Natural lifeis eternal, complies with cosmiccriteria, and is whatexistedbefore the pointof unnaturalness. Eternityrequiresvalidity of naturalprinciples and presence of vitalcharacteristics (natural instincts, intuition, feelings, emotions, and sense of belongingwith othersand with nature) in humans. I am not sayingthat the naturallife isalways beautiful and ideal by default; it can be good and bad and we know that it was not always good; itwas full ofstruggles andhumanmisery.Timeless Humanism should createnaturallife withoutthoseelementalweaknessesbut still restoreitsoriginal meaning.BelowI would like toexplain the relationshipanalogical to termsusedpreviously.
Man thoughtthat naturallife isbad,cruel anddeprives man of his liberty,and wanted toreplace it witha beautifulhumane world which dreamed upas an idealbut which he was unable to create because of hisimperfection; all attempts for„purelyhuman world“ failed and it was alwaysnecessary toat least partiallyrestoresomenaturalprinciples (i.e. market, democracy)towards the attributes ofnatural life.The thesis of„purelyhuman world“ givessome peoplerelyingon organicidealsantithesisof a „natural world“ that negateshuman behaviorin great depth; and claims that manhasdestroyednature already as the farmer and caused manyenvironmental disasters andcalls for stopping of everything what changes nature.This perception of the world does not correspond with naturalworld in which manadequately changes and uses nature without compromisingitsfundamentals byhis behaviorthrough exercising control of naturalprinciples ortraditionalorder or perception ofcosmiccriteria.
I will be more concise here than what the topic would deserve as this publication haslimited scope so I apologizethat mystatementmay seemoverconfident.Still, I am at least going to outline relationship of timeless attitude to natural lifeand the wayit was imaginedclassical authors who define theirnatural worldas some sort ofnaivelong-gone dream world which functioned by naturalprinciples and in which human vitalcharacteristicsapplied more. Against this stands world of science which is based on„purereason.“From contradiction between the natural world and the world of science a crisis arises. The world of science alters the natural world; people are guided by scientific evidence and not by their natural vital internal standards. Schism occurs between the immediate world of human opinion and scientific reasoning. According to this conception natural science is not developing natural world (naive), but its radical reconstruction. This results in is a self-alienation, self-abdication, minimizing emotional personality. “Like if there was a single tone of indifferent nothingness ringing through all life variants” (see 67).
According to classical interpretation (Patocka et al, see 67, 81, and 82) man lives in his naturally present environment, which includes given component (formed sensory material, present and past, own opinion experience and that from outside) and interpretive component (a kind of quasi-experience – naive uncritical extrapolating of factual experience). Against this there are clear and distinct ideas of science. So we live in a world of illusion, because the truth is reconstruction based on formal (mathematical) laws which in the end have the form of mechanism.Habermas adds that the system (mechanism – capitalism) eats “live-world” (the natural world). Marx argues that alienation arises from work under capitalism which does not allow man to do what he wants to do and where a person must do what he does not want to do and therefore becomes someone else; and results of his work are against his will conquered by someone else. Hegel observed that man externalizes part of his self to the outside world. Husserl calls the natural world “world of our lives”.
I am not talking about the world, but about life. While the term world is a staticidea of some structure, life is changing, adapting to science and it is only becoming unnatural beyond certain point. According to Patocka (see 67, 81) crisis is caused by the invasion of scientific thinking which is “devouring” natural thinking. I argue that scientific thinking has always been there (production tools, discoveries of natural laws, ancient philosophers) and has always been influencing natural life was part of it. It is as natural for man as it is the original, naive. Rejection of natural life occurred as a result of “pride of reason”, elevating man to God and elevation of man over the surrounding world. Because man naturally can not know everything, and has to stick to what he knows, and he does not want to admit limitations of his own knowledge on the basis of “pride” he has generalize his fragmentary knowledge. It is a waste of general thinking which includes the unknown, perceived and instinctive, but mostly detachment from the traditional order which contained the unknown, perceived and instinctive as functional and proven rules. Transition to unnatural thinking means loss of general thinking and promotion of fragmented thinking to general. This behavior requires ideology and hence cultural justification; all self-alienation and self-abdication are introduced by certain agendas, human ambitions, desire for liberation on which science had only mediating influence. One does not necessarily have to behave that way (and on many instances he does not behave this way). Scientific discoveries (and mathematics) can be classified into natural life as its part. Providing people perceive cosmic criteria and follow them consciously, then the natural life will also be timeless, but it certainly won’t correspond to that naïve world once described by classical philosophers. Natural life can therefore evolve without losing its natural core, but its changes will be in addition to the effects of existential environment performed by science. At least in this concept I am not alone (see Zdenek Kratochvil 82).
