Please register or login to continue

Register Login




-This is a short essay on the topic of a new concept of philosophy and theism I have devised that could be interpreted in this prelude, as a disquisition.

For the innumerable centuries, mankind has based their precepts and concepts of philosophy patently, with the elementary premise of democracy, but have forsaken the original principles of philosophy, within the actual structure we call society. They have imposed with the advent of religion and science of the elites, the vanguard of the constitution of our teaching and learning. The discourse I shall attempt to expound in this essay of philosophy is the procurement of its relevance attached to the prolonged history of humanity, upon the Earth of which our societies have been formed in accordance, with its judicious elements. What I shall propound to the intrigued reader conscientiously is a substantial philosophy of subliminal enlightenment and pellucid interpretation. It is not a belief or hypothesis of sophistry that can be refelled, with unfounded arguments or incontrovertible facts. It was not created on the rudiments of religion or science, in its conceptual origin. Instead, the ingenuous propagation of this inception is asseverated in the disclosure of this innovative concept of philosophy called 'Anima Vitalitas.' The inference of this philosophy is analogous to the philosophy of the immemorial Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, Aeschines, Isocrates, Aristophanes, amongst others of the Hellenistic and Neoplatonist periods of philosophy. There is an intrinsic correlation to this reference and personification of personages that we can surmise, through the meticulous exploration of our meditative analysis and elenchus exposed. We have been imparted since birth, the specific erudition of our scholars and mentors that are assigned our instruction, but we are nequient to ascertain the authentic conception of the magnitude of its purport and significance as neophytes, without constructive meditation and contemplation.

The philosophy that I assert with my elaborate circumspection permits the introspection that is prescribed to the innate quintessence of the soul, and the practicality of its usage that can be construed, as empirical or nonempirical in its involute composition. There is an unparalleled contrast, between the somatic vessel that we call our human body, with the psychology of the abstract connection of what is then determined to be the human psyche or soul. The actuality of its definition can be examined, in the capacity and capability of the mental faculties projected, by the activated brain and its operative cognition uninhibitedly. Thence, the concept of this new evolution of deliberation actuated must be allowed its progress to be effectuated, in order to elaborate the efficiency of its growth in the body, the mind and the soul of a human being. The common characteristics that I attribute to this philosophy are intertwined, with the discernible traits that are reflected, within the quotidian human behaviour that is associated to ethics and utilitarianism.

What I profess as existent is recorded in the convoluted Greek idiom and pedagogy, as the fundamental tenets of philosophy, ethos, pathos, eros, logos. Ethos is the natural disposition that is accredited to our character in appearance. Pathos is the internal emotion that is associated to our grief and suffering that requires the total attainment of Eudaimonia. Eros is the composition of our sexuality, through desire or love. Logos is the heuristic recourse that is aligned to our lucid inducement, for reason and logic. These four elements applied of this philosophy are congruent to the stability and health of the mind and soul. I have included amongst these main components of philosophy, a fifth element Athanatos that means 'immortal one,' in Greek. The element of immortality is a crucial component to the soul and the quest of knowledge applicable by the Socratic method. We are observant as human beings, and ergo, we are curious in nature and proclivity. Socrates once stated that, "It is the soul, where in virtue of which we are pronounced wise or foolish, good or bad." In other words we are described by our actions and not only by our inalienable merits procured.

It is the indivisibility of the soul mentioned in the ‘Phaedo’ of Plato’ that permits the metaphysical notion of immortality and the susceptibility of our own telic mortality. It was also discussed in the psychology of the Philebus, The Symposium and the Parmenides of Plato, the Xenophon's Memorabilia, the Orphism of Orpheus, or in the Symposiums of Athens. Socrates offered four arguments for the soul's immortality: The Cyclical Argument or Opposites Argument, that explained that forms are eternal and unchanging, and as the soul always brings life, then it must not die and is necessarily "imperishable". In the Cosmogonical argument there are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: the arguments from in causa (causality), in esse (essentiality), and in fieri (becoming).They are all aligned to causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe, as a whole or processes within it.

