Fountain of Youth Or the Energizer Bunny?

By Kevin Uhrich

There are a few stories of explorer/adventurers of the past that spent most of their lives on a quest for the Fountain of Youth. I don't know if they're true, they sound more like fables to me. The moral, to my way of thinking, would be that while they searched the far corners of the earth, they were oblivious to the fact that they carried the Fountain of Youth inside of them and they failed, all of their lives, to find it! There is a Native Aboriginal story I heard many, many years ago, and the elders would tell it to the children... perhaps like a bedtime story.

Quickly, it goes something like this; God was talking to the Holy Spirit and said that He needed to find a place to hide man's "God Head" or man's "Divinity". He didn't want us to find it until such time as we were ready. The Holy Spirit suggested that God hide it on top of the highest mountain or the deepest ocean or darkest forest, etc. etc... God said that man would become the master all of these physical places very quickly. He needed a safer place. He decided He would hide man's "Divinity" deep inside of man himself and when man became wise enough he would find it.

Cool story and one that helped to keep me on my quest to find what we are all about "emotionally." I don't know many answers yet; I'm still finding something new around every corner, and likely will till the end of my days, but I have acquired the greatest respect for Aboriginal fables and stories.

I've come to "know" we are all divine beings and as far as the Fountain of Youth? Yes, it is right there inside of us and when we are wise enough we'll find that the fountain is really Source light and Love or God and that we are "already" eternal beings, we DO NOT DIE...EVER! We just keep going and going and going; we are all Energizer Bunnys.

Greek Democracy - Was it a Myth?

By Steve Coe

The unique phenomenon of Athenian democracy, and its development as an viable institution during the fifth century BC, is a fascinating field for study, essential for our understanding of the emergence of our own modern political systems. In fact it may well be said to be the true yardstick against which all subsequent so-called "free systems" of governance should be gauged. The current task is to examine how the structures of state worked in practice and to what extent were these structures subject to manipulation or influence by powerful groups.

The measure of success of any political system cannot realistically be assessed purely in terms of the technical skill with which checks and balances have been carefully crafted into a constitution to prevent excesses and to avoid abuse by one section of the polity over another. Nor even, can this success be solely defined in terms of the implicit "fairness", of the social contract between the governors and the governed. No mere academic exercise of political philosophy can circumscribe a successful practical system and explain its viability and vitality. The system has to be right for its times, suitable for the society that will use it and more attractive than any conceivable alternative. Ultimately the only true measure of a success for a political system is the proven ability to survive through good times or bad, with essential institutions and vitality intact. The robustness with which a particular system normally functions in the course of ordinary daily business will be an accurate reflection of the strength of resources that it will able to marshal in to own defense when faced with a threat to the continuing survival of its institutions. In order to examine the machinery of the every day government we must first examine the structure of its constitution and how it came to be.

Regrettably, the contemporaneous fifth and fourth century literary sources that are still available to us, are somewhat limited for providing an understanding of the relative importance of the various elements of the political structures. Even less information is available for explaining the manner of the day to day implementation of democracy as a working system. Most ancient writers concerned themselves, almost exclusively, with dramatic events and the actions of the mighty on the main stage and were little interested in providing detail of the hum-drum workings of the system that sustained everything. Invariably the most relevant detail is usually omitted or glossed over. We have to read between the lines. Strangely enough, we probably owe more to the critics of democracy, than to its protagonists, for the surviving record of its achievements. This is a very relevant point to consider when investigating our topic regarding the supposed domination of politics by a few influential men. The oligarchic sentiments expressed, so frequently, by almost all of these writers, conveys the common thread of a great sense of frustration at the actuality of a heavy-handed practice of democracy, which they claim was often poorly led by inadequate leaders, or demagogues. The writer of The Athenian Constitution, the pseudo Xenophon, or Old Oligarch, typifies this attitude. In his opening words he sets the climate of criticism. "And as for the fact that the Athenians have chosen the kind of constitution that they have, I do not think well of their doing this inasmuch as in making their choice they have chosen to let the worst people be better off than the good". His sentiments are echoed by almost all of the other writers, who were generally members of the aristocratic or affluent class, who had the leisure time available to write. This often-expressed frustration is clear evidence that the direction of state policy cannot usually have been as amenable to successful oligarchic manipulation as many modern analysts would have us think. If it were so there could hardly be any cause for this frustration. However this conclusion is only relevant for the second half of our period, as the writers were closer to this point in time and still emotionally involved in the issue. Moreover circumstances had undoubtedly changed, following the reforms of Ephialtes and Pericles in mid-century.

