“The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man”; F. Engels, 1876 - Well, a false premise to begin with, but otherwise suitably ambitious.

Dear Prof. Wilkin,

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. But it is not at all clear to me why you would dismiss Engels’ thesis, which is based on evolutionary principle and the central premise of Marx and himself that the extent of consciously directed useful labour in man represents the highest development of the subjectivity of life and that man created himself through his labour.

Engels makes it clear from the very start of his article when he says, “Labour is the source of all wealth, the political economists say. It is this -- next to nature which supplies it with the material that it converts into wealth. But it is actually infinitely more than this. It is the prime basic condition for all human existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labour created man himself.”

It is true that Engels made philosophical abstractions, without providing much empirical evidence. But it is a necessary abstraction from limited facts, given the enormity of the subject he is dealing with after the fact and the vast wealth of evolutionary forms that exist just in front of us. Darwin did the same and Engels clearly borrowed intuition from Darwin’s theory of evolution, including the latter’s idea of the “correlation of growth”; according to which particular forms of the individual parts of an organic being are always bound up with certain forms of other parts that apparently have no connection with the first. Engels correlated the progressive development of the crude hand of an ape with the necessity of its diverse functions for labour; with the vast enhancement of the most vital sensory organs like the brain that already existed in somewhat less developed forms.

Unlike you, I think that this piece of Engels’ work is a very important contribution to the evolutionary history of man and illuminates areas for further investigation. Unless of course, you subscribe to the causality based theistic idea that God created everything “perfect in itself” and/or the “atheist” mechanical materialism based ideas promoted by people starting from de La Mettrie (L'homme Machine), to Karl Popper, Jacques Monod, Richard Dawkins et al. In fact Engels’ work on the evolution of the human brain is infinitely more rich and resourceful than the crude, mechanistic and spurious view of modern official evolutionary biology and palaeontology as reflected by a review article in the Guardian under the title “Bipedalism, birth and brain evolution” that refers to some recent paleantological research on this issue: https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2012/may/07/1

Based on the analysis of some few million years old skulls, the authors of this research ascribe the increase in human brain compared to that of the ape to changes in the female "birth canal" due to bipedal stature!

I made the following comment (in the comment section of the review article as "futurehuman") critisizing such shallow views and in support of Engels' work.

["This empiricist (based on some convenient facts and measurements), structural, mechanical and reductionism based account of the evolution of the human brain - (the most complex and the highest creation of Nature); is so typical of an official science and academic deliberations. A cursory glance at the dialectical approach to this problem by Frederick Engels elaborated in his book written in 1876, "Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" would have prevented the modern palaeontologists from making so narrow, simplistic and facile conclusion from their work. Engels’ book written long before the important modern palaeontological discoveries offers a much more rich and nuanced approach and a multi-faced description for the possible evolution of the brain than this shallow and myopic empiricist approach.of simple bipedalism, birth passage and skull structure.

Anti-dialectical academic science emphasizes only the "objective" aspect of life (and Darwinism in general) and totally ignores its "subjective" side. But in a crude sense the subjective aspect is common in all life forms, including the most primitive ones. This quality roughly separates life from non-living matter. Simple movement & mechanics even in primitive life forms is impossible without a general sense of subjectivity and causality. With the progress of evolution, this sense is accentuated culminating in its highest development in man. The evolution of the hand as the primary and the most efficient subjective tool and as an instrument of labour; the silmutaneous and necessary evolution of the sense organs (speech included) and most of all the brain to process the information from the sense organs and to co-ordinate and to guide them subjectively and dialectically for desired results, must have been the primary stimulus for the gradual and further evolution of the brain.

Thus the hand and the brain are not only the organs of labour, but they are also the product of labour. But for the hand to perform such primary role in the evolution of man, it first had to be "free" from its role for locomotion as is the case with the anthropoid ape. As Engels wrote, "Climbing assigns different functions to the hands and feet, and when their mode of life involved locomotion on level ground, these apes gradually got out of the habit of using their hands and adopted a more and more erect posture. This was the decisive step in the transition from ape to man. ... But the decisive step had been taken, the hand had become free and could henceforth attain ever greater dexterity; the greater flexibility thus acquired was inherited and increased from generation to generation."]

A long response and complete. Marx and Engels had a belief in the transforming economic basis of labour, but why not organisation instead/which they would have decided was a managerial role and therefore subsidiery but without it labour means nothing. What about instead intuition and inspiration? Labour is reiterative but can merely repeat. Marx and Engel believe labour created production but for produxction to mean anything it requires other values.

You say the hand is the first tool of labour but it is indeed the first, if you like, to create an external element to human existence, but without intentionality moves without purpose. The hand and arm express human negotiation with space, but purpose is also required.

There is no evidence of any part played by labour in brain development, while there is plenty for learning itself/which requires labour but is separate from it. Labour functions within set parameters, but does not create them. It serves them. In the first cities, labour although elemental was directed not self/sustaining motivated by ideaologies of urban life in which indeed religion played a part but only or mainly as an extension of newly formed community values.

In short, in the portrait of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.

Life is a product of the physical laws of nature. Therefore, life is a way for nature to see and experience itself.

The latest discovery in thermodynamics, the unification law of evolution, known as the constructal law states: “For a flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”

Relative to the “Essence of Humanity,” for the flow of human reasoning to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to the pedagogic currents of nature. Resulting in the evolution of enlightenment, promoting change in the configurations of philosophy, culture, markets, technology and scientific understanding, etc.; generating dendritic patterns guided by the physical constructal law all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain).

From those pedagogic currents of nature, individuals, including social systems, evolve relative to their currents. That is, the currents of the individual flow towards happiness, the currents of the market is wealth generation, the currents of governance flow towards the power to rule, and the currents of a civil society flow towards harmony. The ethical application of the constructal law in the convolution of those currents embraces social evolution. The critical link throughout all those social currents is the individual’s morality, the exclusive pinnacle in advancing the evolution of a civil society towards harmony.

I’m currently working on the next edition of my book to be out in the third-quarter of 2019. Please find the introduction chapter at the following link:

https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Scientific_Proof_of_Our_Unalienable_Rights

At this time of great peril to humanity itself, there is a powerful voice of hope, courage and a call for a point of departure from the US leader Arnold Schwarzenegger:

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-capitol-hill-riot-kristallnacht-155259895.html

Dear Abdul Malek ,

I would say to Mr. Schwarzenegger, Wakeup! Where have you been? “Broken Glass” has been going on in the US for the last 12 years at an alarming rate and nearly at a daily pace; see WOKE.NET.

https://woke.net

We need to enhance education in reason and ethics. The foundation to ethics via the science of rights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvD4DHMq1Y4

Dear colleagues,

My answer: responsible and pertinently innocuous freedom.

Regards.

Dear Michael T Takac ,

I think it is never too late for someone to do or to say something that is truly noble and profound!

Best regards, Abdul

Humankind lives and works together in one way or another. The idea of humanity is to ensure we live and work together efficiently and effectively. Apart from that, little more than hocus-pocus.

It is not a mechanistic or 'dry' living and working together but one which is symbolically created and understood. Humanities combined creativity and imagination is substantially greater than humanity itself.

Stanley Wilkin : Stanley, Thanks for your comment. This brings be back to this issue to responds to the mechanistic and presumably “scientific” assertion of the following statement made above by Prof. Torvich, "The essence of humanity is to strive towards the freedom of the will" - This is not a scientific statement. What is free will, is it even exists, is it testable, etc. - all that is unknown”.

This also, is the position of Official “Science” originating from the crass mechanical materialism of de la Mettrie (L'Homme Machine) and promoted in biology by the likes of (Nobel Laureate) Jacques Monod, Richard Dawkins et al. This is also the subject of debate of only “necessity” and no “chance” of theology against only “chance” and no “necessity” of “Science”! Dawkins, who is leading a crusade against God for a long time, starts his biology in a "scientific" and deterministic way from the elements created from the “Big Bang” creation of the universe and asserts in his book “The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True”; that the conditions and the parameters for life were determined (as the physicists thinks) at the time of the creation of the universe and what followed is the deterministic manifestation of those parameters in life forms.

But when a priest asks Dawkins, “But pray tell Sir, if I may ask; whose finger pushed to button to trigger the “Big Bang”? “Scientist” Dawkins can only mumble! As a dialectical materialist (based on the interplay of chance and necessity); I am standing against the deterministic crusade of the “physicists” in theoretical physics and cosmology (not to speak of the “biologists”), who are claiming the mantle of “science”! I agree with Epicurus on this issue “It is better to follow the myth about the gods than to be a slave of the determinism of the physicists”

Victor Torvich > "My statement did not say a single word about the terms God, theology, determinism, creation of the Universe, deterministic manifestation, which you attribute to my statement."

Dear Prof. Torvich: This question is not new, Sir! The words "freedom of the will", "scientific" etc., are enough to entail the questions of "God, theology, determinism, creation of the Universe, deterministic manifestation" etc., as it came historically and debated furiously. To its credit, (and even if in a limited way) theology allows some free will on moral questions and allows some contradiction, like the recognition of power of "Evil" (Satan) in the Kingdom of supposedly omnipotent and omniscient God! But not our Official "SCIENCE", its determinism, non-contradiction etc. are absolute from the so-called :Big Bang" creation of the universe and are beyond any form of negotiation!

So, in my judgement, my rather harsh and non-compromising reaction to your initial question is well justified and I stand by it!. The very fact of the need for the reformulation of your statement as you have done now, also justifies my stance. I hope you would have some sympathy for the harsh tone of my comment; if you knew the fact that I am facing all kinds of abuse, ad hominem attacks for my (superior, in my view) materialist dialectical approach to natural science in RG, particularly on theoretical physics and cosmology.

I will comment on the new formulation of your statement in a separate post below.

