That question can be interpreted and answered in an infinite number of ways. As a specific question, it asks for a reason you are "here" visiting my website, which is something I would like you to give serious consideration. As a more general question, it can be interpreted to be asking if there is a reason for your existence, and, by extension. a reason for the existence of anything.
If you consider such questions to be meaningless, or silly, perhaps you are not ready to deal seriously with serious philosophy. On the other hand, understanding the intent, and context, of the simplest questions may be the root of the most profound philosophy: e.g., The simple answer to any question is that I, or someone else, separately or jointly, want what is to be the way it is.
That simple idea can be restated as a first principle, or hypothesis, for logical exploration:
Will, as intent, is the primary Reason and Cause. Will, interacting with other wills, being the reasons and causes of all that is, was, and could be.
The general question: Why? is an excellent example. Even a child asks it without always getting a satisfactory answer. There is usually not much difficulty in understanding the question when the answer is one of one's own intent, but it is more difficult when the intent of someone else is involved, and even more difficult when that 'someone else' is not easily identified. The question can become impossible to understand when necessary interactions with Reality require reasons and causes that are unacceptable, and which cause their rejection.
It has been said that philosophy begins with wonder. I would refine that by noting that curiosity is a root of wonder from which questions arise, and that philosophy begins with the first question intended to understand whatever arouses curiosity sufficiently to wonder about it.
This site is dedicated to serious thought and intellectual honesty. My hope is that you will find it both interesting and challenging, sufficiently so that you may be induced to participate in a constructive way. What's important is your ability to think for yourself, not your age, background, or academic standing. Philosophy is for anyone, and it effects everyone. If you can think, you can philosophize.
There are many ways to approach the subject of philosophy. The academic approach tries to teach about philosophy, and philosophers, in an unbiased and balanced way, but that's not how philosophy is done. Academia presents questions, but does not try to present definitive answers. Philosophers try to provide answers and they are generally dogmatic and strongly biased in favor of their own position because they believe their position is better than any other. There would be no point in presenting it if they did not think so.
Attempts "to do" philosophy are found in various forums, and newsgroups, both moderated and unmoderated,as well as formal and informal e-mail discussion groups. Each of the various approaches has advantages and disadvantages, and hopefully some serendipitous blend can be developed here.
My approach is different. I present a coherent philosophy, my own, as an example of actually doing philosophy by attempting to solve problems by thinking them through independently. You may agree, or disagree, with my thinking and conclusions, and hopefully you will react by thinking for yourself, and sharing those thoughts. E-mail links are provided for that purpose.
It's ok to discuss the ideas of other philosophers, so long as we discuss the ideas, not the philosopher. Referring to a well known philosopher, or philosophy, is ok as backgound, or context. What any particular philosopher actually said, or actually meant, is always so open to controversy resulting from subtle distortions of interpretation, translation and bias, that the only one who really knows what was intended is the philosopher himself.
If you believe a particular philosopher is right on any point, it's ok to present that position, so long as you are willing to defend it as your own. This is a testing ground. If you can't defend an idea, you have to question why you believe it, or seek a better one. I will present my philosophy, and defend it. I am putting my ideas here to be tested. I believe that my philosophy is robust enough to answer any challenge. If you can show me a better idea than any that I hold, I will be able to make my philosophy even more robust than it already is.
Let the best ideas win!
My original ideas and insights in philosophy began in my late teens, and I committed them to writing in my early twenties. I will present that work here, unedited and without apology, following a brief overview of my current thinking below. Hopefully that will serve as a starting point to tickle your imagination and lead to further development.
.
.
The Rubino philosophy is the most comprehensive and consistent philosophy possible; but, it is not complete. It is most comprehensive because it envisions all possible knowledge, past, present, and future, as well as the real and imagined, the rational, emotional, and mystical elements of thought. It also includes contradictions and paradox.
Aha! you say: How can it be comprehensive if it is incomplete? How can it be consistent if it includes the inconsistencies of contradiction, paradox, 'non-existent' future knowledge and imaginings?
