The more plebeian illusion of naive realism, according to which things 'are' as they are perceived by us through our senses ... dominates the daily life of men and of animals; it is also the point of departure in all of the sciences, especially of the natural sciences. (Albert Einstein)
Nothing seems of more importance, towards erecting a firm system of sound and real knowledge, which may be proof against the assaults of scepticism, than to lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words. (George Berkeley).
For thousands of years a philosophical / metaphysical battle has been fought between Idealists and Realists. Ultimately you realise that the only definitive outcome can occur if Reality is actually discovered, as this would end all speculation and doubt by finding in favour of the Realists.
The following discussion of Idealism Vs. Realism is from the Philosophy essay (which is good). This is followed with an explanation of the idealism of Immanuel Kant and George Berkeley and some good philosophy quotes on idealism, realism and the importance of truth and reality to humanity.
Hope you find it interesting and useful - it is important!
Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived). ... All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth - in a word, all those bodies which compose the frame of the world - have not any subsistence without a mind. (George Berkeley)
Idealist philosophy believes that the mind exists, and that our sense of the external world (physical reality) is simply a construction of the mind. Given that all our knowledge is in fact a creation of the mind (imagination) it has been difficult to refute this - to get from our ideas of things to the real thing in itself (see Kant).
The experiment. Imagine an idealist philosopher in an
aeroplane at 30,000 feet. A ten second timer is activated that will eject
the 'philosopher' from the plane. They are wearing a parachute, but it
is not fastened. They must decide if they wish to fasten themselves to
the parachute or not.
This eliminates idealist philosophers / philosophy- they either fasten the parachute and thus acknowledge the truth of physical reality - or they do not and fall to their death!
This argument is a bit mischievous, but it does make two important points - that the physical laws of Nature apply equally to humans as they do to all other matter - and while it is easy to be an idealist when writing essays, we should always apply these ideas to physical reality (the ultimate determiner of truth!).
The absolute argument against idealism is Darwinian evolution. It is necessary that the physical reality of the earth and sun existed prior to our evolution, thus prior to our mind's evolution. There are many common traits of the human mind which confirm that we evolved as animals on the surface of the earth. E.g. We sleep, get hungry, seek pleasure, avoid pain, love others and lust for sexual reproduction. Idealism does not explain this - evolving as sexually reproducing animals on the surface of the earth does. Thus matter is a priori to mind. Popper's comments on idealism are pretty spot on;
Denying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional philosopher). (Karl Popper, 1975)
Postmodern philosophy assumes that there is a physical reality but it is impossible for us to know it with our limited minds. It is basically a position of skeptical doubt and uncertainty. As Ernst Mach wrote;
piece of knowledge is never false or true - but only more or less biologically
and evolutionary useful. All dogmatic creeds are approximations: these
approximations form a humus from which better approximations grow. (Ernst
While this all sounds reasonable on the surface, with closer examinations we see that it leads us to the dogma of postmodernism that 'The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths'. i.e. True knowledge of reality is impossible - we can only imagine things that do not exist, we cannot imagine things that really do exist! (Which is odd when you think about it.) Thus we see that the postmodern idea of no absolute truths is actually a contradiction, as Aristotle wrote 2,350 years ago;
Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion. (Aristotle)
I recently read a philosophy joke that summarises this problem of postmodern philosophy very well!
The First Law of Philosophy
For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.
The Second Law of Philosophy
They're both wrong.
While I admit this does make me smile, the truth is that this confusion
and contradiction in philosophy (that all is opinion!) does great damage
to what is in fact a most beautiful and important subject.
This is not trivial as the problems of philosophy always manifest as problems for Humanity, and this largely explains why our modern world suffers such profound problems (the destruction of Nature and resultant change in the Earth's climate and ability to produce clean air, water, and food - which are clearly necessary for our future survival).
Again it is worth quoting Karl Popper.
In my opinion, the greatest scandal of philosophy is that, while all around us the world of nature perishes - and not the world of nature alone - philosophers continue to talk, sometimes cleverly and sometimes not, about the question of whether this world exists. They get involved in scholasticism, in linguistic puzzles such as, for example, whether or not there are differences between 'being' and 'existing'. (Popper, 1975)
To summarise. The central problem of postmodern Philosophy is to connect our incomplete senses of the world with the real world of what exists (Kant's thing in itself). The problem is that we do not see the causal connection between things, only the effects which are representations of the mind and thus deceptive. As David Hume elegantly explains;
must certainly be allowed, that nature has kept us at a great distance
from all her secrets, and has afforded us only the knowledge of a few superficial
qualities of objects; while she conceals from us those powers and principles
on which the influence of those objects entirely depends. ...