The philosophy I avow acknowledges the presence of a singular entity that we call a universal deity or the Supernal Creator. It is a particular doxa that could be mistaken and interpreted as an addition to theosophy, with the one exception of divine reincarnation that is rejected in this philosophy. It is a philosophy intended to cause the cessation of the psychagogic trance that induces the psychedelic aberrations, psychalgia or psychasthenia that torment and disrupt the mind in acrasia. It is as well the desire to obtain happiness and balance explained to some degree by Gorgias. "Mind is the cause of all natural law and order, just as mind is the cause of the orderliness and coherence of human action", said Anaxagoras. Nature is replete with inanimate illusion that society and mankind have disguised latently, with their horrible depravity and false democracy. They have forsaken the diction and ethics of Socrates and his sapient theory of knowledge. Society has failed to implement the inductive arguments and universal definitions that Socrates once had envisioned and confabulated, with his sagacious words of axiology to his faithful followers. The ultimate objective envisaged of any implementation of philosophy is to establish a meaningful zemblanity that is obtained, by the redounding achievement of the soul and mind's protension of that elusive serendipity.

There is a core of an ambagious omphalos of the vast cosmos, as there is a delitescent omphalos in the human being that is the inner soul that gradually transcends the ad hoc boundary of the corporeal form of continual mortality. Herein is where the mind becomes more involved, in the interaction with the soul, and hereby, the immediate answer of that simultaneous progression is discovered, in the completion of the cause and effect of that connective point of convergence. Religion professes the divinity of the spirit, and science promotes the study of the body, and philosophy maintains the purity of the soul. Often, we regress in our conduct to the atavistic propensity of causation, and we alter our perception of life radically, to the complacent comfort of acceptance in society. It is not the candid admission of our nocence that is important per se that must be pronounced, instead, it is the realisation of the improper rationalisation not enunciated. The admission of that necessity formulates the precursor to the process, to recognise that erroneous omission instantly. The ability of our mind to think and advance our thoughts past the provisional stage of a conjecture is an advantage that separates us, from the other familiar species of the animal kingdom.

The evolution of our mind propels humans to explore and seek solutions of an acquisitive probability to the exallotriote problems that perplex us in obfuscation, and the answers to our inquisitive questions that are concomitant to the nature of our human axioms and presuppositions. We have been embedded with the redundancy of the dogma of religion that bounds us to the restrictive limits of the influential acquirement to our maturation as an individual entity. It negates the very nature of our clancular essence that appertains to the immortal soul. We can debate the criterion of the divinity of our soul in a consensus view, with the conventional presumption of the religious spirit of Christianity, but for the nonce, I shall proclaim the veracity of the conscience and its subjection to the cognisance of the soul and the volition of the mind to make the distinction, between logical and illogical in comparison and the moral excellence Socrates had argued with his conviction and phronesis.

Philosophy does not require the cause for prayer and supplication, or explicit acts of devotion, when it contains the palpable resource of information and mental ascesis. The humble act of entreaty can be expressed, through profound meditation and mental exertion. Meditation is an effective method that enables our mind to be mindful of the attainment of the soul's well-being. The stimulation produced by silent meditation enhances our intellect and cognition, as we are focused in the perspective expansion of the creativity in our mind and the release of the negative energy that interrupts, our mental and physical equanimity. Silence is the uninhibited manner to connect with the Creator. The addition of chants and loud words are disruptive to the soul's connection, with the creator of the universe and is an impractical futility, when we have mental telepathy for expression. When referring to telepathy, I do not imply the reading of the mind, but the connectivity of the mind in its lucidity. Words or chants can be employed as an optional preference, as long as the connection with the Creator is not interrupted and the words disjointed. At times, we have the vitality to eschew negativity, but when it is unannounced, we must strengthen our prudential resolution to reach ataraxia, with a vibrant fortitude.

