Teoria do tudo: Via metafísica

De Romildo Araujo Machado

Current knowledge is in a dilemma between religion and science, or rather, between physics and metaphysics. All religions preach a metaphysical world and a Creator, but they use it as mythologies for this purpose. We have a mythological diversity on the one hand and metaphysical universality on the other. Science denies the metaphysical world, but all sciences use mathematics, a metaphysical instrument, in their methodology. We have a scientific diversity on the one hand and a metaphysical universality on the other. What unifies all religions is metaphysics. What unifies all sciences is metaphysics. Thus we have the unification of science and religion. From the point of view, we elaborated three premises - Creation, Evolution, Integration - systematizing the existing knowledge. Science preaches that blind frames move the universe without a purpose. As religions they preach a divine purpose, but based on blind faith. Our philosophical system is an alternative knowledge that eliminates blind cuts and blind faith.

• Idioma: Português
• Editora: Bibliomundi
• Data de lançamento: 25 de nov. de 2021
• ISBN: 9786500090130

Pré-visualização do livro

THEORY OF EVERYTHINH

FROM METAPHYSICS

BY

ROMILDO ARAÚJO MACHADO

Summary

1 – Preamble

2 – Existential Questions

3 – Mythologies and Religions

4 - Criticizes Biblism

5 - Criticism of Religious Politics

6 - Scientific Thinking

7 – Scientificism

8 – Atheism

9 - The Metaphysical World

10 – First Premise: Creation

11 – Second Premise: Evolution

12 – Third Premise: Integration

13 - Metaphysical Existentialism

14 – The Synthesis

15 - Final Dispositions

Bibliography

Author

Theory of Everything from Metaphysics

1 – Preamble

This work is not only a genuine Brazilian philosophical system, but also the supreme explanation of everything. It is like the thought of thoughts. The species of thoughts are the religious, scientific, philosophical, and artistic. The religious instrument to reach the knowledge is the blind faith in a Holy Scripture; the scientific is the experience of blind forces; philosophy, the reason; the artistic, the emotions. Each system has a different approach to the same reality.

From four forms of knowledge, only three are elaborate systems. Art does not have an elaborate system and uses other systems of knowledge. Sometimes art is religious, sometimes scientific or philosophical. There are three other important systems of thought as monism, dualism, and pluralism with differentiated approaches to the same reality.

These systems have generated some antagonisms, but the main one is the antagonism between religion and science. Religions preach a spiritual or supernatural world, a world beyond physics, a metaphysical world. Science denies this metaphysical world. Philosophy accompanies science, because it has comfortable residence in Universities along with science. Art also has an address at the Academy, but it does not have its own thought and has fun with other systems of thought.

The idea of this work is a differentiated approach of thought and it polarizes physical and metaphysical worlds. It defends the metaphysical to then it elaborates a philosophical system with 3 metaphysical premises. For this, it is necessary to expose some relevant considerations of this author for dear reader. This author is a retired police officer and a lawyer. Facts and evidences govern both works. Thus, my work was always, and still is, based on facts and evidences.

Police work seems like science. Scientific work in social sciences starts with the observation of a problem (in the police, with a crime); it adopts a hypothesis (a line of investigation); it searches list of evidences, arguments to prove or not the hypothesis (to conclusion for prosecution or not). In two words is a thesis’ defense. The lawyer, of course, defends thesis contrary. PhDs, polices, and lawyers raise hypothesis, collect evidence and conclude with a defense of thesis. All academics and jurists seek the truth for the defense of their thesis.

As every scientist, this author specialized in the Criminal Sciences. The sciences multiply in a specialist chaos. However, specialization seeks to connect with the whole. It seeks to connect the micro to the macro. What are the defenses of thesis and dissertation if not to connect the micro to the macro, science to philosophy, the analytical thinking to synthetic thinking? Induction and deduction are at the center of rational thought. Each analysis will involve reflection of synthesis.

The synthetic thinking always attracts, because the specializations of science go to infinity and beyond. Philosophy should seek a unifying thought that reaches everything and everybody, and not a specialization for a few. However, science and technology triumphed after the industrial revolution and the philosophy live at the Academy. Today philosophy tends to specialism, hermeticism, and skepticism. The fragmentation of the philosophy has promoted the collapse of great philosophical systems and of the unification.

Nevertheless, great philosophers have always search unification, systematization, and not fragmentation. Spinoza wanted to perceive unity in diversity to find the synthesis in which opposites and contradictions meet and merge themselves. Comenius devoted much of his life to the unification of the totality of human knowledge. His last thought was universal understanding that would unite all humanity. This philosophical basis he called Pansophy, a principle that would harmonize all the knowledge. Thinkers had always sought a key to the knowledge of all things, a theory to explain all the workings of the world, a science that encompasses the whole universe.

Modern physics, wave science, search the theory of everything, an equation to integrate all forces of the cosmos. We even had a candidate for such feat. Stephen Hawking, British physicist that of mechanized voice and all physically deformed. Hawking declared the death of philosophy, but he did not find an equation of everything and neither an equation of nothing.

Science and technology won and life becomes a machine. People do not drop their cell phones. They dream about expensive cars and big houses. Watching people, the media, especially TV, we realize that the meaning of life is an exaggerated and meaningless consumerism. The prime of life is to be a celebrity, or athlete, or singer, or actor, even empty of content. The superficiality reigns with science.