When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. ... experience only teaches us, how one event constantly follows another; without instructing us in the secret connexion, which binds them together, and renders them inseparable. (David Hume, 1737)
So if we go back to our poor idealist philosopher free falling through space - we see the effects of this causal connection between the philosopher and the earth (the philosopher falls with an accelerating velocity), but we do not see the causal / necessary connection. We just give it a name, gravity, and then forget about it (though I am sure the falling philosopher is starting to take gravity more seriously - the necessary connection between their body and the earth!)
---------------------------Read the complete Philosophy article and the deduction of the Wave Structure of Matter in Space as the most simple science theory of reality that clearly works.
And isn't it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are. .. What is at issue is the conversion of the mind from the twilight of error to the truth, that climb up into the real world which we shall call true philosophy. .. When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato)
My purpose therefore is, to try if I can discover what those principles are, which have introduced all that doubtfulness and uncertainty, those absurdities and contradictions into the several sects of philosophy; insomuch that the wisest men have thought our ignorance incurable, conceiving it to arise from the natural dullness and limitation of our faculties. (George Berkeley)
Nothing seems of more importance, towards erecting a firm system of sound and real knowledge, which may be proof against the assaults of scepticism, than to lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words. (George Berkeley)
At first, I shall say something of natural philosophy. On this subject it is, that the sceptics triumph: all that stock of arguments they produce to depreciate our faculties, and make mankind appear ignorant and low, are drawn principally from this head, that is, that we are under an invincible blindness as to the true and real nature of things. (George Berkeley)
Hence a great number of dark and ambiguous terms presumed to stand for abstract notions, have been introduced into metaphysics and morality, and from these have grown infinite distractions and disputes amongst the learned. (George Berkeley)
George Berkeley is one of my favourite philosophers, despite the fact that I consider his conclusions on Idealism to have been a major impediment to the progress of Philosophy and the Sciences. His motivation was admirable, to find what was certain as a way of overcoming the destructive influence of Skeptics, Atheists, and Abstract Concepts masquerading as real things. Unfortunately, his conclusions are founded on errors, as becomes obvious once we know what physically exists.
So what does physically exist, what is Reality,
and how can we get from the mind and the representation of Reality to knowing
Reality itself? (Or as Kant puts it, from knowing our ideas of things to
knowing things in themselves.)
Surprisingly, the solution is very simple (once known), though philosophers should have always known that Reality must be simple, as Reality must be founded on ONE thing which is necessary to cause and connect the many things, as Leibniz explains;
Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)
Now it is clear that Space is the One and only thing that is common to all things. And I ask you all to seriously consider this! Do any of you experience yourselves not existing and moving about in Space? e.g. Driving your car, walking, the existence of your house, your children, the Motion of the Earth about the Sun - all these things require Space. What they also require is Motion (think about it), thus giving rise to the Metaphysics of Space and Motion that you see in the above heading.
Thus the error has been the foundation of the Sciences on the Metaphysics of Space and Time, and the further abstract ideas of the Motion of Matter 'Particles' and their interconnected 'Forces' (causing changes in motion / acceleration).
The Solution is to discard these abstract concepts and realise that the second thing which exists must be part of the One thing, Space, (thus it cannot be Time, or discrete 'Particles' as Kant correctly argued). And there is only one thing that can be a part of Space, and that is the Motion of Space - or more precisely, the Spherical Wave Motion of Space, which causes Matter, Time and Forces. And once we realise this we find that all the problems of modern human knowledge, that have accumulated over 2,500 years since the particle conception of matter, can be explained and solved with remarkable ease and clarity. (Please find below a number of Science Articles on the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) which will help clarify this rather abrupt summary).
