Mr. O'Sullivan-
Well, I guess thanks for writing. Your email, with the subject title "website comments" was so generic I almost put it out of its misery without reading it, as it just seemed so generic, it took on for me all the appearance of spam. Fortunately I took the risk and did pop it open, but, I must say, if you've written before, I think I might have gone the other way with one of your previous emails, because I don't recall them.
Your criticisms are probably good, but they don't reflect on my mission, which perhaps, if I wrote better would have shined through with your cursory reading of my two works. I'll give you a chronological overview of my thoughts in these works.
In The Grand Unifying Theory, my premise is that science has followed recurrently and made again a succession of historically supported gaffs. The Big Bang theory is probably bunk, and steady state theory is probably the only guiding light of merit. Beyond that, with an emphasis upon the history of discovery and even more so the history of mistakes in cosmology, I take great liberty to question, while clearly stating I could be entirely wrong in the preface, that 1) not all matter in the universe is existent, that matter and space like time are being and continue to be created, 2) that galaxies, like the universe, seem not to be contracting upon themselves, but rather expanding, and spawning new galaxies as nebula spin out of them, and 3) that time is the fundamental base unit of the universe, e.g., the time quanta, hence a grand unifying theory with steady state as its herald.
After I wrote Grand Unifying, I found I could never be sure I was right, or wrong. One day I read a review of this work that stated, "this guy has done some great metaphysics" and this prompted me to read some philosophy, which led on to other works until I had read everything I could lay my hands on. Philosophy proved quite satisfying in my quest for knowledge, though here too, I took particular note of the history of philosophy, as well as the history of its wrong turns, or what I or others perceived to be wrong turns.
As Kant was persistently a theist in A Critique, I read it quite skeptically. I was not enchanted by his a priori arguments or his arguments of transcendence. For me I could not get past the idea that it's all in our heads, and there is merely a correlation to anything else, i.e., the thing in itself, and even the meaning and knowledge everyone seems to assume exists outside our heads. This led me back to the cogito where I still am today, believing this is the only foundation (like steady state) that can provide any philosophic insight of any real value.
In my work, An Illustrated Philosophy, I investigated the historic developments of as much philosophy as I muttered through from this perspective, that none of it is of any value. I approached this within the framework of writing an introduction to philosophy for young readers, and in so doing, I took liberties to systematically toss out everything I didn't see as philosophy based upon my tenet that the cogito was all there was. At one point, I even toss the cogito through the voice of Socrates, who asks Descartes, You think, do you?
All this work led me to a very pleasant feeling of satisfaction that I had leveled all the intellectual work of philosophy, that we can truly know nothing, and, the only way we think we know anything is as in the cogito through questionable sense perception coupled with what is transmitted to us by others in the present, or those who took the time to write to us from the past, but that their words were so mutable, we only receive from the efforts of others to communicate, an enchantment that leads us to construct our own meaning and knowledge (more or less ad hoc) because of the enchantment we have felt by their words and observable behavior.
I must remark here at this juncture in the story, it became quite clear to me all our belief systems, empiricism, religion, ethics, and even lesser beliefs such as nationalism, the thoughts of Rousseau and Voltaire, and even Machiavelli, Einstein of Darwin, all these belief systems were quite spongy, and especially that they changed over time as they were passed from one person to the next through this process of enchantment and recreation for each individual. Here again, it is all, the whole universe, all I can know of it, this is only in my head, even if there is a correlation to the thing in itself.
As one of the questions of philosophy is, What is the meaning of life? I felt obliged to consider it for my young readers. It was here that I made what I consider to be my great discovery, the moral imperative. To live a life that detracts not at all from the lives others will be able to live upon their entering this world. It flows seamlessly from the cogito.
Such a moral imperative is something new in philosophy, if it was something Kant presaged as being possible in the Critique. However, as enchantment is the only way I can pass it on, bequeath it, if you will, I found I had to at least make the attempt to let others know what I had found. Hence the massive shift in intent as I wrote An Illustrated Philosophy toward the end as my philosophic epiphany set in my own mind.