As always for the second half of the fifth century our principle literary source is Thucydides, though not a true democrat himself, nevertheless was the keenest observer of the system in action. Xenophon, writing in the early fourth century also supplies important detail. In this context he is best described as a disillusioned democrat, who turned his sympathies towards the Spartan constitution, after witnessing the excesses of the demagogues and military defeat of Athens. His younger contemporary, the sophist and historian Isocrates, although otherwise enlightened and cosmopolitan in outlook, seems in his treatise Areopagiticus (355-4 BC) to have preferred an archaic form of semi-democracy closely regulated by censorship and by the, the Areopagus. This was anachronistic as Ephialtes, with Pericles' backing, had in 462/1 B.C instituted radical reforms, stripping this heredity council of any realistic political power. Almost alone among the earlier sources, Herodotus writing in mid fifth century, is sympathetic towards democracy and attempts to explain the system (Ref III 80-82: The debate of the Persian nobles). However according to Ehrenberg (Origins of Democracy) there is a disquieting vagueness as to what actually constitutes democracy and especially regarding what should be the role of leadership in this system

A few extant inscriptions also provide documentary evidence, in the form of decrees and other official records dating from this period. Beside the textural information the style or format of these inscriptions gives an indication of the relative importance of such institutions as the Boule' and of the Demos (assembly). Non-historiographic sources, such as the work of playwrights Aristophanes and Euripides and others cast light on how the system worked in practice and what were the attitudes of the general population towards these institutions. The various political and philosophical treatises of Aristotle Ath. Polit. and those of his mentor Plato (ca. 427-347 B.C), especially The Republic, written just outside this period, are very critical of democracy for encouraging bad rulers and excesses. Plato shows strong preference for a form of benign autocracy or rule by the enlightened. However he provides useful commentary and insight on the politics of democracy and its failures by way of contrast with other systems. Secondary sources, such as the first century AD biographer Plutarch (ca. AD 46 -120) and also the historian Polybius (ca. 202-120 B.C), add useful detail and sometimes clarify the picture with the advantage of greater perspective.

Although outside our time frame, the record of how democracy functioned in fourth century Athens is much better documented and could be used, with discretion, as a useful guide to the earlier period. By this time the institution of democracy was certainly more developed and apparently, more open and less subject to partisan manipulation from behind the scenes. mainly due to the near extinction of the aristocratic blood lines. The orations of Demosthenes and of his rival Aeschines are especially worthy of noteAccording to tradition Cleisthenes gave Athens the definitive form to her institutions in 508-7 BC. In a bold and revolutionary reorganization, he separated the political structures of the state from traditional clan or regional blood loyalties. He set up a purely artificial arrangement to replace traditional structures, consisting of a set of ten new electoral groupings (tribes) derived from a deliberate mix of thirty geographical areas (trittyes), each of which was made up of a few local sub groups (demes). Each tribe was structured, so as to diversify the social interests within the voting group, by selecting each of its three trittyes from one of three different geographical regions. These regions were defined as being the city, the coast and the hinterland of Attica. Both the tribes and the demes had a corporate structure of assemblies and officers, with duties such as maintaining citizen lists etc. The trittyes was, however, merely a sub grouping of demes, which needed to be retained purely to ensure diversity within the tribes and it had no function as a political unit. Membership of a deme was hereditary, irrespective of changes in domicile. Each of the tribes had to provide a regiment of heavy infantry (hoplites) and squadron of horse, led, in the field by an elected general (strategos). This office became increasingly politicized, in time becoming pre-eminent in political influence.