The effacement of the negative thoughts or feelings are conducive to our serenity and rapture, in every aspect acquired in our lives. I shall elucidate shortly in this essay, the elements of this philosophy that I am a fervent exponent of its wise and utile practice. The contentious issue of the esoteric transmigration of the soul is paramount to its stage of absolute finality; even though it is a topic of controversy. Verily, what is indisputable is the dynamic components of the properties the mind possesses to differentiate the moral equation of good and bad. This concept is not an authentic reflection of what we take in consideration to religious connotation. Indeed, the actual connotation I refer in this philosophy is not defined, by the good and evil of our spirituality, instead, with the good and bad of our actions, when affirmed by logic. It is the basis of the recognition of ethos that allows us to apply our wisdom and ratiocination that transforms our evolving concepts of logic. This conglomeration, that is observed in epistemology, bestows the propensity to acknowledge sublimation in our behaviour, within its natural counterpoise.

The subject of the contested theory of the belief in an afterworld with the universe and the superlative Creator is consistent, with the explicable perception of a dystopian Hell or an idyllic Heaven, in a presupposed configuration of the plausible realm of the cosmos. Although the perception is mostly seen, as a conscious state of awareness than two physical abodes in the universe. In this emergent philosophy these two marked destinations are merely existential in the consciousness. Philosophy prescribes to the essomenic vision of this visible composition in existence, as determined in the validation of doctrines of religion, because the soul is existentially predestined to its continuation, once released from its somatic vessel after mortal expiry. In accordance to the ideas of this philosophy, the Creator is indefinite and unalterable in origin and in structure. He has no physicality or is plural, and he does not require a peramene abode of divinity, when his abode is the entire universe. He is a mass of an interminable force that governs the universe, without interregnum. Our soul in essence is exactly the same, a force of energy that we strive to maintain its purity at intervals, through our actions and thoughts as humans. The considerable difference is that the Creator is perfectible, and we are an imperfect creation.

The concept of Heaven and Hell in religion is not corroborated by this philosophy that disputes their ubiety as physical. Yet it is reasonably accepted and explained, as two idealistic abodes of a distinctive nature and representation, through a philosophical view
of conscious awareness opined as aforesaid. The feasibility of a place where an actual Heaven and Hell can manifest with transparency are compatible to the fundamentals of philosophy, as a draconian place for chastisement of the corrupted souls or the restive paradise, for approbation of the pure souls in the conscious awareness and perception of the soul. This concept of the afterworld was firmly established and cogitated in ancient Greece, before the arrival and incipient stage of Christianity. The enigma can be resolved, with an induction that is not exclusively a categorical affirmation of science or religion that encroaches philosophy, but a sustaining factor of scibility known metempirically, as a derivation of esoteric pantosophy. This is the consilience of other previous philosophies inter alia represented, within the metaphenomenal state of the highest magnitude that was professed, in the sententious Atticism of Plato and Socrates. Before his death Socrates declared that "Either death involves the cessation of consciousness, in which case our afterlife existence will resemble a single night of dreamless sleep, or after our death we will go to a place where all the dead are ruled over by just judges".

The preservation of the soul is invariably contingent to the preservation of the human mind and body. The soul could be manifest in the percipience of the mind's intellectual and illimitable capacity to respond to the adversities of our social and unbearable encumbrance. It also allows the body to be aligned, with the thoughts of the mind and the existence of the soul. This philosophy is not related to the encomiums of a cunctipotent deity that we must forcedly worship, in a demonstrative reverence and denomination, since it requires only the actual acknowledgement of that deity. On the contrary, it is formed on the precept of a structural hierarchy of the universe that only the intelligent minds can decipher its abstruse conundrum. It does not require a house of worship, since the Symposium is its expansive universe; although the edifice of a temple, for the purpose of the gathering of philosophers and the practice of meditation is acceptable, as a logical premise. Amongst this established hierarchy, there is accessibility of the interpretative inducement, for the imperative nourishment of the soul, the increase of the sagacity of the mind and the health of the body. The philosophy that we retain in our mind searches for the entelechy that prevents us, from straying to a monachopsis we cannot cease or abate its unwelcome intrusion, in our contemplations or colluctations volitiently. There is a constant strife in our lives to ascertain the complete enlightenment and judgement that eradicate the negative energy emitted through our indifference. We must confer from the abstract and physical components that are our soul and body, with a zetetic inference that recognises the collocation of these two forces of compatibility that are generally discovered in our genetic nucleus.

