The Reification of Philosophy Through Art

hat is the meaning of life? This question has in its many permutations, the everlasting qualia of eternal truth, and the inquiry from which all other questions undoubtedly arise, and an answer so incredibly profound, that if possible, becomes the universal principle for all human action, inquiry and existence to depend. For it is one thing to know of the ideas which govern our metaphysical constructions present in nature, but a wholly different phenomena to understand and apply such knowledge as actionable principles in the conduct, experience and discovery of the fullness that all life needs.

Before embarking on the solution to this question, there are a few words of preparation concerning the reader for which I shall need to expound.

1. This treatise, however grandiose, must remain within the realm of man, for it is impossible to conceive the constructions and philosophy of a species, in toto differentiae, although I must assume this principle remains valid for all rational beings, biological or non-biological in the current sense that we may conceive of this term. By rational, I define any being, biological or non-biological, whose possession of conscious experience allows them the power of reason to both conceive and understand the phenomena of existence through reflection or contemplation. With this precept, man, or any other subsequent entity possessing the faculty of reason, may posses the ability to think, in order to understand and decide which action or interest to employ for what end, whether for pleasure or pain, good or evil, love or hate, power or wealth, virtue or knowledge.
2. This treatise is in no way meant to stand as a final or full exposition on the topic at hand. For the exhaustion of demonstration and understanding necessary to articulate the limitless phenomena associated with the ends and aim of rational action would be impossible to construct and time will simply not allow such an exposition in this condensed form. This writing is, and should be, received as an introduction to the subject for which my later writings will certainly expand.

With these simple conditions established, we must then concern ourselves with the fundamental ideas from which action depends, the goal of action, namely it’s Aristotelian end, and the process by which action may exist to fulfill some purpose or meaning within an animal’s life.

For never in the history of humanity has a more important question arisen in our search for meaning amongst the limitless expanse. For all men governed by the conscious apperception of reason, in order to understand, decide and act, in that eternal experience that may improve man is at once a universal concern. The disputation and definition on what I may consider action must then be defined. For it is not sufficient to define true action as propagated by the lower faculties of reason. By this I discern the general autonoma and instinctual precepts present in all rational beings for appetitive desires such as hunger, thirst, reproduction or self-preservation/survival. Nor do I believe it is sufficient to classify the instincts themselves as either rational or conscious of their end. For if an animal is instinctually predetermined to fear the enemy for some such predetermined comprehension of it’s own cogent extinction or ill, the action resulting in fight or flight is not conscious but innate. Instinctual to what may be called the primary or subconscious modus operandi.

This too stands for the general and intuitive motions of the human body. For walking, seeing, standing, sitting, blinking, breathing, sleeping and eating are no more conscious than automatic functions when engaged therein. The decision itself to move, sit, stand, sleep etc. may be itself a momentary action, but only in the sense that it is provoked by an idea, present in the rational mind. For without the clear conception of an end by which any action is taken, said automatic motions may not be classified as actions, but mere decisions in the truest sense. Without idea, man fails to truly manifest his experience into action, and therefore may never fully understand his locomotive being.

This I espouse as a key tenet of my philosophy. The idea that no action can be classified as true action without it’s preconceived idea or end, present in the conscience of the rational being. This in all general observation allows most of man’s “actions” or motions to remain purely instinctive or automatic, with very few, if any, in the lifetime of the creature to be considered rational or comprehensible by reason.

The conscious phenomena of sensorial experience, and the metaphysical proposition as conceived in the nature of the Idea, in and of itself, remains the principle by which we govern our actions a priori. Ideas, in a word, predicate action and without conception there could be no sense or rational understanding of behavior in the physical realm.

Those of you that shall dispute such a claim may again be considering our instincts as opposed to action. I do not wish to discuss the ideas often called the passions, such as love, desire, lust, avarice and the like, for these too are less distinctive and remain subjugated with the instinctual or innate principles which govern all ordinary and extraordinary phenomena in daily life. With both the phenomena of being and the experience of becoming, love itself is an idea whereas loving, the action by which we manifest our perception of love, is the transcendent experience from which man and the recipient of the universal principle enjoy the sensorial experience of joy, fulfillment, happiness, peace, tranquility and the like. For it is of no more use to discuss these principles concerning passion here. For further inquiry into the emotions or passions, I ask the reader to please see Spinoza’s Ethics for clarity and enlightenment.

For with the assertion that no action is thus action without Idea, we must then turn to the manifestation of true action as the predicate for meaning in all rational beings. To prove that metaphysics determines our perceptions of conscience phenomena, and our experience of happiness, joy, fulfillment and meaning, is altogether my primary concern. What then, is this action when properly manifested? And how may it serve as a universal principle for man’s desire to be in this realm of experience?

These questions, and many more, spawn the primal inquiry into the nature of what I term Art, for which I denote as reason applied, from idea into action within the physical realm. My supposition is that this precept is the very final end and aim of human reason. The construct that man’s very existence lay upon the principle of the aforementioned maxim, by conceiving what is first in the mind of man and then manifesting it’s ideal into the reality of nature, all rational beings may finally come to know their true power over conscious experience. The condition and completion of this act by which Idea is delivered into action, is coupled with the experience we call happiness, joyousness, fulfillment, or peace. Without managing to manifest what is metaphysical into the physical, no man can be fulfilled, however mundane the conception or construction of the idea remains.

For if man cannot first conceive of his end by nature of the idea established in his mind, he may then never attempt to manifest such idea into action with understanding in the physical realm. Without such understanding, man may never come to know or appreciate his actions, which remain the basis for happiness, fulfillment and peace. For no other aim than to bring idea into action governs the existence of all rational beings and must be declared the final end and aim of conscious life. The failure to achieve such action will construct an existence of indolence, misery and most tragically, misunderstanding.

Why then do I separate this act of manifestation and how does action articulate the universal ideal? For if true action can exist in the physical realm it must be first conceived in the nature of the principle or idea. Once the metaphysical is brought into the physical by means of right reason, the transference of energy and communication of such principles is thus received by its recipient in the form of the sensory phenomena most closely related to its primordial truth. For if one’s goal is to manifest altruism as a first idea, the act and the action may differ only in conception as to conjoin in the synergistic manifestation of the whole. By merely endeavoring to assist another in need, the primordial virtues of kindness, justice, piety, courage and altruism are thus always conferred through the sensorial manifestation of apperception that goodness has been performed. It is possible that the recipient may not comprehend the immediacy and primacy of the primordial idea but always becomes aware, consciously or subconsciously, of the individual’s act by that which creates the effect of emotion in the senses by conference of the universal truth.

I liken this phenomenon to the nature of true Art for it is this pure communication of first principles and universal precepts, which make even the momentary experience of truth universally perceived. For when True Action articulates True Idea, as this is the only way with which action can occur, the sensorial phenomena of emotion is always perceived. Whether in love, art or any of the primary virtues, this declaration of action is the only explanation for which I see possible to conceive.

This work was published as an initial thesis in order to establish a larger series of essays entitled “On First Ideas” in which I articulate original ontological perspectives concerning a number of philosophic issues. Each essay intends to produce the essence, not the entire, argument for which I will later expand.