Cleisthenes disbanded the existing council and reconstructed a truly representative council of five hundred (the Boule') consisting of fifty members from each tribe, appointed by lot. This council was the supreme administrative body of the state, with control over finance, responsibility for debating and preparing legislature, some judicial powers and the important right of review of the performance of the executive (archons and other magistrates). The Boule' conducted business through rotating committees (prytaneis) with each tribe holding office for a tenth of a year (prytanies). The archonships or higher offices of the executive, as before, were reserved for members of the aristocratic families. The Areospagus was maintained as an aristocratic council of ex-archons with strong judicial powers. The Assembly of the people (Ecclesia) was the actual legislative authority, voting on motions, prepared by the council and on such issues as declaration of war and ostracism. Ostracism was Cleisthenes' safeguard against the rebirth of tyranny. Ehrenberg refers to a similar provision in the oath of office for members of the Boule', whereby they vowed to denounce a member who proposed unsuitable legislation (Aristotles Ath. Pol 22,2). The Ecclesia (periodic assembly of all adult male citizens) was the actual ultimate sovereign authority of the state and for this reason became the medium of democratization. However as it was merely a gathering, with no continuity between sessions, it was obviously subject to the opinions prevailing within the Boule', as this council had had the leisure to debate issues, before putting them to the assembly for voting. As motions were "prepackaged" before reaching the Ecclesia the outcome was usually predictable though not always. Thus with a strong inflluence over the direction of political direction and also control over finances, it is indeed fair to say that the Boule' was set up to be the senior partner in government. The corollary is obvious. Any attempt by powerful individuals to influence state policy had to be initiated in the Boule'.

Ehrenberg (Origins of Democracy) convincingly argues that Cleisthenes' did not originally have any intention of setting up a democracy, although this developed, in time, as a result of the system that he had initiated. He quotes Herodotus (V 69) to show that Cleisthenes was caught up in a struggle with Isagoras, in the aftermath of the fall of the tyranny of the Pisistratid family. He used his reforms as a means to enlist the power of the people to help him defeat his rival oligarch and thereby ensure the predominance of his own "extended family" or genos, the Alcmaeonids. If we accept Ehrenberg's premise, then right from the very outset, even as the fifth century came into being, the basis for the future democratic system was already flawed by oligarchic manipulation of the political structures. Arguably the system continued to evolve, steadily become more democratic in time. This trend was strengthened as a result of changing social influences, brought about by the acquisition of an empire, increasing wealth and especially as a result of the effects of the long drawn-out Peloponnesian war. However all these changes, towards a more progressive political climate, were essentially developed within the original framework that had already been set up. We know that on most occasions the system worked well for Athens, raising the city to her most glorious periods of brilliance and yet it was also responsible for paving the way to her most abject disasters. It is through examination of these two extreme outcomes that we can investigate how the boule' was truly representative of the "will of the people" or merely a foil for the influence of dominant individuals or groups.

The miracle of Athenian democracy was that, as it evolved from the time of Cleisthenes, throughout more than a century and a half of turmoil, the vigor and robustness of the trend managed to continually regenerate and renew itself against all the odds. It survived an unending string of military defeats, loss of empire, plagues and several coup d' etats. It even managed to survive the worst excesses of the demagogues who are the unfortunate corollary (or bastard offspring) of democracy in its rawest form. However these incredible setbacks in the fortunes of the state did sometimes promote a consequent regression in the mood of the populace causing swings away from the democratic movement towards oligarchy. For example the short-lived seizure of power in 411 B.C by the oligarchic "Council of Four Hundred", which was in reaction to the excesses of an expansive foreign policy, promoted by unfit demagogues. These disastrous policies, which lacked coherence, had expanded the war and led to disaster at Syracuse in 413 B.C and revolts of the allies in 412-11 B.C. The oligarchic reaction had been sponsored amongst the politically active social clubs (hetaireia) that were a feature of the affluent or aristocratic portion of society. However Athens had become too used to the freedoms of democracy by this time and were not comfortable with the arrogance of the oligarchs and the more moderate council of five thousand was set up which paved the way to a return to the status quo.