Victor Torvich > ""The essence of humanity is to strive towards the freedom of the will," - What is free will, is it even exists, is it testable, etc. - all that is unknown."

Dear Prof. Torvich, for your newly formulated question I hope you would find some hint if you read my original statement a bit more closely. I think that life even in its most primitive form acquires some subjectivity for the requirement of self-preservation, metabolism, mobility, propagation etc. and hence the necessity to change its immediate surrounding and create condition for its existence and also some conscious or unconscious "understanding" of its immediate environment. A delicate creep would breakdown a mighty rock to extract nutrition for its existence and growth! A humble amoeba would try to steer way from the perceived threat of a pointed spatula! This sense of subjectivity develops through the evolutionary process, reaching its highest development in the thinking brain of men.

I think the following quote from Frederick Engels (whom I closely follow) will help to clarify better my position on this issue:

“Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the appreciation of necessity. “Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood”. Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence of natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility, this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves – two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought, but not in reality.

Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decision with real knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man’s judgement is in relation to a definite question, with so much the greater necessity is the content of this judgement determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows by this precisely that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature which is founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development. The first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in civilization was a step towards freedom.” (Anti-Dṻhring).

You cannot talk about any one fundamental essence of humanity. In this sense, the question is incorrectly posed. If we start from dialectics, then at least we need to talk about two fundamental essences of humanity. Here I will point out them now. In fact, both are self-evident. The conclusion that follows from the internal collision of these two entities is not self-evident.

The first fundamental nature of humanity is that it is the most advanced species of the animal community that has ever arisen as a result of biological evolution on this planet. Comparison with animals is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact: compare, for example, us with our pets, which feed, reproduce, etc. similar to how we do it. The main quality that is acquired in the process of biological evolution, both in the animal and in the human world, is double egoism. It is thanks to this egoism that biological evolution can claim success in both cases.

The second fundamental essence of humanity is its ability to cognize the world around it and, on this basis, generate technological progress. This is the essence that distinguishes humanity from the animal community. This second essence is so organically inherent in humanity that it cannot refuse it in principle. To give up this essence is tantamount to death: it is like refusing to breathe or refusing to eat.

The main problem of the development and very existence of mankind is that these two fundamental entities enter into an antagonistic contradiction, which can be resolved only as a result of the death of humanity as the most developed species of the animal community [1].

[1] Article Dozy-chaos end of the human civilization, Journal of Ultra S...

I would say the true essence of human being is to realize its full potential in terms of outward and inward activities that lead him to true peace such that he can be one with Nature and her/his true Self. So far, few has realized this goal but they are true examples that it is possible.

Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov > "You cannot talk about any one fundamental essence of humanity. In this sense, the question is incorrectly posed. If we start from dialectics, then at least we need to talk about two fundamental essences of humanity."

You missed the main point from the very start my friend; the reason why you had to take recourse to scholastic maneuvering with long passages and so-called "Dozy-chaos" - whatever that may mean!

The original statement starts "from dialectics" of "two fundamental essences" namely, "a subjectivity of man and the dialectical unity of the opposites of the objectivity of blind Nature"! The discussion that follows strictly adheres to and elaborates this contradiction when man would achieve the "freedom of the will" to greatly reduce (never eliminate) this contradiction by changing himself and Nature based on positive knowledge and natural necessity and would live in relative harmony with Nature; a process that started with the antagonistic way at the beginning of first life forms!

This is similar to contradiction of the productive forces (labor) and the relation of production in economics, when the working class would gain full creative potentiality with the elimination of class rule in a communist society - a helical development of primitive communism; but at an enormously higher level of technological development and greater freedom of man!

Victor Torvich > "It looks to me that now we are discussing different questions."

Not at all Sir; I have been consistent all through! This assertion seems to arise from your lack of understanding of my comments. Please read my comments carefully again. If you please read my comment to Prof. Vladimir V. Egorov posted above, it may help to clear things up.

Victor Torvich : I am discussing both! I don't see why you find a conflict between the two statements! "The freedom of the will" for what? or why? "To vastly change the conditions of his existence by changing himself and Nature."

Abdul,

Your response to my description is fine but don't believe in the 'mumbling' of Dawkins. This sounds like religious fabrication, trying to prove that Dawkins was unable to reply coherently to the religious notion of an original force of godly origins. He would have done. And very easily.

There is no need for an originating force as that itself is anthropomorphism. There is no need for time to have either a beginning or end. This is just a monotheist notion that can be dispensed with.

Stanley Wilkin : Stanley, I hope you do not assume that I am a supporter of theology or God! I take a harder stand on the "scientists" for their so-called atheism, strict determinism, denial of free will and in general a mechanical (dehumanizing) world view of man and the world, which they take pride of being "objective", "scientific" etc., ad nauseum; but are the strongest pillars (the other being theology) that supports modern decadent and regressive monopoly capitalism; as their riling ideas!

I see (causality-based) modern official theoretical "science" ( which I consider no science at all, but a modified and deceptive form of theology) is the greater threat to humanity than theology proper, which is now a spent force! What I tried to point out in my comment to you is that so-called atheist physicists and biologists go to the same position of the mystery of a "first cause", aka God, in their deliberation. The priests are smarter and do it effortlessly, by starting from God (top down). The "scientists" with their empirical "bottom up" approach of causality reach the same "Big Bang" creation by God (the same position of the priests), but after centuries of hard labor and a much greater cost of human resources - intellectual, labor, technological, financial etc. The technological developments they brought are side issues; brought some positive knowledge about Nature; but in the main strengthened the hands of the oppressive rulers; even though these indirectly and un-intentionally (like in the oppressed colonies) brought some general benefits for humanity. But the cost was enormous in terms of the waste of human potential.

They now use Einstein's theories of relativity (which many others and I myself have shown in my dialectics-based publications; to have no basis in objective reality at all!) to create wonder, awe, reverence etc. in the populace (the same effects done by theology) about dark/black cosmic monsters; which are nothing but Fairy Tales. But unlike theology, they "prove" these Fairy Tales with contrived or fake experiments of the "scientists" who are motivated by the lure of fame, fortune and funds and at an enormous cost of social resources.

Which one you think - Modern theoretical "science" or theology (that at least shows make-belief compassion for human sufferings) the greater evil to humanity?

That I understood. If you read my work on psychiatry, which holds the mind does not exist and everything is genes or, worse, bacteria, you will see that I agree with your position.

Is theology a spent force? Many dead people will disagree with you!

My friend Abdul!

My article link is not a justification, but only an addition. So your reproach about my dozy chaos is untenable. The text in response to your question that I have given is self-sufficient and there is no reference to the dozy chaos at all.

Your rejection of my answer is based on your dogmatic belief in dialectical materialism, development in a spiral as a result of resolving contradictions and raising to a new higher level of relations, production and even any other, and similar Marxisist dogma. I quite deliberately use the word "dogma" here, since dialectical materialism, as paradoxical as it may sound, is primarily through the efforts of Marx and Engels themselves, and then Lenin and all subsequent Soviet nomenclature of the USSR with their "scientific communism" is a "shining peak" of dogmatism.

Anything valuable that is contained in Marx's theory is a criticism of the capitalist mode of production, even if it is a brilliant criticism. However, such criticism can be made about any socio-political formation and about any mode of production. There is nothing perfect in this world that is far from perfect. Marx simply tried to copy the way of scientific thinking, which in his time began to rapidly form in the natural sciences, mainly in physics. The choice of a worthy role model in itself is welcome. However, political economy is far from physics in terms of its complexity, and there is not enough analytical ability to get to the bottom of the truth, the very truth that physics, in view of the sufficient simplicity of the objects of its study, is already subject to. Simply put, for example, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein had a reason and the right to feel like gods, but Marx, Engels, and Lenin did not have such a basis and right. Therefore, it is physics that underlies modern human civilization, while dialectical materialism is its premature miscarriage.

Dear Friend Vladimir,

Unfortunately, I consider your response here as personal, uninformed, contradictory and theological in nature. In your earlier comment today, you attempted to teach me better dialectics than I displayed and you aimed to substitute your better dialectics of Dozy-chaos for my defective materialist dialectics! And now within few hours you are trashing not only the "materialist dialectics" of my understanding but that of Marx and Engels - poor dialectics!

Well, this is not new to me in RG! The right-wing ideologues showers me, Marx and Engels with this kind of honors and some more on a regular basis. I have no desire to go into a discussion to convince you of the potency of materialist dialectics, which I think would be waste of my time. But I would humbly point out that your knowledge of physics unfortunately, is even worse than your knowledge of materialist dialectics! Your Gods - "Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein of physics" has feet not even of hard clay, but of liquidy mud! Your physics that underlies "modern human civilization" is your fantasy that you suffer from; and is like that of the official theoretical "physicists"!

Armed with materialist dialectics, I have now thrown down the gauntlet to challenge any "physicists", including a Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics; to prove me wrong in my bold assertions against not only Einstein's theories of relativity, but also Newtonian theories of extra-terrestrial gravity; in my following (at least tree) publications. I have strong indication that many well-known "physicists" (I prefer the term "Metaphysicist, used by Hegel for Newton); including the Nobel Laureate, read my articles, but no one so far showed the temerity to face me or prove me wrong. As a champion of "modern human civilization", may be you can do better! I wish you good luck, my friend!

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov : My friend Vladimir, In my comment above, I forgot to highlight your name, so probably you were not notified about that comment by RG. Hopefully this time you would be notified and you would see my response to you posted 11 hours ago.

Stanley Wilkin > "Is theology a spent force? Many dead people will disagree with you!:

Stanley, You might term this response from me a conspiracy theory; but I am convinced that all the tragedies of mass murder, terrorism etc., have roots in the policies of Anglo-American led Western imperialism to keep control of their vast economic empire around the world. They often instigated, practiced, promoted and in fact facilitated ethnic, religious, tribal etc., conflict and violence as a part of their long tested, premeditated and ruthless (centuries long) policy of 'divide and rule'.