I have been met by some wonderfully open acceptance and some utter hostility, but this is to be expected. Humans hold a wide diversity of opinions, about life, their status, their education, and about the value of whatever belief systems they hold, as well as about the lives, status and education of and belief systems of others.
So I continue on this path, spreading the moral imperative, puffing my own great worth to philosophy as The American Philosopher in order to cut a path through the stew that is humankind, all so the moral imperative has at least a chance of making for a truly civilized world based upon philosophy. Of course there are competing interests, mine and well as everyone elses.
Only time after I have passed on will reveal if the moral imperative has any value.
Well, again, thank you for writing.
Don Robertson
Max,
Your remarks are like sweet old music to me. I too was once convinced violent revolution was coming, and it may come yet, even soon, but I've made a pretty important discovery in philosophy, which is noted on my site, but I'll give you the gist of it here.
Empirical science, which includes everything from the political science to physics all comes from the work of Aristotle, who was only rediscovered by the West at the turn of the Enlightenment. Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great, and every war since has been an empirical war, every notion of progress has been an empirical notion of progress, and very the mantle of truth has been wholly usurped by empiricism, (logic, reason, the scientific methodologies.)
Well, though important, and not the most important of my discoveries, I have discovered empiricism is a fraud, and it cannot even stand up under its own tenets. Empiricism is more like witchcraft than it is anything like human truth. The empiricists claim they are amoral as their cover for their ubiquitous immoral results that are destroying the world from every possible empirical angle. The empiricists wave "progress" in front of us, but, things honestly, from a thorough reading of history, have never been worse, and they certainly have never been more perilous for humankind. The whole notion of progress is a fraud as it is related to us by the empiricists with their shiny objects of invention, and war, and even universal suffrage, which divides us all.
My most important discovery is that all belief systems are only at a par with each other, they are all like witchcraft in this sense. We are not civilized. We are the barbarians, every human on the planet, because we are all immoral through and through, believing what is best for the most, is human truth, Utilitarianism. It is not. What is best for the future of humankind is human truth, and our selfish view of it is barbarian.
This is a wholesale claim no doubt, but hear me out.
I have discovered the irrefutable moral imperative of life. It is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives others will have available to them when they come into this world.
Cross that line, or even act without considering that line and you are immoral. Who has the right to shut the door to all humans who might otherwise follow us into this world? No one.
The moral imperative is thus required to modify every belief system to include its meaning in every step made by any human, or these steps are immoral.
I believe I can conquer the whole world and civilize it on these terms with the moral imperative.
If I can't, the alternative is worse than what you see coming.
I encourage you to keep up your call for violent revolution. This is part of the many human belief systems, and let no one tell you your ideas are any different from theirs. Sometimes humans vote with pitchforks, axes and guillotines. Right now they vote every day in Iraq with IEDs.
The world does not change easily, but I have plans that include philosophy, which is irresistable. So we shall see. We shall see.
Thanks for writing. Nice cat, eh? That picture is clickable to enlarge.
Don Robertson
----------------------------
RE: Shoichi Nakagawa, nuclear weapons policy nuance
Asia Media:
I just read an article on the BBC wherein Shoichi Nakagawa, the policy chief of Japan's governing party was quoted as saying, "the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945 was impermissible from a humanitarian point of view." and further, "the use of atomic weapons was a crime."
This is a stance with which I wholly agree, though I would add, the development, proliferations of the technology and even the dissemination of knowledge of the possibility of nuclear weapons is also a crime against humanity.
I write philosophy, and within the last year I discovered the unequivocal, irreducible, absolute moral imperative of life, which is:
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
The importance of this philosophic advance for the world is immense, and if Asia Media has any way to pass this information on to Shoichi Nakagawa, who seems to be on a correct path, this might help the world to achieve for the first time some semblance of civilization by bringing this new moral paradigm to the forefront of public policy debate.
Most sincerely,
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher 34 Main Street Unit 103 Limestone, Maine 04750 [email protected]
----------------------------
On December 18, 2006 I wrote an email to Richard Dawkins. I was pleased beyond expectation to receive a response from him, indicating he had read my email. The entirety of the correspondence is included here.