Ah! but, how could it be comprehensive if it did not include them? After all, we do have knowledge of them, and no philosophy could be comprehensive if it did not account for them in some consistent way. In addition to that, the necessity to include such things, excludes the possibility of any comprehensive philosophy to ever be complete so long as there is a possibility of new knowledge.
I realize that what I have said so far seems arrogant, especially since I am speaking about my own philosophy, and I have the audacity to give it my own name. But think about it for yourself. The most arrogant thing you can do, is to actually think for yourself. If, and when, you understand the knowledge that I am trying to share, and if, and when, you accept any of it, you can then make it part of your own philosophy, and call it by whatever name you wish.
I don't make any claim to know everything. You may very well know more than I do. You certainly know some things I don't. Similarly, I know some things that you don't. Though I am not a 'know-it-all', I do have a vision of 'all that can be known' and that is fundamental to any comprehensive philosophy, which is, or should be, the quest of every philosopher. Of course there are limited philosophies, and philosophers, that deal with the philosophy of science, or the philosophy of religion, or of business, or of sports, etc.; but, all of those are subsets of a more general philosophy which is implicit within them even in the absence of any explicit reference, or acknowledgement, of that more general philosophy.
When I first developed many of my original ideas, I was blessed with the ecstacy of discovery. As time passed, I learned that most of them had been presented by other philosophers, from the earliest recorded to the present time. I marvel at how many of the most important, and profound, ideas have not been developed because they were simply ignored, or misunderstood, sometimes intentionally, by those whose purpose it is to distinguish themselves by refuting, contradicting, or otherwise calling into question anything that anyone else has to say. Such activity is not without any merit, and it is exemplified by the 'Socratic method': but, there should also be some responsibility to reconstruct something better than what is torn down. Perhaps, Socrates earned his fate by not doing so, although he did have 'back-up': Plato filled in some of the gaps that he left.
Some examples may be helpful here. When I first came to the conclusion that animals have no feelings, I was shocked by it. It created a great deal of psychological turmoil, and excitement. My friends and associates at the time, especially those that had pets, were quite upset with me, and would have happily set their pets on me as punishment, or proof. I later learned that Descartes considered animals to be automatons, and many philosophers and scientists, especially those in computer and neuroscience, proclaim that we humans function as machines. They say that our consciousness, which includes feelings, is merely some 'epiphenomena', or illusion, over which we only have the delusion of having some control; i.e., some will of our own.
A better example is my conclusion that human nature is triune. So too is all knowledge (which is derived from our nature), as well as the Universe about which we have knowledge. Our knowledge is made possible because our nature is a microcosm of that Universe. The concept of a trinity is a tricky one. It is dealt with primarily in Christian theology in which the Trinity is considered to be the most profound mystery, so profound that it could not be known through reason but was known only through Divine Revelations contained in the scriptures. It is a gift of Faith in the Trinity that distinguishes Christian religions from all others. I was recently surprised to discover some of the writings of St. Augustine back around 400 AD in which he presented similar ideas of the trinity of consciousness accessible by reason based on the Imago Dei, the Image of God. Here is a link for those who might want to read more on this.
I am trying to design the site to facilitate skipping around by providing links in each section to others that are relevant. It should be clear from the foregoing that my work in philosophy cuts accross all of the enumerated categories of philosophy as well as all of the other disciplines.
My first serious effort was directed towards the unification of all knowledge. Such a unification requires a common basis, a commonality, shared by all knowledge. That such a common basis exists should be evident since all knowledge is derived from consciousness, and thinking, but that idea alone does not resolve the problem. It does, however, reduce the problem to finding the common basis of thinking, which includes rational, mystical, emotional, and any other kind of thought anyone would care to enumerate. Another clue that such an effort would be worthwhile is provided by the relationship of logic to rational thought. Underlying that relationship is an intrinsic assumption that all rational thought has an underlying logical form. That idea could further simplify the problem and even suggest an approach to a better understanding of it by extending the limits of logic to embrace other kinds of thinking; i.e., is there some logic to emotional, or mystical thought?
