Pushed by the love of wisdom, the philosopher is called to think, feel & act in a way serving philosophy to the full measure of his capacities. Whatever happens, philosophical activity must be ongoing. This calls for a discipline of its own.

The shipwreck of philosophy being a total loss, there are some who claim such a path no longer exists. Obviously, for humans, this can never be so, for thoughts, feelings and actions always lead to ideas regarding the world -its existence, life & consciousness- and the transcendent.

In the thesis advanced here, theory and practice of philosophy form a unity. Integral part of society, the practice of philosophy is an integral part of the philosophical life. This life involves theory, practice and spirituality.

For different reasons, the sapiental "systems" of Antiquity cherished an organic, natural wisdom. Their leading notion of the Golden Mean, the middle between all extremes (of thought, emotion and action), is present in Egypt (cf. the Balance of Maat), in Judaism (cf. Qoheleth, 7, 15-18), in Greece (cf. Aristotle in Nichomachean Ethics), in Christian philosophy (cf. Boethius in The Consolation of Philosophy) and in Islam (Koran 25:67). It can also be found in Taoism, Hinduism & Buddhism. In all these traditions, wisdom has "the other answer" escaping conceptual thought. Wisdom is found when extremes are avoided and the true nature of things is perceived. Limiting ourselves to the Mediterranean civilizations, let us trace the highlights of this wisdom.

The use of capitals in words like "Absolute", "God" or "Divine" points to abstraction and reason. Hence, throughout this book, in the context of ante-rational thought, words such as "god", "the god", "gods", "goddesses", "pantheon" or "divine" are not capitalized.

01. Ancient Egyptian sapience.

In Ancient Egypt, ca. 2.300 BCE, the wisdom of the divine king of Egypt ruled. The uncorrupted, original text of the main ritual of this wise Horus-king was carved in stone and, for over 4 millennia, left untouched (cf. Cannibal Hymn in the Pyramid texts of Unas). This divine king was the "power of powers", the "image of images", the "slayer of the gods". He spoke the Great Word.

The direct influence of Egyptian sapience on Greek philosophy, affirmed by more than one classical writer, can be argued. The "Greek miracle" is unmistaken. Introducing formal thought, the Greeks worked with abstract connections between systems of concepts & meta-concepts, and used their inquisitive mind to seek the harmony between theory & practice. But like all other pre-Greek civilizations, Ancient Egypt thought never decontextualized its concepts, and so could not operate the advantage of meta-concepts and formal architectures between concepts and series of meta-concepts (C, C", C'" ... ). Because of the power of rationality, it took ca. six centuries of Hellenization to identify the ante-rational mentality, solving problems by raising Mediterranean thought to the level of the formal operations (cf. Chapter 2).

In the Ptolemaic Period, the Greeks reshaped Egypt. Mixing Egyptian thought with their own philosophies, they created new, original mystery cults (cf. the popular Cult of Serapis and esoteric Hermetism). The Greek Corpus Hermeticum influenced Christian as well as Islam theology, while Coptic (the last stage of Ancient Egyptian) remained the liturgical language of the Egyptian Coptic Church. The latter adopted its own, original interpretation of the nature of Jesus Christ.

"Along with the Sumerians, the Egyptians deliver our earliest -though by no means primitive- evidence of human thought. It is thus appropriate to characterize Egyptian thought as the beginning of philosophy. As far back as the third millennium B.C., the Egyptians were concerned with questions that return in later European philosophy and that remain unanswered even today - questions about being and nonbeing, about the meaning of death, about the nature of the cosmos and man, about the essence of time, about the basis of human society and the legitimation of power."
Hornung, 1992, p.13, my italics.

Prince Hordedef, son of king Khufu (ca. 2571 - 2548 BCE), vizier Kagemni, serving under kings Huni & Snefru, ca. 2600 BCE, and vizier Ptahhotep (ca. 2200 BCE) were the first men on record to have "lived their wisdom".

This "sAt, "sAA" or "sArt", representing the rule of Maat (justice & truth), animated more than 2000 years of Egyptian sapiental literature.

The Instruction of Hordedef (ca.2487 - 2348 BCE, fragment)
Instruction to Kagemni (ca.2348 - 2205 BCE, fragment)
The Maxims of Ptahhotep (ca.2200 BCE, complete)
The Instruction to Merikare (ca.2160 - ?, incomplete)
The Instruction of Amenemhat (ca.1919 - 1875 BCE, nearly complete)
The Instruction of Amen-em-apt (ca. 1292 - 1075 BCE, complete)

The manuscripts of Ptahhotep (ca. 2200 BCE) and Amen-em-apt (ca. 1200 BCE), both complete, represent beginning and end of the "royal" sapiental tradition. After Amen-em-apt, more popular, less elitist forms of discourses take over, and the texts are no longer available in hieroglyphs or cursive hieroglyphs (but in Demotic & Coptic). With the end of the New Kingdom (ca. 1075 BCE), it took Pharaonic Egypt another thousand years to cease.

In Egypt, ritual and devotion were always part of these sapiental discourses, for the wise was loved by the deities, the million faces of the Great One Alone (cf. the New Kingdom theologies of Ptah & Amun).

In Ancient Egypt, between ca. 3000 and 1800 BCE, five major state theologies emerged. Their literature was always linked to a deity, its temple and province (nome) : Osiris for Abydos, Re-Atum for Heliopolis, Thoth for Hermopolis, Ptah for Memphis and Amun for Thebes. In the New Kingdom, Amun, the "king of the gods" manifested as a body (Ptah) in Memphis, as divine speech (Thoth) in Hermopolis and as divine power (Re) in Heliopolis. He was deemed "one & millions", before and beyond the deities. Despite the sophistication of this Theban answer, the fundamental paradox between unity (one) & plurality (many) cannot be solved in proto-rational terms, for the system of relationships is not formal but concrete (applied). Godhead remained confused, for bound by the limitations of the "field-of-action" of each deity.

Ancient Egypt culture never adopted decontextualized, formal, theoretical rules. In theological terms, the deities always operated together, in constellations or groupings. Connections between other "families" were established as in myth, and regularly reenacted. The divine king was a very special "god", for his spirit (Akh) was on Earth, not where it belonged, namely in the "sky" of Re, its father. Because of the divine presence of the king, equilibrating truth & justice (Maat), the Nile was "good" and the deities could interact with the living.

When the first formal operations emerged in the minds of the Egyptian royal elite, namely decades before and under the 18-year rule of Akhenaten (ca. 1353 - 1336 BCE), they were swiftly erased from cultural memory, becoming a subreptive stream of "forbidden" literary themes and images (cf. Assmann, 1999). The monotheist singularity of sorts of the Aten, before, above & against other deities, could not be accepted by the Egyptians. The "mechanism" of their spirituality could not overthrow the Duat and Osiris.

The presence of an ante-rational sapiental tradition is attested as early as the Old Kingdom. Was Egyptian wisdom the flower or fruit of Ancient Egyptian spiritual practices and rituals ? Did it attain the level of excellent exemplarity within the boundaries of a profound closure of millennia of proto-rational thinking ?

02. Greek spiritual exercises.

Both in Egypt and Greece, the wise fostered an integrated approach of wisdom. They knew how to apply sapience in everyday life (practical philosophy, "praxis"). Moreover, their spiritual exercise addressed both cognition, affect, volition and sensation. These skillful means allowed philosophers to "orient themselves in thought, in the life of the city, or in the world" (Hadot, 1995, p.21.).

"The Socratic maxim 'know thyself' requires a relation of the self to itself that 'constitutes the basis of all spiritual exercises'. Every spiritual exercise is dialogical insofar as it is an 'exercise of authentic presence' of the self to itself, and of the self to others."
Hadot, 1995, p.20.

The particulars of the Greek style involved more than youth, keen interest, opportunism, individualism and anthropocentrism. With the introduction of formal thought and its application to the major problems of philosophy (truth, goodness, beauty & the origin of the world, life and the human), a completely new kind of sapiental thinking was set afoot. Theory, linearization and abstraction were discovered and applied to the new Greek mentality. The immediate was objectified in discursive terms, and this in a script symbolizing vowels.

As Indo-Europeans, the Ionians had a couple of typical features of their own :

• individuality / authority ;

• exploring mentality ;

• unique dynamical script ; 

• linearizing, geometrizing mentality ;

• anthropomorphic theology.