In the end Athens lost her identity as a sovereign state, ultimately succumbing to the irresistible force of Macedonian imperialism after Chaeronea in 338 B.C. This in no way diminishes her crowning achievement - the tradition of her notable institution of democracy has long outlived the state that gave it birth. Regrettably, by the time of Philip and Alexander, the role of the city-state had passed on forever, giving way to consolidation and a trend of imperialism in the Meditteranean world that eventually led to Rome. This unstoppable evolution was to be the common fate of all Greek city states, irrespective of whatever political system was utilized locally.

The Mask and the Masking Laughter

By Else Cederborg

Long ago I noticed the mask as a significant means of stating something, either a truth or a lie, but always manifesting an attitude. For instance, the golden masks of the pharaohs symbolized their eternal lives: A pharaoh was supposed to live forever and to keep his live features behind the golden mask. That, of course, is a blatant lie, as also pharaohs end up dead, no matter how well their embalmment has been performed. In Asia masks became integrated parts of the culture. Also in old Greece and Rome the mask attained significance, e.g. as theatrical props to make the sentiments of the characters visible to the entire audience. These masks were symbols of set characters and did not give room for more nuanced facial expressions. Actually that is more or less always the significance of masks.

The same may be said about bodily expressions like e.g. laughter, crying, etc.. Put on a smile and hide your tears behind a witticism or cry to get your will by some soft-hearted individual who wants you to feel good. The first is called "bravery" as it is considered "brave" not to exhibit one's feelings when they may be embarrassing to others. To find one's mask may be one of the most important exploits in life, but many have been forced into wearing one they did not chose themselves. For instance "the jolly fatso" may be a not very happy or content individual hoping to shed the surplus weight, but not able to do so. However, if he or she puts on the mask of jollity popularity is not far away. Laughter of this Santa-category signals harmlessness, but had it turned diabolical it would be very offensive to most of those who saw this individual as a harmless pussycat, somebody who did not claim a rôle in the games of the big boys and girls.

The total lack of laughter is fascinating. That has been proven by the Swedish actress Greta Garbo. Such a stony face as she might exhibit in her films was like a challenge because it signals an unbreakable integrity and a self-assured personality that never falls for flattery or resorts to it herself. She is what she is and she does not budge - that is until her character of Ninotchka (1939) succumbs to the magic of laughter and she is transformed into as much of a living and loving woman as she can.

Diabolical laughter is known from e.g. the religious murals of the old churches in Denmark. Here we see condemned souls of citizens, kings, and priests sporting an uncanny leer that simply is diabolical in its expression. What are they leering at? They are condemned, on their way to Hell's flames, but this is their response to their awful situation. Well, I take it that they try to "laugh it off" - i.e. to put on a mask - but fail miserably. Neither real masks nor expressions can save faces of people being dragged off to Hell.

Behold - The Unseen

By Jenny Jimenez

Time came to me fast and without notice my very life unfolded with so many marvelous events leading to the present. I never had that moment to stop, thinking what tomorrow will be. Wandering places of beauty, sculpture by the elements of mother earth and the hands of the Divine, made me question the way these were done and for what purpose-for peace or for all of us to let go and just be a passer-bye. The places visited were all so beautiful and it gave that feeling of tranquility. In a world, where the race for existence is grave, the very air we breathe seems stressful-not relaxing.

Stress, it seems, is inevitable. Even by merely sitting on a chair isn't what I call relaxation. And life is passing slowly in front of me with nothing but void existences of follies brought about by me sitting still-or even standing in one place. Being bounded by many worries makes life dull and change being so depressing. We forget that life here on earth, the flesh that housed the spirit, is but temporary and shall later return to dust. The end when our purpose is gone to waste is definitely realized.

Gaea is marvelous. She has cradled us so as to be of definite purpose to her infiniteness and her children which depended solely on her and her Master. It took me a while to realize this as I slowly come out of the shadows which brought me regrets and disappointments.

Months ago, before the end of the first semester, my father was asked as to why I was taking up methods of teaching. As stupid as this question may seem (being very obvious about the reason why a graduate should take up methods of teaching), my father answered what a parent who has supported his child would-"My daughter wanted to do a lot of things, and as a parent all I can do is support...." I have not done anything wrong in taking units. And I think it is not my fault to have brought about certain dumbness toward this person who has asked the question.... That person is bringing about stress in his/her life by worrying too much-curiosity can sometimes be deadly especially if it from a person who does nothing but degrade another for personal profit. They do not know the happiness they could give others. They are persons, who don't want to think out of the box. They are what I call people who made failures out of themselves.

