people.

Concerning usefulness the following can be said. Aware people were the first organisms whom have asked themselves questions about the usefulness of their existence. If one speaks about usefulness, then this involves in fact a certain aim. For example: the usefulness of a shoe has been laid in the protection of the foot. The aim of the shoe is therefore protection of the foot. In the same way we can translate the usefulness of the existence to the aim of the existence. If we speak about the usefulness/aim of the existence, we must keep two things in mind on which this usefulness applies. First the collective existence (all matter, among which also the people) and secondly the individual existence (people in itself). Concerning the first we have already pronounced a statement. Concerning the usefulness of individual people we can say the following. People such as we know them at this moment, have not always existed in the same form. Current aware people are a product of the evolution which started millions of years ago. Just after the consciousness had awoken by people, these people have asked themselves questions about the usefulness/aim of their existence. This indicates how relative the question of usefulness is. Our distant ancestors (where the consciousness had not yet awoken) have never asked themselves this question. They were nothing more then a part of the collective existence. They were literally not aware of their possible usefulness/aim. If the usefulness for individual people has not always existed, for what reason then do we suppose that at the awakening of the consciousness, this objective usefulness suddenly would exist. If there exists for people usefulness, then this has been related directly to the human being. The life aim (life usefulness) that originates directly from the human being, is obtaining optimum freedom of the will. This aim that is absolute by nature, does not stand under the influence of the culture in which people have been immersed (with absolute we mean, that the aim is not liable to cultural influences). The free will is the ultimate characteristic of a human being and maximum freedom leads thus to optimum satisfaction of this human being. The right of self-determination is thus the greatest gift which people can get, irrespective of the culture in which they live. Of course usefulness is also stipulated by the culture in which people have been immersed, yet one should not forget that it were the people themselves whom stood at the cradle of this culture. It is much more correct to state that there exists an interaction between the people and the culture, yet the last word remains always to the free people. Finally we can state, that free people are the creators of meaning. This means, that there does not exist a prefixed meaning, but that the meaning of the existence is laid in the fact that people themselves can give meaning to their existence. Self-determination is in these, a necessary condition. Outside the human being there is no meaning, there exists only a dynamic logical consistency.

After people reached the level of consciousness, people occupied themselves with religion. Religion is nothing else then a cultural phenomenon that (as well as culture) as an aim has to provide fixed ground under the feet of people, as a result of which they are better able in persisting in their existence. The religion served as a land-mark within a world (that could be realised) in which people felt conceited and uncertain about themselves and could not explain everything. The religion has therefore really had a function within this context. In all kinds of cultures a form of religion is found and several religions also have things in common with each other. A disadvantage of religion is however, that it gives to people less space for freedom (development), there the dogmas which underpin a religion prescribe fixed patterns which must be followed and leave little space for personal interpretation. A religion arises in a certain time and is afterwards no longer receptive for changes. Human characteristics such as angriness and happiness are frequently imputed to the highest being (god) that it is served within a certain religion. One also believes that this highest being interferes also with the individual human life. And to make this all more convincing, they let take place miracles which contradict all laws of nature. At this moment I consider the religion as a rudimentary cultural appendix. Technocratic people are no longer in need for religion in their existence, but the institutions still persist within the present society yet these will disappear over time. This does not mean that people can not have a god notion.

Within the picture of god (Spinoza) that I follow is for the traditional religion no place. God reveals himself in the form of consciousness and matter. God reveals himself in the form of the laws of nature, which indefinitely remain the same (within there is no place for wonders). God is no person, god is the infinite substance which always exists and the existence is a characteristic of his being. This implies that god knows no cause which makes him exist, but that the existence belongs to its being (causa sui). God is the cause from which everything has arisen and outside god nothing is conceivable. God wants nothing, if so this would mean that he is missing something and this would be in direct objection with his perfect ness. God also does not suffer from a human state of mind (happiness and desolation). If this would be the case, then god under certain circumstances would find himself in a less/more perfect situation and this would be in objection with his infinite perfect ness. It are all these kind of properties which people have imputed to the divine being, but they say in fact more about the human beings themselves.

