The Vertical Invasion of the Barbarians - Mario Ferreira dos Santos

Vertical Invasion of the Barbarians[1]

Foreword

The expression “vertical invasion of the barbarians” is not a creation of ours. The German politician Rathenau coined it, in the past century. However, the approach we intend to give is somewhat different from the one meant by that statesman. It behooves, then, to define our intentions, the elucidation of the concepts of invasion, vertical and barbarians.

Greeks and Romans firstly used the term barbarian as referring to all foreigners. However, later on, it became the meaning of what was not civilized, uncultured, of what fight or reject any expression of culture. That is the meaning taken within this work, but it is important to convey other aspects in order to facilitate even more the comprehension of the topic.

 The term barbarian – amongst the Greeks – not only referred to foreigners but to all non-Greek speaking people, or – for the Romans – those who didn’t speak Greek or Latin languages. Posteriorly, the Romans called barbarians those living outside Roman jurisdiction.

History has shown many horizontal invasions of the barbarians, i.e., invasions occurred with various degrees of pace and consisted of pacific or violent incursions of people into regions inhabited by others through the imposition of customs or violent power. But one can refer to the – not so bloody – invasion of the barbarians that took place within a civilized territory such as the Roman Empire – mainly in its final stages – in a gradual manner and most of the time with the internal support of the civilized people, already barbarized in many of its customs.

The gradual and wide invasion of the barbarians not only occurs horizontally through a territory incursion but also vertically all through the culture, undermining its foundations and preparing the pathway for an unproblematic corruption of the cultural cycle – as happened at the end of the Roman Empire and starts to take place amongst us.

This book is a denunciation of an invasion that, being prepared and developed throughout the past four centuries, has reached an unbearable and threatening stage. Aspiring this denouncement to reach a broader number of people, we avoided as much as possible the scientific technicism, even though its fitness to the discussed disciplines. Our language is as general as possible so to make clearer the undertaken aspects.

The facts, processes and events gathered to favor our thesis are not exhaustive but only sufficient to demonstrate it. At once the reader can notice that each subject matter could allow a more prolonged and exhaustive consideration, which was not possible otherwise becoming a bulky and restrictive book. We pointed out the barbarian aspect and allowed a long edge for the reader’s meditation.

To the Roman exclamation “barbarians outside the city walls!” one can, nowadays, answer “barbarians inside the city walls!”. The barbarians are already within the “city”, within civilization, taking on civilized garbs but, behind fine appearances, acting rampantly to dissolve our culture.

There are, notwithstanding, the corruptive predispositions within all cultural cycles, acting form the first moment with various degrees of intensity to destroy it[2].  

The corruptive elements, guided by an intelligence of malicious will, always knew how to utilize of the barbarism as a tool to undermine the culture. And nowadays they wield it with terrifying ability by printing to the corruptive work an intensity and scope never reached before.

Many can accept that as inevitable since no cultural cycle – they say – can perpetuate throughout time. But this argument, which seems true, is flatly false. If the cultural cycles are contingent, one cannot establish a required course in an absolute manner but only hypothetically. What can perish only “can” perish and its perishing is not absolutely necessary to occur early for there are possibilities to continue if a balance between the corruptive and the constructive elements is found. And it is also a possibility, as it is to the human life to indefinitely prolong. Man can perish, but may also persist. The subsistence of the contingent cannot find a definitive reason to the contrary, but only contingent. In addition, all life aspires to perpetuate. And this desire is not something that is opposed to life.

If, once knowing what corrupts things, one efficiently affixes it with conservative elements, the final destruction can be diverted to a more distant time. It might, then, extend the persistent being for an unlimited time and delay as much as one can keep the balance between opposites.

Therefore, is not a vain wish the desire to prolong our cultural cycle since what it brings with it are the supreme ideals of humanity, the rule of justice, moderation, wise and holy prudence, moderate and fair courage, elevation of women and children, equality among men, defending the rights and duties of everyone, the right of equal opportunities, the claim of freedom and denial of oppressive constraints, the love between mankind, mutual-aid, the development of science, democratization of knowledge and rise of the standard of human life. If our cycle, in short, brings together a happy synthesis of all the greatness long aspired by humanity and promise much more of what can be achieved, why would anyone desire the destruction of this cycle and would want to go back to the tooth for tooth, eye for eye, the polarities of master-slave, barbarian-civilized, oppressor-oppressed, believers-unbelievers?

