free web hosting | website hosting | Business Web Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | php hosting





Preface

 

This book is born and developed about a proposal that concerns a reading of new kind of the reality that regard us; whether as individuals or as animals inside a species, a world and a universe. On all these themes the contemporary science provided us a series of knowledge elements not exhaustive and certainly perfectible, but that undoubtedly allow us a more adequate world and life reading even with respect to the recent past, both also with all the limits concerning our intellective faculties and the investigation tools that we can dispose. With the benefit of this scientific background, most implied than explicated, the real anthtroic dualism (dualism of the reality) intends to give itself with objective foundations, on which be able to raise a building with minimum solidity prerogatives. A profane conception of the world emerges, or rather decidedly atheistic and also irreligious, where it is erased any transcendence and where however we look for the elusive signals of possible aspects of the reality that are not immediately accessible to our current sensory and intellective capacities. That induces us to start and lead a not conventional exploration, outside and inside of us, reconsidering and rereading the human evolution and of the universe in terms for which, without indulging in metaphysical temptations, one wonders how much of anthropologically authentic the spiritualistic ideologies were able to pick up of the reality, to analyse it and eventually recover it critically. This research should lead us on the conditions not to run the risk "to throw the child with the dirty water", as often do the radical and dogmatic materialisms.

    If it is reasonable to wonder whether the mosquito and the bee are living a reality barred to us and that the same do the snake and the spider, the polyp and the eel, the mole and the bat (1)  and away by all other our big or little companions of the biosphere (2) , one does not see why, in correct terms and with adequate inductive modes, it is not possible to assume that the living is not one but manifold, until to advance reasonably the hypothesis of a "pluralism of the reality" that the presumptuousness of the homo sapiens instead wants from always only one and one-way, and combines it with the axiomatic mortgage according to which "the whole" must be reducible to only one original cause, material or spiritual.

    But, by a pragmatic point of view, what does means “pluralism of the reality”? In effects our pluralism has two meanings, a “hypothetical” and a “real” one. The hypothetical one concerns the cosmology and its correlated, in reception of the thesis of those astrophysicists and cosmologists (always more numerous), that, with solid reasons, imagine (because it is practically impossible a verification) a global reality that goes well over the borders of the universe where we live, hypothesizing the existence of a lot of universes (if not endless) besides our one. Some of them arrive even to think to internal universes of the our one, in the sense that in the bottom of every black hole can perhaps even form a further universe. If the things would be in this way the general reality could be very similar an immense system of Chinese boxes, where every universe is contained in an other more vast and at the same time is container of other to its inside. It is superfluous add that every universe would be able have physic laws and characteristics one's own (for example be constituted of antimatter). Plurality of universes which obviously can born and die, expand or contract, etc. and which would give rise to a general scenery where we men (so presumptuous!) who result already physically meaningless in our universe would decidedly disappear in such hypothesized plurivers. 

    In its “real” meaning the pluralism instead pertain to the known reality, perceived or intuited from the man,and intends correct our current way of think it, by which (for reasons that we will look evident in the following pages) we tend always to unify elements of the reality that would be considered separately from the “structural” point of view. While from the “functional” one (not “for what are” but “for how work”) often they must referred to the system of which do part, because this sometimes is an “holistic” unity (see chapter 1 footnote 4), with characteristics and emergent behaviours as regard the sum of his components. An extension of this second aspect of our pluralism is that doesn't take for nothing granted that our knowledge about the living world to which we accompany on this planet are absolutely exhaustive and that is instead likely that can escape us inside realities one’s and “internal” to other species because our investigation tools both intellectual and experimental not reveal them us.

   With the premises of which over we give now a brief anticipation on that will be treated later on, when it will be developed the second meaning (the “real” one) relative to our pluralism of the reality. On the other hand, if is to consider “real” what pertain some receiver in general reality is no reason to assume a priori a privileged receiver (the man), who, by his senses and his intellection, establishes that must be “in general” how is for him (as thinking animal). In other words, what is real for the man can be so even for other animals, for the reason that combasic mon is the (the living matter), but that not implicates that this " human real "is the only existing and what perceptively and intelligibly concerns the man is" all " reality of our world. The assumption of this point of view has an immediate consequence for the man himself, since (being he contemporarily subject and object of the investigation) it becomes possible think (and set) as reality even that one is not perceivable neither intelligible, but of which are perceivable and intelligible the real effects on our existence.