Concerning ethical questions (moral standards) we can state the following. The moment men reached consciousness, they had the possibility to realise their existence. Before this moment people were organisms that persisted unconscious in their existence as a part of the causal world. But with the arrival of the conscience people, they got notion of this persisting in their existence. People started forming ideas which were related to this persisting in their existence. At that moment the terms good and bad were born. People called things good which had a positive influence on this persisting and they called things bad which had a negative influence on this. It was nevertheless not the persisting in the existence what was important to the people, but rather nourishing the phenomenon that had arisen as a result of the conscience men, namely the free will. People realised that only persisting in their existence (this was possible, as it happens, also without consciousness, as a part of the causal existence) was of a lower order then persisting in their free will. The free will is the ultimate characteristic of a human being, without these free will he denies his own being and his existence does not make sense. People will call something good, which is in accordance with their will and they call something bad when their will is opposed. People were also able to pass value judgements concerning things that happened to other people. Because of consciousness a human being is able to place himself in the situation of other people, due to this he can project on himself what happens to other people and so it is possible to judge whether a certain operation is good or bad. Conscience people are also able to realise that they are not alone in the world and because of that, will conflicts can arise if one man pushes his own will too far with respect to someone else. This pushing to far of ones own will leads to the reduction of the will of the other one. Yet by the possibility of placing oneself in the situation of another one, a human being realises that this can also happen to him, as a result of which he understands that this is no correct operation. It are these rudiments which have conducted within different cultures to the ideas concerning good and bad (terms such as good and bad exist not apart from men). Every state should be arranged in this manner, so that every man wants to conform himself with this establishment by obtaining optimum freedom. Eventually it is the task of the state to take care, that the freedom of one man (group) does not restrict the freedom of another man (group). Each state which is not focused on this limits human freedom and can be called repressive. The basic moral, which applies irrespective of culture in which people have been immersed and which originates directly from its being sounds thus: The freedom of one man (group) cannot restrict the freedom of another man (group). The state has thus become the keeper of the basic moral.

Aesthetics finds its origin at the same source as the ethica, namely the human will. This will that necessarily followed from the existence of consciousness by people, knows two possibilities. On the one hand the will can be rewarded and this causes a positive state of mind (happiness) by people, on the other hand the will can be frustrated and this causes a negative state of mind (desolation) by people. States of minds are in fact nothing else then the consequences of willing. Human acting is the subject of discussion in ethics, at aesthetics it concerns a value judgement concerning an object apart from people, which has been created or not created by these people. Since there are existing only two types of states of minds, there are two terms necessary to define these. The words beautiful and ugly which are used within aesthetics, are nothing else then substitutes for the words good and bad which are used in ethics; the only difference is the context within these words are used. As an object adjusts more to the will of people, people will mark this object as a good or nicely. An object that does not adjust to the will is regarded as badly. That the will is formed by the culture in which people have been immersed we have already indicated, this involves also that the terms beautiful and ugly as value judgements concerning an object are also influenced by culture. This explains at the same time also the different aesthetic conceptions within several cultures.

From the preceding descriptions concerning usefulness, religion, ethics and aesthetics it becomes clear that these matters must be explained out of the human being and not from something that is laying outside the human sphere. All these matters are creations of the human being. One can therefore state that people are the measure of all things. But if people change, then also the measure must change. It will be therefore for everyone clear that this measure is relative of nature and not absolute. The optical device which is used by people to look at reality has changed over the course of the evolution (we contemplate our world differently than our distant ancestors). Conscience people create the reality of ideas by means of their brain in teamwork with the senses. One can therefore state that every man forms his own reality. This does not mean that the objects outside us arrange themselves conform our ideas, but rather that our brain interprets reality in a certain manner which could have been different. Outside our subjective reality of ideas there exists an objective reality, which is hidden behind the web that is created by our senses. This does not mean that this web separates us completely from this reality. No, she follows as it were as a crust of papier-mâché the structure which we indicate as the objective reality (this is also plausible, from the fact that the sensual perception itself also makes part of the objective reality). Since people are never able to get outside their subjective sensual perceptions, it will appear for them impossible to remove this confusing crust. People will have to do with the logical indications which the brain gives us by means of the senses. With this fundamental knowledge our abstract thinking is able to form diversions (theories), which enable us to know the structure (rules) of the objective reality. Objective reality can only be known to us in an abstract form and never in a concrete sensual form. If we can form us a universal theory about the objective reality, then only we are able to project this reality completely on our abstract retina. The reason that this does not succeed until now, has been lain in the fact that our abstract knowledge is not yet complete (example: within physics there exists still no unification theory, which brings the theory of relativity and the quantum theory under one denominator). From the sensual perception of an object, we can infer a certain materiel consistency/proportion. This materiel consistency/proportion is everything what is left when an object is stripped of its sensual perception (figurative crust). This is the way an object manifests itself in the objective reality. Everything in this world can be reduced (also people) to only a certain materiel consistency/proportion and the result is the infinite materiel consistency/proportion, which we call the objective reality and which is independent of the human brain. This infinite materiel consistency/proportion is as well as the infinite consciousness nothing more then one of the infinite attributes of god. In fact knowing the objective reality relies on knowing god.

