And so — it is within nature that everyone is inclined to expect the others to live according to his own discretion
No standpoint has an absolute and permanent validity
One question however has remained: Perhaps there is nothing else but belief?
There are men who never pose this question. They understand it word for word and that quite literally, without realizing where it aims. A personal view and attainment is all they know and see; and this view remains what else but objectivity, what else but the only truth — no matter how the horizon may in fact change under their feet, ascension or fall. Their eye is ever-present, and for as long as their head rests upon their shoulder, the personal thought will forever be the very beginning of their calculation and their estimation of horizon and that objective truth. These are the men of most impressive resolve. The finest warriors and interpreters of this battle are recruited from their ranks, ideologists and lords — if not of the entire world, or all the peoples, then at least of their district, municipality or even the household and the family. They do not even notice that they are resolute even when such resolve is unnecessary; to insist on determinations where determinations according to the nature of things have no place, and where different possibilities and different horizons open up. Where resignation is an obtrusion! But this resignation they do not see, nor do they see their own exclusiveness, and subsequently in an even more exaggerated degree they speak of the need for mutual understanding, and global concordance, because all which is not communication, agreement and concordance, and this means just this agreement and concordance with the same — is spite and treason, which deserve no consideration whatsoever let alone attention or understanding. Not only do these people believe this, but also for them a different horizon — against lightning and thunder — is simply impossible. How can anyone think differently about left being left of right!? (That right is right of left, what stupidity!!) For this reason they are UNABLE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BELIEF. Moreover as a consequence they speak of delusion addressed to the other of course, against which one must fight at all costs; and of objective truth, naturally not God's or any other, but the only one, which — with them in the centre of it all, what else — ought to be presented to everyone.
The meaning of the question is however — doubt: Perhaps Everything (Eternity) and Truth is not Total truth if the initial point of take-off is always One and the Same, always from the same word, and the only notion. Perhaps, after all, this One special notion, be it may very and personally own, is just and only belief?
KANT once wrote that people do not know, nor can they possibly know what a thing is in itself, because they do not even know what space and time are in themselves. The space is always space for man; the time is always time for man, some kind of aesthetics only, although objective and essential that which man (whether he likes it or not) sees, and that which he (willingly or not) feels and experiences. For this reason he offered to the human comprehension and thought a complete turnover which he himself compared to Copernicus, (by its significance and attainment, not by its direction): Man's view and man's thought do not adjust to an object of Itself, but the object as an occurrence, (as an occurrence, that's what he always emphasized) adjusts to man's view and man's thought, which on the basis of that view, that Insight and that mode in general had originated. If we consider that there are men who do see, although they can not recognize the colours; that not a single human eye, as a part of man and nature, can see the Infrared rays for example, unless they come directly towards the eye — fly and tumble, by the missile of yet unseen speed — we can easily see what Kant had in mind. In his time it was yet unknown that space to the bee is something more than it is to man — since the be can see the ultra-violet rays. It is known however today that the space without rays practically does not exist, there are always gravitational rays (or something like that) at least, although man can not distinguish them, since he only invents (or imagines) some kind of gravitons: there where time otherwise does and does not exist, or there where many possibilities remain, until that graviton or photon, whichever, do not reach a new particularity, or until they are caught (formed) into something particular and quite determined. Therefore Kant deserves due respect. One ought to even agree with him even though he is so diverse: and this along with an explanation, which is not difficult to put into words even two hundred years after Critique and Prolegomenon. Not only does this thing adjust — as an experience — according to man's views and ways but it also adjusts according to everything else that is particular and determined: sometimes more towards this, then more towards that (herein lies causality), one after the other and always in relation to the Whole, eternal and incomplete (and herein lies coincidence). The situation of itself for this reason is — an occurrence here an occurrence there — only a thing for ail else, in a similar way in which a part is only a part of the Whole. This is probably the last of the Copernican turnovers, again in the direction of