Hello folks, this is just an intoduction to let you know what to expect in Donald’s views.

I intend to explain how I came to theorise about the subjects in my blog http://unfeatheredangels.blogspot.com/ and try to give more detail and  logic to them. Most so called discoveries about the universe and how it originated are theories, and some theories are calculated from other theories which leaves plenty scope for error or misjudgement.

 We as nations on a planet that is so insignificant in this universe as to be the only human intelligence in it is a ludicrous and arrogant suggestion and because we have discovered and landed probes on planets near to us we think we could be the only intelligent beings in all the vastness that is space.  In my opinion we are in comparison to the real intelligence in the universe, like the cavemen hollowing out trees  forming the first primitive canoes to  utilise the water making it easier to explore and expand to other parts of our globe. We have taken the first steps to explore and expand into the universe and like the cavemen. WE will encounter other “tribes” or nations as we now call them whether it be them that return here, or us that reaches them, which, in my mind is the most unlikely of the two.

Make no mistake there has been superior beings on earth before and that is what the various writers in the bible are trying to explain to us in their naive and simple way being thrust into having to explain a technology so far advanced that they could only use the description of things  they could relate to from their era.

That is why the bible has so many interpretations. Why if as a nation with so many of our own advancements can we not at last realise that the machines we strive to invent for space travel have been here and are being described in the bible? Some of the miracles spoken about in the bible were as read “MIRACLES” to people of the biblical age and even as far as  our grandparents, but are no longer a mystery to us as some of them are being performed now on earth. Artificial insemination is one example, and of which could have been used to impregnate Mary, and one of the many theories you will find in my blog that we will discuss and dissect if need be .

If you have theories of your own do not discard them just because a scientist, or someone else THINKS they have found the answer - because until it is proven beyond any doubt it will always be a theory, and we have a long long way to go before we can verify the theories and calculations that are assumed on earth.

Related articles by Zemanta

• What Hubble Brings Us or, Patience is a Virtue (geeknewscentral.com)
• Maybe the Theory Just Sucks: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• Cosmic cousins (news.bbc.co.uk)

Aristotle’s Definition of a Science of Being Qua Being
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

Aristotle the ancient Greek philosopher came up with the science of being qua being. Metaphysics according to him is the science of being. The word ‘qua’ is a specification of the being that is to be considered. As a philosopher, Aristotle concerned himself with being qua being by carrying out investigations of things with respect to nature of the very being. Being, to Aristotle is divided into a number of categories so that being qua being will deal with being in each of the various categories.

For instance, ontology as the science of being qua being involves determining how each of the categories can be a type of being and considers how the different senses of being qua being are related. Aristotle put forth the proposition that this study of being qua being is not about content but is about the nature of the being. Consequently, this universal science studies the whole compared to special sciences that involve studying classes of unique substances. With regard to the basic meaning pattern, Aristotle says that all the senses of the word being have a relation to substance so that ousiology, which means ‘study substance’, becomes the pivotal subject matter of Aristotle’s science of being qua being.

However, Aristotle’s definition of being qua being has ambiguity. The science of being qua being thus, means the study of ‘that which is’ qua ‘thing which is’ and exactly belongs to ‘that which is’. We can contrast the generality of this kind science with sciences which will cut a piece of ‘that which is’ and study the unique characteristics of this part. The ‘qua’ locution in the being qua being indicates the respect with which the subject matter is studied. It refers to the fundamental truths that are specific to each of the ‘thing that is.’

Aristotle’s definition of science of being qua being gives general propositions of principles that are applicable to ‘that which is.’ For instance, the principle of non-contradiction is specific to beings. Here the things and aspects of ‘that which is’ will involve studying only the things that are applicable to ‘things that are.’ This enables a philosopher to investigate the truth about these things. To Aristotle the main concern of the science of being qua being is the consideration of what will make something to be called a substance so that this ‘something’ is unique in the world. Aristotle claims that the essence of a given substance is the causation or the reason for its existence. Consequently, Aristotle demonstrates that there is existence of substance. By this virtue, a thing becomes a substance. Thus, this science studies a being as a being in itself.

See Robert Hand’s video about “What is the Aristotelian definition of science?”

Philosophy as Metaphysics
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to explore the principles of reality, and reality here being what makes up philosophy. We can thus describe philosophy as the study of the real, true nature of things. Anything that cannot be explained or proven by experiment or through observation is subjected to the scrutiny of metaphysics. Often, metaphysics is said to involve the study of things which are perceived to be supernatural. There are two approaches used in metaphysics, the first one being a general study of how and why things occur as they are. The second one goes deeper to explore the found meanings and reasons for the existence of something. It brings out a different perspective from the one we know.

There are different types of metaphysics. These include; theology, ontology and universal science. Theology is religious study and can be described more specifically as the study of gods. Man’s belief in god(s) cannot be proved by anything quietly. There are various types of theology where each religion has its own theology in line with its beliefs, traditions and doctrines. Not everyone believes in theology though, markedly atheists who do not believe these gods do indeed exist. However some of them are involved in this type of metaphysics, albeit as critics. They are in it to find if there are loopholes they can use to discredit advances made theologically.