Most significantly, by discarding the particle conception of matter in Space and Time, and replacing it with the Wave Structure of Matter in Space it is quite easy to correct the errors of the Idealists. For example, Berkeley writes;
By matter therefore we are to understand an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure and motion do actually subsist. (George Berkeley, 1710)
This is largely correct, Extension comes from Space, Figure comes from the Spherical shape of the Waves, and Motion is obviously the Wave Motion of Space. Thus his error is in describing matter as inert, Matter is active (wave activity), and this obviously explains why matter can move in Space, because matter is the wave Motion of Space.
With respect to our senses, and how we can sense the motion of Matter in the Space about about us, it is obvious that the concept of discrete particles causes the fundamental problem of the connection between the subject and the object. This led Berkeley to conclude that it must be 'God' who connects all things.
Everything we see, hear, feel, or any way perceive by sense, being a sign or effect of the power of God; as is our perception of those very motions.
Once we realise that matter is large, that matter and Universe are one and the same thing (as the Spherical Standing Waves determine the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite space - see Cosmology) then we unite the subject and object and thus understand how they can be connected. As Einstein and Schrodinger (who both rejected the 'particle' concept of matter) wrote;
(Albert Einstein, 1934) From the latest results of the theory of relativity it is probable that our three dimensional space is also approximately spherical, that is, that the laws of disposition of rigid bodies in it are not given by Euclidean geometry, but approximately by spherical geometry .... According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. ... I wished to show that space time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe to a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning.
(Erwin Schrodinger) What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.
This then explains how we can sense the motion of matter in the Space around us (as our Spherical In-Waves flow in through all other matter in the universe and provide us with knowledge of the 'external' world). In this way we unite the mind, body and universe as all being constructed of One thing, Space and Matter as Spherical Standing Waves the size of the universe.
And is this not a most amazing thing, to realise that we
are 'God' that we are creatures that encompass the entire universe, and
thus we rise above our naive real sense of the world (as existing in discrete
bodies, constructed of discrete particles) and finally understand our true
For the complete article see George Berkeley
Natural science (physics) contains in itself synthetical judgments a priori, as principles. Space then is a necessary representation a priori, which serves for the foundation of all external intuitions. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Time was, when she (Metaphysics) was the queen of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her object-matter, this title of honour. Now, it is the fashion of the time to heap contempt and scorn upon her; and the matron mourns, forlorn and foresaken, like Hecuba .. her empire gradually broke up, and intestine wars introduced the reign of anarchy; while the sceptics, like nomatic tribes, who hate a permanent habitation and settled mode of living, attacked from time to time those who had organized themselves into civil communities. But their number was, very happily, small; and thus they could not entirely put a stop to the exertions of those who persisted in raising new edifices, although on no settled or uniform plan. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
This can never become popular, and, indeed, has no occasion to be so; for fine-spun arguments in favour of useful truths make just as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths. On the other hand, since both inevitably force themselves on every man who rises to the height of speculation, it becomes the manifest duty of the schools to enter upon a thorough investigation of the rights of speculative reason, and thus to prevent the scandal which metaphysical controversies are sure, sooner or later, to cause even to the masses. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
If we take away the subject (Humans), or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as appearances, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. .... not only are the raindrops mere appearances, but even their circular (spherical) form, nay, the space itself through which they fall (motion), is nothing in itself, but both are mere modifications or fundamental dispositions of our sensible intuition, whilst the transcendental object remains for us utterly unknown. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Immanuel Kant is the most famous metaphysicist throughout
the history of philosophy, and there is no doubt that his 'Critique of
Pure Reason' is the most comprehensive analysis of Metaphysics since Aristotle's
pioneering work which founded this subject. Unfortunately for humanity,
Kant made one small, and yet fundamental, mistake, as I shall briefly explain.
Firstly, Kant is correct that Space is a priori, or first necessary for us to have senses (which are a posteriori). His error is to assume that Time is also a priori or necessary for us to sense the motion of matter in Space. He writes;
There are two pure forms of sensible intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space and time.
And from this he concludes that because Space and Time cannot be united, they must both be merely ideas. His error can be found in the following quote where he writes;
... even that of motion, which unites in itself both elements (Space and Time), presuppose something empirical. Motion, for example, presupposes the perception of something movable. But space considered in itself contains nothing movable; consequently motion must be something which is found in space only through experience - in other words, is an empirical datum.