Mr. Dawklins-
I glanced at your article, Postmodernism Disrobed wherein you raise the spector of intellectual imposturing, this after I spent two days on your populist blog site conversing with the likes of your affectionadoes, mostly intellectual imposters and I've decided to write and ask, Can you handle the truth?
You are certainly bright enough in the sense that if you put your mind to it, you can probably get the gist of the fundamentals of what I have to say without much effort, but I wonder, can you get past your own knee jerking negative reactions enough to learn anything?
Well, let me try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?
1) Philosophy is the top dog of human truth.
2) Science (the broad empirical modeling system of categorization given us by Aristotle) is just another belief system founded upon mental aberations with givens that are nothing more than belief, like your religious, and even like witchcraft.
3) The best method to find a path toward truth is not empiricism, but by finding it through a path of doubt, as is the tenet of philosophy. (I'm no mystic or theist. I needn't be.)
And finally 4) put your head busy toward thinking through the implications of this, I have made the most important discovery in philosophy in thousands of years, The Moral Imperative of Life.
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
Simply put, no one has the moral right to place a bet where the wager is the future of humanity... Not for scientific achievement, not for (pseudo)-humanitarian ideals, and not for Libertarian free-tradisms.
The moral imperative is irrefutable, unless you'd like to give it a try? Though this is not how I found it, it springs seamlessly from the cogito. I discovered it less than a year ago, but have not seen the bottom of it yet.
So. The first, one important implication of the moral imperative is, the empirical modeling paradigm Aristotle and all since have devised and held up as human truth is faulty. It cannot be human truth, if it does not encompass the moral imperative. The moral imperative comes first, and then as every other step in any viable empirical reasoning process, otherwise it is immoral, and untrue in a human sense, which is the only sense we have.
I'll leave you to consider the moral imperative, but be advised, those who say of others that they are intellectual imposters, should have their feet firmly planted when others with greater knowledge than they come calling.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Limestone, Maine
Richard Dawkins
Dear Mr Robertson
Thank you for sharing with me your spoof letter. I did indeed find it moderately amusing, but you should try to find ways to make it funnier still before submitting it to The Onion or some such satirical magazine. Perhaps there is a publication that specialises in satire with a philosophical bent?
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
Don Robertson wrote:
Mr. Dawkins,
Well, I suppose, thank you for your generous letter.
I am hartened to think you read mine, even truly amazed.
My gravest apologies however, that I did not convey the import of the moral imperative well enough that you might embrace it outright. I half expected your mind to reel upon reading it, instead of the quick and humorous pathway between synapses. Perhaps it will to ease into you, what it means, perhaps not.
My very best, and again, thank you. Not being anything remotely like an academic, this is the first correspondence I have ever received from an Oxford man. I trust should your intellect ever be overwhelmed by the implications of the moral imperative of life, you will feel free to consult my unpretentious person unembarrassed. I am not proud, nor judgemental, but surprisingly, as I already stated, I am here, at least for the time being.
I will share your letter with my younger son (26) who is an admirer of yours for your Quixotic stance against religion. I have recently, similarly been trying to explain to him how any belief in the path of science is sheer animism, as the path of science is so utterly dangerous and unpredictable, that such an unrestrained path could hold out any hope against hope for humanity's future.
I guess you would leave that to those tedious and ever irksome observational scientists who have the gall to continually find that science is wrong again, and again, even as if they had a penchant for proving each theorist in their turn a speaker of half-truth, a liar or a fraud?
Observational scientists have their special place. They likely will be able to advise us all when the end science likely will precipitate is near, like a moment from On the Beach. Possibly not. It could be that from what can be deduced from the history of scientific explosions, the noted exponential increase in size and power noted there, that the next time some scientist flicks the switch, it will all be over in a commonplace flash. But of course it will still be true, just not humanly true, unless of course all these even more commonplace scientific animisms are true.
What's the expression? Oh yeh. Beam me up, Scottie. Quick!
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Limestone, Maine
-------------------------