Religious violence in India and the Middle East in particular can be directly linked with the premeditated and well thought- out imperialist policies of control, colonization, occupation, brutalization of the mainly disorganized populace in these resourceful regions.

Blind terrorism that we now see in the Middle East arises out of desperation, helplessness and hopelessness of a brutalized population and more often than not manipulated and even aided by vested interest of the imperialists; for such acts of violence and terror. Why do you think, terrorism in the form we see in the Middle East started in the last few decades and not before? Of course, there were conflicts and wars etc., but individual acts of blind terrorism and suicide bombing etc.?

I think that if the people in these regions were well organized to resist aggression, occupation, plunder by foreign forces, there would be no terrorism, no ethnic and/or religious violence at all, the way it is now! Look at the Vietcong, organized and led by capable communist leaders, who fought successfully the French and later the American off their land. Was there any individual act of terror by the Vietnamese people (other than by the agents of the occupiers) in their own countries or in foreign lands? The resistance forces in Vietnam were disciplined and restrained even in the face of brutal and premeditated mass murder of innocent people by armed American forces like the Mỹ Lai massacre!

OK. Let's look at this. I cannot rule out Western conspiracies as Western governments have acted in this way many times before based indeed on colonialist tropes. The withdrawal of the original colonialist presence gradually after WW2 is still being felt in the Islamic countries of Africa, Middle and Near East and Far East with an assertion of local identity often expressed through religious tropes. A getting rid of the imperialist process. The religious violence a reflection of earlier impotency, or what was seen as impotency. The Arab, the Muslim, after effecting world power became an afterthought, the Other, the Object.

That is one position. It has immense merit.

2nd position. Islam revived directly through the Iraq revolution whereby the country's government became a theocracy. In the 20th century, a country was and is run by clerics imposing medieval social systems on its citizens. The fatwa imposed on Salmon Rushdi, born in India,, raised in the UK, was a gesture of world dominance and terrorism. Allah once again (see Qur'an) fights on the side of his acolytes. Certain Islamic states are feeding terrorism. The construct of infidel has re-emerged creating a them and us situation. Its ferocity may indeed be a response to Western imperialism of the past and present, but equally it has roots in Islam's origins.

The Qur'an is very ferocious against pagans and then infidels, which included all states which opposed Arab or Islamic armies. Or so sira, many hadiths say. Islam is unusual as a religion because of the violent impetus surrounding its origin. Effectively, Islam colonialised African countries, the Middle East, parts of India (historians say that between 8th and 10 th century, 100,000 Indians were enslaved by Arab/Islamic forces spreading Islam) and Central Asia. So, in effect it outdid the West before the West outdid it. Ottoman forces successfully invaded Eastern Europe, which became a slave reservoir for Muslim states.

Although the world continues, rightly, to reflect on American slavery it ignores the widely applied Muslim slavery or apologises for it.

The point of the 2nd position, is take responsibility for what is in the Qur'an, Muslim history and Muslim imperialism.

3rd position. No one society is to blame but world politics is complex and subject to a number of forces. Taking one position provides one overview and solution, leading to unresolved issues. America's solution to problems is often shoot first (or at the last use the biggest weapons), and like Islam, violence is embedded into its past. Yes, imperialism remains with us, but imperialism, although different to every culture, can also be seen in every culture.

A life lived well is one in service to others!

Rich

Stanley Wilkin : Stanley, I am talking of the present time. The things you are talking about past history is all true and I do not dispute it. Islam is a part of the monotheistic religions starting with Judaism and still carries the part of that tradition. As a tool of ruling class, theology was just a cover for all forms of economic exploitation and subjugation of man by man. Even the theories of modern physics (as I have demonstrated in my works) play similar roles as ruling ideas!

In the main premise of my question, I was talking about the alienating forces as the major difficulties man have to overcome (aufhaben) in his progressive journey towards better "freedom of the will". Monopoly capitalism, theological and mathematical idealism etc., are some of the Frankenstein Monsters, I have listed in my main statement.

By the way, if (as my Muslim name indicates) you think that I support Islam against other religions, you could not be more wrong! Even in Canada, where my home is, I have been/still being terrorized for being an apostate Marxist, by the Islamic fundamentalists; in addition to some other ethnic fundamentalists! All these in addition to the racial and ad hominem verbal abuse and threats I face in the "scientific" forums of RG, in the Internet websites, and through e-mails; for my dialectical approach to natural science! Regular attempts are being made to hack my computer and I can function at all through my electronic communications, only because I have an expensive protection system.

Since I am talking about myself, I might as well mention similar fate I faced, in the now discontinued (after Alan Rusbridger, the leftist Editor) science Blogs (specially 'Life and Physics' by Prof. Jon Butterworth, Chair, UCL), in The Guardian; where I used to comment as "futurehuman".

Dear Abdul, you are, as always, magnificent in your polymic fervor, calling me a dreamer on a par with Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. But in my, possibly false, modesty, I cannot accept such an expensive gift. This gift is too great an honor for me.

Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov , Dear Vladimir, thanks for your kind words for me. If nothing else please go through the articles I cited. And if you are talking of sarcasm, you would find a more entertaining one in the following series of comments in another RG forum on "cosmology":

[Abdul Malek added an answer

1 day ago

1. CMBR: The Zero-Point Energy of the Infinite, Eternal and Ever-Changing Universe as QED Tells Us!

2. There can be no “Big Bang” Leap in the Universe, precisely because, the Universe Consists Entirely of Quantum, Dialectical and Historical Evolutionary Leaps!

3. The Truth is Finally Breaking Out of the Century-Long Fog of Deception!

"Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck , WMAP, and BICEP/ Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season"

Article Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using...

jean claude Dutailly added an answer

23 hours ago

Abdul Malek

"Quantum, Dialectical and Historical Leaps","

Be careful Malek, with this kind of affirmations you are on the way for a Nobel Prize, you could add a zest of "dark matter", a drop of pink energy, the News people will be delighted.

Abdul Malek added an answer

22 hours ago

jean claude Dutailly> " with this kind of affirmations you are on the way for a Nobel Prize,"

Thanks for your kind appreciation and encouragement, Jean Claude! I hope the Nobel Committee would pay attention and would respect the judgements and wish of a famous French theoretical physicist. I could not be grateful enough to you for this generosity!]

1. Live and let live.

2. Be humble and show humility.

3. Be compassionate.

4. Do not discriminate others.

5. Share if you have excess. Otherwise, facilitate helping.

6. Be simple but elegant....

The above list is still not exhaustive.

Abdul, I did not think you supported the religion nor did or do I care.

You seem to believe I am merely taking positions when I am formulating replies. The old Islam has reared its intolerant head yet again, so thereby it does affect the present. Turkey, Iran, Egypt, let alone Pakistan and Afghanistan (who do you think is funding the latter?), all contribute to a backwards-looking ideology and yes for economic and political reasons, the holding onto power of elite groups.

You expressed an ideology of Western conspiracy, to which I nodded, and seem not to have read that but concentrated on the following passage. You again ignored my point that no single position can be taken on these matters, but each is responsible. Conspiracies look complex but are simple arguments that avoid complexity.

Never mind! Leave it.

Stanley Wilkin : Stanley, I did not mean to upset you in any way, neither do I disagree with you that there is a virulent resurgence of Islam in the Middle East. I also think that we cannot have an all-round discussion here on this particular issue of Islam in this forum (except in very general terms); which is meant to be concerned with the evolutionary issues of life, man and consciousness in a connected form and the role of alienation.

As a dialectical materialist I try to look at things in the general global context and not as isolated issues, because for dialectics everything in the world is interconnected and influenced by the major contradictions at a particular stage of historical development. My point on this particular issue is why this virulent Islam manifested in this form at this time of history and not say 50 years ago! Shah's Iran and the Saudis and other Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Turkey were friends, when the Shah as a puppet of the Anglo-American interest in the region, ruthlessly suppressed any democratic movements mostly with the help of the imperialist forces (I know quite a bit about it as I lived in Iran at that time). Also, it is very important to note that the western imperialist powers are siding, arming and giving political and military and all kinds of support to the Saudis and other Gulf Monarchies who represent the most decadent and primitive form of Islam in real terms and have major influence in other Islamic countries through financial support. Bin Laden and other global jihadists originated and were/are financed from these regions of Wahhabi Islam. It does not mean that I support other sects of Islam, but it is significant to see which side the imperialist are on and that makes a big difference!

In any case I do not wish to go into details on these issues here. For me this is related somehow with the major global contradictions, which at the present time of history (in my opinion) are: between monopoly capitalism vs. the working people of the whole world, the contradiction between the rival capitalist forces (which became dominant during the first two world wars and may become dominant again with rising capitalist power, China)). The contradiction of nationalism against colonialism/neocolonialism; nationalist movements within a particular countries. etc. This was exemplified in the slogan in Maoist China as, “Countries want independence, nations want liberation and people want revolution”.

Victor Torvich : Dear Prof. Torvich, I think that you are giving too much emphasis on semantics. First of all, the two statements you attribute to Engels are in fact mine, as the author of this RG question and both are the parts of the same question (Free Will). But of course, these are based on the materialist dialectical views of Marx and Engels; whom I follow and hopefully could correctly represent their dialectics in these statements. I am guided by two fundamental Marxist inversion of Hegelian dialectics that I think are most important for modern sciences (natural, philosophical, social, human etc.), these are:

1. “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being; but their social being that determines their consciousness”

2. “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.”