Starting with the Ionians, in particular Pythagoras (ca. 580 BCE - ca. 500, Metapontum, Lucania), philosophy was a way of life summoning the person as a whole. Although in Greece cognition was privileged, philosophy also implied the training of affects, volitions & sensations (cf. the four elements of creation). Moreover, to effectively master these, a lot of effort was required. Besides cognitive tasks, imagination, music, ritual, meditation, martial arts, dance, singing, role-playing etc. were also practiced, addressing the entire spirit and "one's whole way of being" (Hadot, 1995, p.21.). This "intuitive" aspect of Greek philosophy is visible in the mysteries, with its integration of poetry, dance & song.

After the Persian Wars, starting with the Sophists, Greek philosophy displayed the supremacy of reason & the subsequent liberation of thought from immediate context & geosentimentalities. Before, ante-rationality ruled and the latter had always been bound to its milieu. Greek civilization changed all of this forever. With the introduction of abstraction, thought was finally liberated from its trusted local horizon, envisaging a "global" perspective. This is grasping at a universal, a "genus" instead of a "species", i.e. a non-concrete, abstract, decontextualized, formal concept, acting as a meta-concept for all possible concrete concepts (namely those ruling ante-rationality). This new élan of Hellenism embraced all nations and dreamt of a Greek pan-humanism, and later a Pax Romana.

Formal rationality is abstract and able to overstep the limits of old. It needs no references outside its own conceptualized duality of a knowing subject and an object known. Applying labels on a previously coded incoming primary data-stream, transforming "perception" into "sensation" (cf. Chapter 4), the conceptualizing mind creates and maintains a difference between object-possessor (the subject) and mental and/or sensate events (the object).

The "young" Greeks emerged out of their Dark Age as curious individualists able to make fundamental abstractions. Moreover, most pre-Socratics were also travelers & wanderers, eager to investigate other cultures. The emergence of the city-state and colonization walked hand in hand.

The emerging Greek mysteries, contrary to the Egyptian, aim at the illumination of thought through the bridling of emotions & uncontrolled volitions, and this while the body remained passive. Greek spiritual practices point to the transformation of one's view of the world, deemed possible only after a radical subjective change. In Greek philosophy, reason is nearly always placed above passion & volition. Conscious mental states master sensate, affective & volitive states.

For Plato, the way of life of a philosopher was given with Socrates (470 - 399 BCE), the only "prophet" the Greeks produced. He sought universal, eternal truths by way of dialogue, criticizing established views and inviting his listeners to discover the truth by the use of their own minds. Although Socrates is Plato's great example, his own philosophy had two aims : the transcendent and the political. Not only did the wise participate in the world of ideas, but he does so to return to the world to liberate and remind people of their original, transcendent origin (cf. the allegory of the cave in book VII of The Republic).

Plato, an Athenian aristocrat, depicts the philosopher as a liberator, a king who guides his own out of the cave of shadows & illusions. As such, the physical world of becoming is rejected. Impermanent, not as it appears, it is a discontinuity tending towards chaos, giving in to the everlasting yawning space of oblivion. In humans, this manifests as a display of afflictive passions, affects, emotions and negative volitions.

For those gone astray, the philosopher is a wandering light  ... He participates in a higher world and so for those caught in illusions, his wisdom is salvation. Hence, the human needs to "build" himself in the light of who he truly was, is and always will be. The Platonic school tries to help people remember their Divine, transcendent essence, existing from their own side.

The process of institutionalization, starting with the Eleatics, had run its course. With Plato, the first comprehensive "system-school" emerged ; a graded, gradual approach scattered in a corpus of dialogues. In it, formal thought had duly linearized "the life of a philosopher". It had, in effect reduced "practical philosophy" to teaching, writing & politics. After Plato, Greek philosophy remained school-bound and in tune with power. Although we remember Plato for his "spiritualism" (or idealism), it should be clear his interests lay in the organization of the "perfect" city-state, one which would allow its citizens to "escape" the shadows and turn towards the light of their own substantial and eternal "idea" or substance : the World of Ideas, eternal and ruled by the Idea of the Good.

Let us return to Socrates, who wrote nothing and is described by Plato, Xenophon & Aristophanes. We hear of an original, unique, civilized but non-conformist individualist, ironical, brave, dispassionate and impossible to classify, belonging to no school. In this person, the ideal of Greek philosophy seems fully embodied, and what Socrates teaches, allows, in terms of Hellenistic culture, this characterization of philosophy :

1. philosophy is a radical, uncompromising, authentic search for understanding, insight & wisdom ;
2. philosophy is never an intellectual, optional "game", but demands the enthusiast arousal of all faculties, addressing the "complete" human and giving birth to a practice of philosophy ;
3. philosophy equals relative, conventional, approximate truth, but never absolute truth. Greek philosophy, accepting meta-rational intuition, never eliminates reason.

For Socrates, the practice of philosophy helps to understanding the role of the human being as part of the "polis", a designated community. In Plato's dialogues, there is a ongoing bi-directional flow between the issue at hand and Socrates's continuous search for rational answers to fundamental problems by posing questions, opening up the space to new possibilities and creating the conditions for some insight or higher understanding to be born.

The rationality of Socrates was unsystematic, but not confused. Returning to key questions concerning reality, truth, goodness and beauty, gave body to numerous spontaneous conversations. Variations on these themes were common, but their motifs recurrent. Socrates intended not to know more about the good, but wanted knowledge committed to work for the good.

This knowledge of values is charged with affectivity. This explains Socratic determinism : "to know good is to act good". The knowledge of the philosopher is not exclusively abstract, distant and theoretical. For this indifference will never cause me to take it serious. But committed knowledge is taken serious. Born out of insight, born in those standing between intellect and folly (Plato : Symposium, 204 a-b), calling for both reason & intuition, such knowledge is Divine but also dangerous (cf. Plato's Apology).

03. Christian philosophy ?

Although the thinkers of Late Pagan Hellenism (neo-Platonism, Stoicism, Skepticism & Epicurism) had already considerably lost the free spirit of city-states philosophers like Socrates, they continued to seek personal transformation, but more and more failed to find it in terms of Pagan philosophy and its religious practices.

Particularly in Stoicism, language became an independent area of study. Logic was not longer embedded in metaphysics, but a science of language, or linguistics. Physics studies things ("pragmata" or "res"'), whereas dialectica and grammatica study words ("phonai" or "voces").

"Messianism or millenarianism is the belief in the imminent arrival of a new order or millennium of harmony and justice when the Messiah and the saints 'go marching in'. It is a frequent response to distress of all sorts, but especially to military conquest and economic and cultural dominations by foreigners. Indeed, the idea that some outside force will sweep down and overthrow the present illegitimate rulers so that 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first' has been fundamental to Judaism, at least since the captivity in Babylon in the 6th century BC. It is clear, however, that this feeling intensified after about 50 BC and was very prominent for the next 200 years ; furthermore, the sense of apocalypse was not restricted to Jews. The crisis can be partially explained by a number of political and economic changes. There were the unprecedented success of the Romans in uniting the Mediterranean, the savage civil wars between the Roman warlords ; and finally, in 31 BC, the establishment of the Roman Empire -often portrayed as a new age- under Augustus."
Bernal, 1987, pp.124-125.

The intellectual climate of Late Hellenism was characterized by a feeling of disquietude and fatalism, and from the beginning of the 4th century, a release of talent and creativity is witnessed. The empire was in a deep crisis and the reforms of Diocletianus (284 - 305) tried to "solve" the issues by transforming the Roman civil state into a despotic empire (he professionalized the army, introduced a hierarchical bureaucracy, raised the taxes and put into place a repressive legal system and a secret state police, the "agentes in rebus", as Augustine would call them). These changes were consolidated by Constantine the Great (306 - 337), who adopted Christianity as the ideology of the state, turning the monarchy, by introducing hereditary succession, into a system ruled by the grace of the God of Christ (he himself was baptized on his dead bed). After Theodosius I (346 - 395), the "imperator Christianissimus", the empire was divided and the Western part was invaded by the "barbarians" ... In the East, the Byzantines recovered from the Gothic inroad and, throwing back the Persians and the Arabs, they would hold out until 1453.

In Late Hellenism, Christianity represents the new view on the world, man & salvation, advancing parallels to Paganism, but outstripping the latter in ultimate rejection of the classical concepts. As early as 95 AD, Roman centrists as Clement I defined Papal authority, and by the time of Constantine, Greek philosophy is used to solve major theological disputes (namely those concerning the nature of Christ).