Each thinking individual tries to incorporate all personal experiences and knowledge into a coherent unity to some degree. A coherent system must permit movement in any direction from any starting point. Any distinctions therein must also imply some commonality, i.e., if there is no commonality, there is no need for a distinction. Every bit of knowledge has some similarity and some difference with other knowledge: if there is no difference, it would not be an identifiable bit of knowledge; if there is no similarity, there would be no understanding. Distinctions are necessary for any analysis. A 'whole' cannot be analyzed without considering its 'parts'. The 'parts' must have a commonality that maintains the unity of the 'whole'. That commonality is the basis of the distinctions: most distinctions are somewhat arbitrary. Every analysis implies a re-synthesis. Every synthesis can be analyzed in many ways.
The insight that led me to such considerations came to me in a flash while I was considering a conclusion that many thinkers have asserted: Values are fundamental to understanding human affairs. If that's so, why not build a system based on the fundamentals: i.e., values? If values are truly fundamental, then human systems must actually be built upon them. I eventually concluded: We think in terms of values. Values are the common basis of all thought: e.g., even 'irrational' thought can be understood as 'bad' or distorted thought (of value systems that are logical). Eureka! A unifying principle.
Consider some of the derivatives:
Thinking has a purpose. It is directed towards achieving some valuable goal. That goal may be as simple , or basic, as a need, a want, an exercise of control, etc, all valuable to, and valued by, the individual.
Thinking, and feeling, require consciousness which is inaccessible to any direct physical testing, or verification. It is accessible only through the consciousness of a sentient being that can focus attention on the experience of being conscious, as well as on whatever else the consciousness is focused on. In fact, it is the focus of attention that creates the consciousness of the experience. Of all the things going on at any given time, attention is focused only on those things that have some importance based on the relative values of those things at that given time.
All human knowledge is anthropomorphic since it is derived from experience, including the experience of thinking. The meaning of experience and knowledge is derived from the associated values that are constructed to form an evaluation, then an interpretation, an hypothesis, and a theory.
The assertion: 'X is not', always contains an inherent contradiction: it always contradicts the assertion: 'X is', which it contains.
The assertion 'X is', is redundant. The assertion 'X' alone necessarily implies 'X is' since it is not possible to identify 'what is not': i.e., to distinguish 'X' from anything else necessarily implies that, in some way, 'X' exists, or did exist, or could exist. To deny that is to assert that 'what is not' can have distinguishable qualities by which it can be known sufficiently to talk about it.
A unification of knowledge based on a commonality of all knowledge implies that the same, or very similar, ideas can be derived from very different approaches in very different frames of reference that appear on the surface to have no connection. That suggests the proposition that the underlying Truth is the same for everyone, everywhere, no matter what approach is taken to find it. An unrelated event, such as a falling apple, could trigger an insight that resolves a problem in profound thought. Wisdom can be found everywhere and anywhere, even 'from the mouths of babes', whose announcements can remind us of some of our earliest, and 'purist', insights.
Each individual's experience could be, like a fractal, a microcosm of Truth. Just as 'all roads led to Rome', all roads may lead to Truth. The problem is that the roads are not marked with 'one way' signs, and they crisscross each other. Philosophers (and others) can be viewed as those who post signs at some of the intersections to point out one of the ways to the destination. There are also those who ignore the signs, (perhaps) out of ignorance (i.e., an inability, or an unwillingness, to read the signs), stubbornness, spite, etc., or they simply prefer to find their own way, even if they do so just for the fun of it; i.e., they enjoy the journey and are in no hurry to get to the destination.
Enjoy your journey.
If you would like some further explanation of any idea presented on this site, e-mail me. If you would like to participate by exploring and extending any of the ideas, again, e-mail me. Yeah! You can send me criticism too. I would prefer the constructive kind, but I have a thick skin, so you can be as vitriolic as you deem necessary. In the unlikely event that you help me correct any misconception in my philosophy, I will be eternally grateful. Compliments, of course, are always welcome.
I will try to acknowledge every e-mail, to respond as honestly as I can, and, where appropriate, to incorporate your ideas and objections on this site with, or without, identifying you, as you prefer. At your discretion, I will add a link to your website, if you have one, and/or an e-mail link to provide other readers the opportunity to contact you directly. I don't anticipate a large number of serious thinkers who will participate. It might be just you and me. But, you never know.
.
Previous Website The Trisection of Angles
.