Copernicus, thus not leaving however the man outside of things: therefore a man is like that, and not only a man, every Part is such: he unifies and puts together, he integrates the Whole and it is what it is because of him — Totality in its attempt. This integral has no final solution, it is always partial and its result is on the other hand — precisely that very Part. Or some other part. And then a third. Hence, no determined, primeval being is any more possible than it is not, because the thing of itself (a something which therefore unconditionally may exist) does not exist, that is to say it is a thing or something conditional. The thing of itself is contradictory precisely within itself. And here we have Kant's inconsistency: he claims that the object cannot be conceived of itself, yet nevertheless also that the antinomy is only within man's mind, that the object is not contradictory of itself. Even though he consistent continues to claim that the primeval being, that God, cannot be proven, in the same way in which it cannot be denied. Of course the consistency of Kant's system is in the fact that it denies both, the part and the whole; they are only man's mode of thinking — an a priori category of reason so to speak. Otherwise one is again drawn into antinomy: matter is (endlessly so) both divisible and indivisible. Nevertheless, this too can be accepted. Matter is of course, divisible in exactly this way: by the very act of dividing the circumstances change and thus its very branding, the branding of division becomes different — one meaning of the part (becomes ambiguous and) loses meaning, while another is born, and thus, so to speak, part becomes larger than the whole. Again we have a contradiction within the very object (of itself that is, i.e. in the relation to all else). A man therefore does not have to accept Kant completely. For Kant, a further example, causality is only a synthetic method of observation of man a priori. One could more easily say that, CAUSALITY IS THE INTEGRATING INERTIA OF NATURE ITSELF, inertia which because of its own relativity (the absence of one or a limited number of particular references) arises a conflict, as the causal force. Etcetera. But with Kant a dialogue is possible. His work is moreover always a new invitation to participate in this dialogue.
HEGEL did, as is known, in a special waypoint out to this inconsistency of Kant, as regards thing of itself. This thing of itself, whatever it may be, is nevertheless equal to itself, this of course — always as it is and one and only, independent that is of this or that coincidental or transient particularity. The thing of itself is like naked and plain identity, simply an eternal possibility. But just because it is alone, within itself identity and endless possibility, it is precisely in its own being undetermined and nothing, and therefore — impossible as such. Something is that which it is only for as long as it allows (makes or releases) from within itself a frontier, i.e. a difference. Even for an identity, i.e. one identity, a difference is needed, i.e. two. Etcetera. The identity is determined precisely by the fact that the personal other(ness) is drawn from within itself: it (in the mirror for example) and at least its reflection. Etcetera. Only as a separate, Individual, i.e. one among the others, therefore coincidental and transient, only in this way an object truly is — and a thing of itself. It is therefore within itself paradoxical and this contradiction is by no means only within the human mind. The very foundation of an object of itself is that contradictory logic that unity of precisely Identity, and precisely difference. Unity and Identity and again difference. Etcetera. There is no other logic and no other basis at all. This is the only possible logic, the foundation and the reason for all nature, this very nature itself. (This logic of all diversity within the consistently same, uniform, and consequently within nothing, is the Inexorable law of nature and its hardest characteristic; it is simply material that is; or in other words — matter is logical). Hegel would underline: that logic is in no way and Just logic or some idea, but it is the very objective notion of logic and absolute Idea, Idea, like God. Idea which, as the only truth of nature, and the entire objective world unveiled itself from within into its own being and otherness which again has no other exit and thus remains alone: A unity of the subjective and objective, at-it-self-and-to-be-out of nothing — and all else, a multitude, eternity. It is a wondrous power, like the unceasing drive (instinct) for movement and eternal life, and finally to think itself out — in everything else, from ever, forever. Man, throughout this, is only a part of that logic and that self-consciousness, but the part is only a part within the whole, the totality which is in its every moment — everything. The spirit of a discovering man is logic that once again and always anew becomes aware of its own self. Unveils itself towards God. Absolute Idea and God itself. — Of course, man does not have to express himself in this way, exactly the same way as Hegel did in order to perceive a notion of the overall truth that Hegel attains in his own special way. Man does not have to hold the idea in his mind even, to still remain grateful to Hegel and his idea for the opportunity and pleasure which he, as a reader, experiences as he nears the truth