In formulating my views on this question, I tried to give in a general outline, the dialectical materialist view of the contradiction of living and non-living matter and the historical evolution of this contradiction in at least one life harbouring planet, the Earth; in which this contradiction is being played out and is undergoing development from the first forms of life to the highest developed form of matter, i.e., the thinking brain of man. Of course, it was/is, not a deterministic, one-sided or a straight path of development. There were dialectical and historical twists and turns, progress and regress, advance and retreat of all possible types. It is the task of respective sciences to work out the details of this developments as a never-ending task of the refinement of positive knowledge, without ever reaching some final or absolute truths as idealist Hegel dreamt of.

History shows that (and no one showed it more than encyclopedic Hegel) that in these innumerable processes of coming into being and passing out of existence, there are regularities and an overall progressive (rational) direction of developments (at least in the present cosmic situation of the Earth) of humanity and Nature; mediated by chance and necessity. Hegel expressed it in his famous statement, “What is real is rational and what is rational is real.” But for Hegel, the rational proves itself to be also necessary; in the course of historical developments! This development brought man and the world to the historical stage we are in now.

Marx and Engels tried to develop materialist dialectics as a tool; refining the one developed by Hegel and used this as a powerful investigative science to try to understand this evolutionary process in various areas of investigation and gave in the very general sense a rough overall picture of this process; from the positive knowledge of man and the external world. In the second part of the question that you mentioned, I tried to make some input of my own to the general picture developed by Marx and Engels. But in dialectics, progress and regress is relative, in specific cases; progress in one aspect is regress in another one. For examples, we consider human species as the highest evolutionary stage of life, but a human baby is helpless unlike other species and need extended care, before it can fend for its own, it is not the case with other species. Humanity has gained some high degree of mastery over Nature, but it has also gained the greater ability to destroy itself and all forms of life on earth in a nuclear holocaust!

This question is a side-issue for me and I almost forgot about it, because initially it did not generate much interest in RG, although this question is posted and discussed in some internet websites. It is your kind participation and comment that brought attention back to this question. My main scientific preoccupation now is the extension of materialist dialectics to the microcosm of the quantum world – a revolutionary aspect of objective reality that no one could even dream of in their wildest imagination; before the discovery of the quantum phenomena. Naturally Marx and Engels had nothing to say about it. I think only Hegel in a very obscure and highly speculative way (a hallmark of his philosophy) anticipated the quantum phenomena in his philosophy of space and time and his ontological Triad “Being-Nothing Becoming”

I have tried/trying to extend dialectics of ontology of Hegel to quantum electrodynamics; which also allows me to extend materialist dialectics to the macrocosm of the galaxies and the universe in general. In my scientific work I am trying to develop an evolutionary picture of the universe from the quantum to the cosmic. The same way, Hegel, Marx and Engels drew an evolutionary picture of man and Nature on earth - an issue addressed in the question of this forum.

Best regards, Abdul

Victor Torvich : I am totally helpless, Sir! Either you do not understand what I am saying in my comments and what I wrote in the original passages of my question; or I do not understand what you mean; by repeating the same things over and over!

I told you that the formulation of the content of the question are all my words, there was no mention of Engels, except a reference to the following passage from his book: “the high degree of perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini”*.

I gave the reference at the bottom: * “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man”; F. Engels, 1876. That is all. There is no other mention of Engels' name any where else in the original text!

I do not understand how the confusion arises for you! Probably some one else following this forum would like to help us out! I can only suggest to you, Sir, you read everything from the start of this question! I am sorry, I cannot entertain any further enquiry on this confusion, from you. Please express you opinion or comments or whatever you wish to say on this question; as it stands or as you understand it. Thanks.

The question "What is the Most Fundamental Essence of Humanity?" by definition assumes only one correct answer, at most two. So as the number of answers to this question increases, the probability increases that the overwhelming majority of them will be wrong.

Victor Torvich Пожалуйста, выскажите свое мнение или комментарии или все, что вы хотите сказать по этому вопросу; в его нынешнем виде или в вашем понимании. Спасибо.

Pozhaluysta, vyskazhite svoye mneniye ili kommentarii ili vse, chto vy khotite skazat' po etomu voprosu; v yego nyneshnem vide ili v vashem ponimanii. Spasibo.

“What is the Most Fundamental Essence of Humanity?” The answer is evolution:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS

I am surprised that there seems to some misunderstanding by few about the nature and the meaning of this question and also not surprised by some expected negative reaction; because this question entails a radical and a revolutionary world-view. I think the introduction is self-explanatory and clear enough. May be some further extension of the nature and the implications of this question would be helpful.

This question deals with the contradiction of living-matter (life) as the subject and non-living matter (world, Nature) as the object, from which (i.e., the object; itself a product of dialectical and historical evolution) life evolves through dialectical and historical leaps mediated by blind chance and an iron dialectical necessity that is inherent in chance itself. The subjectivity of life from its primitive stage similarly undergoes evolution through innumerable dialectical and historical leaps mediated by chance and necessity, towards the progressive attainment of relatively and historically enhanced "freedom of the will" (“free will”) by subjectively changing Nature and itself and guided by positive knowledge. This evolutionary enhancement of the subjectivity of life attains its greatest scope and potential with the evolution of the thinking brain of man.

This materialist dialectical view of the attainment of the ‘free will’ of man is in sharp contrast; on the one hand with the “self-realization of the Absolute Idea” of Hegel and on the other hand, with the notion of no-contradiction, no-free-will, (non?) evolutionary and deterministic epistemology of causality and formal logic – an epistemology held by natural science, conventional philosophy and theology.

For Hegel, the “Absolute Idea”, which supposedly existed (no one knows how long) somewhere in the Platonic realm of thought, but out of sheer whim, decided to alienate itself in the disguise of the material world and underwent evolution through the dialectical and historical leaps, turns and twists etc., exactly the same way as the history of Nature and man described by the sciences, and finally comes back to itself again through the thinking mind (philosophy) of man and unsurprisingly through the philosophy of Hegel himself. This is an idealist illusion that Hegel shares with the other philosophers of history!

But this idealist dialectics of Hegel does not prevent him from giving the best ever scientific and historical evolutionary picture of the Universe, Nature, Life, Man, Society and Thought; based on the positive knowledge available at his time! According to Hegel, “Truth in philosophy means that concepts and external reality corresponds”. Nothing can be more “scientific” than this assertion of Hegel and he strictly abides by it in his discourse. But the only problem with Hegel’s dialectics, as Marx later pointed out was that it was “standing on its head”; one just has invert it to put it on its feet to realize the marvels of Hegelian dialectics.

Hegel (justifiably) and disparagingly called the causality-based epistemology of traditional philosophy and physics as “Metaphysics”; because causality in an iterative process eventually leads to the mystery of a “First Cause”, namely a beginning or a Creator God and also to inextricable contradictions, antinomies. Subjective (logical/mathematical) idealism in philosophy since Kant and in theoretical physics since Einstein, were meant to save causality and to avoid contradictions. But this subjective idealism ("Metaphysics" of Kant and Einstein) stands in stark idealist relation to the dialectical Idealism of Hegel!

The materialist dialectics of Marx and Engels undertook the task of turning and inverting Hegel’s dialectics right-side-up. It is imperative for modern natural science and philosophy, to execute a similar inversion of the metaphysics of Kant and Einstein; by inverting and setting them up on their materialist feet! Similarly, the assertion of our friend Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov that “Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein had a reason and the right to feel like gods, but Marx, Engels, and Lenin did not have such a basis and right”; needs to be reversed/inverted also!

I (and also some others) have made/making humble efforts in theoretical physics (also in a very limited way in biology) to invert the “metaphysics” of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein et al. to its feet; through some published books (e.g., “The Dialectical Universe”), journal articles; scientific/social media (like RG) etc. I would welcome any collaboration in this effort. An extension of Engels’ unfinished book “DIALECTICS OF NATURE”; would be the (tentative) title of my next book: “DIALECTICS OF NATURE AND NOT METAPHYSICS: FROM THE QUANTUM TO THE COSMIC.”

Freudian Psychology. To understand the id ego and super ego as well as their interactions...

Dear Abdul, I realized that you want to rotate my theory in the space of madness, and I personally want to be rotated by madmen in ordinary three-dimensional space. There is nothing original here in comparison with the communist manifesto of Marx and Engels, and even nothing original with the ordinary Inquisition, which mocked the great Galileo. However, you may have missed an important moment in the life of the Catholic Church: a few years ago, this church officially apologized to Galileo for bullying him 400 years ago. One does not need to have a great mind to understand the power of Galileo's scientific ideas, which pulled the venerable church from his grave.

Curiosity, most humans have curiosity, until they no longer do.

Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov: Thanks for your greatly popular comment – a popularity I can never hope to match! But I take your comment as a great honor and a credit for me that, according to you I could correctly and consistently represent the the communist manifesto of Marx and Engels. Nothing is a greater honor for me!

I did not at all miss the, “important moment in the life of the Catholic Church” in reversing its judgement on Galileo, at all! On the contrary you seem to have missed or are oblivious to the fact that the Catholic Church glorified modern physics with its benediction on the “Big Bang” theory and not only that, it helped to adopt this as the official theory of physics in a conference in the Vatican, The following report from Geoffrey Burbidge one of many important dissent astrophysicists of that time will speak for itself: “By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents.

In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers” : G Burbidge, In “The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology.

