http://www.fatherzeller.com/apr0401.htm
In my last letter, I stated that the likes of Darwin, Mendel, Pasteur and
Einstein were not dummies. They understood the basic principle of the
science of human thought called the Principle of Causality. Every effect has
to be explained in terms of its proportionate cause. The only cause that is
proportionate to the ordered effect of the universe, whether considered
micro or macro, is the ordering Causality that Plato called the Absolute
Truth, that Aristotle called the Prime Mover and that we call God.
The dummies who framed and signed the Humanist Manifesto, the American
euphemism for the Communist Manifesto, denied the principle. They held,
despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, that something, namely
matter and the laws that govern matter, emerged spontaneously out of
nothing. They held, in spite of the scientific evidence to the contrary,
that life emerged spontaneously out of non-life. They held, despite the
scientific evidence to the contrary, that there is something in matter as
matter that accounts for the upward thrust of the immanational or
evolutionary process. There is nothing in matter as matter that accounts for
this. The bland and gratuitous assumption that there is, is the product of
faculties that are, in Einstein's words, too frail and feeble to apprehend
the scientific reality.
These faculties were too frail and feeble to apprehend something else.
Namely that, in Aristotle's words, "There is nothing in the intellect that
is not first in one or another of the physical or external senses."
This isn't to say that abstractions can't be drawn from the physical or
external objects that are apprehended by the physical or external senses of
seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting. They certainly can. This is
called the thought process. The intellect, which is an inherent and
essential part of the human composite, can think inductively and
deductively. That is to say, it can draw universal conclusions from the
particular data presented to it from without through the external or
physical senses. This is called inductive reasoning. The intellect can also
reason deductively. That is to say, from the universal conclusions it has
drawn to the particular data that they contain. Just as a whole is equal to
the sum of its parts, so a sum of the parts is equal to the whole of a
universal conclusion. Aristotle was right. There is nothing in the intellect
that is not first in one or another or several of the physical or external
senses.
It must be admitted, to the credit of subsequent disciples of the Humanist
religion, or to the subsequent disciples of the framers and signers of the
Humanist Manifesto, the American euphemism for the Communist Manifesto, that
the concept of spontaneous emergence of the various kinds of knowledge from
within was speedily abandoned. The emergence of medical knowledge, legal
knowledge, or a knowledge of carpentry, plumbing or of anything else, didn't
occur spontaneously in any of their students. It wasn't genetic. Even a
knowledge of reading and writing didn't occur spontaneously. The public
reaction to Rudolf Flesh's book, "Why Johnny Can't Read," probably
accelerated the process of rejection.
But something wasn't rejected. It had to do with morality rather than with
mentality. Moral values, as the expression had it, emerged from within -
just as they do in the lower animals. The behavior of the lower animals is
governed by instinct. So, to some extent, is the behavior of men and women.
Instinctive behavior, however, has nothing to do with morality in our human
sense of the word. We humans, it is true, are animals. But we are rational
animals. Our rationality is supposed to govern our animality in matters that
pertain to human behavior. The proper object of the intellect is truth. The
proper object of the will is good. A proper human behavior is the product of
a properly disposed will being directed by an adequately informed intellect.
The study that treats the subject of morality is usually called ethics. The
words "ethics" or "morality" are often used interchangeably or as synonyms.
The word "ethics" is from the Greek "ethicos," which means character.
Character, needless to say, has to do with human behavior. Human behavior
has to do with morality, and morality is the product, to a considerable
extent, of a rightly ordered mentality. This is how it happens that the
terms "ethics" and "morality" are often used interchangeably or as synonyms.
They are intimately interrelated. They are as intimately interrelated as
"mind" and "will," the faculties of a spiritual and immortal soul.
The ethics, or morality or character of a human species is determined to a
considerable extent by the manner in which the members of the species
conceive themselves. If they conceive themselves as animals and that's all,
in no way essentially distinguished from an ape, a baboon, a gorilla or a
chimpanzee, it shouldn't surprise us if they proceed to act like the lower
animals and that's all. According to the laws exclusively of emotional
instinct, of might makes right, of survival of the fittest. According, that
is to say, to the law of the jungle.