and firmly stands within it — within Nature. — In fact, today, some hundred and seventy years after Science of Logic, it seems that for this logical Idea of Hegel for this Truth which is the deepest essence, the essence of all essence, and all existing that is, which precisely according to Hegel is a simple adequate notion (unity and identity of the subjective and objective) — that the exact expression is Vacuum. Vacuum is indeed an all-encompassing notion, as Hegel would say. I is not only so overwhelming that it is not only here and there, this and that, i.e. in every way endless and undetermined, but it simply is and is not, it neither exists nor exists not, it is as it is simply of itself — is it nothing. And is this Nothing at least as nothing identical to itself, where and when? Of course it is, but as soon as it is, with itself like its very own essence, and very logic and the notion itself, it is already not that, but different from itself, here and now. It is therefore not only a general notion, but also something particular, a certain inter-relationship according to possibility, a mutual intermediation as Hegel would say of Plus and Minus, that Up and that Down, Is and Isn't — vacuum is an elementary particle in general, one, two. It has as a general notion, of itself and within itself, determined and developed itself into a judgment: vacuum is a possibility of an elementary particle. The possibility of this or that elementary particle, electron, proton, neutron, is already a particle of itself, therefore again — identity. It would again be impossible without differentiation, without further breakdown: of precisely this and that electron, meson, photon, (which is for example together with the given circumstances, not repeatable, so that only it can guaranty those three hundred thousand kilometres a second, so that EVEN TWO IDENTICAL ELEMENTARY PARTICLES ARE NOT IN FACT THE SAME). In this way, Vacuum has, as a general notion, developed out of itself and over the particular, over particle in general, determined itself as a conclusion: ALL THE ENDLESS MULTITUDE OF THE SO CALLED ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, electrified or not electrified, with mass or without mass, energetically significant or merely possible, etcetera — IS VACUUM'S ONLY MODE OF EXISTENCE. — The notion of vacuum has been objectified, as Hegel would say. A world is created, which, nevertheless has always existed. The idea reveals itself to itself through its second or other being in all its splendour, again, as Hegel would say. If we are not to hold onto words, we must agree with him. Of course, everyone in his own way. A personal way, on one hand, and that agreement, on the other, are that, which makes conversation — conversation. Discourse with Hegel is not only possible, but his own opus is already a discourse of itself.
KIERKEGAARD, however, is a religious philosopher, truly so, in a biblical sense. Hegel also, though, mentions God, and God to him is moreover, a part of his system, but only as an Idea — it is therefore, a philosophic God. If he even makes mention of the Bible and the God within it, i.e. Omnipotence, Hegel in a similar manner mentions India and the Buddhist God, i.e. Nothingness. For Kant, again, God somehow, is not a part of the system, even if it was no other but Kant himself who wrote a separate book — God's Kingdom (but) on earth. The world is material even though it is not known what the world is and what the matter of itself, and is created by self-imposed-momentum out of chaos. (The famous Kant-Laplass hypothesis). This self-momentum is movement before all else on the basis of mechanical forces of attraction and repulsion, whatever, this may mean of itself; and this and such law is the only God, that paramount benevolence, wisdom and beauty which govern in turn, in nature around man, and thus over the world for man's sake. For Kierkegaard, on the contrary, precisely that law, and all of the this-worldly order is only one thing, and always actually the same, even though changeable and certainly in motion — but something which has already become being. The thing is, on the contrary, in that other situation, which is not simply different, the unity of identity and difference and other speculations — but it is qualitatively different by the quality that is eternal, so that it is completely incomprehensible as an absolute difference. (To reason) forever unknown! This other (situation) is God — that which paradoxically both exists and exists not because it is genuinely free; it nevertheless came from somewhere and exists with and amongst man, sharing with him all his ephemeral and transient realm — that which exists, although it is neither here nor there, yet still, determines itself of its own will as initial cause, and chooses (affiliates itself with) a certain mode of being, once in the form in no way whatsoever different from man, and the next time, who knows how. The possibility is always there. To have an insight, feeling for it, is on one hand a matter of god's condition which was given at least once and forever — at least with one being, i.e. Christ. Man is the pivotal point, the ballast between the finite and the infinite, temporal and eternal. On the other hand, this is a matter of the man himself, every individual person, his way and his decision to reconcile his thought with paradox through faith; thought which, anyway, with its passionate