It should seem strange why modern-day philosophers cannot attract attention… while largely vintage philosophy does. It seems people only like to consider the opinions of those long since passed. Well, we shall investigate this seemingly odd reality.

Perhaps the main reason aged philosophy has more appeal is because it is time-tested, after all, one would think, if a particular observation has been around for awhile it must have merit. And, the older the philosophical observation is, and still in circulation, then the more plausible it must be. Conversely, we might tend to believe foolish notions died with the philosopher and therefore aren't around anymore... not to be confusing the issues.

While no serious study would ever use this as a guide, we'd have to admit to the influence. This influence is especially true with famous philosophers... although often being more influenced by who they are than what they said.

Once a philosophical theory gets a head of steam, having been a favorite for a couple of centuries, many become effectively immortal…and unless a theory has been proven wrong, it will linger seemingly indefinitely. It takes awhile for an observation to become 'immortal' however; and requires a following. The same applies to philosophers. Yet, it never fails and can clearly be seen… a living philosopher has no appeal, a 19th century philosopher has some and so it goes until you reach the days of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. And so it came to pass, this trio of ancient philosophers became immortalized… as if gods, they are spoken of. In a thousand more years Descartes, Spinoza and William James will also become gods… just as if scripted.

To embrace or find favor in the oldest metaphysical knowledge is effectively opposite other fields. In aeronautics today, no one wonders what the Wright brothers might have thought, nor do mathematicians refer to Euclid anymore. Likewise, Copernicus and Galileo are just historical figures now. There is a reason however...metaphysics  has never been understood and recent theories are no closer to understanding it than those 500 or even 2,000 years ago. So, until there is a breakthrough, every single plausible theory ever put forth must be considered, no matter how old.

Since no concept has ever measured up, always lacking in some way or out in left field, nonetheless students in their endeavors study their favorites, those they believe may be closer to the truth. In many cases, they're hoping to find ways to advance it or get ideas for a new, more plausible theory.

Actually, there is a valid reason older philosophical observations are more popular... it's because they take stabs at the profound. They are more 'fundamental' whereas the more recent philosophical theories deal in specifics (within manmade frameworks). One cannot be overly specific about metaphysics however... the spirit world doesn't exist in specific ways (in ways we can relate). In earlier times philosophers also kept a leery eye on the foundation, what they're building upon, whereas modern-day philosophers (last 2-3 centuries) don't.

Ancient philosophy

While letting time weed out foolishness is generally an effective way to see which philosophical observations survives, it isn’t a perfect system. For one thing it is awfully slow. Also, popularity contests don't always field the most meritorious contestants. It isn’t really a ‘system’ though, just the result of mankind’s collective logic at work, exerting itself. Some ideas survive when they shouldn’t and others die unfortunately. Perhaps the one by Melissos about voids being impossible is a good example... because its profoundness lies at a hard-to-grasp depth not apparent by casual reading.

"--- nor is anything empty. For what is empty is nothing. What is nothing, then, cannot be. Nor does it move; for it has nowhere to betake itself to, but is full. For if there were empty space, it would betake itself to empty space. But, since there is no empty space, it has no place to betake itself to. And it cannot be dense and rare; for it is not possible for what is rarefied to be full as what is dense, but what is rare is ipso facto emptier than what is dense.

This is the way in which we must distinguish between what is full and what is not full. If a thing has room for anything else, and takes it in, it is not full; But if it has no room for anything and does not take it in, it is full. Now, it must needs be full if there is no empty space, and if it is full, it does not move. If what is real is divided, it moves; but if it moves, it cannot have body; for, if it had body it would have parts, and would no longer be one." Melissos (5th century BC).

Philosophical immortality isn't assured however... some observations might only be around for 3-4 centuries. It is often a slow death for these semi-immortals however. Each and every time an observation is reviewed by someone, they breathe a little life back into it. Philosophy therefore comes in four flavors… the dead, dying, semi-immortals and immortals. Of course, some philosophy was never alive in the first place. Foolish notions are merely the gleam in a philosopher’s eye which had no chance to impregnate the public.

The dead ideas, having once been alive, could have been shot down for several reasons… although most often because the notion had no merit and was disqualified before it got a head of steam. Sometimes though, great observations get bushwhacked in a back alley to die an anonymous death. While the bushwhackers are usually a gang of jealous contemporaries, sometimes it has to do with being politically correct. And yes,political correctness  runs roughshod over philosophy as well. Political correctness and Charles Darwin once bumped heads at a time when the immutability of species was considered part of the established order.