If we have in our cultural structure as part of its superior ideas, all that most of humanity ardently desired and dreamed of, how to admit the destruction of what is fundamental for a more promising pathway?

Let’s reject the obstacles, fight against distortions, and strengthen what moves our march forward! But refuse the throwbacks and never retreat!

Fight for our cultural cycle and strengthen the positive aspects to prevent the development of what is negative, this is our duty!

We believe that the first step towards the fulfillment of our duty is to denounce what threat us.

That is the reason we denounce. That is the reason for this book[3].

Mario Ferreira dos Santos

Index

FIRST PART

Vertical invasion of the barbarians in sensitivities and affectivities

Exaltation of force

Exaggerated value of the physical body

Romantic overvaluation

The superiority of force over the Laws

Unbridled and biased advertising

The appreciation of mechanical memory

The appreciation of the horde, of tribalism

The exploration of sensuality

The spread of bad taste

The primitive creeds

The prominence of repetition

The reason and chaos

The appreciation of the lower

The influence of negative

The vicious exploitation of sports

Objections to Christianity

The blasphemers

The ethical problem

Sectarianism and exclusiveness

The appreciation of the criminal

PART TWO

The barbarism and intelligentsia

The devaluation of intelligence

The devaluation of the will

Barbarization of Science and Technology

The fight against universal knowledge

The falsification of the University

Separation of Religion, Philosophy and Science

The fight against the Creator

The concept of God

Fetishism

The misunderstanding between Ethics and Moral

The wayward youth

Dialogue of the deaf

Nominalism and realism

Emptied words

Harmful prejudices

The dehumanization of man

The negativists

The isms

Proletarian, the subject of ideological exploitation

Speculation in low

The rampant advertising

Primary social ideas

Naive scientism

Final words

---

[1] This book was originally published in May 1967, as the first volume of a collection called “A New Consciousness”.

[2] These subjects are well examined in Philosophy and History of Culture (3 volumes) and Analysis of Social Issues (3 volumes).

[3] This book is divided in two parts. In the first part we discuss about the themes predominantly related to the sensibilities and affectivities of mankind. The second part refers to the intellectuality. The vertical invasion of the barbarians processes in both fields, reason why we have made this distinction so to facilitate comprehension.

Concrete Philosophy - Introduction - Mario Ferreira dos Santos

Concrete Philosophy – v. 1 

Mario Ferreira dos Santos

Introduction

For a more discerning Western philosophical thought, Philosophy is not a mere ludus but a scrutiny to obtain an epistemic, speculative and theoretical knowledge able to lead man into the comprehension of the first and last causes of everything.

May had been the case that philosophy – on unable hands – served only to unbridled research of various subjects at the will of affectivities and non-reason. Nevertheless, a more solid investigation in Western thought is the construction of apodictic judgment, i.e., necessary and sufficiently demonstrated to justify and verify the proposed postulates, thus allowing a safer ground to the act of philosophizing. Nevertheless, one can feel that philosophy – in certain regions and certain times – was founded in assertive judgments, mere statements of accepted postulates, which received a firm adherence from those who had found in it something adequate to their emotional and intellectual experience. Reason why philosophy, in the Eastern world, almost cannot be separated from religion and can even be confused with it. Religion is based on assertive judgment, for which faith is sufficient and demonstration is expendable.

Amongst the ancient Greek – mainly Skeptics and Pessimists – the acceptance of an idea imposed a demonstration. As when St. Paul tried to Christianize the Greek people, they were not satisfied with affirmations but demanded demonstrations.

Philosophy in Greece was not only speculative – which was also, esoterically, in other regions – but was characterized mainly for the search of apodicticy. Philosophy sought to demonstrate its principles and with this eagerness went throughout the centuries until our time.

 In Natural Science demonstration is made predominantly via experiments. However, in Mathematics demonstration is processed by a more strict ontological precision. That is undeniably the nexus between experimental science and Philosophy. To philosophize with absolute certainty is to demonstrate with mathematical precision and never forget that the philosophically constructed schemes are analogous to the ones science examines and studies.