We must educe, as adducible proof the validity of the Creator, in the applicable sense of the concentric formation of the universe to which the soul pertains to its creation. There are some who choose the vocable of demiurge than creator, when depicting the non-variable ruler of the universe. We can afterwards conceptualise the teleological arguments for the Creator's existence, and of that conceivable construct, with the concurrence of philosophy. Whilst it generally assumed that Socrates himself did not believe in the one deity that is commonly known in Western civilisation as God, he did not exclude the idea of a singular deity in his articulations. We must remember that the concept of religion as it was established in Western society did not exist in the time of Socrates, with the exception of Judaism that was foreign to the majority of the Greek populace.

As for the concrete belief of the quoddamodotative presence of animated angels and scelestic demons, this form of philosophy interprets each, as a variation of a manifestation of pure or corrupted souls that can be described good or bad, as proposed by the dualistic concept of theology. The preferred adjectives or terminology we apply are not important, since the actions committed signify the clarification of each variable. There is a dubiety in this statement and unscientific declaration assumed by science and acosmism, since neither have original physical components and relativity, in consistency with their ulterior presumption. It is not for philosophy to prove or disprove their existence, but to give an adequate explication of this evolving concept. The example I have offered corresponds to the revolutionary philosophy that I ascribed to its purpose and reception. The veracious motive of this practice is based on the rudimental foundation of man's thoughts and actions, and not on the mystification of its implication. Philosophy is not limited to the claudent boundaries of physics or the righteous doctrines of religion, and the discrepancies between empirical findings and theoretical postulations are reduced to the exposition and defense of pensive perspectives expressed by each observer.

It is abundant in the mind and active in the soul of human conscience, and it is conclusive that the human heart is the engine that compels the motions of our mortal body, yet it is the immortal soul that presides over our mind. Thus, the heart in philosophy is the mind that must be constantly nourished, with intelligent thought and wisdom thereafter. We should never cease from persisting to ascertain the fulfilment of that enlightenment, in spite of the adverse effects of life that we must overcome that can overshadow our achievement of the precepts of philosophy. Philosophy is not a religion or science, and it is the practice of our defined thoughts and speech. Seldom does one reach the optimal state of the perfect practice of philosophy or the compulsive acts of physical asceticism and supererogation. Notwithstanding, one can strive to better the purity of their soul with the abstinence of absorptive corruption that shall ruin the soul and condemn it to an unmitigated irrelevance and unavoidable oblivion.

The concept of iniquity and temptation are incompatible and contradictory to this philosophy, since it is acrasia that determines our fallibility I believe. Our deeds are determined, by the awareness of our actions predisposed, to the preconception of our erroneous conduct that causes our wrongdoings and indiscretions in the first place. Contrition is not mandatory but optional for ignoscency, and consequently it is the concession of the act of absolution that is achieved, through the purity of our soul and mind, when we are effectual in our averment and purview. Pelagianism in religion is perchance, the closest to this philosophical argument to some degree. The spirit of religion is an anthropomorphic shape that is an immaterial vestige of an eicastic image of our prior physicality construed, but more intrinsic in the accreditation of religion. Thus, there is no instant prerequisite or desideratum, for either intricate justification. There are skeptics of acatalepsy that would predicate that philosophy is nothing more than a senseless view of solipsism or isolation expressed in adoxography through osmosis. However, the preclusion of philosophy does not justify the influential measure of their accuracy, since their arguments are not infallible, but a token sign of pococurantism.

