|
Aristotle On Existence
by Max Hadden
24 December 2003
What life means to us is a very personal issue. Some believe that our goal in life should be based upon what our ancestors claim a supernatural being allegedly told them in order to get into some eternal celestial palace in the sky and to avoid damnation in a torture-filled inferno that the same being created. Many young college girls of both sexes, to borrow a phrase from Dr. Pierce, live by ideals such as "you only live once so have as much fun as possible," "to each his own," or, "if it feels good do it." Sound familiar? These are typical phrases from Jewish anarchistic and nihilistic ideology. Obviously they show no concern about what it means to be a human being and other deeper questions concerning the meaning of life. Why are we here? Why is anything here?
Although I'm agnostic now, like Commander Rockwell (read This Time the World) it wasn't always so. Over a decade ago, I spent years with Bible scholars who would argue often over the translation of the meaning of a single word (the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the original New Testament in Greek) to understand better the so-called "Word of God," but all of these exercises still left me feeling empty. No answers were found. Spending hours debating the proper translation of a word from Hebrew or Greek, then spending more time discussing whether it was literal or symbolic and what it meant taken in its context within a passage or story, in the end, turned out to be nothing but an exercise in fruitless mental gymnastics. Mental masturbation. Others might have gotten some satisfaction, but I didn't.
ON CHRISTIANITY
Please do not think that I am advocating getting rid of Christianity in any of its forms. I am not. Thomas Jefferson and others had the right idea of allowing people to worship whatever they wish. And as Commander Rockwell said, White Western culture is locked to Christianity and for that reason we should defend it while at the same time promoting only those aspects that are good for the race and definitely pointing out when it hurts us. It only makes sense. If a group of devil worshippers are meeting in secret, or even if the public knows about it, why should we care? The only reason that we should care is if they are interfering negatively with White society. For example, if they were abducting or kidnapping babies or children, for example, and sacrificing them, I guarantee we would shut those suckers down in a second. Similarly, any Christian sects that are hurting society we should likewise make their problems clear.
There are a lot of Christian people of every sect that do good for the White race and culture because their behaviors are to some degree "fascism." The Catholic school practice of separately educating boys and girls and making them wear uniforms, etc., is a good for many reasons. Incidentally, one Catholic priest who was excommunicated for speaking out on homosexuality, and who even more importantly names the Jew, is Father John O'Connor. I recommend two of his videos available at http://www.catholiccounterpoint.com -- They are Synagogue of Satan and The End of the World. As time has passed and as Father O'Connor's made videos, one can read between the lines and realize that much of his anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi beliefs have faded, though he doesn't openly advocate White racial interests. Another good Christian sect of the fundamentalist variety is Dr. Ted Pike's http://www.truthtellers.org group. All of his books and videos contain great information and point out the anti-Christian acts of the Jews everywhere in the world and throughout history. He also appropriately blames the Jews for September 11th (in video Why the Mid-East Bleeds) and points out problems with other Christian sects such as those who believe in dispensationalism.
And please, if you feel the urge to write an article defending Christianity, please watch the film Inherit the Wind (the 1960 one with Spencer Tracy) and make sure you're not behaving like the stereotypical Christian evangelist.
ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
One reason why I decided to discuss this topic is not to try to get anyone to change their religious beliefs, but to simply explore some concepts that are not widely known and provide my opinion about what they mean to our people, that is the White race. Another reason I'm writing this article is that so many folks think they’ve got the key to understanding the universe or "God" and in fact, are typically wholly ignorant of other theories because they've never been exposed to them. For the past five or so years since my awakening to the Jewish problem and racial difference thanks to Dr. Pierce, I've had friends in the White Nationalist community telling me what they believe. Whether Christian Identity or fundamentalists, everyone thinks they know for sure, but of course they don't really know anything for certain. I listen to their explanations, whether it's about the Jews not being God's chosen people or that Jesus was not Jewish but simply lived in Judea, etc., or what-have-you, with an open mind, but not without scientific analysis. The point of the scientific method is to keep us from making mistakes. I would suggest that we apply it to religious beliefs as well. Just like in a court room, it's not up to the defense (those of us who are atheists or agnostic) to prove or disprove that some supernatural being doesn't exist, it's up to the believers to prove that things are as they say they are. And of course, they've never done it.