One of my mentors told me that as beings created by God, in His image and likeness; we should be responsible enough in besetting our lives to perfection for God is perfect. But what is perfection? What does it take to be perfect?

God gave us only his image, not His ways-His perfect ways. We are surrounded by problems which God can solve in a blink of an eye, and by which we can barely survive. And this makes us worry a lot. Why do we have to get a job to live? Why do we have to have a boss who's a total pain? Why do we need to study without the assurance that we'll have employment in the future? Why are there people suffering and hungry while others live in luxury? Why are we different from the rest? With these questions we see human race stumbling. How can we be perfect?

Perfection is dependent on our purpose. And purpose is dependent on how we make our lives meaningful. Making our lives meaningful depends on our actions and the principles that govern it. Each of us is unique in the sense that we live to help others just as colors are made different to make everything beautiful. A painting is considered dull if all we see is white. Then again we may say that white is purity-cleanliness. A fact that we've been cleansed by all that has troubled us. But what made it result to such? Science brings about this answer if we just analyze.

Another mentor told me that science actually brings us further to the reality that there is a GOD. A day, in those six days the world was created, may be a thousand years in human life. The color White, on the other hand is the totality of the combine colors that makes up the rainbow. In Science, the said colors are produce by an object called prism. It divides light (white) to seven colors that comprises a rainbow. Therefore we can say that we see a rainbow because of elements that acts as prism produced about by the raindrops from the rain which caught up and divided light, reflecting it to the atmosphere. This is as same as human beings that in unity we can also create a rainbow. Now, another question may arise-how can the prism work that way? Just like the heart that pumps blood, the lungs that breathes in air, and our eyes which allows us to see-Anatomy and Physiology shows us God's marvels and wisdom....

Faith is the assurance of things unseen....

In this lifetime, divine intercession is within reach if we try to pay kindness forward. To live life to the fullest is the best way to express gratitude. We learn to appreciate and love ourselves that choosing to be happy, despite of difficulties, make us do things that can help others. We admit our shortcoming that in turn helps us acknowledge what's needed to be changed. Mediocrity from other people seems to be an encouragement for it is a proof that we are better than them. In the end we realize a degree is nothing compared to the character we show (for whether the coin is two-faced, the mirror shows who we really are). It is up to us how we make use of it....

Man creates his own stress. From sitting still to working loads of stuff, what forbids man to enjoy life is the seclusion of him to others. He makes life a bore. He works for himself alone and he sticks to being a leech-sucking life from others, to a crab-pulling others down. They want to see-not feel. How I pity them....

In this life full of stress, as troubled as we may seem, there are things which we cannot explain-things that seem unseen-but in truth the answer is right in front of us. If we just try to see our mirror image more clearly, then maybe we'll see that stress after all is but of our own doing.

A Bit of Everything - Philosophically Speaking

By Kevin Roache

We all have to have a creed, anchor or set of rules by which we live our lives. Many of us will never give a label to the struggle that makes certain choices inevitable for our particular path. There are those who blindly and haphazardly forge ahead and make the most of what life throws at them. Others stringently live by the words of some long dead philosopher. Personally I take a bit this and a bit of that from whatever philosophy suits at any given time. I think most people do this whether they know it or not.

Existentialism as a one sentence philosophy can't be argued with, I believe. This particular way of thinking and behaving asserts that individual responsibility and self-determination is a key trait. I can't fault this. The individual left to find their own way is a perfect path. However, delving deeper the philosophy tends for many to involve self-analysis, struggle and constantly grasping for a meaning for our existence in a hostile, alien society. Being immersed in existentialism can be extremely depressing.

Looking at objectivism is another seemingly sensible choice on the surface. Everything is what it is, and should be treated as such. Nobody is greater in any way than anybody else. Equality of trade is paramount. It tends to get a little personal and vindictive though if you try to reasonably debate any negative issues attributed to the philosophy with a fervent believer. Not to mention the suggestion that an individual's happiness overrides that of everybody else. I'm fairly sure there are large numbers besides myself who could never countenance such a selfish approach to life.