 Assertive judgments suffice faith, but the true philosopher demands apodictic conclusions.

The aim to formulate a Concrete Philosophy, i.e., a philosophy able to yield a unitive vision – not only of ideas but also of facts, not only of the philosophical field but also of science – it must be able to enter transcendental subjects. It must demonstrate its theses and postulates with a mathematic rigor and also justify its principles with the analogy of experimental facts.

Only then Philosophy can be concrete, no longer halting over one single sector of reality or sphere of knowledge but encompassing in its process the entire field of human epistemic activities. Its axioms or principles must be effectual to all spheres and regions of the human knowledge. A regional principle – effectual to a single sphere and not subordinate to transcendental laws – is a provisory principle. An established law or principle must have validity in all fields of human knowledge since only in that case a nexus to arrange the epistemic knowledge in a coordinated manner can be developed, achieving the Pythagorean harmony principle, which is the adequacy of analogized opposites of which subsidiary functions are subordinated to the principal function and the constant is given by totality.

-----------

A quick look at the history of Greek Philosophy confirms the development of a tendency to demonstrate the philosophical postulates right after the appearance of Pythagoras in Magna Greece. One can easily deduce that the yearning of apodicticy observed in this philosophizing – made exoteric – was due mainly to the influence of mathematical studies and, amongst them, to geometry, which constantly demands demonstrations based in previously proved proposition. The same modus operandi was transferred to the theoretical knowledge, only recognized as such when apodictically founded.

Philosophy, leaning towards this pathway, although starting from empirical knowledge and from doxa, became a legitimate episteme, a refined knowledge. Therefore, this leaning is an ethical norm for the true philosophizing.

The firsts noetical schemes of the Greek philosophize had to come from common conceptualization and therefore carry the adherences of its origin. But there was an expressive tendency to veer from prejudices of the psychologistic kind and lean towards a mathematical sense, as seen in the Pythagorean thought of higher degree.

Pythagoras was a great disseminator of mathematical knowledge acquired throughout his travels and studies. Even though some scholars have doubts about Pythagoras historical existence – and that is not the discussion here – Pythagorism is definitely a historical fact and it is known that it encouraged the study of mathematics in addition to the fact that many notable mathematicians emerged from within the Pythagoric School.

Demonstration is separated from mathematics and moreover that is not merely an auxiliary science, a mere method, as some intends to consider. It has a deeper ontological meaning but this is not the moment to justify this statement.

Mathematization of philosophy is the only way to avert it from the dangers of esthetics and mere assertions. That is not to say that the presence of the Esthetics is an evil in itself but the danger is when the Esthetics tends to suffice by itself and reduces Philosophy to the domain of conceptualization, of mere psychological contents without the depuration that an ontological analysis can offer.

And that is the reason the pythagoreans demanded for the beginners the preliminary knowledge of mathematics, as well as Plato – this great Pythagorean – considered indispensable the knowledge of geometry before entering the Academia[1].

It is important to carefully examine the term “concrete”, which etymological origin comes from the augmentative cum and from crescior, be grown. Cum, besides the augmentative, can also be considered as the preposition with, thus indicating, “growing with”, since concretion implies in its ontological structure the presence not only of what is affirmed as a specifically determined entity, but also of its indispensable coordinates. It is appropriate to repel the common and vulgar meaning of concrete as only what is captured by the senses.

To reach the concretion of something one needs not only the sensible knowledge of the thing – if it is an object of the senses – but also its law of intrinsic proportionality and its haecceity, which includes the concrete scheme, i.e., the law (logos) of intrinsic proportionality of its singularity, and also the ruling laws of its formation, existence, subsistence, and ending.

A concrete knowledge is a circular one – as in the same meaning given by Ramon Llull – in a manner that connects everything related to the object under study, analogizes to its defining laws and connects to the supreme ruling law of reality. Therefore, it is a harmonic knowledge that apprehends the analogal opposites, which are subordinated to the normal given by its pertaining totality. That is what we call Decadialectics, which does not only encircle the ten fields of hierarchical reasoning – as studied in our book “Logics and Dialectics” – but also includes a connection with Symbolical Dialectic and Concrete Thought that assembles the entirety of human knowledge – through the analogal logoi – by analogizing a fact of object of study to the schematic totality of universal – and therefore, ontological – laws.