Gathering bishops to solve problems had been done before. Especially to counter early heresies (choices unacceptable to the orthodox Christian centrists) and the rapid rise of counter-churches, "regular" bishops deliberated together (the so-called "synod" or "concilium") to constitute a dogma (the first Catholic synods were as early as 197, 256 & 314 CE). Episcopalism was born. This episcopalism would be the political tool used to realize the "universal" church of Christ.

The first "holy" synod, held under the aegis of emperor Constantine in 325 CE (Nicænum), initiated a deposit of faith, a magister and a "sacred" tradition to be kept by the Papal court. Curialism was born. Next, Catholic dogma would rule all higher learning for more than a millennium.

Indeed, a synod of only ca. 220 bishops (i.e. a small fraction of the total episcopate !), was urged by Constantine in person to canonize dogma's pertaining to the nature of Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity. Regarding this nature of Christ, a lot of serious conflicts had arisen between the Roman position and the bishops of the East. These problems pertained to the relation of Jesus Christ to God (Trinitarian) and to the two natures of Christ (Christological). This clever "spiritual putch" would eternalize the Roman view and save imperialism.

Was Christ "created" ("factum") or "generated" ("natum") ? If created, Christ is the subordinate of the Father and therefore not God as He is. The substance of "1" (unity) differs from the substance of "2" (duality). If generated, Christ, born out of the Father, was, is and will always be part of the Father and so in the same way "God" as He is. How to understand this God-status of Jesus Christ ?

Tritheism (Father, Son & Holy Ghost as three independent Gods) & modalism (One God with three Divine modi) had to be refuted. The canons reached at during the ancient synods had to solve the spirito-political tensions between the bishops and to allow the imperial order to identify with an evangelical "Divine" order. Jesus Christ, the Son, was deemed "generated" not "created", born out of the Father and consubstantial ("homoousios") with Him. The Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son (in the East, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only and the phrase "and the Son" or "filioque" is absent). Compromizes such as "analogous in all with the Father" or "resembling the Father in being" ("homoiousios") were rejected.

The Roman Trinitarian formula became : "one essence and three Divine Persons". This Nicæan formula became the leading dogma of the Roman Church.

When concentrating on the Person of Christ, parties disagreed about the proper balance between Christ's humanity and His Divinity. Too much humanity could loosen the ontological bond with the Father (as "God" -like the Father- or as First Creation next to Him). Too much Divinity could endanger universal redemption in the name of the Godman Christ. Deny His humanity and our bond with Him as Son of Man is gone. Deny His Divinity and Christ can no longer save us, but only the Father can.

In the Latin West, the formula : "One Divine Person with two natures (human & Divine)", became the ruling formula promulgated by Constantine's bishops.

The Council of Nicea, deciding in favour of co-substantialism, the two natures of Christ, and the Filioque, effectively divided Christianity, allowing each to position its own theological system.

"Credimus in unum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Dei, natum ex Patre unigenitum, hoc est de substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, lumen ex lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, natum, non factum, unius substantiae cum Padre ..."
19th of June AD 325 - my italics

Compared to Paganism, Christianity adopted four major novelties :

1. the idea of a World Savior:
   a perfect human and a perfect God, called "Jesus Christ", lived, died and rose again within historical time, acting as a savior-figure, founding a totally new cult ;

2. the theology of the person :
   humans are persons endowed with a free will and so able to make a positive choice. To find salvation, the despondent men of the empire could come one by one ;

3. the spiritual equality of all humans :
   although the social system distinguished ever more sharply between aristocrats and commoners, the new religion offered salvation to all human beings ;

4. the emperor as the protector of the new order :
   already at the end of the first century, Clement I had stressed the centrist approach and placed himself at the head of the Church of Christ (for Rome "had the bones" of Peter & Paul). Constantine would finalize this move, and declare himself as the protector of the Universal (Catholic) Church, while manipulating the outcome of crucial Christocentric & Trinitarian issues.

With Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335 - 399), Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 389), Basil of Caesarea (ca. 329 - 379) and Augustine (354 - 430), etc. we see the emergence of a Christian philosophical school, raising the issues of Platonic and neo-Platonic thought and dealing with them in terms of Christian theology. They devised the language of Christology and Trinitarism, introducing Greek metaphysics into Christian theology.

From the side of reason, Christian revelation (or any other), cannot define truth. Christian philosophy is either a "Christian" version of philosophy or the philosophy of Christianity. In both cases, the essential tension between revelation & reason remains unsolved.

In a Christian perspective, "spiritual exercises" no longer involve the person as a hermit in his or her own right, but only as a member of the community or church. Without the church, no salvation ! Without a rule, no monastery ! Despite the theology of the person (in fact intended to allow people to make the life-saving choice for Christ and the Catholic Church), individualism was lost and even hermits as the Desert Fathers (in 4th century Upper Egypt), would eventually also become regulated by the centrist bishops (cf. the rise of monastic rules) and emerge in the 9th as a completely regulated "spiritual" life (cf. Cluny). Also, even if monks and nuns (cf. Beatrice of Nazareth, Jan of Ruusbroec) were seeking transformation, this was no longer to find a new wholeness within themselves as themselves, but only insofar as they became, through baptism, the adoptive children of Christ Himself ! Realizing the "imago Dei" was the goal, and without the grace of the Holy Spirit this was deemed impossible.

By contrast, in Greek philosophy in general, and in neo-Platonism in particular, individual efforts were considered to be sufficient to realize wholeness and experience "the One" directly. In Christianity, only Jesus Christ saves. Indeed, persons make a "free choice" to find themselves integrated into the "mystical body of Christ" ! What a difference ! Without Divine grace, nothing could be achieved and man was an easy prey for the Devil and his own (cf. Augustine in his Confessions, who's life coincided with the transition from Late Hellenism to the Christian Middle Ages).

Augustine, the bishop of Hippo (North Africa), affirmed the continuity between rationality (identified with Platonism) and faith, in casu, Christianity. Without (the Christian) God, reason leads to the worship of idols. For him, reason and faith are not in conflict and should not be separated : "itinerarium mentis in Deum". But, the gospels have no philosophy to offer. They provide no rational system, but a proclamation of the "Kingdom of God" (in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ). If the former is a Greek ideal like "agathon" (Plato's "summum bonum") or the Peripatetic unmoved mover, Jesus Christ is a revelation of the Divine : a Divine datum. The tensions are obvious. Is reason equipped enough to arrive at a comprehensive explanation of what works ? If so, then no "eye of faith" needs to be postulated. For Tertullian (ca. 220 CE), Christianity abrogated reason, or "worldly wisdom". He believed because of its absurdity. The folly of faith ?

With the rise of Christianity & its fundamentalism, Greek philosophy and the Pagan way of life were deemed heretical and therefore excommunicated. Hermetism and Gnosticism were condemned. A mentality which would persist for more than 13 centuries, reducing free thought to nil ! Officially, individual spiritual exercises were over and philosophy became the appendix of Christian theology, used for apology & exegesis, i.e. reduced to logic & linguistics. Only as late as 2000 CE did the Roman Church acknowledge these "sins against truth", asking God to forgive her.

Despite this general climate, philosophers did emerge. More than once in open conflict with the powers that be, they evidenced the spontaneous association of thought, feeling and action with their reflections, creating a need to understand the wider perspectives on truth, beauty & goodness, and this while remaining within the confines of Christian faith, often placing faith above reason.

Catholic thinkers such as Augustine, Scotus (ca. 810 - 877), Anselm (1033 - 1109), Abelard (1079 - 1142), Aquinas (1225 - 1274), Ockham (1290 - 1350) and Cusanus (1401 - 1464), contributed to the preservation of many twists & turns of the philosophical mind. Devoid of philosophical practice, they kept & polished the magisterial "dead bones" of the philosophies of Antiquity, adding a few of their own.