This could have inspired the best-selling work, "The Blackboard Jungle," a
fitting sequel to "Why Johnny Can't Read." It could also have inspired the
words of the National Commission on Excellence in Education. They were: "Our
mental and moral foundations are being eroded. We have become a nation at
risk. If a foreign power had done to us what we have done to ourselves, we
would consider it an act of war."
This pseudo-philosophy of government, of education and of life that emerged
from the framers and signers of the Humanist Manifesto, the American
euphemism for the Communist Manifesto, didn't originate in the United States
of America. It originated, rather, as Samuel Blumenfeld made clear in his
epic work, "The N.E.A. - The Trojan Horse in American Education," in Europe.
Specifically, as far as the United States is concerned, at the University of
Berlin. Berlin was the capital of Prussia and of the German Empire from 1871
to 1918.
Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel expatiated on his pseudo-pantheist philosophy
at the University of Berlin from 1818 until 1831. He seems to have based his
philosophy initially on the assumption that the "Absolute" is spiritual
rather than physical. Properly understood, this is correct. Improperly
understood, it is incorrect. Properly understood, the Absolute is the God of
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Also the God of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
It is the God to whom reference is made in the Apostles' Creed which states:
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth..."
Hegel's "absolute" seems to have been the same as Socrates', Plato's and
Aristotle's when he talks out of the right side of his mouth. On the other
hand, it seems not to have been when he talks out of the left side of his
mouth. When he talks out of the left side of his mouth, Hegel's "absolute"
assumes the aspect of materiality rather than spirituality. He doesn't, of
course, attempt to define his terms. On the contrary, he seems to imply that
his "absolute" has to do with some vague sort of "pantheism" rather than the
unambiguous Theism of the aforementioned Greeks, the Jews and the
Christians. Hegel's ambiguities extend into his interpretations not only of
heaven and earth, but of all that they contain. They seem to suggest that
something came spontaneously out of nothing; that life emerged spontaneously
from non-life; that there is something in matter as matter that occasions a
spontaneous transmutation of lower species and genera into higher species
and genera.
Hegel seems to have believed in something else. It was that human beings and
the societies they compose are moving ever upward and onward. Toward
something called Utopia. This was in contra-distinction to Shakespeare's
contention that the history of the human race is a tale told by an idiot -
about idiots. It is full of sound and fury and signifies nothing - except
who is currently reigning as king of the mountain. The scientific evidence,
it seems to me, is supportive of Shakespeare.
One of the most notable of the idiots to attend the University of Berlin was
a man named Karl Marx. Marx lived from 1818 to 1883. Hegel lived from 1770
to 1831. This means that Marx was only 13 years old at the time of Hegel's
death. Hegel was long gone, therefore, by the time Marx enrolled at the
University of Berlin. The University was still diffused, however, with the
Hegelian spirit. Marx imbibed it - with reservations. Hegel was a pantheist.
Marx was an atheist. My contention, however, is that there is precious
little difference between atheism, which says that there is no God, and
pantheism, which says that everything is God. In fact, I say that there is
no difference. I say - with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - that God is the
Supreme Scientist. I say - with Albert Einstein - that anyone who denies
this is frail and feeble-minded. I say - with the Christians and the Jews -
that God, the Supreme Scientist, is the Creator of heaven and earth and of
all that they contain.
There were some other people who attended the University of Berlin about the
same time that Karl Marx attended. They were graduate students, if you can
believe this, from the University of Harvard in the United States of
America. The United States of America was brought into existence by men who,
like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, held that God, the Creator of heaven and
earth and all that they contain, was the Supreme Scientist. They were not,
if I may use Einstein's expression, "frail and feeble-minded." They, the
framers and signers of the American Manifesto called the Declaration of
Independence, held: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men
are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness."
George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and
the other framers and signers of our American philosophy of government, of
education and of life were not so frail and feeble-minded as to believe that
something came spontaneously out of nothing, that life emerged spontaneously
from non-life, or that there is something in matter as matter that accounts
for the upward thrust or ascendancy of an immanational or evolutionary
process. This process posits gratuitously an immanence false premise, a
Protagorean false premise and a Marxist false premise. "If you start out
with a small false premise," said Aristotle, "you can end up with a big
false conclusion." This, in the words of the National Committee on
Excellence in Education, was what "eroded our mental and moral foundations."
This was what "made us a nation at risk." This was what "did to us what, if
a foreign power had done to us, we would consider an act of war."
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
