Homepage of Boris Haase




Consciousness • Reference Theory • Interview • Completionalism • Problem Solutions • Warning • Knowledge Representation  (Previous | Next)



Completionalism

Completionalism

In the following sections, the completionalism will be characterised as a new philosophical trend and delimited from other trends.


Characterisation

The completionalism ethically has the goal of the perfection of adequately developed creatures (in our world: the humans) towards L (way of salvation). This is achieved by acquiring a comprehensive knowledge and maturing according to the available possibilities. Epistemologically, it proceeds from differently complex worlds in a hierarchy of the universe, which also applies to the differently complex gods.

These worlds can be both creature-specific and overarching. They can exist as experience (e.g. dream) or parallel worlds. The (individual) assignment can be done bound by karma or automatically according to certain rules or by the gods. The existence of gods is grounded in the need for control by intelligences, which must possess a judgment-leading completeness under mutual control.

The creatures go through the worlds with increasing complexity until they unite at the top of the hierarchy with the highest L as the greatest ideal. The thesis of creating something out of nothing or annihilation is rejected for logical reasons: only different references to the existing are (successively) possible, since the new from nothing would already be present in a holistic view (see Eleatics und Reference Theory).

Although local, regional or (inter-) national orientation is possible, the one to L is clearly preferable. This also applies to partnerships, including relationships. A preservation of the found world with respect to sustainability is desired. The concepts of individualism and collectivism are optimally combined for the benefit of as many people as possible, and from (human) ideologies it is decidedly distanced.

The scientific attitude is critical, since the history of mankind has shown too many mistakes here. Responsibility is to be taken over by humans themselves, since the approved principle of karma makes no sense otherwise. Since nothing is alien to the gods, that is what awaits men: this way or otherwise. Hardships are tempered by the divine grace that has arisen as a just and successful concept with the gods.

The primacy of the divine over the human results from the probability with which it rubs off on man as divine: the original is better than a copy. The likeness of man to the divine is definitely hubris and does not do justice to gods. Our world is no best creation as its deficiencies prove. Evolution should bring out what it can. If the gods wanted another world, it would be like that.

Although the gods have given man some liberties, it is illusory to assume that we can do much against their will. The facticity of our world should be both a gauge and an incentive to make the best of it: with the opportunities we have and those we can create. The attitude towards the gods should be gratitude, not a constant sanctimonious petition.

It can be reproached that these lines are more of religion (of love) than of philosophy or science. But philosophy is not just science for which only hard evidence applies. The speculation of the conceivable and its comparison with reality must remain permitted. Love for wisdom is not only based on 100-%-truths, but encompasses the whole spectrum of the predicable. The limitation of man denies him some certainty.

The Enlightenment demonstrates above all the human error than the defects of the irrational. Denying the divine and turning away from it are big mistakes since they deny what makes it possible. Pure science does not produce a complete human. The belief in science should not be confused with true faith, which is first and foremost a service to L. Metaphysics has only died among the people of little faith.

Completionalism focuses on effectiveness and efficiency. What is most important comes first for it. It has an extensive virtue doctrine. Worthwhile performance means a lot to it, but not everything. The so-being is based on the divine and requires appropriate treatment. Developing the worlds always requires adjusted answers to questions that arise. No religion has the right to fix the status quo for the future.


Delimitation

Since gods also have liberties, our world created or accepted by them may be criticised. Thus, the theodicy problem can be solved by referring to the imperfection of the gods. On the one hand, certain hardships are reasonable for the creatures, on the other hand, the good without the evil would no longer be itself. Ultimately, the overall concept is to be dignified, which can be justified on the basis of one's own experience.

If the gods' attitudes were more rigid, we would have to see this in our world. The existing religions allow the conclusion to some questionable concepts, but rather the humans than the gods are to blame. However, they also show - in particular in their exercise and their consequences - that the highest insights and claims to oneself have been realised. Ultimately, anything found means what we make of it.

Man is indeed his own filter. However, this does not mean that the genuinely divine is always filtered out, nor that man can easily replace it. Man always receives what he deserves, at least over a longer period of time - e. g. by the divine compensation. This does not mean fatalism since there are liberties and the gods want to see more than clockwork like worlds.

Ultimately, divine justice is not to be questioned since the highest god (L) at the top of the hierarchy is the best we can imagine. This is due to both: own claims and the mechanisms controlling him. The individual choices of the creatures force a divine justice adapted to them, although the principles of the gods can be (partially) more or less fixed.

We should be cautious in judging both the gods and our world and their appearances, as we cannot be sure that everything is or will be experienced as it appears. Empiricism, intuitionism or rationalism do not change that either. If you do not believe it, do the Messiah test, which is so roller-coaster that such claims will resolve themselves. Whoever passes it sees the world as it is.

Fictionalism, materialism, universalism, nihilism and non-cognitivism are also resolved themselves. The explicitly desired moral action with its positive consequences invalidates theories challenging it. Utilitarianism is problematic since the utility as a gauge may be inappropriate, especially as far as the beneficiaries are concerned. Should suffering (of a few) be accepted? Does benefit precede L or right?

Therefore, it is so important for completionalism with orientation to L not to serve particular interests that are thought too small. Relativism is misleading insofar as it believes it can do without its own foundation. By his critical attitude, the completionalism prevents a divine absolutism, by the fundamental criticism (of its representatives) it avoids to be (one-sided) valid alone.

© 2019 by Boris Haase


Valid XHTML 1.0 • disclaimer • mail@boris-haase.de • pdf-version • bibliography • subjects • definitions • statistics • php-code • rss-feed • top