04. Montaigne, Descartes, Kant.

Between the 16th and 18th centuries, Europe developed a new vision of the human. Differing radically from anything before, it became an example for non-Europeans to follow. Eventually, this new ideal conquered the civilized world. Its essential components were :

• humanism : the human is put in the center and given an ultimate value to which everything else had to be subdued. Egocentrism & the subjugation of nature to the will of the human prevailed ; 

• focus on the empirical : the transcendent realities of myth and religion are replaced by what the senses bring ;

• openness : commerce brings the unknown into focus and exploration is of the order of the day, everything is possible and there are no sacred grounds ;

• pluralism & tolerance : slowly the realization dawned that other people, groups, nations etc. have the right to take their own development at heart ;

• rationalism & utility : science & technology are deemed crucial to eliminate the difficulties encountered : anticipation, prediction, self-control, efficiency, argumentation etc. become more important ;

• pretence : the rational, calculating, planning and self-controlling Westerner becomes highly optimistic and develops pride in his enormous achievements, anticipating to become God himself, i.e. achieve immortality on Earth ;

• democracy : with the French Revolution (1789), a new political consciousness dawned. Divine kingship could no longer be accepted and with its demise the world was again transformed.

Montaigne

With his motto "Que sais-je ?", Montaigne (1533 - 1592) revitalized skepticism and posited cultural relativism. In his Essays (or "Attempts"), he eloquently employed so many references and quotes from classical, non-Christian Greek & Roman authors, in particular Lucretius, that his work may be read as an argument to disregard religious (read : Christian) dogma. More importantly, Montaigne was the first to use introspection to analyze his own thoughts, feelings and actions. This "psychological turn" implied self-discovery and the experience of oneself "as it is", the first step in any attempt to address the totality of faculties. This reinvention of the individual was one of the crucial characteristics of the Renaissance thinkers. Less and less shackled by the constraints of Catholic dogma, they took reason as their guide and rejected blind faith and its fideist impact on thought. As Thomas Aquinas before him, Montaigne considered revealed and natural truth to be in harmony. However, this traditional thesis went hand in hand with skepticism.

In his Apology for Raymond Sebond (1576), Montaigne wrote we can not be sure of anything unless we find the one thing which is absolutely certain. Task was to "watch my self as narrowly as I can". Of course, this is only possible if we place not God, but the human center stage. Montaigne reinvented the practice of philosophy, and instead of focusing on theoretical issues, he tried to understand how human beings can be happy. The quest for happiness is indeed the main theme of any practice of philosophy, for it is common to all human beings.

Montaigne did not reject the Bible. In his introduction to his Apology, we read that without "illumination" reason can understand nothing fundamental about the universe. Duly illuminated, the human can come to know himself, his Creator and his religious and moral duties, which he will then love to fulfill. The method consists of freeing humans from doubts and revealinf the errors of Pagan Antiquity and its unenlightened philosophers. It teaches Catholic truth, showing up sects as errors and lies. It does all these things by teaching the Christian the "alphabet" which must be acquired if one is to read Nature aright. Revealed truths and the Book of Nature properly read say the same things. With this thesis, Montaigne is still firmly grounded in pre-Cartesian thought.

The move from this Renaissance humanism to rationalism was interpreted by Toulmin as rationalism's answer to the initiating force of humanism (cf. Cosmopolis : The Hidden Agenda of Modernity, 1990). The humanists had placed humanity to the fore, and the rationalists continued on this line, for humans were foremost characterized by their cognitive abilities. This "turn" placed epistemology and the question "What do I know ?" in the center. Devoid of revealed, dogmatic knowledge, the Renaissance thinker is forced to find good reasons to justify thought. The three traditional avenues (of ecclesiastical authority, sense data and formal logic) were questioned, and the first was radically rejected. Empirism and rationalism devised two opposed answers to the question of justification, and grounded thought either in sense data or in the necessary truths of reason.

Cartesius

To seek indubitable truth, René Descartes (1596 - 1650) turned to radical methodological doubt. He left the Jesuit college of La Flèche and was ashamed of the amalgam of doubts and errors he had learned there. In fact, he realized his knowledge was based on nothing certain. Traditional scholastic philosophy, influenced by the dogmatic discourse of revealed knowledge, consisted of various contradicting opinions, grosso modo Platonic or Peripatetic. History was a series of moral lessons (cf. Livius) and philosophy was still restricted to logic. The experimental method was absent, and various authorities ("auctoritates") were studied (Galenus, Aristotle, Avicenna, etc.). Aim was to harmonize the magisterial contradictions (cf. the "sic et non" method). In the interpretation of these sources, a certain creativity was at work, but the question of the foundation of knowledge was not posed. However, in the mind of Cartesius, the only constructive point of his education, so the Discourse on Method (1637) tells us, was the discovery of his own ignorance.

This discovery prompted Descartes to reject all prejudices and seek out certain knowledge. This is knowledge justified in an absolute way, i.e. based on a sufficient ground (foundationalism). Nine years he raises doubts about various conjectures and opinions covering the whole range of human activities. Eventually, doubt is raised against three possible sources of knowledge :

1. authority : in Scholasticism, the system of authority was the only one in place. This authority was based on "revealed" knowledge, deemed eternal, unchangeable and definitive (cf. the revelations of the Torah, the New Testament & the Koran). Historical criticism was absent and epistemologically, the source of revealed knowledge was considered "higher" than rational and empirical knowledge. However, as contradictions between authorities always rise, a higher criterion is needed if the effort to solve these is considered necessary ;

2. senses : maybe waking experience is just a "dream", a "hallucination" or an "illusion", i.e. something appearing differently than it really is ? By which criterion can both be distinguished ? Is waking a kind of dreaming and dreaming a kind of waking ? Also : the senses give confused information, so a still higher criterion is needed ;

3. reason : here we have the laws of logic and its "clear & distinct" ideas. How can we be certain some "malin génie" has not created us such, that we accept self-evident reasoning (for example : the triangle has three sides) although we are in reality mislead and in fatal error ? Here Cartesius raises doubt about reason itself. As a rationalist, he tries to "escape" this problem by intuitively positing a criterion of truth (the "clear & distinct" ideas) circle-wise connected with the existence of God. He failed doing so without introducing a circular argument (reminiscent of scholastic fundamentalism).

However far doubt is systematically applied, for Descartes it does not extend to my own existence. Doubt reveals my existence. If, as maintained in the Principles of Philosophy, the word "thought" is defined as all which we are conscious of as operating in us, then understanding, willing, imagining and feeling are included. I can doubt all objects of these activities of consciousness, but that such an activity of consciousness exists, is beyond doubt.

Thus, the "res cogitans", "ego cogitans" or "l'être conscient" is the crucial factor in Cartesian philosophy. Its indubitable, intuitively grasped truth ? Cogito ergo sum : I think, therefore I am. That I doubt certain things may be the case, but the fact that I doubt them, i.e. am engaged in a certain conscious activity, is certain. To say : "I doubt whether I exist." is a contradictio in actu exercito, or a statement refuted by the mere act of stating it. The certainty of Cogito ergo sum is not inferred but immediate and intuitive. It is not a conclusion, but a certain premiss. It is not first & most certain in the "ordo essendi", but as far as regards the "ordo cognoscendi". It is true each time I think, and when I stop thinking there is no reason for me to think that I ever existed. I intuit in a concrete case the impossibility of thinking without existing. In the second Meditation, Cogito ergo sum is true each time I pronounce or mentally conceive it ...

Having intuited a true and certain proposition, Descartes seeks the implied general criterion of certainty. Cogito ergo sum is true and certain, because he clearly and distinctly sees what is affirmed. As a general rule, all things which I conceive clearly and distinctly are true. In the Principles of Philosophy, we are told "clear" means that which is present and apparent to an attentive mind and "distinct" that which contains within itself nothing but what is clear. Although he has arrived at a certain and clear proposition, he does not start to work with it without more ado. Indeed, suppose God gave me a nature which causes me to err even in matters which seem self-evident ? To eliminate this "very slight" doubt, Descartes needs to prove the existence of a God who is not a deceiver. Without this proof, it might be so that what I conceive as clear and distinct, is in reality not so.

But what is the problem with Cogito ergo sum ?

Besides not being a rational conclusion, but an intuitional, apodictic (tautological) certainty, both in the Meditations and the Principles of Philosophy, the "I" in Cogito ergo sum, is not a transcendental ego (a mere formal condition of knowledge, as it should be), but "me thinking". Despite various contents of thought, the thing that cannot be doubted is not "a thinking" or "a thought" or a formal "thinker", but a thinking ego conceived as an existing substance. This ego is not formal, nor the "I" of ordinary discourse, but a concrete existing "I", a kind of scholastic soul (anima). Descartes uncritically assumes the scholastic notion of substance (substantia), while this doctrine is open to doubt. Thinking does not necessarily require a substantial thinker. The ego cogitans does not refer to a thinking thing, but to a mere transcendental ego accompanying every cogitation.