Please read this quote several times, for it contains an error that has had profound repercussions for humanity. The error? That 'space considered in itself contains nothing movable'. And this error then leads Kant to conclude that;
..in respect to the form of appearances, much may be said a priori, whilst of the thing in itself, which may lie at the foundation of these appearances, it is impossible to say anything.
The solution to this error is to realise that the exact opposite is true, that Space considered in itself contains wave motions, i.e. Space physically exists as a substance with the properties of a Wave Medium and thus contains Wave Motions. Thus we should write that the two pure forms of sensible intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, are namely Space and Motion - that we must place in this a priori concept of Space the correct meaning - that Space is a Wave-Medium and thus contains within it a second thing, Wave Motion. Thus we move from the Metaphysics of Space and Time to the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and finally unite these two things that give rise to all other things.
It is also important to understand what Aristotle wrote on Metaphysics as he was very close to the truth as the following quotes demonstrate (I consider Aristotle to be the most brilliant of all philosophers).
The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is
exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have
the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and
in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has.
..about its coming into being and its doings and about all its alterations we think that we have knowledge when we know the source of its movement. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest. And to seek for this is to seek for the second kind of principle, that from which comes the beginning of the change. (Aristotle, 340BC)
There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity. (Aristotle, 340BC)
Once we solve Kant's misunderstanding of Time being a priori rather than Motion, (that the Spherical Wave Motion of Space causes not only Time, but also Matter and Forces) then we can describe Reality correctly from a new Metaphysical foundation - that Space Exists as a Wave-Medium and Matter Exists as a Spherical Standing Wave Motion of Space.
With this new synthesis of a priori meaning added to the concept
of Space, we then find that the previous errors and contradictions (paradoxes)
simply disappear. Now this is a profound solution, for this error of Matter
'particles' moving about in Space and Time has now existed for 2,500 years,
and has detrimentally influence such great minds as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche,
Mach, and Einstein, and has ultimately led to our current Postmodern Idealism
See the complete article Immanuel Kant which explains and solves Kant's Metaphysics.
(Ayer, 1956) It is possible to maintain both that such things as chairs and tables are directly perceived and that our sense-experiences are causally dependent upon physical processes which are not directly perceptible. This is, indeed, a position which is very widely held, and is perfectly consistent. At the present moment there is indeed no doubt, so far as I am concerned, that this table, this piece of paper, this pen, this hand, and many other physical objects exist. I know that they exist, and I know it is on the basis of my sense-experiences.
Einstein- Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge)
In the evolution of philosophical thought through the centuries the following question has played a major role: what knowledge is pure thought able to supply independently of sense perception? Is there any such knowledge? If not, what precisely is the relation between our knowledge and the raw material furnished by sense impressions?
There has been an increasing skepticism concerning every attempt by means of pure thought to learn something about the 'objective world', about the world of 'things' in contrast to the world of 'concepts and ideas'. During philosophy's childhood it was rather generally believed that it is possible to find everything which can be known by means of mere reflection. It was an illusion which anyone can easily understand if, for a moment, he dismisses what he has learned from later philosophy and from natural science; he will not be surprised to find that Plato ascribed a higher reality to 'ideas' than to empirically experienceable things. Even in Spinoza and as late as in Hegel this prejudice was the vitalising force which seems still to have played the major role.
The more aristocratic illusion concerning the unlimited penetrative power of thought has as its counterpart the more plebeian illusion of naive realism, according to which things 'are' as they are perceived by us through our senses. This illusion dominates the daily life of men and of animals; it is also the point of departure in all of the sciences, especially of the natural sciences. As Russell wrote;
'We all start from naive realism, i.e., the doctrine that things are what they seem. We think that grass is green, that stones are hard, and that snow is cold. But physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the hardness of stones, and the coldness of snow are not the greenness, hardness, and coldness that we know in our own experience, but something very different. The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself.'
Gradually the conviction gained recognition that all knowledge about things is exclusively a working-over of the raw material furnished by the senses. Galileo and Hume first upheld this principle with full clarity and decisiveness. Hume saw that concepts which we must regard as essential, such as, for example, causal connection, cannot be gained from material given to us by the senses. This insight led him to a skeptical attitude as concerns knowledge of any kind.
Man has an intense desire for assured knowledge. That is why Hume's clear message seemed crushing: the sensory raw material, the only source of our knowledge,through habit may lead us to belief and expectation but not to the knowledge and still less to the understanding of lawful relations.