inclination for the unknown, therefore God and Truth, brings its very self into state of despair where it consumes itself and subsides, hoping to be reborn again together with man, this time with entire spirit and body liberated within itself of this-worldly frailty and sin. That is — if this paradoxical leap into faith and divinity succeeds! For — nothing guarantees success. There is nothing — plainly within reach, not in the church, not in the church, not in the company of a priest, not in the vast, wide world. There is no reference or some logical idea that could systematically be repeated! In the overall repetition there is no repeating, writes Kierkegaard (in his Reapiting), — with a new-born man, the entire world is reborn — again, and anew. If man is not in a strong embrace with faith, and with a decision to exist within the faith, man is left entirely alone. To him, God cannot be proven, in the same way in which no one else can exist in his place, only he alone with his faith in God is a part of the divine and endlessly eternal, and thus proof itself becomes unnecessary. For this reason the Holy Scripture ought not to be interpreted, even less should one seek proof of its truth (and authenticity). The scripture is there for each of us to read for himself — full stop. Everyone experiences for himself. Only through God and eternity we are all one, and only to this are we indebted, and nothing and no one else such is the message of Kierkegaard. Only those who insist on confirming and proving their beliefs by all means, and therefore to impose them upon others will have to disagree with Kierkegaard, man and philosopher who himself reiterates that he cannot prove his conviction and belief. Otherwise — with Kierkegaard, discourse is possible. And this precisely in a way which he himself suggests. For example: At the beginning there was Word, and God was Word. All that came to be, came to be through It. Etcetera. Kant would say that this word is, after all, his Law; Hegel — that it is Logic. Etcetera. Such discourse would not be joined only by those who could not see within the Word — Matter, again his own faith, according to which Matter can in no way be the material Word.
BERKLEY, again, is not only religious, and biblically at that, but hi is officially religious. He was a priest. He considered it his holy vocation and duty to think about God. To write against matter, as well. (For example, the whole Treatise). For what can possibly matter be? Only the shapeless, unfeeling and inert substance of human conscience that man as such cannot even perceive or notice. That which man notices is reality, insists Berkley. This is always, a table, a writing set, this colour or that tone. Experience teaches us that man always and only notices his own ideas. For Berkley the idea is the same thing as a passive item, not the Hegelian Idea. — And that thing exists only when and curing noticing or observing, i.e. within thought which alone is creative and capable of giving cognitive form. It is self explanatory that it exists independently from any human conscience. One infinite conscience, the very objective Spirit that notices and thinks all, is the only thing that exists outside of human conscience, and not the matter that is undetemined, unnoticeable and nothing, therefore nonexistent. God as the almighty Spirit is actually everywhere, in its final form it is the human spirit, which is for God only one single idea like any and every other object. To exist, therefore, means to notice, i.e. to create and to think (spirit), and to be noticed (idea, object). And that is all. However, even with Berkley discussion is not impossible. First of all, he himself wrote that it is possible to imagine a sort of matter, which is passive-like, shapeless and present everywhere — as only a reminder so to speak, of the Lord and His own order and law (whenever and whatever man ought to objectively notice). That matter is also God's idea, and thus Berkley sees no reason why he should be against it; or for that matter, why would a ridiculous assumption to this effect be necessary. Precisely in this domain we find space for discourse. If such matter were pliable under law and logic, as it actually for Berkley already is, but if it were logical, and therefore creative of itself — is there to be found any difference, which was not intentionally and willingly introduced by man's faith? — why then would it not be god itself? After all, in the very Bible itself, God is once World, another time Lightning and Thunder here or there, third time a visage ambiguous and unknown, Light and Fire which incinerates all and turns everything to ashes, etc. And most often: God, and nothing (else). God himself is therefore, without any special form and undeterminably everywhere, from time immemorial, from ever and forever. Yes, discourse is possible with Berkley. A dialogue is impossible only if tactlessly and without understanding one insists that: matter is with space and time absolutely objective, i.e. such as it is, quite independent from this, that and human conscience. Because: if space, time and material things are so solidly such as they appear when observed and comprehended by man, just as much the same as when man does not observe and understand them — if they are such exactly and only such, then Berkley is right: when there is no man to observe them and conceive and fathom them, then there must exist God (to do that).