Because he did not rely on the object of knowledge (deemed doubtful), Descartes rooted his whole enterprise in an ideal, substantial ego, constituting the possibility and expansion of knowledge. All idealists after him would do the same. The end result of this reduction is a variation on the Platonic theory of knowledge. Eventually (as in contemporary epistemology), truth is identified with a consensus omnium between sign-interpreters (cf. Habermas - Chapter 2).

Descartes, in order to integrate his systematic doubt into his philosophical method, relying on the natural light of reason to attain certain knowledge, introduced the style of the meditation. Self-reflective activity is made independent of revealed knowledge, and the thinker is deemed able to find absolute truth independent of the scholastic tradition. Although this cannot be called a return to a spiritual practice aiming at the integration of the whole (the transformation of parts -thoughts, affects, actions- into a larger whole), Cartesian meditation does imply a systematic use of introspection at the service of a given philosophical aim, in his case finding the absolutely certain. René Descartes thereby initiated the French approach "from within", which returns in Bergson (1859 - 1941), as well as in Sartre (1905 - 1980) or Foucault (1926 - 1984). In German philosophy, Husserl (1859 - 1939) is a good example, as was the late Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951).

05. Kant and the "Copernican Revolution".

With his "Copernican Revolution", Kant (1724 - 1804), focusing on the transcendental subject of experience, completes the self-reflective movement initiated by Descartes, while trying to purge objective (realist) and subjective (idealist) substantializations. The "I" in "What can I know ?" does not refer to a Cartesian substantial ego cogitans, but to an unsubstantial, formal possibility of gathering the manifold of mental & sensuous objective activity under the unity of a single apprehending consciousness, the "I think", the apex of reason necessary to be able to think the empirical ego and its concrete cogitations. The "I think" is a meta-level. Criticism reflects on the conditions of knowledge and uncovers principles, norms & maxims. Transcendental inquiry is therefore the "doubling" of reason in :

• mind ("Verstand") :  together with the senses, co-conditioning  facts tending towards differentiation (variety) &

• reason ("Vernunft") : regulating dualism with ideas converging on unity & the unconditional.

Integrating the best of rationalism and empirism, Kant avoids the battle-field of the endless (metaphysical and ontological) controversies by (a) finding and (b) applying the conditions of possible knowledge. From rationalism, he adopted the idea knowledge is a phenomenon co-constructed by the subject and its natural operations. But instead of introducing a substantial subject he worked out a transcendental apex for the cognitive system. From empirism, he took the idea knowledge "starts" with sense-contact, and not with a priori categories.

Indeed, an armed truce or concordia discors between object and subject had to be realized (cf. Chapter 2). Inspired by Newton (1642 - 1727) and his theory on universal gravitation, but turning against Hume (1711 - 1776) and his skepticism, Kant deems synthetic propositions a priori possible (Hume had only accepted direct synthetic propositions a posteriori). Kant was among the first to realize that in the previous centuries, the crucial epistemological question had been reduced to an ontological problem. Not "What can I know ?", but "What is the foundation of what I know ?" had been at hand. The latter quest first introduced a theory on being (ontology) and then moved to explain how knowledge emerged as a result. Hence, two opposing, contradictory "solutions" were proposed : in rationalism, knowledge was based on an ideal kind of cogitation ("intuitions" like Cogito ergo sum), or empirism, based it on a empirical observation (like the direct, experience of sense-data, representing reality one-to-one).

Propositions are either analytic, i.e. tautological, structural, and a priori, as in logic & mathematics, or synthetic, adding a sensuous predicate to the subject, requiring sensation. This happens a posteriori, i.e. after the fact of sensuous contact. Synthetic propositions a priori are propositions of fact which, just like analytical theories, are always & everywhere true. Kant was still dreaming of finding the absolute foundation for scientific knowledge. Later, neo-Kantian criticism would prove him wrong.

For Kant, the categorial system, rooted in the subject of experience, produced scientific statements of fact which are always valid and necessary (for Hume, scientific knowledge is not always valid and necessary). This system stipulates the conditions of valid knowledge and is therefore the transcendental foundation of all possible knowledge.

So in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant tried to find how statements of fact could be universal & necessary, i.e. as binding as the analytics of mathematics. Only then was a universal and necessary science deemed possible. Without apory, his philosophy explained how Newton's physical laws were universal & necessary. The scandal was over ...

Kant let rational thought mature. Unlike concept-realism (Platonic or Peripatetic) and nominalism (of Ockham or Hume), critical thought, inspired by Descartes, is rooted in the "I think", the transcendental condition of empirical self-consciousness without which nothing can be properly called "experience". This "I", the apex of the system of transcendental concepts, is "of all times" the idea of the connected of experiences. It is not a Cartesian substantial ego cogitans, nor an empirical datum, but the formal condition accompanying every experience of the empirical ego. Kant calls it the transcendental (conditional) unity of all possible experience (or apperception) a priori. Like the transcendental system of which it is the formal head, it is, by necessity, shared by all those who know.

"What can I know ?" is the first question asked. Which conditions make knowledge possible ? This special reflective activity was given a new word, namely "transcendental". This meta-knowledge is not occupied with outer objects, but with our manner of knowing these objects, so far as this is meant to be possible a priori (A11), i.e. always, everywhere and necessarily so. Kant's aim is to prepare for a true, immanent metaphysics, different from the transcendent, dogmatic ontologisms of the past, turning thoughts into things.

The professorial philosophy of Kant divorced the practice of philosophy from the theory of knowledge, making the intuitive core of philosophy no longer an issue. Kant is the first to find good reasons to limit philosophy, but was himself largely misunderstood. His metaphysical intention was overseen, although the theoretical division between "phenomenon" and "noumenon" would influence post-Kantian ontology.

In the German Idealism of Fichte (1762 - 1814), Schelling (1775 - 1854) & Hegel (1770 - 1831), a restoration of scholastic ontology was pursued. Absolute object & absolute subject were reintroduced. Hegel added dialectic change to his largely Spinozist kind of ontology. By way of thesis, anti-thesis & synthesis, Nature becomes Spirit and Spirit becomes Aware of Itself (as Hegel). Integrating history and novelty-through-change in what had been a static, geometrical and formal exposition of substance, Hegel lay the foundation for historical materialism (Marx as Hegel reversed) and process philosophy.

In the virulent conflict between, on the one hand, the will to restore & maintain the old ways of foundational thought (a nostalgia for pre-critical feudalism also visible in the political tensions between revolution & restoration) as in Hegelianism, Marxism, scientism, Fregean logicism, logical positivism, historical materialism, Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology etc. and, on the other hand, an irrationalism rejecting the supreme role of reason, as in the protest philosophies of Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860), Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) and Bergson (1859 - 1941), irrationalism proved prophetical for the 20th century.

06. From the academy to Achenbach & C°.

From Kant onwards, but especially when Hegelianism was taken over by physicalism, academic philosophy was reorganized (in Germany ca. 1850). The role given to philosophy depended on the overall orientation of the university. The division between, on the one hand, an empirical approach, and, on the other hand, a textual, hermeneutical and more "scholastic" way remained pertinent until this day. In no way was the practice of philosophy made part of the study, and a scholarly reduction was at hand. The process of devising a standard "curriculum" for philosophy continued, depending on local preferences and intellectual tastes. This absence of standardization has many advantages, allowing each department of philosophy the freedom to adapt to its environment. But is this philosophy or only its logistics ?

A curriculum of philosophy must train philosophers in such a way they are able to become "real life" philosophers. If it cannot deliver this, then philosophy has not been served. If philosophy is what philosophers do, then surely an academic training in philosophy must teach philosophers how to do that ? Suppose this is not the case, then what use has the academy ?

Given the results of two centuries of criticism, a series of "hardcore" philosophical disciplines were found to be necessary : logic, epistemology, ethics, esthetics & (immanent) metaphysics. In various forms, this core is always part of any contemporary Western faculty of philosophy. But perhaps academic philosophy has failed us because of its reluctance to integrate the practice of philosophy and think the philosophy of the practice of philosophy, including its economy.

The philosophy of the practice of philosophy has as object the practicum of wisdom in (Socratic) dialogue and the psychology, sociology & economy of the practice of a philosopher.