What I will attempt to do here is not meant to be proof of anything, but to explore some theories that were created by one of the greatest rational thinkers of our race that ever existed -- Aristotle (384-322 BCE).
THE COOLEST CONCEPT
Among one of the many false beliefs that prevails in White society and culture as a result of Jewish influence in mass media and education is the misconception of what it is to be "cool." The coolest creations, whether abstract or real, have never come from Jews, but from Gentiles. Just as the coolest people are not Jews, but Gentiles. In fact the Germans are (or were, but still could be) the coolest group of the White race. If one looks at WWII Germany from only an artistic and aesthetic point of view, even the design of their helmets were cool! (as I pointed out in an old VNN article "88 Reasons Why Insanity Rules Our Lives") To say nothing of their other achievements.
One of the coolest theories of the White race comes from Aristotle and concerns existence. His ideas make the Jewish tribal god Yahweh and Christian mysticism seem patently absurd and illogical. But that's just my opinion, and as the saying goes, everybody has one. Nonetheless, I'd like to share some of Aristotle's thoughts on the subject of life and immortality and will try to keep the language simple because Aristotle was a deep thinker, as we shall see.
ATOMS AND FORMS
During Aristotle's time there were essentially two ideas about human beings and their immortality. The atomists, among them Democritus and Empodecles, believed that all matter, humans included, consisted of nothing but atoms (from the Greek -tom meaning "cuttable" and a-tom, meaning "uncuttable") and empty space between the atoms called void. Most atomists believed humans have no spirit and therefore no immortality because after death and burial in the ground, the body decomposes into atoms and void and does not continue in its original form. On the other hand, Plato with his Theory of Forms and "divine craftsman" or demiurge (a transliteration of a Greek word that means craftsman) concepts, believed humans had immortal spirits.
The short explanation of Plato's Theory of Forms is that the spirit exists eternally and that a human body, the physical biological matter that makes it up, is simply the "form" of the human spirit. Much the same way as a chair made of wood and iron nails -- is in reality atoms of wood and iron arranged in a particular fashion or "form" that we call a "chair". A description of the "divine craftsman" is in the Timaeus wherein Plato (428-347 BCE) argues that the divine craftsman created everything because he is good and wanted as much good in the world as possible and that he gave humans the sense of sight so that they could make their minds orderly to be more like the maker himself. It is similar to the Biblical creation point of view, as it assumes that a creation must have a creator, and also agrees that the only reason for a God or demiurge to do this was because God is "good." Plato also felt the body was a "receptacle" for the spirit, but the main point being that the spirit, which takes the form of a human, was created somehow by a divine craftsman, and is separate from the body and is eternal. All humans shared in this divine spirit but could not have a perfect existence because the human body was dragging them down. Death, was in that way, freedom for a spirit being held in captivity in a human body.
ARISTOTLE'S CHOICE
So Aristotle had a choice to make - would he agree with the atomists that humans were nothing but atoms and void and exist totally by accident as the result of random collisions of millions of atoms, or would he follow the example of Plato -- that there was more to it? He appears to have taken parts from both the atomic view and Plato's theory of forms. Yes, humans were probably made of just atoms and void, but that doesn't mean it happened by accident. He rejected the creationist aspects of Plato's divine craftsman, but did accept a teleological view of the universe. Teleological meaning Aristotle, like Plato, felt that natural phenomena could be explained in terms of an overall purpose or design. There must be a reason for everything being here. A meaning to existence and life.
Importantly, Aristotle did not follow Plato and did not think that the soul is immortal. He developed on Plato's ideas, but in a non-Platonic way.
ARISTOTLE'S BELIEFS: WHY NOT CHANCE?