Throughout centuries, philosophy has been replaced with a science that tends to acknowledge only the theories established by physicists and evolutionists, whilst the puritans of religion have proscribed any form of elenctic philosophy, as spurious heresy in unanimity. Our society has been deturpated and plagued, with imprudent forms of radical religions, subversive governments and protractive systems, such as tyranny, obligarchy, monarchy, fundamentalism, communism, socialism, capitalism that enslave humans in meaningless drudgery and zealotry, as perennial thralls of misfortune and ruination. They govern your lives and souls, as the principal creditors of your debts and sins and are the prime benefactors of your prosperity and faith until death, with their greed and corruption. The idea of fulfilment in the human being should be the visible attainment of the nychthemeral stability and quiddity that involves the attributes of our mental, physical, and emotional components, and not the dyslogistic pretension of a repressible enforcement of a putative and hermeneutic doctrine that is based on faith alone, and not on a deitic reference or empiricutic evidence that exceeds prolation. It is argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world only the wise man can understand". Indubitably, these vital components of a sui generis seity is when that philosophy is best adhered to in its actual belief and protention, and not anthropocentrism. In the paragraphs that follow, I shall begin to express the principles of this philosophy accordingly.

Hitherto, I have expounded on the commonality of this renascent philosophy, with the recognisable words, I have chosen for description subjectively, to my points of observation and commentary. The ancient philosophy of Socrates and Plato ascribed the importance of the ethos that was the character of fundamental values, the thymos that was the area of the soul where feelings are located, the eros that described the sexual desire, and the logos that was the rhetoric of logic. Let us now explore the meaning and edification of several of these concepts of optimum patration, and then the innovative concepts of this philosophy in depth, as it concerns the perplexity of ontology and reductionism, when addressing the ensoulment of the somandric nature of our mortality. The cogency of the argument I espouse of the core of this philosophy is comprised of the elements that are attached, to a foreseeable transmutation of psychosophy and are at a variance visualised, as a rare form of pareidolia beheld, by the observer of this philosophy. There is a transpicuous psychomachy witnessed in the morality and immorality of the genetic heterogeneity of humanity. The comparative description between morality and immorality are vastly different, in philosophy than they are in religion.

The moral compass in philosophy is predetermined, in the consistency of logic that takes precedence, over the instructed belief of sin and righteousness that predominate in religion. The impression that we are judged as sinners or saints in our acts is nothing more than an unavailing effort to impose guilt and opprobrium, as a justifiable reason to cleanse the spirit and body from wickedness and incapacitate our will. But in philosophy we are taught that good and bad are natural characteristics of our dispositions, and subsequently, good or bad is not defined by our shame and guilt, instead, by our deeds committed that represent our inner soul knowingly. Therefore, sin in philosophy is replaced by the actions and thoughts of acrasia. The conscience in philosophy is what replaces the mortification of religion. "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself", quoth Socrates.

Ethos the first of the components of this philosophy is the virtuous recognition of what is right from wrong, and how we perceive the difference, with our wisdom and foresight. It is extremely important that we maintain a code of ethics to distinguish the meritorious benefit, from the unjust misfortune. Then, we can properly utilise the application of logic. By insisting with our keen cognition, we enable the mind to find solutions to our problems, and the nature of our appropriate behaviour and mien to sustain our options contained in our thoughts vividly. As human beings, we can be ethical in our virtues and at the same time regardful of our defects. That is to say, we can demonstrate the benevolence of our soul, and the deficiency of our mind, when applied to actions and judgments we undertake of our idiosyncrasy.

Cognitive perception is one of these familiar attributes that enhance our ethos tremendously. It also makes us mindful of the situations and ordeals that we must confront, despite its unpredictable circumstance. It recompenses the incidence of the errors and foibles that we admit, as our defects. It projects the lucid understanding of what is right from wrong, what is logical or illogical in our actions and thoughts of premeditation or afterthought. It requires the total submission of the consciousness to effectuate the entirety of the indicative process to be successful. Herein is where the acute sense of acumen, observation and audition form the regular basis, for competency and sanity. Intuition and haptic responses of the sensorium are central to the duration of the appurtenant assessment and application of the quotient of ethos.

