Loading UTC time and date...
2024/09/19
In German Idealism, especially for Hegel and Schelling, the "Absolute" refers to a metaphysical totality or ultimate reality that transcends all distinctions and contradictions. For Hegel, the Absolute is the ultimate synthesis of being and nothing, the process of becoming, where contradictions are sublated (overcome and preserved). The Absolute in this sense is dynamic, relational, and dialectical, constantly unfolding through the development of history, thought, and reality itself.
Schelling, while initially similar to Hegel in his treatment of the Absolute, leans more toward viewing the Absolute as an undifferentiated unity behind all phenomena, a pre-rational or intuitive ground of being, which resists being fully grasped by reason alone.
The foundation of this lies in Kant. In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon (or the thing-in-itself) refers to the reality that exists independently of our sensory experience and cognition. Kant distinguishes between the phenomena (the world as we experience it, structured by our cognitive faculties) and the noumenon (the underlying reality that exists beyond our ability to perceive or understand it directly).
Immanuel Kant's philosophy presents a dichotomy between noumenon (things-in-themselves, which are inaccessible to human senses) and phenomenon (the world as we experience it through our senses). According to Kant, while phenomena can be observed and understood, noumena are inherently unknowable, existing beyond the scope of human cognition. Hegel criticizes this strict division, asserting that noumena and phenomena are part of a unified whole. He argues that the noumenon is knowable and that the distinction between the two is an unnecessary separation within the broader concept of what he terms the Absolute.
Hegel is right in pointing out the flaws of Kant’s dualism, but his larger framework is problematic. For instance, during Kant’s time, the existence of atoms or quanta was unknown, but ancient philosophers such as Lucretius and other Atomists theorized the existence of indivisible particles. Even though atoms and molecules were beyond direct observation during Kant’s era, their existence could be rationally inferred. Kant’s error lies in his rigid separation of noumenon and phenomenon. Scientific progress, especially the discovery of subatomic particles and quanta, transformed what was once considered noumenal into phenomenal knowledge. The once unobservable became observable, negating Kant’s claim that certain realities would forever remain unknowable.
However, it’s important to caution against the Kantian defense that seeks to uphold the permanent existence of noumena beyond current knowledge. Some Kantians might argue that we have only scratched the surface of observable phenomena, and that more noumena still exist, waiting to be uncovered. While it’s reasonable to suspect the existence of unknown realities, I would contend that just because we theorize about the existence of something currently unobservable does not make it noumenon. For instance, dark energy does not exist within the realm of observable phenomena, yet theoretical physics suggests its presence based on current mathematical models. This, however, is contingent on our acceptance of the validity of these models, which could ultimately prove incorrect. Therefore, we should exercise caution before making bold claims about noumena.
Similarly, Hegel’s error stems from his attempt to build a metaphysical system centered on the concept of the Absolute. Hegel views reality as an unfolding synthesis of noumena and phenomena, wherein the Absolute gradually reveals itself, much like Schelling’s notion of an evolving divine essence. However, this notion of the Absolute is pure fiction. No unified, all-encompassing reality exists beyond what we can empirically verify and agree upon through our senses. Anything that lies beyond the reach of our senses and empirical evidence remains fiction until proven otherwise. Hegel’s metaphysics, though imaginative, is ultimately an overreach.
Having established the limitations of both Kant and Hegel, we can now revisit the fundamental roots of Western philosophy. Let us consider two pre-Socratic philosophers, Thales and Heraclitus, whose ideas on the nature of reality offer fascinating parallels with modern scientific understanding. Thales speculated that all matter is fundamentally made of water, while Heraclitus, in contrast, posited that fire is the primary element. Though these views appear contradictory, modern science paradoxically confirms aspects of both.
Thales’ belief that water is the primary substance resonates with contemporary biology and chemistry. Water, composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, is essential for life. Dehydration is fatal to humans and most living organisms, and water plays a central role in sustaining life on Earth. The oceans, which cover the majority of the planet, are not only a source of life but also host diverse ecosystems that provide food and resources for humanity. Thales, living in an agricultural society, would have recognized water’s centrality to both nourishment and sustenance.
Heraclitus, on the other hand, viewed fire as the primary substance, an idea with its own symbolic truth. Oxygen, one of the components of water, is essential for combustion and has corrosive properties similar to fire. Oxygen allows fire to consume wood and destroy materials, yet it is equally essential for respiration and life. In this sense, Heraclitus’ fire metaphor captures the dual role of oxygen as both a destructive and life-giving force.
The most remarkable realization is that both Thales and Heraclitus are correct in ways they could not have fully understood. The opposition between water and fire is reconciled through the chemistry of elements such as hydrogen and oxygen, which participate in both life-sustaining and destructive processes. Hydrogen, for example, is highly flammable, yet when combined with oxygen, it forms water—a fundamental component of life. Hydrogen-carbon bonds, which constitute the building blocks of organic life, also give rise to toxic gases. Thus, the same elements are central to life, nourishment, and destruction.
But the most intriguing insight comes when we examine the dynamic behavior of these elements. Thales and Heraclitus may have disagreed on which element holds primacy, yet the deeper truth lies not in the elements themselves but in their behavior. Heraclitus famously spoke of the world’s hidden nature, submerged like the sun after sunset. This reflects Thales’ aqueous metaphor of the world, a notion that is echoed in the dynamics of fire and water. The flickering tongues of flame, with their unpredictable and chaotic movements, bear an eerie resemblance to the movement of water waves. These dynamic, mathematically chaotic behaviors are not disorganized but subject to complex patterns that can be simulated and studied.
Leonard Susskind, in one of his lectures, drew a fascinating comparison between distant clusters of galaxies and the shimmering patterns of light at the bottom of a pool. The light filtered through the rippling water follows a similar pattern to matter on a massive cosmological scale. Here, we might be tempted to conclude that a hidden, mystical force is at work, as though the same pattern governs both fire and water, both galaxies and the ocean. But such speculation is unnecessary. These patterns, far from being hidden or mystical, are plainly visible to us. They follow the rules of complex, non-linear mathematics, subject to physical laws that, while difficult to predict or control, are not beyond our understanding.
In this sense, Thales and Heraclitus offer us a way to move beyond the limitations of Kant’s noumenon and Hegel’s Absolute. There is no need to posit metaphysical realms beyond the empirical world or to speculate about hidden realities. What we observe—the behavior of fire, water, and the cosmos—is enough to demonstrate the complex, interwoven patterns of reality without resorting to mysticism. The dynamics of the universe are before our very eyes, waiting to be understood, not hidden behind impenetrable barriers of knowledge.
Though Greek philosophers would probably accept the notion of an unknowable reality, we can not, unless we drown ourselves in the metaphysical nonsense. To avoid that, we apply Occam's razor to our understanding of reality - Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. German Idealism and Kantian metaphysics thus become no longer required for us. If we do not require the concept of the Absolute to understand reality, then we can safely conclude that the Absolute does not exist.