Knowing the objective reality in abstract form goes by means of the sensual experience. There exists in our known reality no idea that has not been inferred of the ideas which have been obtained by the senses. A human being is at birth a tabula rasa and there does not exist something as congenital ideas (priory knowledge) concerning the objective reality. However, there are certain structures/patterns in the brain present, yet these must firstly be filled before they are useful. All our knowledge has come about by means of induction. Deductive reasoning is only possible because the general rules have come about by means of inductive reasoning. One is able to call this a form of logical reasoning on quick sands, yet I have indicated earlier in this essay, that the sensual perception gives a logical reflection of the objective reality.

Language has taken a separate place within philosophy. Language philosophers such as Russel and Wittgenstein have created an entirely new tendency within philosophy, namely the analytical philosophy. Within this tendency a description of reality is given by means of language. Wittgenstein has developed this in his Tractatus. Words in language are reflections of the things in reality. Sentences are for their part again reflections of the facts. With reflection is mend that the logical form of the words in a sentence resembles to the logical form of the things in a fact. The world (reality) is the whole of facts. All that which does not belong to these facts (like ethics, religion and aesthetics); about that nothing can be said. The last sentence of the Tractatus sounds thus: "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

The first function of language results directly from the being which people are. We have already discussed that aware people are in the possession of a free will. It is this free will that gave content to our subjective reality. With content here is meant the rules which are used within the intersubjective relations. Of all these rules we retrieve nothing in the objective reality as defined. Rules have their function within a certain band width (language game). It are these rules from which a word borrows its meaning. Words borrow their meaning from the rules which are used within a certain language game. Here too it applies that there is a reciprocal influence between the free will and the language games. The free will is the initiator of the language games, but the language games also have an influence on the free will. The language games are in a certain way a reflection of the human being and this is also clear because the language games are a direct result of this human being. Language games do not exist without aware people. All that moves the human being (usefulness, religion, ethics, aesthetics etc.) finds its way in the form of language games. It is thus substantial important for people to say something about this (this in contrast to what is claimed in the Tractatus of Wittgenstein); there this originates from its nature. Language has within this context no ontological meaning, but is relative (the meaning of a word exists within the language games) and follows the will of the human being. Culture is nothing else then a collection of language games, which are used by a certain number of people.

The second function of language has been lain in explaining (not only describing) the objective reality. Within this context language has an ontological function. The conformation of this language is different in nature then the spoken language (ordinary language) which is intersubjective. This language aims to obtain the objective reality in abstract form on the retina. Here we do not talk of several language games, because there is only one objective reality and therefore only one language to explain it. A language should be constructed which can explain the dynamic materiel consistency (objective reality) at the lowest level of the things. Then something (the fundamental thing) will remain that in fact serves as the basis for all matter. The objective language should explain the consistency of this something and as a result this gives the possibility to men to know the objective reality in abstract form.

The existence of aware people has conducted to the shaping of an empirium in imperio (a reality within a reality). All that which has originated by means of the aware being, of this we can say that it forms the subjective reality and of this we retrieve nothing in the objective reality. Subjective reality does not exist apart from the human being (we are the measure of all things), whereas this applies to the objective reality. A subjective reality separately thought of the human being, leads to the complete solving of this subjective reality in the objective reality, of which it is also part. Dying in this respect can thus be considered as a complete going up in god.

Truly free people, are people who do not let encase themselves by the fixed patterns which are ordinary within a certain culture (first this gives true freedom and secondly this gives the possibility of escaping the relativity of the existence, because it should be clear that certain people could have been born or placed in another culture with other structures). It is not always simple for people to offer capacitance against the idea, of crawling back in the unconscious mother shell from which they have originated; yet people then deny a part of their own being and as a result they cannot be complete as human beings. No, free people stand above culture and realise that they themselves invented it. Free people do not abolish culture, but they learn to use it and they know her restrictions as a contributor of certainty. Liberal people find eternal truths in the objective reality and they build on this their fundaments. The highest virtue of people exists in knowing the objective reality, as a result of which people are able to explain everything. Knowing the objective reality will give people the opportunity to realise everything that is possible and because of this the human will (freedom) is able to reach its highest level and this then will lead to maximum happiness of the human being. It is therefore by knowing god (objective reality/infinite substance) that people will find their greatest feeling of happiness.

The free choice/will is an affaire of the notion (consciousness) and not of the matter. Matter only is not able to step outside its causal determination. An organism that not yet offers sufficient space to the notion to effectively realise something, of it we can say that its behaviour (of this organism) is causally stipulated and that here we still can not talk of a free choice/will. In fact we can state that people have liberated themselves of the materiel causality by means of the consciousness. Again we return to the ground principle on which we started this essay, namely that matter cannot reach consciousness and that because of this there must exist non-matter which provides this possibility to us. We could have formulated this also differently. A free choice does not exist within the matter (causality), for this we need non-matter (notion/consciousness) that brings this about.