The dying ideas means they’re running out of steam, losing favor as time passes. It is a case of fewer and fewer diehard believers keeping them alive. After all, a dying man doesn’t need 5,000 nurses to keep him alive, perhaps just a couple. The semi-immortal and immortal ideas are the most interesting however, especially the most ancient ones, because a few of them simply persist beyond reason. It doesn’t matter whether more reasonable concepts replaced them or not... dispelling any notion someone took them off the shelf. Anyway, in metaphysics, it seems everyone has more faith in yesteryear’s philosophers than those of today.

While there is an understandable fascination with people far ahead of their time, there is yet another reason ancient wisdom has appeal... because many believe philosophy, thus mankind, took the wrong fork-in-the-road. While concepts can usually be 'advanced' in more than just one direction... but off to left field has flown countless theories attracting other errant theories. Left field is where the framework of understanding is now mistakenly built.

In the end, challenging status quo concepts with better arguments is what philosophy is all about. It isn't a simple process however, you must first be recognized before you can be heard and before you are recognized there are a few hurdles to jump… a few dozen that is. There are academic hurdles, pecking-order hurdles, turf hurdles, media hurdles, establishment hurdles, religious hurdles and jealousy hurdles. There is also an exasperation hurdle.

Philosophical inkwell

Albert Einstein purportedly once said "no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it" and that applies to bucking established concepts as well. It’s a matter of an opposing force and the force behind established concepts is 'authority' in important strategic positions (academic, governmental). From their positions, it is easy for authorities to ‘authoritatively snipe' at threatening ideas to destroy them and that’s a distinct advantage.

Before one should challenge any of the various established concepts which make up the status-quo mindset, they should first try to level the playing field. In order to do that, one must make counter-arguments at least one level above the current arguments. Football players know this; to help assure victory one must play at least one level above the opponent. So in order to level the philosophical playing field, one must be in tune with the logical disposition of the next intellectual level. If you are in tune and the opposition isn’t, well, that’s a distinct advantage.

All else being equal, it amounts to a battle between these two distinct advantages. Since most philosophical battlefields are in the kingdom of spiritual realities (metaphysics), more specifically within the territories of life, man and purpose, one must train to fight in that environment.

While most of my articles within this website could be considered philosophical, they are of a different sort because they incorporate the spiritual dimension. Depending on the philosopher, spiritual philosophy has potential whereas scientific approaches to metaphysics have no potential whatsoever. It is common knowledge that the standard run-of-the-mill philosophical arguments for the last 2,000 years haven’t yielded much of anything; a fact conceded by even the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant … although he admitted he didn’t know the reason for its failure.

Although the recognition of the sixth sense and subconscious mind are noteworthy achievements, they were only recognized, never advanced. That's because the spiritual dimension is continually ignored.

Someone once said (in effect) that profound thoughts, those which haven’t yet surfaced, still reside in inkwells. That type of thinking has depth… as if inkwells are full of all-knowing oracles or the omniscient womb of creativity. One could even imagine that each drop of ink is a liquid fortune-teller. So, it’s time the world knew... spiritual philosophy is inkwell philosophy.

While inkwell philosophy has no fear of depths, therefore to seek out, touch and ponder the deepest of mysteries, its observations would be restricted by metaphysical semantics. The challenge therefore is to try to sensibly express them nonetheless and why some of my articles within this website are a bit more daring. And, to the degree my inkwell allows, hopefully more enlightening... remaining however, like my other articles, 'empirically spiritual'. While 'empirical' is taken to mean 'relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system or theory' but in my opinion, academic positions concerning the metaphysical aren’t deserving of any ‘due regard'.

However, there is a dilemma to face similar to the curiosity surrounding mood-altered dispositions... those which produce thoughts which seem logical at the time but don't later. For example, sadness has its own logic, so does happiness. Also, animals have different logical dispositions all of which are perfectly sound otherwise these animals wouldn't survive. There seems an array of perfectly sound ways to look at things... becoming then a problem of putting them into terms whereby others might understand because it's like trying to mesh your 'thinking gears' with those of another (or communicating on the same radio frequency). Of course, all gears should mesh with divine intelligence being the only 'transmission of truths'.

A.O. Kime

 © A.O. Kime (2003)
A.O. Kime is the author of two books plus some 70 articles on ancient history,
spiritual phenomena, political issues, social issues and agriculture which can
be seen at http://www.matrixbookstore.biz