I consider exact human thinking and behavior which does not stem immanently from natural essence of life scientific “pure reason” (abstract thinking); it seems that man inwardly dissociated himself from his natural core for this purpose. Man is in a specific role separated from all the instincts, emotions, sense of belonging, and competitiveness; and only serves abstract concepts or superior ideas, unaffected by relationship to people who are directly present. To certain extent “pure reason” can create human roles, and it looks like if a man acted (as an official, scientist, manager, or president) and followed the rules for this role, and when performing this role he would not “know his own brother”. Man, however, on the same day at another location may play a different role: father, sponsor, youth trainer, a member of a league. “Pure reason” can also be considered by itself, i.e. where the limits are and where it should not interfere; that he is not alone in the world, the world is not controlled by him, and he will never have complete control over it. Man can thus eitherservenaturallife orelevate himself over itandchangenatural lifeto unnatural.
Timelessthinking uses „purethought“, whichis purely scientificalyaware thatnatural lifemust be retained.It’ssomething like „common sense“; as it overcomes unnecessaryphilosophical burden of „purereason“; and puts more emotionand perception ofcosmiccriteria.Manacceptsthe role of „a timelessly thinkingperson“.I thinkthis isacceptable by deviation from the„arroganceof reason“.Naturallife canreturn.More preciseexplanation will be provided in chapter ondisjunction.
„PureReason“always existed andmust exist.Judges, legislators, officials, all mustdetachfrom theiremotions, to be abletodo their job well, otherwise they would only pushtheir family,friends andacquitancesand would not be abletoserveabstract conceptssuch as justice, state, laws, etc. „Pure Reason“ is only rarely „pure“, usually there is some agenda in the backgroundthat is used(scientistservesthe common good, an official serves the state).This agenda, however, may not becompletely „benign“, and that’s why it can also leadto crimesinspired by this idea(religious, state, national, or a football club) if it gets priority overempathy, solidarity and identity. It can also be exploitedby totalitariansocieties.But there isyet anotherdanger, danger of unnaturalnessbecause „pure reason“ is essentiallyseparated fromhuman nature, as it servedtotalitarian regimes,pure reasoncan also serveunnaturalagendas.But it alsocan take naturalness into account comply with it.It isa question of creatingroles.
Timelessnaturallife is basedon the perception ofcosmic criteria. E.g. Hartmann (see 77)calls it„lifein the idea.“ Manperformes “valueresponse“ to the challenges coming from cosmos and at the same timeunderstands that the worldis not here“ for us“ but hasa higher purpose, yet we makeitthe objectof our activities.We can also be inspired by Hildebrand’s (see77)„seeing of fundamentals“ (perception ofthe essenceof life).Brentonand Masarykstand for „the highest moral good“. All of theseideasrequireexpansionwithin the meaningMeyer-Abichov (see77)„extended communitarianism“ to other creatures of the planet, in addition to that I add:andthe offsprings. Even though enlightenedindividualscanpositivelyaffect thecrowds, I doubt, however, that mostpeople can be „enlightened“ beyond their human natureand that they have the capacity to become some „new better people„. However, I thinkthat a personhavingtheir naturalproperties, especiallywhen he feelsthe need to preservethe familyand seesinstinct„well-fed predator“ (a creature that huntsonly to survive,withoutraisingits needsjust for some infinitelyincreasingpathologicalvision of„a betterstandard of living“), is able to empathizewith naturethat feedshim and hisprogeny,behaves by cosmiccriteria andpreservesnatural life,ife is notdistractedfrom this by the ideasof unnaturalnessbut incontrastis trainedin naturalideas, which may includethose that I havesaidabove. Suchnatural life is also timelessand ensures that contradictionsand crises, mentioned by classics dissapear.
Many works discuss thespiritualdimension of man and humanvalues(5, 35, 26, 20, and 66), here I only will mention additions necessary formyinterpretation.There arevaluesof idealand realcharacter, but most logicalterms have twodimensions.Values arethetranscendent,when their character is ideal.Freedomcan be atranscendentvalue when one is fightingfor it, otherwise its character is real and when it is part of life its value is changing (i.e. howmuch freedom one’s boss allows). With other values it is similar.
There are valuesand ideas constructiveand destructive, although most of them areusuallyneutral and only becomedestructivebeyond certain value. Constructivevaluesconnect peopleinthe communityand keep them united under allcircumstances, such as:unity, solidarity, patriotism, and faith in the future, justice, and cooperation;and the destructivethatdecomposecommunitiesare hate,indifference, individualism, and egoism and so on.Existingprocess ofdegradationof values andideas (unnatural process) usually does not leaddirectly to disruptive values but ratherdevaluesneutral(likefreedom), and makesthemdisruptive.
For all values (ideal and real), we can identify certain compositional limit of each of them. For example, freedom can become a bearer of destrcuction and instrument of the process of entropy. It can also be neutral (in the area of market) or constructive (connecting people in the struggle for freedom of some communities or individuals). Compositionality is characteristics which connects elements which shape society.
Another important meta-institution of human spiritual space is justice. It is much more general concept than freedom and claims the right for proper evaluation of human (free) behavior in terms of balance. Social justice was based on the prevailing sense that workers are exploited and not getting their fair wage. From there, egalitarianism and leveling stems, which can become tricky because man cannot make a good guess what is in the material realm fair evaluation of work. Therefore it is always productive when the rules of society lean on a pattern or principle of an ideal being.