In my paper I intend to provide a new systematisation in the field of philosophy. You can assign two functions to philosophy, on the one hand its practical relevance for one’s lifestyle and on the other hand its connectivity to theory. One side focuses on the human being and his / her social interaction, whereas the other side places special emphasis on the principles of reality. Hereinafter both functions shall become connected with each other.
The attempt to establish philosophy as an innovative, abstract structure can only become successful when form and contents of philosophical reflection are connected with the most general forms of knowledge and cognition, e.g. with the axiomatic principles of the individual sciences. At the same time such philosophical systematics should be implemented in social practice and human emotionality.
This philosophical statement achieves its unity by a few basic ideas enabling to demonstrate systemically the variety of scientific findings and non-scientific phenomena. For once there is the basic idea of an “identity formation”. This means the concrete as well as the abstract variations of all those ontological reflections, known in history of philosophy as „Being“, “Entity”, “Dasein” or as „Existence“. In this model which is going to be described here this central idea is labelled by abbreviation “E”.
As it actually was the case in philosophy so far, the E may be determined from its abstract opposition to “Coming-into-being“ and to what is considered as „Spirit“. In addition, I try to combine the cognitions resulting from these discussions in intellectual history with those of modern scientific research.
The second basic idea to be conceived from a new aspect can as well be described in many ways, e.g. as „Objective“, “Purpose”. In these variations I see a common idea which can be defined as “Imagined and Aspired” effect – and which is labelled “I”. Here again, the traditional philosophical statements shall be enhanced by contemporary cognitions of sciences. This leads for example to the result that the objective term (I) is no longer only combined with the subjective willing as inducement for an action. In fact the goal setting is additionally considered as a biological phenomenon. Also scientific funding in Physics and Mathematics shows an objective formation of the objective function (I). The E-Structuring and the I-Functions form what you can call the “Contents” of sciences and philosophy.
It complies with the traditional bisection when I differ between the substantial, factual aspect of philosophical reflection and the methodical aspect. This methodical aspect shall be subject to the allocation of the contents in E and I in a “parallel” way (correspondingly). Therefore I suggest the basic idea of the dynamic negation (N) and the one of the process of identification, the equation (G) as a basis of methodology.
The extent of variations of these philosophical basic ideas in the sciences forms the centre of my paper. This potential of variations arises from the possibilities of generating relationships, the possible relationings of E and I to I/E as well as N and G to N/G. They are the philosophical basis of further analyses in numerous fields of philosophical sciences.
I am well aware that the terms behind the strictly reduced E, I, G, N have a long tradition in philosophical history. However, here the systematic relations are decisive which can be formed with them, e.g. the I/E- Relation. From the combination of its I-Side with the E-Side a new kind of homogeneous system is generated in which the E-Side constitutes the demand for consistent entity and necessity. Yet at the same time, the crucial interminability, the consistent incompleteness of this I/E-wholeness is caused by the I-Side.
In the course of the elaboration it will be demonstrated how the relation “I to E” should be comprehended in detail. Besides the basic terms E and I, the methodology as N, G and N/G will be helpful. The dialectics of Hegel has so far been the most abstract methodological form. Its elements can be understood as the process of identification (G) in relationship to negation (N) of this identification: The relationing of N and G as N/G can, in extension of the formal dialectics, now be applied to the contents (I/E).
The further task now is to systematize phenomena, problems and issues of average everydayness as well as those of the individual sciences and the philosophy under such abstract theoretical aspects represented by the four factors E, I, N, G and their relations among themselves.
Some examples may be mentioned. One of the central phenomena of sciences and philosophy is the aforementioned classification in “substantial conception” and “methodology”. It becomes comprehensible by our systematics. Another problem is this bisection – appearing within the philosophy as well – between the theoretical part of reality and the rather practical of the human lifestyle. A further problem is the formation of the scientific and philosophical fields in intellectual history.
I allocate a development idea to E, I, N, G which moreover combines the historical with the systematic formation. I do not intend to justify the definition of a separate philosophical term by the statements on E, I, N, G, which only exists through the confrontation of these contradictory terms. By them common features of philosophical attempts and compliances in the terms and methods of all philosophical thoughts should be recognisable and become formulated.
Provided that nothing should be excluded from philosophical studies, this rule can only be a minimum demand. The maximum opposite is the formal agreement in acknowledgement of the state of discussions of all involved philosophies and sciences; it is the idea of the indefinite discussion which does not predetermine the definite scope or term or method. The field of proposals of definitions, statements, attempts of rebuttal and argumentation should range between these two formal limitations.
The title “indefinite”, however, indicates the execution of an unavoidable consistent reference to pre-conditions. This unlimited regression and progression exceeds rather soon the traditional field of reflection and discussion. Already by the question as to the preconditions of a determined knowledge alone, other examinable topics of reflection are implied; even the Aporia may have its structures.
In this situation the philosophical thinking process should provide a detailed qualification of the “intuitively known” which is starting point of many philosophical attempts and appears in the sciences in their axiomatic as accepted self-limitation.
This assumed, directly and “intuitively” known “First” (E) has to be sought, identified (G). Furthermore it is the “Negation” (N) which shows as a negative process, each time abandoning something directly known. At the same time an intentional orientation (I) is implicated in the search of the “First” as well as in the process of alienation from such search.
For me it is crucial that these four – E, I, N, G – which here are only suggested as first preconditions of a specific philosophical attitude will continue to determine the theoretical structures, topics and theses.
Whereas we see here the beginning of philosophical studies in the reflection of abstract terminology it is vital to be aware that there are traditionally two other approaches. Only all three together can represent a reasonable basis of contemporary philosophy.
The second approach is the attempt of the natural sciences to find the “First Physical” and an explanation for organic life.
And the third approach is the authorisation, to start research at any place between the two “poles” – First Physics and most abstract terminology. I am going to illustrate this in the projects “Development” and “big Circle Formation”.