Then Kant took the stage with an idea which, though certainly
untenable in the form in which he put it, signified a step towards the
solution of Hume's dilemma: whatever in knowledge is of empirical origin
is never certain.
If, therefore, we have definitely assured knowledge,it must be grounded in reason itself. This is held to be the case, for example, in the propositions of geometry and the principles of causality.
These and certain other types of knowledge are, so to speak, a part of the implements of thinking and therefore do not previously have to be gained from sense data (i.e. they are a priori knowledge).
Today everyone knows, of course, that the mentioned concepts contain nothing of the certainty, of the inherent necessity, which Kant had attributed to them. The following, however, appears to me to be correct in Kant's statement of the problem: in thinking we use with a certain "right", concepts to which there is no access from the materials of sensory experience, if the situation is viewed from the logical point of view. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all- when viewed logically- the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. This is not so easily noticed only because we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf- logically unbridgeable- which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions.
Thus, for example, the series of integers is obviously an invention of the human mind, a self-created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences. But there is no way in which this concept could be made to grow, as it were, directly out of sense experiences.
As soon as one is at home in Hume's critique one is easily led to believe that all those concepts and propositions which cannot be deduced from the sensory raw material are, on account of their 'metaphysical' character, to be removed from thinking. For all thought acquires material content only through its relationship with that sensory material. This latter proposition I take to be entirely true; but I hold the prescription for thinking which is grounded on this proposition to be false. For this claim- if only carried through consistently- absolutely excludes thinking of any kind as 'metaphysical'.
In order that thinking might not degenerate into 'metaphysics',
or into empty talk, it is only necessary that enough propositions of the
conceptual system be firmly enough connected with sensory experiences and
that the conceptual system, in view of its task of ordering and surveying
sense experience, should show as much unity and parsimony as possible.
Beyond that, however, the 'system' is (as regards logic) a free play with
symbols according to (logically) arbitrarily given rules of the game. All
this applies as much (and in the same manner) to the thinking in daily
life as to the more consciously and systematically constructed thinking
in the sciences.
By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also- though through no fault of his- created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful 'fear of metaphysics' arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses.
Reason is the conscious certainty of being all reality. (Hegel)
This unity is consequently the absolute and all truth, the Idea which thinks itself. (Hegel)
The only thought which philosophy brings with it to the contemplation of history is the simple conception of Reason; that Reason is sovereign of the world; that the history of the world, therefore, presents us with a rational process. This conviction and intuition is a hypothesis in the domain of history as such. In that of philosophy it is no hypothesis. It is there proved by speculative cognition, that Reason - and this term may here suffice us, without investigating the relation sustained by the Universe to the Divine Being - is Substance, as well as Infinite Power; its own infinite material underlying all the natural and spiritual life which it originates, as also the Infinite Form, that which sets the material in motion. Reason is the substance of the Universe. (Hegel)
That this 'Idea' or 'Reason' is the True, the Eternal, the absolutely powerful essence; that it reveals itself in the world, and that in the world nothing else is revealed but this and its honour and glory - is the thesis which, as we have said, has been proven in philosophy, and is here regarded as demonstrated. (Hegel)
Spirit, and the course of its development, is the substantial object of the philosophy of history. The nature of Spirit may be understood by contrasting it with its opposite, namely Matter. The essence of Matter is Gravity; the essence of Spirit is Freedom. Matter is outside itself, whereas Spirit has its centre in itself. Spirit is self-contained existence. (Hegel)
But what is Spirit? It is the one immutably homogeneous Infinite - pure Identity - which in its second phrase separates itself from itself and makes this second aspect its own polar opposite, namely as existence for and in Self as contrasted with the Universal. (Hegel)
Idealism Definition - In the late seventeenth century the term 'idealist' was used by Leibniz to refer to a philosopher who gave priority to the human mind, who attached lesser importance to the senses and who opposed materialism. He referred to Plato as 'the greatest of the idealists', associating the Greek philosopher with doubts about the existence of a material world. Kant sought to mediate and, in his way, overcome the dispute between the idealists and the realists. (One Hundred Twentieth Century Philosophers, 1998)
Absolute Idealism Definition - regards
the world of sense as only partially real. Human knowledge, or what passes
as such, is highly fragmentary and partial. True knowledge is of propositions
that perfectly cohere with one another. Whatever is real is an aspect of
the eternal consciousness or Absolute Spirit. Tendency to pantheism and
A form of idealism that stems from Schelling and Hegel. ... Forms developed in England by Bradley, Joachim and Bosanquet. In America, by Royce, Calkins and Blanshard. (One Hundred Twentieth Century Philosophers, 1998)
Metaphysics: Scientific Language for Describing Reality - Deducing Reality - Science Principles, Scientific Method. A New Metaphysical Foundation for Science - On Space and Motion rather than Space and Time - Wave Motion of Space Causes Matter, Time and Forces.