Pathos the second component of this philosophy is the sustainable emotion or sentiment that exudes the clear expression of our feelings that are internally linked, to the natural development of the mind. Amidst the extremity of the extrinsic force that compels emotion in humans, we often realise the gravity of its powerful effects and the instability of a consequential nature. Herewith, I mention the eutrapely of Socrates, the euthymia of Democritus, and the thymos of Plato, as an example of those contrasts in philosophy. Felicity and infelicity, or in facile terms, happiness and sadness in its composition. Thus, we frequently make the distinction, between these sudden human expressions that are antipodal to each other. It is incumbent upon us that we fully comprehend the volatility of emotions and how they affect our discipline and volition.

We must comprehend how provocation can disrupt our mind and incite the conglomerative degrees of emotions, such as remorse, sorrow, ire, envy, hatred and avidity. The compunction in these negative emotions is discernible in the errant actions that contribute to crime, murder, manipulation, revenge, vice, depression, vercordy amongst others. The opposite of this negativity of unstable emotions is found in the positivity of the laetificant emotions of gaiety, pride, patience, love, sincerity, inspiration, appreciation, influence. They are shared in relationships, friendships, associations, brotherhood, amongst others. The philosophical argument implicates the origin of our flow of emotions is seen, in the adaptation of our mind to the imposition of our will and independent resolution impeded. Therefore, we can surmise that the premise of pathos is not the necessary emotions that we emote, but the state of mind that we are presently experimenting these abrupt or gradual changes, in our mood that alter or aggrieve us afterwards.

Logos the third component of this philosophy is the irreversible logic that always corresponds to our thoughts and intellect. It is by far the most integral part of this philosophy. Without it our mind and soul would not be able to function properly or progress as human beings, and would be in a continuous cycle of a propense vacuity. We are dependent on the interposition of its increments to increase our ample wisdom that generates the nous of classical philosophy. The problem arises from the lack of control of the superfluity of thoughts that are nothing more than a mere distraction and ultracrepidarism. Logic is an innate trait we inherit from our mind, and it precedes the instinctive necessity of emotions and supersedes the prolongation of wisdom. Hence, it coexists with our primal instinct, and it is inseparable from our intelligence, but apart from our intuition. The mutual existence of logic and wisdom denotes the irrefragable complexity of the quantum of each property, irrespective of its participation and involvement. The fathomable concept of logic can be then applied, by rote and ordalium, or by acuity. It can be productive and congruent in distinct facets of our lives and serve as a monitory discretion, for the applications of sapience and sentience. Its actual function is invaluable to the evolution of our mind and soul that necessitates the conscious awareness of its veritable meaning then, through perceptible intercourse essayed. Logic can also interpret our most introverted thoughts or comportment of an intransitive or transitive nature, with an accurate effectiveness measured. It strives for the betterment of the mind and the joint pursuit of the universality of knowledge. This incredible attribute bears no extraneous need for senseless interpolation or divergence. It is simply construed in philosophy, as to be or not to be.

Eros the fourth component of this philosophy is the most controversial exponent of this practice. It is the yearning aspect of human desire for sex. This topic has been exclusively debated in society, since the introduction of religion and science. It constitutes the greatest occupation of time and thought in humans. Thus, it is the one necessity that evokes pleasure, concupiscence and love within us at will. It is perceived in society, from one extreme point of view to another, depending on observation based on religious definition or scientific value. Religion instructs in us since birth that it is solely permissible in marriage, between adults that are men and women, and in the process of reproduction. It excludes any other derivation of sex, including same sex, casual sex or healthy masturbation. Meanwhile, science concurs on the issue of reproduction, and it differs in the opinion of its moral perils of sins. Instead, science induces mankind to explore their sexuality and sexual gratification, in accordance to that reasonable need prudently. Philosophy recognises hedonism, as the highest good and proper aim of human life that includes pleasure in the sense of the satisfaction of desires. It does not acknowledge sin, for it is inexistent, since the practicality of logic discerns with sufficient nitency, the difference, between what is healthy, and what is injurious and corrupted to the body, mind and soul. The aesthetic illustration of epithumia, what Plato had described as sexual appetency or desire is equivalent to the noticeable illustration of love, and not an iniquitous act later depicted by religion. It nourishes one need from another, and fulfills the need accordingly. It is a natural function, no more or less than the need for water, food, survival, sleep, defecation and urination. The beauty of sex is that it is shared, amongst two consensual adults and expressed, through the tangibility of human relation, in a healthy and responsible manner.