Contemporary academic philosophy, concocting a beautiful, but still incomplete neo-scholastic system, does not provide future philosophers the tools to actually practice sapiental teachings "on the market", i.e. in the world outside school and the academic system. The curriculum has no practicum. These academia are presently unequipped to give its "Master Degree in Philosophy" any economic value. This petrifies the veins and causes arrest. The philosophy of the practice of philosophy is the necessary complement of the "pure" work of writing out theory intended to study & teach philosophy in the best possible way. Thanks to philosophy as praxis, the psychology, sociology, economics, etc. of acquiring wisdom are integrated to fructify philosophy as theoria. Thanks to the latter, the former increases efficiency.

With the reintroduction of the practice of philosophy in the late '80s, things changed. As a Socratic operator, the philosopher moved "on the market". Able to make a living as an independent teacher and advisor, reflection correlates with action. Being a way of life, defined by a free spirit of rational inquiry, regulated by the idea of the unconditional, and aiming to be more "a living voice than writing and more a life than a voice" (Hadot, 1995, p.23.), philosophy is more than a logistics of ideas and their history.

The acquisition of abstract, theoretical knowledge should not be divorced again, this time by realist materialism instead of idealist dogmatic theology, from the transformation of one's complete personality through the exercise of wisdom. Moreover, the latter implies much more than relative, contextual virtues and maxims, mere "applications" outside the confines of the "academic approach". Exercising wisdom constitutes the actual spirit of philosophy, rooted in practice, and should not be misunderstood for irrationalism. Quite on the contrary, it triggers a deeper realization of the "higher" Self of the philosopher, actualizing creative thought. Academic philosophy still circumvents a confrontation with the challenge posed by the actual life of philosophers through the well-known tactic of intentional silence.

In the '90s, the postmodern movement brought philosophy outside the academic system. Just as the Renaissance thinker risked his life when thinking outside the limits of Roman dogma, the postmodernist identifies the modernist academia as places of "double talk". Given philo-logistics is crucial, postmodern logic draws a margin and identifies the whole system of convenient classifications as a "mummification" (cf. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida) of the spoken, living world, a priori invalid in the actual situation of any living philosopher, and thus unaware of the sense of wisdom. Precisely because the latter cannot be "frozen" in abstract categories, academic philosophy turns away from its necessary feeding-grounds and, at first anorexic, it finally starves itself to death. The postmodern reflex to "deconstruct" or identify the "transcendent" factors (i.e. absolute thinking) "in the margin" facilitated the recovery of the "true sense" of philosophy, the "voice" instead of the "writing", the "ancient" way of life of the sapient and the spiritual exercises accompanying such a life.

"Die philosophische Praxis ist ein freies Gespräch."
Achenbach

In 1987, the German Gerd Achenbach launched his Philosophische Praxis ("Practice of Philosophy"), bringing about a rediscovery, reappraisal & operationalization of the "sense" of wisdom, not in terms of a theoretical logistics, but as an actual, living wisdom and its praxis, namely as that what philosophers do. Comparable initiatives emerged across Europe, USA, Canada, Latin America, Israel and the far Eastern countries. In France and in the Netherlands, these efforts were followed and developed by Veening (1987), Hoogendijk (1988), Dill (1990), Sautet (1992) etc. In Belgium, the practice of philosophy of the present writer assists business (1990).

A philosophy of the practice of philosophy is possible and necessary. It should be studied and taught at school. This is vital for the future professionalism of a practicing philosopher. Philosophers have to be taught how to be autonomous thinkers. Philosophical dialogue in theory and practice furthers an individual’s originality & self-sufficiency. Counteracting strategies and divisions, philosophers must be told how to bridge, advise, harmonize, cultivate mutual understanding through dialogue, aim at the transformation of ideas to produce cooperation, integration and wholeness, etc. Academic philosophy should be able to prepare its students, giving them the tools to build a genuine philosophical life, teaching them how to practice philosophy, i.e. apply its theory.

The necessity of the "Practice of Philosophy" derives from wisdom's aim to reduce alienation & disorientation, promoting :

1. (inter) subjectivity :
   self-awareness, consciousness of being a subject, a someone rather than a something, the First Person perspective, ability to interact constructively with others, implying openness, flexibility, respect, tolerance etc. ;

2. cognitive autonomy :
   capacity to think rationally, to self-reflect, able to formulate ideas independent of traditions, ability to integrate instinct & intuition in a rational way, dialogal capacity, using arguments to posit opinions, etc. ;

3. moral balance :
   awareness of the importance of happiness, justice and fairness in thought, feelings and actions, communicational action, building peace, mutual understanding & acting against extreme positions like fundamentalism, nihilism, skepticism, dogmatism, relativism, materialism, spiritualism, etc. ;

4. intellectual & spiritual concentration, sharpness & depth :
   creative capacity, originality, inventivity, novelty, and the spiritual exercises aiming at wholeness, leading to increased mental concentration, intellectual acuteness and extend of interests and compass.

For Hoogendijk (1988), wonder starts where self-evidence ends. By moving beyond the confines of any given context, chain of events or situation, ever alert when something new approaches, practical philosophy is an exercise in permanent wonderment. Indeed, the finite circle of always-the-same-thing is thus abandoned and the attitude, frame of mind and intention of the beginner are invoked. Beginning anew calls for past & future to be bracketed, objects of memory & expectation to be eliminated from the immediate awareness of reality-for-me, and the perpetual present to be invited by observing what happens here and now with as few interpretations as practically possible. Starting all over again is an art and a science. It is like existing in the interval of the "now", in the isthmus between what is past and not yet future.

Philosophical dialogue is the confidential instrument of practical philosophy. This is not the same as a casual conversation about the meaning of life, love, health and the like. As Ptahhotep and the Egyptian sages after him already noticed, a curious exchange occurs between a person with a crucial question and another person trained in using the mind constructively and spiritually, i.e. aiming at the integration of the full scale of consciousness and its meaning-giving activities. Because of their predilection for words as the eternal expression of the "energetic formative principles of nature" (Lawtor in Schwaller, 1988, p.10), the Egyptian sage characterized this exchange in concrete concepts (cf. proto-rational stage of cognition and the ante-rational, instinctual mind).

In the Maxims of Good Discourse, there are no grammatical criteria to establish whether the author uses the verb "sedjem" ("sDm") as "to hear" or as "to listen". Although in some cases, variations occur which could indicate "listen", in other cases "sDm" appears when the context suggest "listening". Hence, only the context may reveal the distinction, which is pertinent.

The following "order" or proto-rational closure may be derived :

• hearer : one who opens his ears to invite the meaning of the words spoken - the ears are pleased to hear what profits the didactical purpose of the good discourse, the accomplished transmission of the commanding words of wisdom - the hearer directs his attention consciously and so "hearing" is clearly a level higher than registering without the effort to comprehend ;

• master-hearer : the one who immediately comprehends the meaning and can reproduce it - this leads to listening if the heart desires so ;

• listener : one who opened his heart to invite the "inner" meaning of the totality of what he heard - one able to recognize the excellence of the good discourse in the words & deeds of those who heard & listened to them (i.e. a perfect son) - note that he who listens is loved by the god (the deity ruling the place) ;

• master-listener : one who listened so well that he surpassed the teachings of his own father and is able to do great, excellent deeds and speak the accomplished discourse ;

• venerable : when old age has arrived, the master-listener (while alive) enjoys constantly doing righteousness.

In Classical Greek philosophy, the exchange between subjects in philosophical conversation became hyper-symbolical, dialogal, argumentative, objectifying, linearizing and abstract, confining the role of philosophy in society to the study & practice of cognitive & moral states, implying logic, a series of normative disciplines and metaphysics (particularly ontology).

Introducing rationality and the conceptualizing (discursive) mind hand in hand with the abstract symbols and their mathesis, allowed wisdom to finally integrate the rational discourse and to fully benefit from this new stratum of cognitive (formal) operations, freed from any geo-cognitive hangovers, so typical of ante-rationality. After a few millennia, cognition had to face the problems of formal rationality and its "fundamentalism", i.e. the ante-rational need for a sufficient ground or underlying "thing" (hypokeimenon), whether it be as the Fata Morgana or conceptual mirage of the "Real" (world out there) or the "Ideal" (subject in here). Drawing the lines and defining the fundamental demarcations of thought as thought, criticism is never "on its own". As the constant ally of formal reason, critical thought reminds itself of the constant possibility or trap of mistaking facts for reality & thoughts for ideality. New experiments are always needed (for nature changes), and debates must be forthcoming.