The second type of metaphysics as a form of physiology is ontology. This is the study of the nature of real things and reality as we can see it. It seeks to analyze the many beliefs put out to people and slowly eliminates those which cannot be proven with evidence, no matter how big or small. This type of metaphysics is not popular among atheists. These are people, who do not believe that god’s rather God, exist and therefore do not care about anything to do with theology and/or its implications to the world.

The third metaphysics is universal science, which seeks to explore the foundation and basics of first principles. That is to say, universal science seeks to argue the concepts we believe in by looking for ways of disputing what we believe to be true. This is the most complicated type of metaphysics law. Philosophy as metaphysics is therefore very important as it explores all aspects of our beliefs and justifies a lot of the things we may be doubtful of.

And you could also check this video about the Hindu Perspective: Metaphysics & Philosophy

Science and Metaphysics
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

Science and metaphysics are two things that are best understood in their coexistence. Separation of the two leads to a tunnel of persistent, unanswered questions with no conclusive answers. Throughout history since the days of Aristotle and Plato (who built the grounds not only for metaphysics but philosophy in general) the relationship between science and metaphysics is simplest described as inseparable.

Metaphysics is inquiry into the nature of being. Science on the other hand relative to the subject of interest, is an effort to increase the understanding of how all things matter (including reality) work. It is an inquiry into life. When taking a journey to understand the working of the universe and everything in it, science makes the first half and metaphysics completes it.

Studies in science have been able to explain very many things in this world and science continues to play such a fundamental role in understanding of everything around us. From the technology to the breakthroughs in medicine and research, there is a lot we owe to science. However that is just about it. Science has no reasons of explaining intuition or the belief that man has with divine power. Science cannot explain free will, maybe instinct but not free will. This is the part where metaphysics takes over and tries to understand and perhaps provide reasons for all these unanswered questions. Nature of the mind, existence of the soul and spirituality are some of the areas that science employs metaphysics.

The relationship as brought out thus far is undeniable. Probably the closest link between these two and the one that has been raising the most questions is the perception of reality. The space and time frame that exists is described as a state of the mind by metaphysics and that the existence of space is solely dependent on the existence of physical things and beings. Science explains that time exists in dimensions and the reality that we are in – is dimension called the present and that the future and the past are in existence at any one moment. These different approaches are not a disruption of the harmony between the disciplines; it is just one idea with two different spins.

It is still not clearly understood what precedes what, but what is for sure is that none of the two can be complete or exist independently, without demand for the other.

The Disputes between Philosophy and Religion
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

The long lasting disagreement between philosophy and religion is upholding within the European culture because we are not following Socrates’ memento to describe our word properly. The dispute started with Aristotle’s even though he praised Socrates’ hunt for the “what” of all things as very significant, since Socrates persisted that two situations had to be satisfied to attain correct thinking Inductive opinions and general explanations had to be recognized.

The initial problem that had to be conquered is the word “induction”, which Aristotle’s used to illustrate that wine abstract universal explanations from sense perceptions. This is where the contract dispute started from, making us to kill God and to proclaim all evidences of Him unfeasible. Dog men and disbeliefs which continued the argument through unclear theory like infinity, induction and the theological persistence on supernatural exposures divided the hunters of truth into the unfriendly camps of the Platonist with their everlasting ideas, the scholars of Aristotle’s with their pragmatic naturalism and the Christians divinity with their unique revelations.

A distinction between the holy and the blasphemous is that something else is missing in philosophy. Philosophers confer the phenomenon of spiritual awe, feeling of anonymity and the significance of holy objects which is diverse from having feelings of awe and anonymity around such objects within philosophy. Many religions educate believers to worship sacred scriptures but none educates scholars to respect the composed notes by William James.

It is not easy to find Hegel, Kant or Russell stating that their philosophies are exposures from a god or that their work out to be taken on faith, they base their beliefs on rational advice which may not confirm legal or successful. It is the efforts which differentiate their work from religion in religion and in religious beliefs. Reasons and arguments are eventually trailed back to some essential faith in God, gods or religious principles which have been exposed in some revelation. Miracles may not play a great part in religion but they are a widespread aspect which you don’t discover in philosophy. Nietzsche was not born of a virgin and no angel emerged to proclaim the notion of Sartre and Hume did not make the lame walk again.

The fact that religion and philosophy are different does not state that they are totally part. It is not strange for an individual to engage in both religion and beliefs since they, both gear many of the same issues. They may submit to their activity with only one period and their option of which period to use may disclose quite a lot concerning their personal perspective on life. However, it is essential to keep their distinctness in wits when considering them.

The Connection between Philosophy and Religion
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

There seems to be confusion most of the times over whether and just how religion and philosophy should be distinguished from each other. This confusion is indefensible because there are very sturdy similarity between religion and philosophy. Philosophy and religion are interconnected. These two usually deal with problems like, what is good, what it entails to live a good life, and what does it mean to live a good life. What is expected of us? Why are we here in the first place? These two mainly tend to rely on the act of reasoning. Both philosophy and religion tend to address many of the same issues.