Athanatos is the fifth and final component to this philosophy. The intricacy of this matter is that it is a very important haeccity of the soul in humans, and establishes the final course of our odyssey, when we have reached the end of our mortality. This prime concept of philosophy is strongly contested, by religion and science. By no means does this philosophy advocate atheism, instead, it promotes the undeniable representation of an existing and ubiquitous deity, we call the "Ultimate Creator". The word God is reluctantly accepted in philosophy to relate to religion, but is mistakenly adapted by mainstream religion to reflect superiority, from one religion to another. The use of the word God would require specification of the monotheistic God of Judaism and Islam, the God of the Trinity of Christianity or one of the Gods of Hinduism. This would equate the unambiguous meaning of philosophy to religion. The word God in itself would denote reverence and idolatry of paganism that is against the concept of the singular creator of the universe, and Lord is a lordly title to denote the distinction in class in society. Religion teaches mankind that our spirit shall either reach the eternal sanctuary of a celestial heaven or the calamitous murk of a hell. And only through redemption ours sins are cleansed and in some cases, no longer accountable.

Philosophy believes that we are ever predestined the admittance to a place in the cosmos, for immortal existence, due to the final state of our soul, whether it is a good and pure soul, or a bad and corrupted soul. Religion acquiesces with philosophy in that point, except redemption is replaced by acknowledgement. Religion consents to the concept of that perpetual abode that is named the afterworld, where we are assigned by the Creator. Birth precedes death, and mortal expiry is a natural process that does not distinguish, from human to animal, from opulence to poverty, from sickness to good health, from race to gender or youth to old age. Merely, it fulfills the unique function of its purpose, the complete transcendency of the soul before the afterlife. This consequence is an adventitious form of the confirmation of a process that begins with our birth and ends with our death, as mortal beings. Mortality is limited in duration, and we must resign ourselves to that sombre and sober eventuality. We live in life and die in death, yet we are destined to its inevitable expiration and requirement. It is the ephemeral breath we breathe of the soul daily, and the essence of the heart that beats. Whilst we mourn death in deference, with honorificabilitudinity of the respective protocol of our mortal bodies in sepulcher or interment, we must be aware that the soul of the deceased is not vagarious, or relinquished to the barathrum of nullicibity that is insinuated as purgatory. The soul or what religion calls the spirit is forever alive in energy and vitality that demands no intercessor. Although there is a transition from mortal death to immortal birth, there is no transitory place of intermediacy needed. Science dismisses the feasible nature of the afterworld and immortality, since it is not truly predicated on scientific facts or contingency. The nostalgic idea of reincarnation, as believed in Hinduism and Buddhism is incompossible in this philosophy, since our soul is existent without the need or insistence for a human vessel. In the end our just immortality is the indefinite period of our supreme universal existence, with the indivisible Creator.