A triangle is – ontologically speaking – “this” triangle. One can know it for its figure can be drawn. But a concrete knowledge of the triangle implies the knowledge of the triangularity law – which is the intrinsic proportionality law of the triangles – and its subordination to the laws of geometry, i.e., the group of other figures’ intrinsic proportionality laws, subordinated to the established norms of geometry. That is a more “concrete” knowledge. And it could be even more so if one concretionizes the laws of geometry to the ontological laws.

So as to justify our philosophical work, Concrete Philosophy can be understood as the search and justification of postulates of an ontological knowledge, efficacious throughout all segments and spheres of reality – for there are different and many aspects of reality, such as the physical, the metaphysical and ontological, the psychological, the historical, etc., each one with its respective criteria of truth and certainty.

Therefore, to subordinate a specific knowledge to the Normal given by the fundamental laws of Ontology – which are manifestations of the supreme laws of Being – is to “connect” knowledge so as to make it concrete.

---

[1] Proclus ascribed to Pythagoras the creation of geometry as a science inasmuch as – because of him – geometry is not limited to exemplify only by empirical proofs. The Egyptians, for instance, applied geometry only to immediate practical means, but Pythagoras was able to transform it into science. The theorems are apodictically demonstrated inasmuch as profoundly investigated due to the use of pure thought without resorting to matter. Thus its truthfulness are self-sustainable with no need of support from real facts or individual subjects.

This Pythagorean desire can be observed in the work of Philolaus, fragment 4: “Indeed, it is the nature of Number which teaches us comprehension, which serves us as guide, and teaches us all things which would otherwise remain impenetrable and unknown to every man. For there is nobody who could get a clear notion about things in themselves, nor in their relations, if there was no Number or Number-essence. By means of sensation. Number instills a certain proportion. and thereby establishes among all things harmonic relations, analogous to the nature of the geometric figure called the gnomon; it incorporates intelligible reasons of things, separates them, individualizes them, both in limited and unlimited things.”

To sum up, according to the Pythagoreans, number is the guarantee of the immutable authenticity of Being, for it reveals the truth and makes no mistakes nor leads to illusions or errors. Or, in the words of Philolaus, “the nature of Number and Harmony are numberless, for what is false has no part in their essence and the principle of error and envy is thoughtless, irrational, indefinite nature. Never could error slip into Number, for its nature is hostile thereto. Truth is the proper, innate character of Number”.

Only Number can provide a solid foundation for a true scientific study. And who could deny that scientific progress finds its foundations in the Pythagorean thought?

Moreover, the number (arithmos) – for the Pythagoreans of a higher degree – was not only quantitative but qualitative and even transcendental.

What is the meaning of Philosophy? - Mario Ferreira dos Santos

There are not many philosophies but only THE Philosophy as ultimately defined by Pythagoras – in a geometry class while demonstrating a theorem – as the love of wisdom. He said the act of philosophizing must be ad more geometrico, with rigorous and apodictic demonstrations. If that were the procedure Philosophy would not be a matter of disagreement but of human closeness.

Mathematics has no disagreements for the reason that it works in the speculative field and rigorous demonstration – even though some divergence can occur on the practical application side. It obviously cannot achieve an incommutable perfection – a perfect triangle is still relative – but it urges to provide Philosophy with another meaning and only a construction such as referred can generate a whole, positive and perennial Philosophy throughout centuries and millennia.

Philosophy was brought to us by Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Scholastics, the great Persians. Nevertheless, our time undergoes a phase of confusion because aesthetes invaded Philosophy and the aesthetic or romantic spirit is destructive since it presumes Philosophy as subjective, personal.

We fight for a new direction, a return to the real pathway that is truly ours, a humanity heritage. Philosophy is not philodoxy, it is not the field of hints, the field of opinions. In Philosophy there is no place for opinions. When one asks “what is your opinion?”, one is not philosophizing but philodoxying. Philosophy must demonstrate or – once demonstration is not possible – suspend the affirmation until further investigation comes to a rigorous demonstration.