There are similarities that show that religion can be philosophical but need not to and on the other hand, that philosophy can be also religion but need not to. It is as if we have two different words that mean almost the same. However, this is not because there are some real differences between the two, which demands looking at them as two different things even they sometimes have common characteristics. Philosophers mostly emphasize on the use of reasoning and decisive judgment while religion will make use of reasoning usually in connection to faith. Some philosophers have argued that reasoning on its own can never discover truth. This way they are describing the limitations of thinking in some way.

In religion and even in religious philosophy some reasoned arguments can be traced back to faith in God, idols, or religious beings discovered in some exposure. Religion differentiates well between the sanctified and the irreligious something, which is not found in philosophy. Many a times philosophers will converse about religious wonder, mysterious issues and the significance of sanctified items without necessary having some feelings of wonder and mystery around such items in philosophy. Religions require that people read sacred scriptures while philosophers will sometimes go back to notes on other philosophers.

Firstly, only religions have rituals. Religion marks ceremonies for vital life moments like birth, marriage, death and for different times of the year. Philosophy does not have such things as rituals. Philosophists do not adhere to any actions on rituals. The distinction between religion and philosophy should not be taken that the two are purely separate. Religion and philosophy deal with many of the same subjects. Many a times you will find a person engaged in both of the two at the same time.

Mind Intelligence And Spirit
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

The mind, intelligence and spirit are words that we come across everyday. They sometimes bring confusion because no one seems to get their definition, meaning and correlation.

The mind is a concept less understood by many people. Unlike popular belief, the mind is not a substance and cannot be studied empirically. The mind would be individual if it were a substance. The mind thus could be defined as the collection of diverse processes that allow empirical study. The processes are what we call mental processes. These mental processes are of various classes. They include perceptions, memories, beliefs and plans. This mean we can see and touch, keep memories of things past, develop certain beliefs about people and things and finally expect what to do to achieve what we want.

The mind is not exclusive to humans alone. There is animal mind and mechanical mind found in robots and machines, which have sensations and memories. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the human mind is the paradigm of mind. The mind of animals and robots is referred in analogy to the human mind. Though machines have a mind, their mental processes are not because of neurological processes.

Intelligence on the other hand is a class of processes. Thus, it is best to say that a person, an animal or a machine has intelligent processes rather than saying such possess intelligence. Intelligent processes are one class of the many classes of intelligent processes. This means the mind becomes the genus and intelligence becomes a species of the genus so that an intelligent process is a mind process. However, this does not validate that every mental process is an intelligent process. Intelligent processes are contextual. They are best understood where there is a context of application.

The spirit is another notion of the dualism of human existence. On one hand, we have actual life here on earth and on the other hand, there is that which want to become after death. Spirit means the one who breathes and the breath itself. We can therefore determine that this is the substance of life that is non-physical or that exceeds physical causes. All life hails from the spirit. The spirit refers to the spiritual processes that bear no natural causation. There are various examples of spiritual processes such as self-consciousness and free volitions. In conclusion, the mind, intelligence and spirit are intertwined.

Ethics and Reality
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

The attempt to reconcile the good for the individual with the good for all is the most pervasive problems in theoretical ethics. It is a problem which emerges in current discussions between purpose and rationalism and in more customary debate between relativism and absolutism. A crucial cause of this complexity arises from a failure to position ethics in metaphysics.

Ethics decision making is a process that involves agents choosing actions. An ethical action takes place as the extinction of events which can add to the action in many ways. It is never a lonely incidence nor is it made in an identical context to any other ethical conclusion. Ethical actions must occur in a context in which many likely actions could take place. Actions which could not have been made are not ethical decisions at all.

Ethical positions enable us to review a given action’s possessions for Goodness, previous to that deed being done. The position enables an individual to determine the good condition between two or more given options. The fortitude of whether or not a good action is presented remains with the argent. Once the action has been done, its determination is established and the deed becomes an aspect contributing to additional actions and entities. When one action donates to another action or unit then it is functioning in it.

Reality is what boxes an individual on the ear. The mirage, the capture, is to gaze beyond this, to look towards the innermost kernel. The outer husk is the deepest kernel while the look is the reality. An individual himself is real, the critical nature of reality though he or she must be smacked on the ears to be reminded of what is already known. Spiritual respect is an ever-greater embedded ness in the planet. Spiritual transcendence is only realized in total immanence, flee, avoidance, rejection are all impossible. That one is actual and here, that the place too is actual that is enlightenment.

To state that we are real is the same as saying there is no deep difference between looks and actuality though individuals experience numerous piecemeal delusions. The believe that we are not equipment of the sort that cars and trees are is the theoretical expression of a self loathing so deep and so complete that it must reject what is absolutely the case, a self loathing so powerful and so detailed that it seeks to wipe out every piece of the self that is reviled.

Much of the history of philosophy and of religion is pathological, much of it is a wrestle, an obvious wrestle just as the life of the researcher or the priest is a long wrestle from the actual world.