Metaphysics - Short summary of metaphysics and a simple solution founded on the metaphysics of Space and wave Motion (matter, time and forces are caused by the wave motion of Space).
Philosophy - From postmodern relative truths to true knowledge of physical reality and thus wisdom from absolute truth.
Metaphysics: Philosophy - Uniting Metaphysics and Philosophy by Solving Hume's Problem of Causation, Kant's Critical Idealism, Popper's Problem of Induction, Kuhn's Paradigm.
Metaphysics: Skepticism Skeptics Skeptic - On Truth and Certainty - Scientific Minds are Skeptical and Open. On how we can be certain we know the Truth about Reality.
Philosophy: Postmodernism - On Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Popper Kuhn. The End of Postmodernism Relativism & the Rise of Realism.
Berkeley, George - Explaining Berkeley's Idealism from Realism of Wave Structure of Matter in Space. On how our Mind is Interconnected to our Body and all other Matter in the Universe.
Hegel, Georg W F - Hegel's Idealism, Spirit and Unity (Synthesis of Thesis and Antithesis) explained by Realism of the Wave Structure of Matter in One Space. Uniting the 'particle' (Thesis / Wave-Center) and that which is not the particle, i.e. the field (Antithesis / Spherical In Out Waves) as One (Synthesis / Spherical Standing Wave in Space).
Kant, Immanuel - Space and Motion (not Time) as Synthetic a priori Foundations for Human Knowledge and Reason. From Kantian Idealism to Realism.
Nietzsche, Friedrich - Famous Philosopher Nietzsche on Postmodernism and Beyond Good and Evil. Re-defining God!. God is not Dead, God is What Exists and Causes all things thus God is Space and (Wave) Motion.
Plato - On Plato's Republic - Plato appreciated that all Truth comes from Reality and this Truth was profoundly important to the future of Humanity. 'Till Philosophers are Kings, or Kings are Philosophers there is no Hope for Humanity'
'The Gift of Truth Excels all Other Gifts.' (Buddha)
One of the top ten shops at Cafepress for the past two years (out of 3 million shops!).
A brilliant collection of portraits and quotes from 500 of the greatest minds in human history.
|Large Posters - Small Posters - Mini Poster Prints - Framed Poster Panel Prints - 2010 Wall Calendars - Journals / Diaries - Postcards - Greeting Cards - Mousepads - Bumper Stickers - Coffee Cups, Mugs & Beer Steins - Wall / Time Clocks - Buttons / Badges - Fridge Magnets - Jewelry Box & Coasters|
Ancient Greek Philosophy
Chinese Indian Metaphysics
20th Century Philosophers
Physics Prints Science Quote
God Religion Morality
Famous Leader Politics
Evolution Life Nature Ecology
Metaphysical Poets & Poetry
Literature Books Authors
Women Feminism Art
Renaissance Fine Art Prints
Satire Humor Funny Jokes
|Unique Custom Printed Tees - Men's Women's White T-Shirts - Men's Women's Black T-Shirts - Longsleeve T Shirts Hooded Sweatshirts - Women's Long Sleeve Clothing - Tight Sexy Ladies Clothes - Men's & Women's Boxer Shorts / Boxers - Women's Intimate Lingerie: Erotic Thongs / Sexy Slips - Cotton Canvas Printed Tote Bag & Messenger Bags - Children / Infant / Kids Clothes - Printed Kitchen Chef BBQ Cooking Aprons - Baseball Caps & Trucker Hats - Dog Clothes|
Truth & Reality
The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space
Theory of Reality
Unity of Reality
Logic & Reality
Special & General
of Light & Matter
& Infinite Space
Truth & Reality
Truth & Reality