To embrace subjectivism can be comforting. The fact that knowing anything can only be true if it is felt is fundamental to existence, according to subjectivists. I feel empowered sometimes to acknowledge the fact that I create the meaning I encounter. Other times I am content to let others do the interpreting for me.

The philosophy of phenomenology is attractive because it seeks to scientifically account for human experience. That which is often thought of as subjective experience, such as, consciousness and ideas are rigorously put to the test. This detachment employed in such a philosophy can appear seductively mysterious. The sedentary practice is often very intense and lonely though.

Much of the way we live our lives today is dependent on our personal philosophies. How we interpret the world around us and give meaning to our practices points us in each new direction. Our choices, intentional or otherwise motivated, give us our philosophy.

I believe it can be argued that the majority of us wouldn't be able to put a name to the motivation that steers us through life. Those that do think about it would more than likely admit that the motivation comes several different sources. Only a tiny minority could put a name to their personal philosophy.

"The Essence of Love" (Requested by the Public)

By Dennis Siluk Ed.D.

This article is nothing fancy or even well thought out, it is more spontaneous (after seeing on the internet, a request by the public for me to write something, anything about 'The Essence of Love'), I wish to say what I got to say, and bring it to the bare bone facts, and then be on my way. The very core, fundamental nature, spirit, is to give, and not to expect-this is the essence of love. There are several kinds of love, but love in all several divisions is basically the same (or at least it is to me), it demands everything, and is willing to receive nothing. Some people call this Unconditional Love. Meaning, if you ask for something back in return, then it is an exchange, not real love. It is easy to love a lovable person, try loving an unlovable one that will test your tulips. Like Mark Twain once said "A virtue is not a virtue until tested under fire." Likewise, your love that you say you have for this or that person, or thing, what parts are facts and what parts are pretenses? Who's to say until tested under fire? In most cases, most of us would fall short of know or have or having experience real love.

Sex is not love that is pleasure, in most cases, immediate gratification. Love comes afterwards, during those long nights and years of serving your wife, and as your wife becomes your helper. That is love. It is not self-serving, that comes under self-interest (and perhaps a little greed).

Love benumbs the senses, you are willing to die for something now, be it a child, country, or wife, perhaps something less or more. But I doubt you have really loved if you have never been willing to give up all you have. And the person that opposes that is the guard over his treasures: what you love the most is what you guard the hardest. What you value the most is what you love the most; and what you talk about the most, spend the most time at or with, is what you love the most-it only makes sense. You can't give fifty percent to this and that; you only have one-hundred percent of yourself to give. Love demands 100% percent, real love, not pretence.

So you ask, "What is the essence of love?" It is what it has always been, "To give!" God gave you life, this is his love to mankind. He doesn't even ask for a thank you, he just gives. Christ died on the cross for mankind and his sins-so the gates of heaven would open up wider, and he said, in essence: to give one's life to another, is the greatest love gift, one can give another. It is all, and everything one will ever have.

I'm not going to look up any definitions of love, it is plain and simple, either you do or you don't. And those who cannot will never have known that there was something to live for.

Understanding Heidegger's Notion of Dasein - Part 2

By Marco Bomfoco

Platonism represents for Heidegger the essence of the "metaphysics of subjectivity", an expression created by Heidegger to designate modern metaphysics. Heidegger's ontological project is also an attack against the doctrine known as metaphysics of presence. Metaphysics of presence, or traditional ontology, is a particular way of understanding the nature of reality that states there is an immutable essence (from the Greek, eidos) or basic nature that makes the entity what it is. It is the idea found in Plato's Forms, Aristotle's primary substances, Descartes' res extensa and res cogitans, Kant's noumena, etc. Furthermore, traditional metaphysics places ontology somewhere beyond time, contingence, and change, then uses these supernal entities like "reason" or "rationality" to order all existence. In the long run, what happens is that those philosophers seek an extraordinary principle for explaining the world, without reference to the everyday life. In his critique of metaphysics, Heidegger tells us that Nietzsche emerges as the last great philosopher of the age of the subject. Possibly, Nietzsche's interpretation of Being as will to power is a form of inverse Platonism. But still, it was Nietzsche who opened up the door to postfoundationalist culture. And Heidegger tried to think Nietzsche in all its consequences. It is clear, then, that Heidegger completely rejected the fundamental concept associated with traditional metaphysics, to know, that there is an intrinsic human nature or a universal essence of humanity. So in a Heideggerian view there is no return to this kind of lost "centrality". In Heidegger's approach characteristics once considered as "human nature" are characteristics of one's particular culture. That is, the social environment one is thrown into, one's "world".