This is not all, my friend! The representative of the Vatican, the Templeton Foundation of USA, the Wilton Park theological group of UK (founded by no one less than Winston Churchill!) and other theological groups are the members of the governing and policy-making committee and also the financial contributors of the greatest physics enterprise ever – the Large Hadron Collider (The LHC)! What more one could expect! Please see the references in the following RG question by me:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Influence_of_Big_Money_and_Theology_on_Big_Science_Worrisome

To get a better and accurate account of the episode with Galileo, gravity and the solar system than the one you gave; you have to consider the following: Every revolutionary aspect of the Copernican and Galilean revolution was reversed by your great hero Isaac Newton; who was born the same year that Galileo died! Newton in effect brought God’s Kingdom back on Earth and the perfectly circular orbits of Ptolemy in the solar system; by distorting through mathematical idealism; the brilliant work of Galileo on terrestrial gravitation, the extremely tedious work of Tycho Brahe on the planetary system, the most illuminating theory of Kepler about the motion in the cosmos and the superior mathematics and wisdom of Leibniz. For a SCIENTIFIC, MATHEMATICAL (not polemic) account of this sordid, and possibly deliberate act of Newton, please see the following article:

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Newton could brutalize theoretical physics and cosmology only with the help of the mighty colonial power of the time, namely, The British Monarchy; the most powerful Church of the time and the most prestigious "scientific" organization, namely, the Royal Society! The brutalization of theoretical physics of cosmology continues till today with your another hero, Albert Einstein; with the most generous assistance from the Church and Big Money of monopoly capitalism as shown in the first link above. Also, please see in the following publication that there is absolutely no basis of Einstein's theories of relativity in objective reality. These and similar other mathematical idealism based theories of modern physics are nothing but Fairy Tales. (By the way, some powerful Professors of physics are calling for Inquisition and Guillotines for me; for this kind of heretic statements!)

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

So, my great friend; the theoretical physics and cosmology that you and ALL formally trained physicist learnt from Newton onward till now, is Nothing, Zero, Nil, Null, Nilch, Nihil, Sunya ....! Modern official physics is doing nothing but preaching theology! There has to be a great reckoning of modern theoretical physics and cosmology with objective truth and materialist dialectics and not with the Church or the Vatican! Amen!

My dear friend Abdul!

Yes, I realized that Newton and Einstein were, to put it mildly, not very good people for the reason that they sometimes resorted, let's say now too harshly, to the help of God. I must grieve you that in this particular case, the intuition of these titans of thought did not let them down, just as it did not let them down as the great creators of theoretical physics. You can’t even imagine how much this intuition didn’t let them down. But here it is appropriate to recall one of your idols, I mean Lenin with his, at first glance, empty, but by the will of fate, a prophetic phrase that "the electron is not exhausted just like the atom ...". So it turned out that electrons not only bind atoms into molecules and condensed bodies, but also organize those transitions in these physical substances, which are called quantum-classical transitions. It is thanks to these very electrons located on the outer shells of atoms that matter self-organizes up to the emergence of living matter and the person himself with his brain. In other words, the entire set of these electrons in the nature observable by us plays the role of the Creator. And now try to find in this scheme of theoretical physics a lukewarm place for Engels' Dialectics of Nature.

Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov . I am very disappointed that you, as a supposed "scientist" are talking not in scientific, but in theological terms! My comment is based with scientific facts and publications with references and so on. You have absolutely nothing to say about what I said about the role of theology in modern theoretical physics and cosmology and that the theories of Newton and Einstein have no scientific basis and are not based on objective reality; but are fantastic ruling ideas used as tools to subjugate working people in particular and humanity in general by monopoly capitalism and decadent theology! You, like all other "Professors" or "scientists" (I offered a challenge to), do not show the temerity to face my assertions about the theories of Newton and Einstein or prove me wrong!

You are using a spurious case of Lenin's misunderstanding of the electron and shamelessly comparing it with the myths about physics and cosmology, about the dark/black cosmic monsters etc., of Newton and Einstein and the now established fact that the theories of Newton and Einstein are doing nothing for humanity except preaching theology!

Well done, Sir! I refuse to engage with you any further here or in any other way! I will let the people following this discussion to make judgments on the basis of our respective comments in this forum. I will depend on the conscientious and scientific judgements of the others in RG and elsewhere. Meanwhile, I would expect you to join the group of " Professors" and "scientists" calling for Inquisition and Guillotines for me!

До свидания

Do svidaniya

"The essence of humanity is to strive towards the freedom of the will ..."

Does somebody know what is "freedom of the will"? I do not understand what this means. Was I "free" to post this text, or was I compelled to do this, by some reasons (forces)?

My description of the essence of the human being: a finite being with infinite aspirations, pervaded by anxiety and yearning.

Mario Radovan> " Does somebody know what is "freedom of the will"?"

Please read the previous discussion by me and others, for an answer; Thanks.

Our conscience. Conscience is a characteristic of all humans but not animals. If we choose to listen and pay heed to what our conscience tells us, God then speaks to us by enabling us to see what is right and what is wrong.

8 December MMXXI

Stupidity...

Cordially...

ASJ

Dear Abdul, I was very amused by the way you introduced me as a theologian. Unfortunately, for the time being I am paid only as a scientist, but not as a theologian. In this regard, I express regret because I believe that the salaries of theologians are much higher. After this statement, I am already ready for the fact that you accuse me of being "the corrupt girl of imperialism". :)

You are too emotional to be able to avoid not only epistemological, but also the most obvious mistakes. Your statement that physics is a tool for enslaving workers is, to put it mildly, a gross exaggeration. You do not even understand that after you have exhausted your "arguments", in order to get away from communicating with me in RG, it is not enough for you to say "goodbye" to me. But I think that this desire of yours would certainly have been realized if you had the courage to remove your proposed question "What is the Most Fundamental Essence of Humanity?" from the RG-forum: You do not know how to discuss in a civilized manner and perceive other points of view.

Mary C R Wilson> "Our conscience. Conscience is a characteristic of all humans but not animals."

You are essentially right, but unfortunately, from an idealist point of view only, without any tangible impact! Conscience is not something absolute! It is conditioned by the social existence of men. As stated in one of my comments above: “It is not the consciousness (or conscience) of men that determines their being; but their social being that determines their consciousness”.

The social existence (being) of men involves co-operation as well as conflict (both with Nature and among themselves) and most of all, the level of positive knowledge and objective truth of the world and also of themselves at any particular epoch. These are the major conditions, which determine their consciousness and conscience. After primitive communism, in the history of the social evolution of men, division of humanity into groups and classes led to the subjugation and exploitation of man by man. Myths and theories were used as ruling tools to facilitate subjugation and exploitation by the powerful class or groups and continues till today, even intensified with the greater sophistication of the ruling tools; as my comments above would show. Humanity is more than ever before, at the highest level of technical knowledge of the world; but still, the greatest efforts are being made to substitute myths as positive knowledge of the world; to facilitate the subjugation of man by man.

So, where is Conscience? Organized Theology, whose program is to deal with conscience of men; only facilitated and strengthened the hands of the exploiters; by putting ointments to the wounds of humanity to sooth its suffering and making it bearable - wounds that were/are inflicted under the watch of Theology!

Dear ALL: Objective truth hurts, but only where, when and to whom it must!

I am pleased to tell you that through my scientific work (as discussed above and elsewhere), I have been able to successfully tear off the mask (many others are also trying to do, so), of modern official natural science, which is masquerading as the promoter and the guardian of positive (scientific) knowledge of the world, particularly in the realm of cosmology, in the form of Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravitation.

Like the Ptolemaic Epicycle and geocentric cosmology before; these theories of cosmology (the least known realm) are being used to prop up the decadent and regressive ruling order of modern times. With the unveiling of this truth, hopefully, humanity would be in a better position to deal with the existential problems it now faces, with enhanced creative ability.

Best regards,

Abdul Malek

Dear Abdul Malek,

I get the impression you are struggling with the reality of social hierarchies by the following quote:

“After primitive communism, in the history of the social evolution of men, division of humanity into groups and classes led to the subjugation and exploitation of man by man.”

In a civil society, where one has the freedom to join a community or institution, one will become part of its hierarchy (grouping as a function of level within social hierarchies). According to the Constructal paradigm, hierarchies are found throughout the universe both physical and social and difficult to efface.

https://constructal.wordpress.com/

Relative to “the subjugation and exploitation of man by man”, your nemesis is one of ethics, not with those hierarchies found in the communities associated with the means of production.

Abdul Malek

I see this as a question about identity. Of course humanity shares some of its identity with all living matter. On the other hand, every living thing develops its own identity over its lifetime.

We then ask, what identity has humanity evolved that is uniquely its own? And in answer, we see a constantly evolving identity, individual by individual as well as collective by collective, which may be unique within all living things.

The very question of identity is essential to human existence, and humans make an art of it, and the reason for their being.

Kurt

Dear Michael T Takac > "Relative to “the subjugation and exploitation of man by man”, your nemesis is one of ethics, not with those hierarchies found in the communities associated with the means of production."

Thanks for your comment and the input. You are emphasizing the role of ethics (an attribute of man, like conscience, as pointed out by Ms. Wilson above), which certainly played some role in the historical evolution of the social formations of men.

But as I said above, it is not something absolute and came from nowhere! Ethics, conscience, higher level of consciousness (than the animal kingdom), aesthetics etc. could only progressively develop and historically come into existence through the progressive biological, corporeal (thinking brain), and social evolution of men as a species. The animal kingdom also displays some under developed ethical characteristics like compassion, feelings etc.

This implies the validity of the Marxist assertion stated above, i.e., “It is not the consciousness (or conscience, ethics, thought etc.) of men that determines their being; but their social being that determines their consciousness (ethics, conscience etc)”.

Dear Abdul Malek,

I disagree with “Marxist assertion”.

It is the ethical application, the experience thereof between positive or negative feedback, of the physical laws of nature, within the continuum of its matrix, that develops the conscience mind throughout the living universe; hence, the evolution of the social construct.

Humanity shares with all other things the need to survive. Each species has their own method. Some develop better claws, others develop other characteristics. The human characteristic developed is the use of the brain to develop an abstract ability to model what is required to survive. But in our hubris we thing we can overrule natures laws. Thus, we support the non-contributors (weak) for example. We have yet to develop a society that can survive. We don't know what role "freedom", democracy", etc. has in natures rules. Freedom may/does come with the price of reaping the consequences of actions and good for only the strong. Democracy seems to work where only the producers dothe electing. (When the weak have a vote -democracy devolves into the chiefdom stage of organization.)