    The real anthropic dualism, as subspecies of a pluralistic vision of the reality, intends to examine the existence of the man within the limits of the sure perception and intellection horizon, however possibly leaving a knowledge window open on only intuitive horizons, but decidedly " real " with their effectuality (3) . From such opening, which a more careful and deep reflection, we can point out what, escaping the senses and the reason, only becomes accessible to idemal intuitive sensitivity and the intellective intuition. This effectuality (incontestably real) authorize to extend the investigation on the reality moving the borders toward what offers itself to the intuition, for example in the feelings and in the emotions, without it is possible gather the substance. So to say that the biosphere possesses a plural reality means that, over to a general reality (the materiality) common to all living beings, we hypothesize (together to this) much other kinds of particular reality, concerning specific experiences, some of them (in our experience) are characterized surely as “irreducible” to the matter. A pluralist conception of the reality is by the man even a humility action, that look out upon the thesis that other animals (belonging to our or other ecosystem ) have the possibility of live experiences to us totally blocked, but at the same time legitimates the hypothesis that the same man is able try kinds of different reality and not referable to other living beings.

    After these anticipations on what is to the base of what will here explained I whish preliminarily underline that this is yes a philosophy book, but that is turned to the generic reader. For such reason the text that will follow, in its not secondary purpose to be founded pragmatically on a “good” common sense, could be considered philosophically enough rough; on the other hand (I willingly admit it) is just my own philosophical training to be rather rough. Such limit however leaves me to hope in its possible hidden merit: that one to allow the reading to persons of the all without philosophical culture, those people who frequently are called “men in the street”, who, therefore can be considered the privileged addressees of this work.

    I use the terms of the current and traditional language every time will be possible. This to a condition: that they adapt validly to the concepts that I intend express. Besides I have had to borrow from the learned philosophy some expressions and argumentation that seemed me compatible with the clarity and the simplicity I intended, obviously when they result already sufficiently known and such to not jeopardize the accessibility of the speech. In rare cases, to avoid misunderstandings, I have forced to introduce new terms and I hope that they don't disturb too. Yet, if that will happen, the glossary placed to text’s end, and before the analytical indexes, will be able constitute a valid help. Such terms will be always written in italics, as the greatest part of the terms of the usual philosophy that will be here used, together that ones of other specific disciplines and with the words in languages distinct from the English.

    A last notice: the book contains several footnotes, made necessary to clarify or equip terms and affirmations of useful elements at the purposes of a full comprehension. As a rule they are not at all essential to understand the text in its principal lines and therefore they can be quietly jumped; this at least in first reading. Later, if the reader was interested in the subject will be able to get back on his steps for a second reading and so perfect his comprehension of every detail.

    I dedicate this book to the unknown companions of journey (of life) who have had an existential experience such to mine. I think we are many in five continents, reciprocally unknown and fully scattered. To them all my brotherly solidarity goes.

    I close this short preface with two words about the title: the necessity/liberty opposition is not new and I neither cannot exclude that books already exist written in the past with this title. However I do not have been able to give up, because, through it and rather synthetically, already comes enunciated the access key to the heart of the problem which will be faced here, even if that will happen with gradualness and if the motive become clear little by little in the development of the subject.


 

 

Notes:

 

 (1) The American philosopher Thomas Nagel in a famous article of 1974 was asking himself  “What it is like to be a bat?” In it is explained an antiredutionistic thesis of the reality, in which one was affirming that the objective qualities of the experience constitute an "irreducible" aspect of the reality was supported. And as the other’s subjectivity is accessible only by an identifying himself effort with the point of view of the other, it is not possible to exclude that exist experience forms completely real (but precluded to our perception and our intellection) that are irreparably barred to us, it dates note the impossibility of identification with who carries out them.

 

(2) I will use often this term to show the whole of living world in every its form or expression.

 

(3) We define with effectuality the set of the practical consequences perceived by a subject because of an agent of the reality, be it well known or unknown. In other sense it is a way of being of what actually happens with respect to what is only possible. In Aristotelian terms that is what characterizes the act with respect to what that remains only power. Therefore it is the contrary of potentiality and opposite of virtuality.