Aristotle rejected the atomists' belief that humans, plants, and animals had been created by chance mainly because of his observations concerning the process of reproduction. He believed that although one human or plant or animal might have been created by accidental collisions of atoms, much as a house might be created by random events of brick and mortar coming together by chance, the function of reproduction could not be rationally or logically explained as having been produced in this fashion. All plants, animals, and humans have the capacity to reproduce and Aristotle felt that this must be the result of fulfilling some function inherent as part of their meaning of being, of existing.
A living being's role in life, or meaning in life, is best described and understood by their functions inherently built into them -- resulting in actions they must perform.
DIFFERENT ROLES
Among the living organisms in the real world, plants, animals, and humans, Aristotle saw three different levels of functionality with some commonality among them. During their lifetime, plants reproduce and require sustenance, or food, to live. Animals do the same as plants, they reproduce and need food; however, they have some mental faculties as well as more senses (e.g. eyesight) and have to sleep. Humans behave the same as plants and animals, reproducing, gathering food, and using their senses, but humans also have the capability to reason and therefore can understand the world and manipulate it. So the actions taken by each of these three categories of life -- plants, animals, and humans -- are inherent in them for a reason, similar in many respects, but increasingly complex.
Aristotle believed that all three of the living organisms fulfill their role in order to be as much like the "unmoving first mover" as possible.
THE UNMOVING FIRST MOVER
Aristotle reasoned that living organisms inherently fulfill their role because they are trying to be like the unmoving first mover. The reason they are trying to be like the unmoving first mover is because it maintains a perfect and ideal state of existence. The unmoving first mover is a being that doesn't change, so is therefore immortal, and is in eternal contemplation, or is thinking forever. Everything in the universe is to some degree functioning in an attempt to be like the unmoving first mover. This is the reason it exists in the state it does. Not for good or for evil's sake at all.
When a plant, animal, or human eats food, they are trying to remain alive, while unconsciously, trying to stay the same. They are trying to keep the same appearance (an extreme example of this today are surgical facelifts to look young again). In other words, eating and staying alive is a way of not changing, just like the unmoving first mover is not changing. Further, because everything dies, reproduction is another way to continue to exist in the state or "form" as the original. A cow begets another cow and therefore continues to exist through eternity as long as that type of cow stays in a form similar to its original. Reproduction is another way of intermittently staying the same, or not changing.
Aristotle reasoned that since plants and animals don't think (to a significant degree), human beings are closer to approximating the ideal existence the unmoving first mover represents, but are still far behind because humans have to gather food and sleep. Further, eating and sleeping interrupt periods wherein humans could be thinking, just like the unmoving first mover.
RACE AND IMMORTALITY
A good reason to bring this up on this forum is that it is tied to the importance of preserving the White race as well as providing another view about the meaning of life. I have written on the meaning of life in previous articles posted on this site, but avoided any detailed discussion on Aristotle's existentialism. It might be easier to relate the world view that the White race should have (if we had not been brainwashed by Jews) to the microscopic world. Take the act of cellular mitosis -- division of cells into more than one of the same kind. If a cell X has just divided into two parts, and one of them dies or is killed, yet one remains, wouldn't we say a cell of type X still exists? To use a more racially aware example, if a white cell were to join with a black cell, leaving a grey cell, does the white cell or the black cell still exist? Obviously, the answer is no. One can no longer say, "Right there is the white cell and right here is the black one." Neither still exist in their original chromosomal form.
This is the same case with the offspring of the White race. One of normal intelligence can not have failed to notice how the features of the parents, nose, eyes, lips, bone structure, etc., are evident in their children. The children look like, have the same form as, their parents. A line in that great movie "Braveheart" (a film which incidentally was a geniunely non-Jewish creation) is a good example of this -- young William Wallace's uncle Argyle shows up and grabs him by the chin and says, "You have the look of your mother."
Race-mixing destroys the White lineage. The family tree has been pruned at the branch of a mixed-race child. Incidentally, if you ever have the occasion to see a Jewish family reunion portrait or photograph, do it. Many are so inbred as to be indistinguishable.