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Life-society-and-morality

Dear Michael T Takac> "I disagree with “Marxist assertion”."

I take this as your personal opinion and respect it; but also reject it!

This premise is close to that of the epistemology (of causality and formal logic) of official natural science and philosophy, which Hegel called the “View of Understanding” or “Metaphysics”, as opposed his own “View of Reason” or “Dialectics”.

On the question of ontology, your view probably would accept the assertion of modern official physics (and now also of theology as I showed above) that everything came from the “cosmic egg” that contained all the determinant of the universe in some mathematical forms; through a “Big Bang”, (“Our Mathematical Universe” by The Harvard theoretical physicist Max Tegmark, for example). Everything that followed from the primordial entity in just the deterministic manifestation of its contents; in the phenomenology of the universe, including man and his thought. There is no question of “free will” in this premise.

But this view is in conflict (at the first instance) with theology, that allows some limited ‘free will’, "ethics", "conscience" etc. for men, on moral questions and even admits the conflicting role of Evil (Satan) in the Kingdom of omnipotent and omniscient God!

Your view would also be contrary to the evolutionary picture of the Universe, Nature, Life. Man, Society and Thought, that natural science so far could draw in its main outline. In contrast to the book title of Max Tegmark, I have one with the title, “The Dialectical Universe”!

John Hodge >“Each species has their own method. Some develop better claws, others develop other characteristics.”

Please see my comment to Dr. Takac. Your view expressed in the words above, is equivalent to the notion that “everything is created perfect in itself”. It would also deny the theory of evolution of Darwin, not to speak of the dialectical view of evolution!

Your view is also close to the peculiar notion that things have only isolated existence in space but no change or evolution in time!

Dear Victor Torvich : I am sorry to see that I am unable to give a satisfactory response to you, yet!

The definition of "free will" is (stated in the introduction): "an acquired ability that allows man to effectively change the conditions of his physical, mental and social existence; based on the positive knowledge of the world and of himself"

Abdul Malek

No it is not. In the developing is the notion nothing is perfect. All must evolve to survive. "Evolve" means change in a competitive nature. And that accepts evolution (Darwin).

Dear Abdul Malek,

You stated, “I take this as your personal opinion and respect it; but also reject it!”

My “personal opinion” is part of my philosophy, like Marx with his philosophy/opinion and those who follow Marx. In general, philosophy guides science, where scientific discovery reforms philosophy. I wonder how Marx’s reformation in his philosophy would be today, if he was alive in our postmodern time. That is, relative to Marx, my understanding of his philosophy of the “law of dialectics”, in general, is simply the struggle between opposites.

According to the Constructal paradigm opposites are the prerequisite to evolution. The lack of opposites is the “dead state” or the state of extinction. In other words, flow can only exist between opposites; no opposites, no flow, no evolution. Any attempt to nullify opposites enters the dead state or extinction.

In addition, relative to the Constructal paradigm, freedom is a prerequisite to evolution: FREEDOM and EVOLUTION Hierarchy in Nature, Society and Science, by Adrian Bejan:

https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Evolution-Hierarchy-Society-Science/dp/3030340082

Hence, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”, the physical constructal law relative to the flow of humanity in the evolution of civility, the prerequisite to freely fly above the clouds, walk on the moon, turn on a light after sunset, etc.

John Hodge > "All must evolve to survive".

John, Does it not imply some kind of conscious or unconscious subjectivity or some sense of "identity" as Dr. Engelhart above said? Even in its most primitive form life needs self-preservation, through metabolism, propagation etc, which involves conscious or unconscious interaction with its immediate surrounding, This also means changing its surrounding - an ability and its scope that develops through discrete dialectical leaps of the evolutionary process, mediated by chance and necessity and attaining its highest development in the thinking mind of man!

A piece of rock, left to itself has no subjectivity and is totally conditioned by the outside forces of weather, for example. It will have no qualitative change, but only quantitative change of decay, in course of time. A humble creep on the contrary under suitable condition will break down a mighty rock to extract nutrition for its survival and propagation! Please see my other comments above.

The crass mechanistic and deterministic epistemology of conventional physics has corrupted biological and other sciences as an excuse to fight theology, while it itself pursues a different kind of theology of determinism. This was evident even with the early Greeks. The contempt such crass and mindless determinism was first expressed by the atheist and dialectical materialist Epicurus in the following way, “It is better to follow the myth about the gods than to be a slave of the determinism of the physicists”

Michael T Takac >"That is, relative to Marx, my understanding of his philosophy of the “law of dialectics”, in general, is simply the struggle between opposites."

Sorry, I must point out that your understanding of this particular "law of dialectics" you mention above, is wrong!

A dialectical contradiction is "the unity of the opposites" and not "simply the struggle between opposites"; as you suggest! This contradiction means conscious and/or unconscious struggle and also conscious or unconscious co-operation, at the same time!! A one-sided and simple unity or simple opposition has no place in any existence. Any existence (at all) for dialectics is a contradiction of the unity of the opposites!

Dear Abdul Malek,

It seems I’m correct about the “law of dialectics”, because a “dialectical contradiction” is the negation of a dialectic; hence, “the unity of the opposites”.

https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/marxism/dialectical-materialism-definition-nature-and-basic-laws/1233#:~:text=The%20law%20of%20dialectics%20states%20that%20the%20struggle,This%20development%20or%20motion%20is%20self-development%20or%20self-motion.

“In its proper meaning dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things.” … “The idea is the recognition of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature.”

Relative to the Constructal paradigm, “contradiction” between dynamic channels of “opposite tendencies in all phenomena” is the prerequisite for evolution.

The following is the mapping of humanity’s innate rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” to the physical constructal law:

For a finite flow to persist in time (to live) [“Life”], it must evolve freely [“Liberty”] such that it provides greater access [“the pursuit of”] to its currents [“Happiness”].

By this mapping, humanity’s innate rights is a physical law in nature. From the empirical historical record, the ethical application of the known physical laws of nature lifted the tide of the standard of living. Hence, evolution is the answer to the question of this post.

Dear Michael T Takac > " It seems I’m correct about the “law of dialectics”, because a “dialectical contradiction” is the negation of a dialectic; hence, “the unity of the opposites”."

This definition of dialectics does not make any sense to me. In any case, Sir, you have every right to go by your understanding of dialectics, I have no intention to go to an argument to contest you here. Dialectics is un-intuitive to ordinary thinking of everyday life; hence most people find difficulty to see the subtleties involved in dialectical mode of thought and many would consider dialectics as absurd or nonsense! But it an absolute misunderstanding of dialectics; it needs some deep thought, patience and getting used to! I would quote the definition by Hegel himself below - the man who developed dialectics itself! The only clarification I would give you is that by "identity" Hegel means the notion of conventional epistemology based on causality and formal logic (which he opposed) and which in philosophical jargon is based on the notion "Identity of identity".; whereas the notion for dialectics is, "Identity of identity and non-identity" - Hegel also termed the conventional causality based epistemology of philosophy and natural science as "the view of understanding" or "metaphysics" as opposed to his "the view of reason" or "dialectics" :

Hegel: “But it is one of the fundamental prejudices of logic as hitherto understood and of ordinary thinking that contradiction is not so characteristically essential and immanent a determination as identity; but in fact, if it were a question of grading the two determinations and they had to be kept separate, then contradiction would have to be taken as the profounder determination and more characteristic of essence. For, as against contradiction, identity is merely the determination of the simple immediate, of dead being; but contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity”.

If interested, please see the following article, in which I have used Hegel's dialectics for a practical and a specific scientific issue of Newton's theory of universal gravitational attraction. You will also find references to the views of the modern (non or anti-dialectical) philosophers and their take on Hegel's dialectics and physics:

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Dear Abdul Malek,

Thank you for the link to your article. I agree with your point about, “Dialectics is un-intuitive to ordinary thinking of everyday life; hence most people find difficulty to see the subtleties involved in dialectical mode of thought and many would consider dialectics as absurd or nonsense!”

Please include me among those who find it difficult. A quote from your article:

“For Hegel, absolutely everything consists of “the Identity of identity and non-identity.” Opposites reside together in the very element of a thing or a process in simultaneous unity and opposition to each other and a resolution of this logical contradiction and conflict provides the dynamics for change, motion, evolution, development etc.”

It would seem from your presentation, Hegel’s dialectical logic progresses along through contradictions until there are no more contradictions that can be negated; hence, approaching the limit, the absolute, as in representing a discovery often labeled as an unchanging omnipotent physical law of nature. If I’m on point with his dialectical logic, how does Hegel deal with “self-evident” axioms that, out-of-the-gate, transcends “contradictions” and “evolution”?

Dr Abdul Malek

Thank you very much for taking the time to write such a marvellous and in depth response to my very short one. I am going back now to read it again.

Mary.

Dear Dr Abdul Malek . It is loving and helping others regardless of race, religion, color, place, and gender . There is absolutely no discrimination between any human being under any name whatsoever.

Dear Michael T Takac : Dialectical process never transcends “contradictions” and “evolution”! Because for dialectics, the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing.

But of course, Hegel was an idealist and above all he was the official philosopher of the Royal Prussian court of Frederick William III. His task was to make a system of philosophy that must specify one absolute truth or a “first cause” of the world, as tradition demanded it. There-fore, even though Hegel, especially in his "Logic" emphasized that this absolute truth is nothing but the logical. i.e., historical process itself, he nevertheless found it necessary to bring his dialectical process to a termination in the “Absolute Idea”. For his philosophical “system” his dialectical “method” had to be untrue! But Hegel's "Absolute Idea" is "absolute" only in the sense that he has absolutely nothing to say about it!