Physics reduced all knowledge to atoms. This is strange to the deepest thought. Life seems much more than a heap of atoms or cells. Being transcends skin and bones. Whenever scholars and spiritualists seek to connect science with metaphysics, the Academy runs to deny such connection. Cases such as the Anthropic principle and theory of the Biocentrism, owners of science are always on duty to deny metaphysics. Metaphysical can be what physics has not yet detected, measured, quantified. It is something unknown as were the microorganisms, cells, atoms and dark energy.

Plato, the best philosopher, divided the reality in two: the world of the senses and the world of ideas. He ensured that the world of ideas was the true and eternal world. His disciple Aristotle was also metaphysical, but he concentrated in the physical world. Because of these philosophers, posthumous thinkers divided the thought into two philosophical currents that have crossed the time: idealism x realism. Idealism and rationalism are of Platonic mode. On the other hand, realism and empiricism are of Aristotelian mode.

However, science dominated the nineteenth century with positivism. Idealism and rationalism have lost power to the realism and empiricism. Pragmatism and positivism dissolved the idealism and metaphysics. The atheistic existentialism continued this work.

Today, in this way, physics denies the metaphysical. The philosophy became an associate of science and turned away from Metaphysics. Scientific dogmas limit philosophy and it has no great advances. Although Aristotle also preached a god and a metaphysical world, science has adopted just the sensible world. Therefore, for didactic purposes, we are going to polarize the thought into physical and metaphysical.

Like three ways of thought, three premises based this work: Creation-EvolutionIntegration. We have pretension of connection and synthesis. Then we will adopt simple concepts, well known, without delay in concepts, without great scientific and philosophical citations. We also have pretension to search for eternal truths of Plato. We have pretension of unification of knowledge. We have pretension to seek the why of the phenomena, since science can only tell us the how of the phenomena. We search a philosophical synthesis not only based on evidences and facts, but also based on reason and scientific, philosophical and theological arguments not contradictory. The idea is to consider all knowledge where they are strong, devoid of contradictions. Principle of the set of evidences discards what is contradictory. In the end, we analyze the knowledge by the police-judicial method to evaluate the set of thought. We reject empirical evidence that contradicts the whole as we do legally.

This book requires an open mind, because it does not accept dogmas, blind faith, blind forces, mysticism, scientism, and biblism. Division of reality into natural, artificial and supernatural is only didactic. The metaphysical world is also natural e there is nothing supernatural. This is not a question of faith, but of reason according to this work.

Currently this author is devoid of any religion. He was raised in the Catholic religion. Later he attended the Spirit religion for 15 years, but now he has no religion. As a result, he does not worship any god and does not pray. However, it partially accepts all metaphysical belief systems, because they have a background of truth.

This disbelief is easy to prove in another author's book: Decalogue, Human Laws. This book denies the divine authorship of the Bible and denies the divine authorship of the Decalogue, Catholic and Spiritist dogma. This dogma is in the Bible in Genesis and in the first chapter of The Gospel according to Spiritism.

Officially, I am retired police officer, lawyer and author. Nevertheless, I like to think that I am a philosopher more for etymological sense: friend of wisdom. After all, in the last analysis, we are all thinkers. I think therefore I am.

2 – Existential Questions

Why are we born, grow and die? In other words, where we came from? What we are? Where are we going? The man, at some stage of the existence, asks these questions. Called existential questions, they refer to life and its existence. For millennia, religious, philosophers, poets and scientists try to answer these mysteries of the existence. However, there is still no good answer.

Initially, these questions seem childish: well, I came from my father and my mother, I am here to live and I will go to the cemetery! Nevertheless, they are philosophical questions and they were never answered satisfactorily.

Myths were the first to answer such questions. Religions have adopted the myths and they began to say that we come from a Creator and a metaphysical world.

As a rule, they sought to explain the physical world through the metaphysical world. The physical world made of men, and the metaphysical world made of gods that directly interfered in the physical world.

Myths of all peoples, past and present, always have the same content and narrative form. They just change the characters and the address. The theme is the same: the creation of the gods, of the world, of the man, and the relationship between men and gods.

Philosophers were the first to question these myths. As there were many mythical explanations for the same theme, thinkers began to distrust of the myths. Philosophers sought natural explanations for the world. Called Cosmo, Universe had a sense of order and rationality. For this, they added the term logos to the cosmos it resulted in Cosmology: the rational knowledge of the world. The myth loses space for reason.

In the Renaissance, it was the turn of astronomers to distrust of the religions, especially the biblical fundamentalism. Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler advocated heliocentrism, unlike the church that preached the geocentrism because of a biblical episode. Galileo had to unsay what he said under penalty of the holy fire. For the church, the Earth only revolved around the Sun in 1992, when Pope John Paul II asserted that Galileo was right. The Earth is not more the center of the universe.

Biology studies also refute part of the Hebrew mythology. Darwin declares that man has the monkey as an ancestor, because of evolutionism. On the contrary, the church preached the immediate and special creation of man. This one is no longer so special. Later, anthropology began to relate the mythologies with feelings like fear.

After the great wars, there was a philosophy focused on the man, but it did not help human thought. The atheistic existentialism preached a world without God and without sense.

Other sciences have contradicted religions, but still science and philosophy did not answer what we are.

All religions preach a posthumous life, a metaphysical life. However, will I continue to be I even after death? Where do I go after dead? To the sky? To hell?

Such metaphysical questions do not make sense for science, because it denies the metaphysical world. Thus, a chemical response to life might be like this: we are the meeting of about 55% water, 23% carbon, 2.6% nitrogen,