SPINOZA was also interesting in a very special way. On one hand, precisely because he is so natural, and to this day he is very close to the (natural) man. Once a man begins to think with his own head, truly and honestly and not favouring this Church or that Subjective force, which blurs and dims all horizons, then — as Hegel would say — at the very beginning there is no other philosophy but Spinoza's. Simply this: Nature. Nature is god and there is no other objective (vis-à-vis particular Subject and God, or whatever) matter, but all is Nature: Being — which consists not only of this or that, but which is absolutely infinite and which consists of countless, eternal, essential and most vital characteristics (attributes), while each of these in turn has its own eternal way (modus), within which finally appear different and separate, singular ways and means, i.e. final things and final events. For example: this and that something is a singular occurrence, caused in a quite natural and simple way, without any miraculous or mysterious; caused therefore precisely so and so by that other something, and subsequently produced this and that consequence, etc. an uninterrupted causal chain: always something. In one and the same moment, however, there is not only one occurrence, but here we have one, and there independently another, while the third is who knows where and how. The entire world is imperfect and incomplete, always and anew that unlimited conglomeration of transient events, yet each of them is nevertheless firmly and perfectly within its infinite causal chain; a chain which is at one instant Independent, at the next intersected with some other chain, which however, always has the same vital characteristics, otherwise interacting and intersecting would be impossible. An endless chain of countless chains, therefore, all in one; precisely within that same one vital and essential characteristic. Therefore: every something. Only one single essential characteristic of course does not exist. The body and mind, space and adequate logic, even inch by inch — ever farther and ever more differently, and god's essence is again infinite, god himself, total, one and only: every something. — That is, therefore, alright. But, on the other hand Spinoza puts here a full stop. Everywhere and strictly cause and effect ad infinitum, to perfect Infinity and absolute Existence. And precisely because of this we find Spinoza so interesting. As if he were the most difficult partner for dialogue; philosopher for whom freedom is just a cognitive necessity (eventually recognized), and not only the freedom of man, but also — here is no will or coincidence (which was used by many a man's animosity and exclusive-ness of at least one recent ideology — as a handy excuse for its own imposing). Even so, Spinoza is himself neither imposing nor taking sides (affiliating); with his Ethics he soars high above all human coincidental desires and claims, and above each and every and this-worldly narrow minded segregation and division, which after all is not so coincidental. For Spinoza, spaciousness, material space therefore, is as much god's (nature's) attribute as is thinking, i.e. logic in general. The fact that he held space and logic to be absolute did not prevent him to assume different attributes as well, claiming nevertheless that man cannot know these attributes. Today however, it is nevertheless known that red is even if only for one tenth of a promil redder (i.e. closer to orange) when one moves towards it; that colour is therefore energy, and that energy can be mass as well, meaning body and spaciousness; something different in case it moves differently, let alone the imaginary speed of light which catches up or speeds by and beyond (, how and where?). In short: these are other attributes of god. And here — the Milky Way Galaxy, place Sun, distance Earth — here man can only wonder. And precisely and exactly that: Thought is not thought just like that, at least an adequate thought for Spinoza is a natural thought, the thought of Nature itself that is, i.e. logic. And logic is, of course, precisely determined possibility, the very law of possibility in fact, always one and the same. It is the inert possibility so to speak, and yet, still of something else, something more distant and something new: Logic is a crossing, motion simply energy, the very matter. God's attributes are not so absolute and so independent to a degree and manner in which Spinoza believed them to be some two hundred or more years before Plank and Einstein for example. Spinoza's substance, which is a bottomless abyss, is not sufficient for their unification, and they are intertwined even more tightly. God's attributes are such that this substance, in the name of the Infinite, must have some point of summary, some sort of bottom and limit, here or there, i.e. everywhere and nowhere. Therefore: every something = Nothing. Absolute Existence is completely symmetric, that is absolute Non-existence. Perfect Infinity is, in the same symmetric way a perfect uncertainty, i. e. imperfection and Nothing. It may therefore be this way or that way. This is after all a place for coincidence. This is true freedom and relativity, symmetry. Yes, initiated by Spinoza. With Spinoza discourse is not only possible but also very interesting.
(From the EPILOGUE, PHILOSOPHY AND BELIEF,
translated by Nikola and Eldina Miscevic)