However, one cannot find an apodictic explanation for a contingent fact. To try to reduce the facts of science to a speculative meaning and absolutely apodictic reasoning is a complete failure. They are always probable and that is the field of scientific probabilities. For example, it is probable that that loose stone is going to fall down from the wall. There is no absolute necessity.

Nowadays, there is a great deal of confusion. So many tendencies, so many schools. During the Scholasticism there were many open questions but there were unity as a general rule. The same goes for the Pythagorism: notwithstanding so many divergences, there was unity, which provided embodiment and harmony.

We call our philosophy concrete due to the fact that it seeks to “concretefy”, solidify the positive aspects of the entire philosophizing act by demonstrating as apodictically as possible inasmuch as avoiding the medium term, i.e., avoiding the use of purely scientific reasoning whenever possible.

(transcription interrupts)

Translated by Rodrigo Morais

Aspects of the Cultural Cycles - Mario Ferreira dos Santos

Aspects of the Cultural Cycles[1]

Mário Ferreira dos Santos

Lecture transcription, 1967

Translated by Rodrigo Morais

By considering the cratic phases in History one can verify that the political “kratos” – as a social cohesion force as well as a super cohesion force hovering above the social groups – is always an object of ambition, both by the social groups and by the individuals themselves. Properly speaking, the social kratos is the political power structured upon the great cultural cycles, upon what constitutes the “state” and which gives a certain coherence to society – even though this coherence is based upon political laws and, above all, institutional violence.

The cultural cycles can be divided in different periods with its different phases. The juvenile period marks the culture formation and it is mainly characterized by the advent of a new worldview that gives the true consensus to the new cycle. The first period has three phases easily observed throughout History.

Firstly, in the theocratic phase, the culture is tensionally structured over a theocratical form. It originates from God and is transmitted to man through the mystical figure of an illuminated person whose personality scumbles the line dividing history and legend. This "divinity" does not necessarily belong to the theocratic phase but will be the central symbol of all the statements of the dominant theocracy. For example, Rama amongst the Aryans, Mohammad amongst the Muslims, Moses amongst Hebrews, Saint Paul amongst Christians, Thoth or Hermes Trismegistus amongst the Egyptians, etc. Around this divine figure or around its signification represented by a structured body of hieratic or sanctified men who regulate, comply with and enforce the law, the second cratic phase slowly emerges, which is the hierocracy (from Gr. hieros, saint) of the sanctified men[2] or priests.

Encircling the priests a bigger group starts forming of virtuous men, who, progressively, by their courage and the impetuosity of their faith, promotes a faith propelling material force. They are not only priests but men arising from all social sectors and they finally take control of the political kratos to establish the third phase of the first period, the aretocracy (from Gr. arête, virtuous).

At the same time, other social strata emerge, such as the aristocracy, whose economical power creates the desire for political kratos. Then, the first great revolution comes, the aristocratic revolution, which rises to power. The priests still participate, but increasingly in a secondary position. At this point, the prince appears. The aristocracy (from Gr. aristos, the best ones) gradually forms a chosen group around the prince to constitute power and the second phase of the second period comes to light, which is the oligarchy (from Gr. oligos, chosen one). The kratos belongs to a small group that totally rules society. As the priests become more and more subordinate, finally emerges a time of absolutism of the aristocracy, which is the third phase of the second period, the monocracy (from Gr. monos, one), when power emanates from an almighty king who becomes the incarnation of the state.

The next emerging stratum to desire political power once acquired economical influence is the bourgeoisie. The second great revolution of the cultural cycle, then, inaugurates the third period, democracy. To come to this point it could have even been that the aristocracy shared some of its power and rights with the so-called third state. As the bourgeoisie acquires power, it becomes dominated by a more powerful group from within, the group of the richest, the plutocracy (from Gr. plutos, rich). This group constitutes the second phase of the third period, i.e., when the businessmen are ruled by the richest amongst them. This group, then, gives way to a third group, the money rulers, starting the third phase of the third period, the argirocracy (from Gr. argiros, silver).