The materialist inversion of Hegel's dialectics by Marx and Engels eliminates his philosophical "system" of "Absolute Idea" and makes his dialectical "method" a powerful tool in understanding the the evolution of Nature, Life, Man, Society and Thought.

In addition to the article mentioned before, the following two articles (specially the first one) hopefully will clarify how the dialectical process never transcends “contradictions” and “evolution”! These will also demonstrate the power of dialectics, specially in theoretical physics and cosmology (my main area of research at present), like the article I mentioned before:

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?

The essence of humanity: an endless quest and an unstoppable movement

Should not the essence of humanity be to serve God?

Dear Abdul Malek,

Thank you for those additional links.

You have not answered my question. How does Hegel handle axioms? Or, are axioms the “Absolute idea” where Hegel “has absolutely nothing to say about it!”

Dear Michael T Takac : I think I was clear enough in my comment above that Hegel's idealist "Absolute Idea" has no meaning in materialist dialectics and that "The materialist inversion of Hegel's dialectics by Marx and Engels eliminates his philosophical "system" of "Absolute Idea" and makes his dialectical "method" a powerful tool in understanding the the evolution of Nature, Life, Man, Society and Thought."

Hopefully, things will be more clear to you if (in particular) you read the article on the "Infinite", linked above. This article received praise from quite a number of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers.

Aref Wazwaz , Shakir M. S. Alfahdawi and Mario Radovan :

Thanks for your contributions. If we look at the history of man and Nature - the only source of our positive knowledge (in contrast to myths and faith); they have a historical and dialectical process of evolution. Humanity does have the "essences" that you each mention; but these are attained in the course of the historical evolution of man and in the process of the progressive resolution of the contradiction of Man and Nature, mentioned in the introduction.

The "essences" you point out are there, but these do not suddenly arise from nowhere; because for dialectics, there is no Mega-Leap in Nature, like the the beginning of a "Big Bang" creation. For dialectics, the infinite universe consists entirely of innumerable and never-ending quantum, dialectical and historical leaps!

But of course, if you do not believe in the evolution of man and depend on God as the Creator of anything and everything, as many people in the world believe in, then it is a different matter. I respect their faith, and have nothing to say about it.

You are most welcome dear

Dr Abdul Malek

Wish you the best always

People and humanity are contingent phenomena; they do not have any purpose beyond the one they themselves assign to themselves.

The essential features of humanity have been irrational discourse (narratives) and aggressive behaviour. Human civilization have been created by violence and lies, and it has been pervaded by violence and lies.

Let us hope that things my become better, but there are no indications that things have been getting better. Consumerism has been destroying the natural world and the very idea of rational behaviour. Tens of thousands of passionate consumers (and polluters) gathered at a mega-conference, to play with slogans and "targets". And they did not even mention the essence of the problem.

The struggle for resources (and the military industry) lead humanity toward new wars. But people do not want to see such things, let alone to speak about them.

Hegel advocated a totalitarian state; Heidegger supported Hitler. It is better not to learn from such people. And they have not said anything relevant and new.

Dear Abdul Malek,

Again, thank you for your links on Hegel. From your interpretation of Hegel’s philosophy, it seems Hegel was simply struggling with the mechanics of evolution with his treatment of a “dialectic” relative to the “contradiction” being the determining factor.

I failed to see how Hegel’s philosophy handles axioms. For the foundation of mathematics maintains a set of axioms and rules, as the field of mathematics evolves via the discovery of additional axioms. Where an axiom is a self-evident truth that requires no proof. When does an axiom ever enters Hegel’s dialectic? Can you supply any examples?

In your article you stated:

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

“For dialectics, “eternal change” (with temporary stages of infinite number of leaps) is the only thing that is permanent and the only absolute. Hegel’s dialectics therefore, is a condemnation of all claims to absolute truth by all idealism including the mathematical idealism of modern official natural science, which is but a reincarnation or rather restoration of the old idealism.”

I get the part about the scientific method is an evolutionary process in deciphering the empirical. But what about the “dialectic” of mathematics? Does such a dialectic exist?

From your links, I’m incline to conclude that Hegel’s philosophy is a dialectic onto itself; hence, the evolution of philosophy.

Mario Radovan; You said before, "Was I "free" to post this text, or was I compelled to do this, by some reasons (forces)?"

What is your own answer to this question, Sir? You seem suffer from the dualism, of the mindless and absolutely deterministic view of the universe like the official theoretical physicists that humanity (or life) is just a contingent phenomena; with absolutely no necessity; while on the contrary for theology there is only necessity and no contingency.

Well, Sir, these two positions (the absolute contingency of the physicists and the absolute "free will" of God as the omnipotent and omniscient Being) are only the two sides of the same odd thing, which Hegel called "metaphysics" - an epistemology based on causality and formal (Aristotelian) logic. This metaphysics suffers from unsolvable yes-no (binary) dichotomy or absolute conflict! There can be no discourse, no logical evaluation, only absolute stasis and stark choice! Only brute force from either side can resolve this conflict! It also leads to nihilistic/anarchistic approach in social practice that you describe!

But Sir, may I remind you that you were "free" to post this text" here of your own "free will" - an essence of man that you deny! I must also remind you that it is the materialist dialectics derived from Hegel's philosophy that offers a solution to this absolute antagonism between either "only contingency, no free will" of physics or "only 'free will' and no contingency" of theology, both of which are sheer blindness (prejudice, lack of positive knowledge), which is also behind the misery and the brutalization of humanity.

Your comment unfortunately displays prejudice and not considered judgement, Sir! Only the positive knowledge gained and the limited "freedom of the will" attained; through progressive dialectical and historical evolutionary processes (and not through mindless contingency, or absolute omnipotence) has brought humanity, where it is now! Please read the introduction again. Neither the contingency paraded by "physicists" nor God's omnipotence professed by theology; could bring us here where we are now!

The only way forward is positive knowledge and the progressive resolution of the contradiction between man and Nature through the subjective action of men as outlined in the introduction of the question above. The fantastic theories (metaphysics) of causality-based physics and theology never offered hope for a resolution of the conflict between themselves and can never offer any hope for humanity!

Michael T Takac : I am sorry, Sir, your understanding of dialectics and also the difference between idealist dialectics of Hegel and Marxist materialist dialectics is very wrong. There seems to be some problem with your approach in understanding the essence of my articles and I don't think further dialogue between us will make much difference. Please go ahead whatever you wish to do. But if you claim that you understand dialectics and are offering a counter narrative to dialectics, then it would be an injustice to the dialectical mode of thought!

(") You said before, "Was I "free" to post this text, or was I compelled to do this, by some reasons (forces)?" - What is your own answer to this question, Sir? (")

My answer runs as follows. I do not know what "free will" might mean. For me, this means nothing.

There are forces, which struggle among themselves; every act is the outcome of such a strugle. My "I" is a structure of forces which struggle with each other and with outer forces (from the outer world). Forces are neither free nor non-free: they are forces.

So, I was neither free nor non-free to post; I did it: such was the outcome of the struggle between the set of forces "Yes" and the set of forces "No"

I tried to explain these things in more details in the text:

Preprint On Freedom and Necessity

Mario Radovan > "There are forces, which struggle among themselves; every act is the outcome of such a strugle. ..I was neither free nor non-free to post."

This says less than nothing! I am sorry, Sir, I could not bother less with your scholarly and grandiose article! It is very obvious what more it would say. But, Sir, you are showing us only one side of your coin! You could just flip the coin and read it; which would say, “I have no choice, everything is the will of God”. Both would have the same “logic” and one no better than the other!

But, how do you KNOW that there are forces acting and how many or what kind are they? It is like Kantian unknowable thing-in-itself. If something is unknowable, first of all, how do you know it is unknowable, and secondly, if that thing is unknowable, what is the sense even talking about it! Your work would be no different than the celebrated works of Jacques Monod’s “Chance and Necessity” which is a trash for me.

Your work would be more ridiculous than the claims of mathematical idealism-based Einsteinian cosmology; in which (unlike you, Monod, or Kant) they at least claim to KNOW the intimate details: there are books like by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg's, "The First Three Minutes" etc. ad nauseum. If you see the discussion I had above on the theories of Newton and Einstein in cosmology; you would see that I have demonstrated, scientifically, mathematically, logically, etc., that these theories have no basis in objective reality and are just Fairy Tales, masquerading as “scientific theories”.

Sorry Sir, for this harsh take on your work or views. I usually take a harder attitude on the metaphysical “scientists” than on the metaphysical theologists, which I think as the lesser danger for positive knowledge, in the context of modern times. Even long ago, dialectical materialist (and atheist) Epicurus had the same attitude when he said, “It is better to follow the myth about the gods than to be a slave of the determinism of the physicists”

Abdul Malek - I am not religious. So, your claim “I have no choice, everything is the will of God” does not apply to me.

"Sorry Sir, for this harsh take on your work or views." - I love your style! That is why I read your posts. Their content is rather dubious. I am leaving for two days.

Before I leave, I can understand that there are "atoms and void" as Democritus used to say. I can understand that there is a substance and that there are forces. But I have never been able to understand what "will" is. What kind of animal is this? It is not substance, it is not force, it is not "atoms and void". What is will? I do not know.

Are there two kinds of "will": an "ordinary will" and a "free will"? I do not know. I do not understand these words. Words are strange things.

Dear Abdul Malek,

“But if you claim that you understand dialectics and are offering a counter narrative to dialectics, then it would be an injustice to the dialectical mode of thought!”

That is what “dialectics” is all about! In your own words:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304783024_The_Infinite_-_As_a_Hegelian_Philosophical_Category_and_Its_Implication_for_Modern_Theoretical_Natural_Science

“For dialectics, “eternal change” (with temporary stages of infinite number of leaps) is the only thing that is permanent and the only absolute.”

Hence, the “eternal change” of “dialectics” itself, the logic of contradiction, or Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction.