Once the underlying, sufficient ground is uncritically accepted (as in concept-rationality), ever more glyphs materialize (due to the infusion of meaning, or consciousness, in matter) and solid deposits occur. This  accumulation of glyphs forms aggregates operating as institutions and academic, legal, economic, military, educational, medical, religious etc. systems. So many monoliths of long-term wishful thinking accommodates a conservative reflex, and also maintains (to guarantee a personal livelihood) the shameful waste of energy and effort. Indeed, the major problem facing humanity is the same as what stares us daily in the face, namely proper rational organization. As long as a poor household quarrels, no gain is made. The practice of philosophy, and not religion and/or psychotherapy, is the most rational approach, for a new beginning is also a new state of mind (cf. "metanoia").

The reciprocity between listening & talking are the perennial corner-stones of sapience. But in the practice of philosophy, the ideal speech-situation is sought, i.e. an open space created for the sole purpose of introducing a new project of self-knowledge. In the context of the practice of philosophy, philosophical investigations and probing questions must be rejected as authoritarian power-instruments (Dill, 1990). In fact, the whole "scholastic" approach of philosophy dominating academic philosophy must be rejected and replaced by a critical reappraisal of philosophy, integrating the best of the scholastic approach of philosophy's logistics.

The practice of philosophy has no imperative, "automatic result" and does not transfer a teaching or a particular system of philosophy. As "theoretical" philosophy is presupposed, the practice of wisdom is impossible, from the side of the philosopher, without (1) a serious theoretical, propaedeutic study, and (2) an ongoing theoretical endeavor after such a practice has been initiated, evidencing a creative integration of the philosophical traditions of one's formative years and an ability to move beyond these and contribute to the field of free thought.

In the practice of philosophy, the quality of a given dialogue lies in the hands of both philosopher and his dialogue partner. From the start, the whole process is two-way. The philosopher does not consider him or herself as "privileged" in any way, but only more capable of (1) analyzing systems of thought, (2) opening up conceptual constructions and (3) smoothly transiting from one dialogal style to another.

A philosophical dialogue is a string of individual dialogues in tune with the theme introduced by those addressing wisdom, ranging from mere informational statements, to exchanges of ideas, concrete questions and deep existential questions. Such a dialogue may be considered as successful if it results in both attaining a larger understanding. It serves the purpose of spiritual care if the client feels liberated from (self-imposed ?) restrictions and is again able to witness new possibilities. It has sense when it communicates self-respect and increases empathy.

The fundamental attitude is based on an open, communicative and inquiring mental disposition. The philosopher constantly returns to the mentality of the beginner, implying the re-investigation of established truths, norms, values and expectations. This engagement to let go pet ideas & cherished concepts makes way for wonderment, which invokes new questions regarding old phenomena, ideas, mentalities & opinions. Closed rationalism, turning away from instinct and intuition, always leads to unbearable situations. The practice of philosophy contributes to this harmony between all possible faculties of consciousness. Both the senses, instincts, affects, reason and intuition are given their place and reality. Personal issues as well as abstract considerations are part of the equation, a rare combination indeed.

Interested scrutiny is the method of the practice. By doing so, we may participate by empathizing with the other and this by using all our spiritual faculties. Understanding is not given or offered, but found (discovered) by way of dialogue. Accurate observation, feeling reality, mentally grasping the situation and trying to form a total phenomenological picture of everything which emerges in consciousness, as well as between both, are at hand. These instruments are put in place to come in touch with higher human values, considered to be a given between human beings or deemed acquirable by way of thought.

Socrates combined a unique spirit of questioning with a specific method. He wanted to ascertain the meaning of human life with the art of conversation, dialogue and argumentation. He considered himself as the midwife of wisdom, enabling the other (and himself) to give birth to solutions to given problems. The Socratic art and science of conversation is a game of questions and answers, enabling the dissolution of mental knots by way of thought. This "Socratic dialectic" is two-tiered :

• critical : humans have to liberate their thinking from delusions, uncritical ideas and irresponsible certainties ;

• maieutical : aiding, or tending to, the definition & interpretation of thoughts or language, the dialogal partner comes to understanding by himself and makes his or her own choices in clarity and responsibility. Man is able to liberate from self-imposed chains. The philosopher assists in this.

The final result of such a Socratic dialogue is self-knowledge and a personal opinion regarding a given issue. Is one prepared, for the sake of some higher value (truth, beauty, goodness, loyalty, courage, health, balance etc.), to reject delusional thought ? Hence, this type of dialogue is an intensified philosophical conversation. It never stops and is defined by a given problem or issue (problem-bound). Solutions always point to new questions, making the dialectic recurrent. In its critical phase, intensity is heightened and confrontations are at times rather severe. All prejudices hindering an engaged conceptualization of the fulfillment of life have to be abandoned and to face one's illusions is not easy.

Confused knowledge is therefore organized in clear concepts. Available knowledge is discussed and subject to criticism. The demarcation between sensible knowledge and irrelevant content is crucial. But, the philosopher has no pre-established "domain" or "theory" and is in principle open to discuss anything. So in these conversations, the philosopher's own ideas play a secondary role. A consensus is aimed at, with instinct, reason and intuition as instruments. Whether something has value depends on whether it works or not. Use teaches capacity. Inefficient and unoperational mental constructions hinder the free flow of associations and block the emergence of solutions to problems. The ideas people entertain regarding themselves, the others, the world and the Divine co-determine how they experience life, how they think, feel and act.

All human beings desire to be happy.

The philosopher may act as a mirror, reflecting contents with as little interpretation as possible. Posing questions, he or she may open the door and allow the other to take initiative. This may trigger a dialectical process by systematically creating opposition, or may stimulate the other to devise new mental constructions and symbolic connotations. In order to bring about another view on the issue, the philosopher may "brainstorm" or think "laterally". The philosopher listens carefully and utters, with some luck, a word bearing wisdom.

Let me stress the practice of philosophy is not a therapy. The philosopher has no clinical capacities whatsoever. He is no clinical psychologist, psychotherapist or priest. To grasp the other, the latter make use of "a system". Its origins may be neurological, psychostatistical, psychomorphological or based on revealed knowledge. Due to the dehumanization of the world, these psychosocial workers are more and more confronted with the philosophical questions of their clients rather than with particular symptoms or sins. As a rule, those who attend philosophical counsel are healthy adults, in body and mind, conscious of themselves and pursuing a unique walk of life on the basis of their free will. These are people seeking a good conversation, as one would talk to a true friend.

A good philosophical conversation may be healing. To heal is to cure by non-physical means (i.e. promote health by leaving the physical body untouched). Given the import of psychosomatic illnesses and the significance of the placebo-effect in drug-based therapies, the direct influence of dialogue on physical and mental disturbances is pertinent. But given the causal model used in Western medical science, the self-chosen modus operandi of self-healing, suggestion and placebo fall outside this medical paradigm, limited to the material operator. If approached in a technical way, they are an object of psychology & "suggestology". Various "schools" emerge and in each a given "theory" tries to reproduce the effects. However, human beings are not machines and physical methodology does not always work if mentalities need to be changed. Systems and theories fail. A kind of psychotherapeutic nihilism is most probably the outcome of a too technical approach of the existential problems of humanity.

Contrary to this, the philosopher is not a technician and does not follow a prescribed system of therapy. He has no other means than the word-in-conversation. Through dialogue he tries to establish a mental point of rest and clarity, an understanding as well as a renewed power to continue to think. If "therapy" is at hand, then only in the sense of an "open concept" (cf. Spinelli & Goodman).

Good philosophical conversations may indeed lead to spiritual, psychological and even physical relieve. This healing effect however, mobilizing the immune system of thinking bodies, is secondary. Healing as a result of listening and talking belong to the positive side-effects of the philosophical way of life. The healing power of the word is indeed known in psychology. Neurology, linguistics & cybernetics give form to an array of psychotherapeutic spear-technologies. This has little in common with the practice of philosophy, for here, the philosopher has no preestablished model, system or mental frame. He starts every conversations afresh as a beginner would. By nearly observing without interpretation, he allows a better observation, a more sound reasoning to emerge. This leads to a game of questions & answers, a rhythm of listening & talking. Although the healing power of such conversations is unmistaken, their goal is not to cure or heal.