At this moment the great popular uprisings emerge, when elements from different strata start agitating the masses and preparing them for the third great revolution. Those masses in turmoil by the demagogues blast the social order and initiate the fourth period, which is the period of ochlocracy (from Gr. oclos, street masses). As the ochlocrats cannot keep the power – the masses can never keep the power – powerful men begin to arise with military force to save from immediate catastrophe and social chaos. Ascend to power these men called Caesars, of the caesarocracy, which is the second phase of the fourth period and grooms the inevitable final disorder of the cultural cycle as well as prepares the advent of new ideas, a new faith and a new consensus. Insofar as the new consensus embeds society and new people from other regions immigrate, the soil is fertile for the establishment of a new cycle, a new hope for mankind.

It is noteworthy the existence of a tension of two antagonist forces driving all cultural cycles since its formation: a constructive and solidifying impetus and a destructive and corruptive one. To establish the formative causes of the cultural cycles in an Aristotelian manner, that would be to say that the material cause is the group of individuals throughout the various generations and the formal cause is the structuring general worldview. The corruptive dispositions within the cultural cycle are forces seeking to sever the cycle cohesion and even can, in certain cases, prematurely destroy a cycle in formation – as History has proven.

There are essential properties of a cultural cycle, such as the medium term[3]. The medium term is the consensus, which is the worldview, the fundamental religious faith of the cycle. It coerces its different parts and the tensional renews of a cycle and creates another essential property, the community of ethic interests, such as religious, sociological, ecumenical, historic, legal, etc. Likewise, there are accidental properties of a cultural cycle, such as the ethnical component, the ecological outline and the dynamically considered interests, objects of change according to different ruling groups, phases and periods of society.

The historical development of a cultural cycle is always proportional to its constitutional form and matter and its potentialities, consequently, are proportional to the actualizing stages it might have. Amongst a series of potentialities, those that actually happen are called prometheic and those that do not actualize are called epimetheic. The properties of the cultural cycles – either essential or accidental – form a antipathetic polarity: on one side those aspects that build and preserve a normal development and, on the other hand, those dispositions of corruption that act towards destroying the cycle.

The thetic elements strengthen the integration of society and undermine the corruptive dispositions. Considering those properties apart from concrete existence – in an abstract manner – can give a clearer view of each period. For example, the valorization of the theological superiority, typical of the first period, works as to place mankind as a medium term connected to the divine inasmuch as the world around has a relative and inferior valorization. Those are thetic aspects, positively structuring and strengthening the cultural cycle.

A justification of the fundamental worldview within the cycle is a strong feature of the first period, mainly in the second and third stage, seeking to fortify the worldview by apologetic means. The fundamental in this period is the religious idea of the salvation of mankind. Consequently, all aspects of knowledge are subordinated to this worldview. Theology superimposes upon Philosophy. The worldview is merely religious.

Progressively, the worldview needs more and more of a philosophical justification. It is the period of scholasticism observed in all cultural cycles, related to the transition from the first to the second period. Nevertheless, the antithetic forces are very much actives. There is a dispute of residual elements from previous cycles as well as incorporated elements from internal conflicts within the religious worldview. Those antithetic onslaughts are quite strong. It is the era of heresies, of ideas emanated from foreign sectors denying validity to the fundamental worldview.

Those antithetic facets manifest by an excessive valorization of the cosmological aspects in opposition to the theological worldview, i.e., a struggle to appreciate the anthropological values and deny the cognitive possibilities of man. Therefore, the appearance of ideas such as skepticism, pragmatism, nihilism and the valorization of Philosophy over Theology, mainly practical philosophies, as understood in an empirical aspect. The value of reason is pointed out not to justify the worldview but its opposing ideas, its antithesis. There is also a valorization of the empirical, the rational and a constant denial of the human possibilities of accessing the Absolute, inasmuch as it seeks to separate Philosophy from Theology and Religion as well as Science from Philosophy. To the accelerated development of technology, a complete disconnection of Science and Philosophy is finally achieved, which is properly the transition from the second to the third period.

Before the arrival of the democratic period there is a predominant pantheistic approach towards the accepted axioms, principles and postulates, i.e., the constant denial of their validity. Rise of skepticism, agnosticism, criticism, pragmatism, positivism, materialism, and nihilism, until when, by the beginning of the third period, a romantic reaction takes place, but disorderly and unable to rescue the past positivenesses of the cultural cycle.