As for your reference to “Marxist materialist dialectics”, the application of such philosophy had a poor empirical historical track record.

Michael T Takac > "Hence, the “eternal change” of “dialectics” itself, the logic of contradiction, or Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction. As for your reference to “Marxist materialist dialectics”, the application of such philosophy had a poor empirical historical track record."

Does your first sentence make any sense? Contradiction and non-contradiction are the same things? I am afraid, you have a poor understanding of the law of contradiction or non-contradiction of Aristotle and hence your inability to see the power of dialectics.

For Aristotle the principle is "Unity, Opposition and the Excluded Middle" . This means that all things are immutable and "everything was crested perfect in itself" so there can be no question of qualitative change, motion in space, evolution, development etc., only quantitative change is possible. It means absolute stasis. Any change, motion etc, dynamics are only possible from a push from an external agency, aka God!

For Hegel's dialectics, the principle is "Unity-Opposition" , no "Excluded Middle" and hence a rational contradiction. But reason cannot rest in a contradiction, so this contradiction must be overcome (aufhaben) by itself for rational necessity, must evolve, change, develop, have motion etc., to a new higher or lower level of contradictions and so on for ever. This process of change, motion, evolution mediated by chance and necessity, is what gives rise to the manifestation of the Universe, Nature, Life, Man, Society and Thought. In this eternal process of change from the lower to the higher and vice versa; the first and well as the last contradiction is "Being-Nothing". This is the dialectical basis of an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe; represented from the quantum to the cosmic. This view is in direct opposition to the idea of creation by God or a "Big Bang" of physics; which must necessarily give an universe finite in extent and also finite in time. Please see:

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?

Your understanding of the "empirical historical track record" is also very poor, Sir. Practical and empirical "track record" of dialectics could start only with Hegel. And since then dialectics have made its (superior) mark in all areas of human knowledge; to the extent that many past theories of philosophy, science, economics etc., has to be rejected or re-thought-out! If you see my comments above on theoretical physics and cosmology alone; you would see that Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity and cosmology are wrong, because they have no basis in reality. Dialectical perspective has proved the non-tenability of these theories and provided alternative and tentative scientific theories. The following list of publications among many others will show you (if you understand enough) what I am talking about"

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

Please Note: It seems to me that you have a already made-up, inflexible and deliberate stance against dialectical mode of thought. So, anything I say would make no impact. Unfortunately, I would not respond to any further comments you make on this issue. Thanks

The fundamental essence of humanity is the ability to adopt to changing conditions and to diverse environments. The necessary characteristics to do this better than other organisms has developed in the human animal a thinking brain, warm bloodedness, manipulative (hands) ability, etc. These at the expense of running ability, claws, smell ability, etc.

Mario Radovan > "I am not religious. So, your claim “I have no choice, everything is the will of God” does not apply to me. ...I am leaving for two days".

Dear Mario, I hope that after two days of brooding, you will bring for us something better with your determinism than what Einstein found with his determinism: “Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust—we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” —Albert Einstein --- Quoted in interview by G.S. Viereck , October 26,1929. Reprinted in “Glimpses of the Great”,1930.

Dear Abdul Malek & readers,

“… Einstein found with his determinism: “Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust—we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” —Albert Einstein --- Quoted in interview by G.S. Viereck , October 26,1929. Reprinted in “Glimpses of the Great”,1930.”

I would love to enter into a “dialectic” with Alibert Einstein relative to his above quote.

Us humans have the freedom of choice (aka non-determined) like a rat in a maze having freedom searching for food. What us humans have in common with the rat, is our maze falls within the matrix of the physical laws of nature. Randomly, like the rat, we learned how to survive within said matrix. Unlike the rat, our brain evolved at a faster rate where we developed faith in religion, philosophy, the scientific method, etc.

It is interesting how the evolution of faith, throughout all cultures, evolved in an attempt to deal with and to philosophize the unknown. In our modern day, we developed faith in the scientific method to study said matrix in our perception of what we defined as physical laws in nature. The ethical application of those known laws gave humanity the freedom of choice to fly above the clouds, walk on the moon, switch a on a light after sunset, etc.

It seems ethics is the common thread that runs through the tapestry of faith. In religious cultures, one may rationalize the physical laws of nature is the handwriting of the Divine (aka Allah, God, etc.) for God created everything, where ethics is God’s fingerprint, while the scientific method is used to decipher God’s handwriting.

On the other hand, man’s written scriptures about the Divine is a source of ethical stories; many are written in the form of a simile. However, prudent caution is served when studying man’s written scriptures; one may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets— and in those extremist cases, God help us all.

We need to enhance education in reason and ethics. In our postmodern time, the term “science” became politically fashionable. To advance the evolution of global civility, perhaps, the Constructal paradigm by way of “The Science of Rights” may help; and for those of faith, the handwriting of God.

The answer to the question of this post (“What is the Most Fundamental Essence of Humanity?”) is, evolution.

At the risk of offending some, one of man’s written scriptures, and I paraphrase: We are created in the image and likeness of God. It is obvious, humanity has not evolved to that state yet.

The road to utopia via “The Science of Rights”:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS

The Constructal paradigm:

https://constructal.wordpress.com/

Michael T Takac : Please do not address me (by name) in your future comments, so that I do not get notification from RG. As I told you before, I have no interest in YOUR dialectics, Sir. I have had enough of it already!

You are just the binary opposite of the top recommended poster Prof. V.V. Egorov, who started with teaching us HIS dialectics, but after only a little while, trashed ALL dialectics!. You started with trashing ALL dialectics and now teaching us YOUR dialectics! Sorry, I have no interest in your Magnum Opus, Sir!

Dear All: To celebrate 30 noble recommendations for this question, may I remind you that this question of the “freedom of the will” of men has never more important for humanity, as at the present time; when class, racial, ethnic, religious, gender etc., division, bigotry and hatred are engaged in a frightening 'Witches' Sabbath' of Hector Berlioz's 'Symphonie fantastique'; on an international scale - from the West to the East, from the North to the South! Even the present US President Mr. Biden has expressed alarm at this development.

An imperative for conscious and concerted acts to stop this madness have never been more important! This Armageddon of the Evil, can only be defeated at this epoch of history with the total abolition of the subjugation and the exploitation of man by man!

“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control." - Einstein (you say).

My problem has been (since I was a child) that I speak more precisely than other people do, so that nobody understands what I say. I would never say something like the above quotation. Because the key question is what is "we" ("I"). People, Einstein included, do not see this problem.

I wrote two days ago: (") There are forces, which struggle among themselves; every act is the outcome of such a struggle. My "I" is a structure of forces which struggle with each other and with outer forces (from the outer world). Forces are neither free nor non-free: they are forces. (")

So, I do not "dance" on anybody's tune; I am a force and I struggle ... I do only not know what "will" or even "free will" means. Does the world consist of "atoms" + "will"?

Nobody ever said anything coherent about that. People simply play with meaningless concepts and feel happy.

Abdul Malek: "You are just the binary opposite of the top recommended poster Prof. VV Egorov, who started with teaching us HIS dialectics, but after only a little while, trashed ALL dialectics !. You started with trashing ALL dialectics and now teaching us YOUR dialectics! Sorry, I have no interest in your Magnum Opus, Sir! "

The posing of the question of one's own and someone else's dialectics is not only very amusing, but also completely fair. Sir, I understand that you prefer Hegel's dialectic, which Marx put upside down. And that is why we, mere mortals, following your frantic sermon, should simply pray to this dialectic and its great authors. Be courageous and agree that theological preaching is not alien to you either. "Your" dialectical materialism is the same theology, bashfully covering its nakedness with a fig leaf.

When you talk about free will, you do your best to limit this very free will of others, if it conflicts with your free will.

As a humanist, it is difficult for you to understand that in the field of your intellectual and mental activity there can be no unambiguous definition of anything, especially of such a vague concept as dialectics. In human culture, there are only two areas of activity, thanks to which we can figure out something with sufficient accuracy and a degree of confidence. This is mathematics and theoretical physics. Both use "iron" logic and their theories are built on an axiomatic principle. Therefore, there is no need for any free will and for any dialectic, be it Hegelian or "home-grown." Stop the exploitation of the working people by Hegel's dialectics, let them calmly express themselves with the help of their own dialectic, which is close to them in spirit. This and similar arbitrariness, by definition, is embedded in all the humanities.

“Please do not address me (by name) in your future comments, so that I do not get notification from RG.”

I would like to thank the author of this post in sharing his philosophical interpretation of Hegel’s philosophy by the links he listed. The question of this post is a good one, opening with the following sentence:

“The essence of humanity is to strive towards the freedom of the will based on real knowledge of the world and of itself– a subjectivity and the dialectical unity of the opposites of the objectivity of blind Nature (and as a part of Nature itself); in this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe.”

Relative to this “ever-changing universe” (aka evolution), a discovery in thermodynamics, the Constructal paradigm, open new doors relative to the mechanics of evolution. I was hoping one who is a scholar in Hegel’s philosophy could critique, said paradigm, since it relates to this “ever-changing universe”.

MR> "My problem has been (since I was a child) that I speak more precisely than other people do, so that nobody understands what I say."

Mario, “Fifty years of conscious brooding” unfortunately, did not bring Einstein any closer to know, why his God plays dice with the quanta! In comparison, if "nobody understands what" you say, then it seems that whole life’s "conscious brooding" unfortunately, did not bring you close to understand yourself! Could it be due to the fact that you both follow determinism?

Victor Torvich > "Is this ability free from something? If it is - then it is "free" from what exactly?"

To free man from his ignorance, prejudice, alienations etc., of himself and of Nature; to free himself from his evolutionary heritage of raw (animal) instincts that keeps him unfree. Every conscious or unconscious step (transcending, aufheben of the contradictions) towards the progressive evolution of man was a step towards freedom!