07. The philosophy of spiritual exercises.

Associating the practice of philosophy with "spiritual exercises", begs the question of the possible relationships between, on the one hand, philosophy, both as theory & practice, and, on the other hand, mystic experience, religious experience & the practices of the religions, in particular the monotheisms.

Indeed, since Kant, adherence to the Divine (in whatever guise) was separated from the logic seeking absolute certainty or relative probability on rational grounds. Beliefs are axiomatically true as an article of faith, even if they run against reason (cf. Tertullian's "credo quia absurdum est"). But since the Greeks, philosophy tried not to oppose the province of formal thought & its dialogal intent. The Medieval dialectic between faith & reason is so pertinent precisely because Greek philosophy only accepted sensation & thought, observation & argumentation, Peripatetics & Platonism. A "Deus revelatus" was unknown to them. For the Greeks, man, with his mind, is equipped to emancipate himself, put himself up (cf. Marcus Aurelius). Christianity eradicated this, accepting the poverty-mentality of original sin to glorify our salvation through the God-Man Jesus Christ (earlier, Judaism, in the Book of Job, portrayed the paradox of a good God punishing the just). Also in Islam, the human is a slave before Allah. Scholastic (dogmatic) philosophy can be nothing more than the handmaiden of theology. Spiritual exercises outside the canons of faith are ipso facto heretical and to be exterminated.

In the 19th century, as a result of a strict & limited understanding of Kant's work, eclipsing his immanent metaphysics (cf. the Opus Postumum), the profession of philosopher was reduced to the academic, neo-scholastic format persisting until today. It was thus separated from the personal quest of the sage. In such a view, philosophy cannot have a profound effect on one's destiny, way of life or existential situation. Like "hieroglyphs" it is deemed a dead language, a relic kept to adorn our Western philosophical faculties with the marketable illusion of "queen of science". By reintroducing the practice of wisdom, its fundamental character emerges, for in the "Lebenswelt", the impact of the wise kind of conversation is directly experienced. This effect may endure and if so, observe how thought transforms our direct observations. And even in the academy, the study of this philosophy of practice is more than necessary, providing a living link with the application of philosophy in society, pushing it outside the ivory tower of dry intellectualism.

Philosophy is more than a "theoretical", ascetic approach of the fundamental questions regarding being, life & the human. It is more than renunciation, but transforms cognitive states and effectuates effective changes in the connotative field simultaneous with observation. If lasting, the influence of the practice of philosophy is irreversible, liberating and clarifying. A change of mind occurs and a new, more panoramic vantage point is established. A new, larger whole has been formed, facilitating the transformation of cognitive states, making personal experience richer, deeper and clearer.

How does the spiritual side of the practice of philosophy differ from religious belief and the existence of the Divine ? The practice of philosophy is not religious in the soteriological and/or dogmatic sense. It does not "save" from anything, except possibly from cognitive hangovers, pet ideas, mental limitations, expectations, prejudices and the like. It has no prefixed system of revealed dogma's accepted without rational inquiry, quite on the contrary, it is the ally of science (the system of empirico-formal propositions we for the moment considered to be true). It seeks the full development of cognition.

But, just as religion, the praxis of philosophy is "spiritual" because addressing the complete human being in a way which directly influences his or her way of life and being-in-the-world. Indeed, the "spirit" of something refers to what it truly is, unfettered by illusions and bringing in the fundamental mental, emotional and activating principle determining one's temperament. Not only the development of cognition is aimed at, but the transformation of all aspects of one's being. This is the application of the Delphic (and Socratic) "know thyself" to the full extend of our shared human possibilities.

Understanding reality in this way has a direct impact on one's personal circumstances. The philosopher who practices wisdom does not stop doing so at the end of the day (as does the academic philosopher of the old, neo-scholastic school). Teaching, writing & studying are complemented by philosophical conversations, advise and spiritual exercises. Theory and practice are the "two eyes" with which he or she observes the world and participates in it. And this practice of philosophy touches all levels of society, not only university students. A good philosophical conversation is spiritual and dialogal. Both listener and speaker are changed by increased self-awareness, symbolic concentration and clarity.

Qua praxis, dialogue & monologue are the two organs of practice. In the monologal situation of reflection, the philosopher entertains a series of efforts aiming at a personal spiritual goal, namely the emancipation of his or her cognitive apparatus, as well as the other faculties of his or her consciousness. This monologal, inner reference is the personal experience of the reality (ideality) of the own-Self, a someone rather than a something, a Being-there, Dasein, or clear presence rather than the answer to What ? or Who ? (Sosein). The own-Self appears as a reality-for-me, is intimate, private and inner. This monologue is clearly spiritual.

Spiritual exercises are meant to integrate all foci of consciousness and seek the highest possible awareness. To fully actualize & harmonize the potentials of awareness, consciousness, cognition, affection, sensation and action is the goal of any spiritual practice.

When object and subject are no longer present in consciousness, language fails, making way for the perplexities & wonderments of intuition. The annihilation of the own-Self is inevitable, for it too is without substance and so subject to change (functionally co-relative). Although outside the nominal (material) four-dimensional continuum, the own-Self is subjected to the topology of its own 6th dimension (the 5th being consciousness - cf. Tabula Tabulorum, 2006). Nonduality, operating in the 7th dimension, is beyond the concept itself and can only be discovered in the clarity of the direct sensation, affection, cognition & intuition of the absolute (reality and ideality).

"The consciousness of self (apperception) is the simple representation of the ego, and if by it alone all the manifold (representations) in the subject were given spontaneously, the inner intuition would be intellectual."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B68.

Because the meta-rational, intuitional levels of cognition, labeled "creative" and "nondual", are not everyone's share (A42), Kant eliminated "intellectual perception" or "intellectual intuition" from his epistemology. Insofar as he was trying to establish the critical, transcendental view, and in doing so define "science", he was correct to discard "inner" intuitional knowledge. But in terms of a complete picture of cognitive possibilities, he was wrong to do so.

As a result, the noumenon is not part of the categories and so no empirical-formal characterization of it is de jure possible. In neo-Kantian thought, this closing of the door to a foundation outside formal, conceptual thought, led to faillibilism, probabilism & the modesty of our contemporary sciences, solid state physics included. Formally, thinking the synthetic unity of the fivefold experiential manifold, the transcendental Self of "all times" must accompany every cogitation of the empirical ego, but cannot formally be objectified by means of any perception of a purely "intellectual" kind (cf. Descartes, Pascal, Spinoza, Leibniz (1646 - 1716) and later Husserl (1859 - 1939)). For Kant, and the critical tradition after him, the vision behind "the surface of the mirror" is imaginal, nothing more.

Accepting this crucial critical distinction, the philosophy of spiritual exercises foremost involves the optimalization of one's cognitive, mental capacities. The demarcation between science (testable and arguable) and metaphysics (arguable or irrational) returns as the distinction between formal, critical thought and "intuition", extending cognition ex hypothesi beyond its "nominal", "rational" stage, considering a three-tiered continuum of 7 modes of cognition :

• ante-rational (pre-nominal) : these three modes of cognition (called mythical, pre-rational & proto-rational) remain anchored in myth and context, and have no abstract system of concepts. Concepts are either pseudo-concepts or concrete concepts ;

• rational (nominal) : thanks to formal thought and its foundational reflex, critical thought lay bare the pre-conditions of thought, making rational free thought possible. Formal & critical concepts pertain ;

• intuitional (meta-nominal) : creative and nondual thought are immanent and transcendent answers to the ontological questions and touch upon the interiority of the philosopher. Creative concepts and nondual, non-conceptiality persists.

In terms of the specificities of the spirituality of the practice of philosophy, their outstanding feature is the integration of the three fundamental modes of cognition (instinct, reason, intuition). As co-operating waves reinforcing each other through resonance, instinct and intuition are not "kept out" and so the tribunal of reason is better informed and equipped to judge.

The two intuitional modes argued here, namely creative & nondual thought, give birth to a range of immanent & transcendent metaphysical systems or ontology. In the former, the order of the world is not transcended and the highest concepts are limit-concepts. In the latter, the highest concepts are transcendent signifiers and establish an imaginal focus beyond, outside the world, either in terms of some onto-theological ground or a meta-Self (as substantial own-Self or "soul").

In creative thought, "purged" by criti