In summary of this essay, we can premit this concept of philosophy in retention, with the common principle of epistemology, "To make the soul pure as possible". Philosophy, unlike religion and science is not an expository agency that requires a hypotyposis for its decisive verification, nor an exhaustive elaboration of a religious doctrine or dogma exploited, for evident gain or followers. What it shares with the tenets of science and religion is not an impactful conversion of faith or theories to thought, but the intense conviction of the discovery of the truth. There are no sacred books or texts verified or required in philosophy to follow, as in mainstream religion. The practitioner of philosophy has the vast array of different writings of the old and new philosophical forms to obtain necessary knowledge and wisdom. The study of the general concepts of the respected philosophers present or past are used for moral guidance. Socrates and Plato were not prophets, but scholars. Also, there is no requisite or imposed assuetude, for the direct implementation of a supreme authority on Earth established in religion, as in the Pope of the Catholic Church for example. The hierarchy of philosophy is retained in the sagacity and the teaching of the informative scholars and mentors that are learnt afterwards, by the diligent students of philosophy that apply these various principles with dedication.

Philosophy is the utmost guidance of the soul and mind to be pure, in definite conformity, with its principles and obedience. It is an intermediate thing that controls the id and the ego. Its unique discourse perhaps controversial is not an illusory counterfeit of the truth, but the admission of the established recourse of a comprehensive system of belief that should not remain an insoluble tacenda. It is as doxastic as any scientific theory or religious proclamation, and its invention is not an essomenic vision of a Utopia on Earth of a zoetic avatar. However, the current interrelation with religion and science does not preclude philosophy, when Daedalian zoilists or phlyarologists are not involved in the cerebral discussion. Its superlative application is compatible with the human soul, body and mind always. Quod erat demonstrandum, philosophy is not actually, the velleity of thought or action or the basic incompletion of supernumerary suppositions that are not factual or comprised of pertinence or perissology.

The perspicuous intention of philosophy is to offer an intelligible manner of observation, perseverance, practice and above all guidance; even though it is the highest study of the truth or principles that underline the genuine knowledge and awareness of the existential universe. I propose the rhetorical question, what is philosophy, if it does not serve the recipient of its practice? It cannot be deemed fanciful, when it is practical in usage, and the oldest form of expression of human thought and feelings collaborated by humanity. Humanity has evolved as an advanced species in certain aspects of society, but it has failed miserably in its meliorism, because of the anaeretic and dapocaginous effects of materialism that has not consolidated the main principles of democracy and equity aspired by philosophy. "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands".—Plato. Religion and science have been at conflict for centuries and have achieved incommensurability, for the advancement of the human soul or decipherment of the complex matter of its ambiguous nature.

In reality, the embodiment and renewal of philosophy should represent the sublime attribution to creation and its apparent acknowledgement of the pantheism of the omnipotent creator of omniscience. It is the paradox of the position between religion and science that are at opposite extremes of the argument. It can be compared in politics to the equivalence of the radical elements of conservatism and the radical elements of liberalism. Moderation does not exceed its point of views in politics, in a plethora of banal objections. Religion is the orthodox thinker and science the progressive thinker, whilst philosophy is the moderate thinker. Religion excludes all that is mostly scientific, and science all that is mostly religious, but philosophy can include sensible aspects of science and religion. It is not conducive to the myriad of plenary governments of autocracy or plutocracy, nor does it subjugate by the status of class, amongst the plebeians and patricians. Generally, it is a concept aspired by a fairer, more egalitarian society than our present societies that arrogate our liberty.

The 21st century has elevated the ethical concepts of the quondam philosophy of the ancient Greek philosophers into the modern era to a certain extent, yet there is so much dominion of the anachronistic morality of religion and the naive cynicism of science that obstructs the construction of any foundation of independent thought in our modus vivendi. Philosophy is not measured by noetic intelligence alone. It is accompanied, by universal knowledge. We are not born with either property, but possess the aptitude to become an orator of speech, a philosopher of the soul and the scribe of wisdom, if we develop our thoughts thoroughly. The usage of any philosophy does not make one ignorant and intelligent in their belief, no more than the implementation of religion and science. What we cannot interpret, we often reject, and what we fail to interpret, we simply ignore. “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance."—Socrates


Recommend Write a ReviewReport

Share Tweet Pin Reddit
About The Author
About This Story
31 Aug, 2018
Read Time
32 mins
No reviews yet

Please login or register to report this story.

More Stories

Please login or register to review this story.