Finally, the philosophical postulates are gradually superseded by ideological doctrines, which, instead of promoting the truth-seeking pursuit amongst the general public, divide society into ideological and isolated interest groups. Insofar as the thetic aspects develop throughout History, the antithetic aspects proportionally grow. As the first one justifies its position against the oppositions and the antithesis are debuted, demonstrated or even justified as favoring the thetic position, immediately the antithetic development turns against the ideas it defended before but utilizing another destructive power within the cycle.

For example, in the beginning of the cycle the worldview fundaments are based upon divine revelation given to mankind throughout the chosen ones. Then the antithetic aspects deny revelation and deem the religious set of beliefs as a set of psychological myths under fictional projections. Doubt is presented against the validity of general ethical postulates. There is an indifference towards religious ideas and skeptical suspicions emerge. The validity of the revelation is undermined. Ethics is reduced to Morals and that our knowledge is based only in experience, founded upon the empirical later rationalized.

As the group representing the constructive and thetic aspects demonstrates that the empirical-rational is a philosophical fundament for the theological worldview, immediately the antithetic side starts doubting about the abstractive abilities of reason. Relativism, skepticism and criticism come to light. In this phase the power of reason is denied over the sole acceptance of the experiential. When the thetic part justifies that Metaphysics is founded in the reality known by experience and the rationalization based in real foundations, then the antithetic part denies the abstractive faculties of men affirming that even the empirical reality is unobtainable: “the world is a set of man-created fictions”. From this point it is natural to question the real content of the concepts and nominalism emerges. Words are merely names given to things and Logic becomes a logic of extensionality. The first principles and the importance of the principle of identity, the principle of contradiction, the principle of causality and the principle of sufficient reason are rejected. Also seek to deny the cognitive power of men: knowledge is merely pragmatic. The positivist position is valued and capitalism is systematic. The value of demonstration is denied and the accepted proofs depend upon a priori given prejudices to be classified by man. As concept implies essence, the new era tries to substitute the concept by the merely classificatory, once conceptualization entails incursion into the essential, which is now banned.

The question of revelation – fundamental in the previous stages – becomes secondary. Mankind salvation can only happen within the cosmic-immanent sphere. The solution can only come from one of the Ethics disciplines, such as Sociology, Economics, Politics. Philosophy is put into doubt and can even be denied. So is the Speculative Science and even the Practical Science weakens. A pragmatic science – merely classificatory – strengthens, as modernly can be observed as an extreme valorization of the protocolary.

At this point the antithetic aspect comes to an end, disemboguing into its last alternative, the nihilism. This third period sees the rule of the antithetic aspect and the thetic position is firmly attacked. The wars amongst nations have ideological reasons, once to all social problems there can only be an economical, political or sociological solution that must prevail. Ideologies are put together with a promise to accomplish salvation through predetermined means, since salvation can only be achieved in this world.

The foundations of the thetic position is shattered, bringing to life a new certainty, a new conviction, founded in human experience and knowledge, reveled through superior men, which structure new possibilities. Bound in a tensional manner, it will serve as a new coming worldview to a new cultural cycle.

Finally, it is noteworthy the fact that all worldview advocating thetic aspects have an affirmative position and its resulting philosophies are always affirmative. They are always interested in affirming, postulating, and demonstrating. On the other hand, the antithetic corresponding philosophies are always negative. Always denies and rejects the validity of the demonstrative means.

It also illustrates a certain dynamic throughout the cycle in which for each affirmative position corresponds an adverse position in the extreme contrary. For example, the excess of rationalism was faced with an excess of romantic irrationalism and that with the rise of modern phenomenology and other concepts seeking to oppose the negative aspect. No phase develops without a tensional adversity and dynamic of accommodation between its thetic and antithetic aspects.

---

[1] Or Social Cycles, as the terminology used by P. R. Sarkar. (Translator’s note)

[2] The social kratos dominators are the real representatives of the law but they are not necessarily always the holders of the state power. As a matter of fact, they possess the power in general of society, from which even the political power emanates and depends upon. They are the superior men who represents the upper authority within the cyclic phase. (Author’s note)

[3] In Sociology, the medium term is the one that gives cohesion to the social relationship, for example in a family the mother is the medium term. (A.N.)