SOME IMPORTANT POINTS
One of the most important points about Aristotle's divine being, the unmoving first mover, is that it can not be petitioned or prayed to for help. It is not a god of the kind put forth by the Jews and others that is capable of interacting with mankind. Indeed, if there really were a god like this, and if you were one of these omnipotent gods yourself, wouldn't you have a huge palace on earth or in space wherein everyone could see and worship you and know that they are to obey your commands?
A second point is that while the genius Sir Isaac Newton explained changes in motion, Aristotle has explained why motion and time exist in the first place. To get older means to change over a period of time. But if things aren't moving, I mean if everything everywhere would suddenly stop moving, then time ceases to exist. For what would describe a change in time if nothing is changing? To be immortal, there must be no motion. If the cells in your body are not moving, staying the same, you are not getting older. If you're not getting older, then time has no meaning and you are immortal. The unmoving first mover is immortal and everything desires to be like it, but to be like it, everything has to move (get food, reproduce, etc.) in order to imitate it as best as possible. The reason everything moves is therefore because of the existence of the unmoving first mover. The unmoving first mover can not move otherwise it would be changing. This explains the existence of motion and how time is actually a subset of motion. As a sidenote, I'd mention that this also explains why the process of healing occurs. Why does the human finger heal when cut? Because it inherently does not want to change but to keep the body in the same state as it was.
The unmoving first mover exists but does not interfere with mankind. All life wants to be like the unmoving first mover inherently and subconsciously and behaves in a fashion as to meet this end.
EDITORIAL OPINION
I know Aristotle's ideas sound a little bizarre, but the fact is that they do fit the world logically and rationally. There are so many holes in other theories, such as explaining why a "good" supernatural being would really allow any children are born hermaphrodites or with leukemia, that their believers always have to use religious terms such as "evil" or "sin" or "free will" to explain their existence. It makes better sense that nature is trying to be a certain way and simply makes mistakes along the way, but keeps shooting at some ultimate end. No evil involved.
Personally, I hold my beliefs without believing in anything supernatural. All of my beliefs are based upon science and not superstition. Aristotle's concept of existence and his divine unmoving first mover, which basically doesn't do anything but exist, are satisfying enough for me as far as theology goes. I like to think that the unmoving first mover has been embodied in art as the sculpture by Auguste Rodin (1840-1917) known as The Thinker. Even though it wasn't what Rodin had in mind, I think (pun intended) it fits quite nicely.
I hope I've done Aristotle justice and made his ideas plain as well as not making any stupid mistakes while writing this. I also don't mean to slight Plato who was very brilliant and from whom we can learn a lot, as Aristotle himself did.
CONCLUSION
There are only two ways that we as human beings know of that we can continue to exist, in some "form," forever: 1) the biologic form that is carrying on the reproductive process so that our children carry our genes into the future; and 2) in the abstract form, or as Dr. Pierce says, the "fame of a dead man's deeds." All of us, who are able and have not succumbed to destroying our progeny by engaging in that poisonous Jewish doctrine of race-mixing, carry on the the biologic form that is striving for perfection, to be like the unmoving first mover, or the Thinker, subconsciously. Or to explain it simpler terms, reproduction occurs as a way of existing eternally. Those of us who can not have children, but perform heroic deeds or acts, will live in our hearts and minds as long as we can communicate with each other their words and their actions. This is the meaning of life.
White women stand up for your people! It is extremely harmful to believe that "you only live once so if it feels good do it" and to let the race-mixers and homosexuals continue to destroy our race because "to each his own" is the cool thing to do according to MTV and your friends. In your wombs you create and nurture the greatest product that exists -- a human being that is like his or her parents who can grow to build wondrous works of art and technology, pursue wonderful ideals and social justice, and who will carry that large forehead and beautiful hair of your and your husband's body into the next generation by having children themselves. So seek out the best of the opposite sex of your race and procreate with them. Learn about your future mate's family and their background. And they should do the same before permitting you to carry on their biological legacy that is our racial heritage and the most important meaning for our existence.
MAX HADDEN
|