A World Without Principles

“Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies." -Aristotle

If you find that our modern understanding of the world tends to feel incomplete, it’s because it is incomplete. It is incomplete because empirical methods do not (and cannot) generate answers that bring meaning or purpose to our existence, nor do they claim to. Quantitative and qualitative approaches are useful to the extent that they can help us to understand the material (matter) world around us from a physiological and biological standpoint. These approaches help us to define the things we see everywhere, the shapes, the movement, the arrangement of things. The mind of the modern scientist is very special because it looks at the world from a highly methodical and mathematical vantage point. These minds are made for precision, for categorization and for research. These are the minds which account for some of the greatest discoveries, inventions, and theories in history. As a result, many modern scientists are building their knowledge from a foundation laid down by the scientists who came before them, the ones who spent the best part of their lives meticulously laying the groundwork for their successors to follow. We have a deep appreciation for our past and present scientists because of their unparalleled ability to produce facts but even more, for their willingness to share these facts with the world.

So again, the mind of the modern scientist focuses mainly on the matter and form of things, the verifiable questions that can be answered in mechanistic terms which can be very useful in describing the appearance of things which can bring us a much greater understanding of our history and the physical world around us. But as many of us have learned over time, appearances can often be deceiving. They are deceiving because they do not (and cannot) give us a full explanation of a thing in question. We can, of course, make assumptions based on the appearance of a thing, however, more often than not, these assumptions will only bring us further away from a full understanding of the thing we are trying to understand be it living or non-living.

This is where philosophers can be helpful.

The mind of the philosopher loves to be absorbed in the theoretical. It is not as drawn to the factual because it takes (and has always taken) immense pleasure in speculative science. More accurately, it needs to speculate because factual evidence is not (and has never been) enough to convince the mind of the philosopher because it needs to understand the primary principles and purpose first and foremost. It needs to understand why a thing exists on an individual and universal level before it can concern itself with the facts. Unlike the scientific mind, which is fascinated by the physical world, the philosophic mind is fascinated by the metaphysical world. The philosopher needs to find answers that transcend conventional boundaries to feel whole and fulfilled.

This is where Aristotle can be helpful.

Aristotle’s Physics is essential because he lays out his theory of causation which he believes can lead us to a complete understanding of the world around us. His theory rests on the belief that we can only know a thing fully if we understand its causes which I will list in the order they were documented some 2000 years ago using direct quotes from Physics itself.

1. Material Cause: “that out of which a thing comes to be and which persists”

2. Formal Cause: the “form of the archetype” (the definition of a thing)

3. Efficient Cause: "the primary source of the change or coming to rest"

4. Final Cause: “that for the sake of which a thing is done”

Simply stated, modern science helps us to understand the first two causes and philosophy helps us to understand the second two. Consequently, when the scientific mind has reached the fullest stage of its potential, it is left with questions that only the philosophic mind can answer and when the philosophic mind has reached the fullest stage of its potential, it is left with questions that only the scientific mind can answer. When these two minds become united in their knowledge about the world, it is at precisely this point in time when the most influential scientific theory and political philosophy can be designed which may inspire the next 2000 years of thinking.

We are currently living in a world without principles because first principles can only be understood when we have a clear understanding of all four causes. And since our current political environments have been inspired by scientific theory and political philosophy that can only explain the first two causes, we cannot easily find purpose in our individual life cycles on earth or find greater meaning in our existence in the cosmos.

Luckily however, the solution to our dilemma rests in the fact that we finally have all the knowledge we need to both find and present first principles in a manner which will then cause the political maturity we desire as one whole political body and organism. And although it may be true that philosophers and scientists sometimes mature at slower rates socially than others of their species, if and when they do reach the fullest stage of their potential as living organisms, they can sometimes make big contributions to the whole, ironically, due to the distinctly unsociable lives they have led.

A very thoughtful work friend gave me a lucky bamboo plant as a housewarming gift last summer which is set in a pot that she designed herself with a beautiful message that says, “grow at your own pace”. Although I’m reminded of my especially slow ascent to maturity as a living organism whenever I look at these words, I am also reminded that it is okay that my growth rate was slow and feel grateful for the growth that I was able to achieve in the end. But most importantly, I think about my children and why it is important that I create a living environment and foundation from which they are each able to grow at their own pace too.

In conclusion, speculative inquiry has never been enough to fulfill the mind of the scientist and factual inquiry has never been enough to fulfill the mind of the philosopher. This means that in the end, scientists need philosophers just as much as philosophers need scientists. But we need each others fields because we love each other's fields. And if we are humble and courageous enough to recognize this love and remarry these two fields together, allowing our knowledge to interlock, sometimes a chance mutation will occur which can then change the future for our species and the political maturity that it will be able to achieve in the years to come. In other words, we always have and always will design history together.

Sincerely,

Heather

Note: This post was inspired by Aristotle’s Physics and all the great thinkers in the LBST class that I am taking this semester with whom I have the pleasure of learning and debating with every week about “our place in the cosmos”.