What is the problem with positivism? Positivism discredits all rational reflections which are not formulated by logics and mathematics. In the heart of this ninetieth century movement lies the idea that we can use principles of mathematics for deriving the outside world. This is, indeed, not new. Galileo, Descartes and Newton advocated the vision of nature as a mathematical Universum. In the text "The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology" (1935-1936), Husserl accused positivism for the reduction of science to a mere science of facts. Husserl pointed out that the problem with the modern philosophy of Descartes is its admiration for the mathematical science of nature. According to Husserl, it is because of this that philosophy lost its importance for life. Anyway, Husserl still believed in the necessity of constructing philosophy as a rigorous science. We need to recall that Husserl came to philosophy from the mathematical sciences. There is no doubt that Husserl is one of the most important thinkers in German philosophy since Kant. According to Husserl, scientific positivism, or the positivist limitation of science, has nothing to teach us for it excludes precisely the questions that are primordial for our epoch: the question of the meaning or lack of meaning of human existence. In this light, against the impoverishment of life Husserl suggests to concentrate on the study of life-world (Lebenswelt). Note that the positivist conception of philosophy, which is empiricist in its origin, is nowadays outdated. However, as a methodology empiricism has survived through modern science. Following Husserl, Heidegger also challenges the scientific or empirical thought.

In his attempt to think beyond metaphysics, Heidegger uses the notion of Dasein as a point of departure for the reflection about the human existence as a given condition. Yes, but what exactly is Dasein? The term Dasein comes from two German words: Da (there) and Sein (being). Da-sein means literally "being-there": human being is the "there" of the Being. Dasein is the human existence. Dasein is an entity's mode of Being. It is important to understand that Dasein exists as a possibility of Being. In other words, between Being and Nothing exist beings. Heidegger advocated that "existence" is the mode of being characteristic of Dasein. Clearly, Dasein has priority over all other entities since it is characteristic of Dasein the understanding of the being who is not Dasein. In short, the essence of Dasein consists in its existence.

Perhaps the best way to assess the significance of Dasein to the Western thought is with reference to the work of Descartes and Husserl, the former the father of modern philosophy, the latter, as noted earlier, a contemporary of Heidegger. Let us recall first that Descartes defends a dualist metaphysics. For Descartes, the world is made up of two entirely different and independent types of substance: mind and matter, or consciousness and world. Accordingly, Descartes' philosophy is called metaphysics of substance dualism. This dualism is present on Husserl's phenomenology. In fact, Descartes is at the center of Husserl's reflection. Both philosophers were involved by the same question: how can consciousness come to know a world outside consciousness? The new insight of Husserl was to explain consciousness as intentionality, moving his project beyond the limits of an empiricist psychology. For Husserl, all consciousness, by its very nature, is "consciousness of", that is, is "intentional". Naturally, the concept of intentionality represents a radical shift from Cartesianism. Husserl believed that phenomenology was the one true path to philosophy. On Heidegger's view, the problem with their dualism is that Descartes and Husserl take it for granted from the outset. That is, they do not discover it. So, according to Heidegger, Descartes' philosophy is not a new start and Husserl's phenomenology is not "presuppositionless" as they have claimed.

Now, what is significant here is to stress that Descartes and Husserl privileged the "I" and its certainty over the world. In essence, the Cartesian "ego cogito", that is, the rational individuality and the "I" as the Husserlian transcendental subject do not need the world to exist. Both, in fact, exist "in and for itself". For Descartes, the world exists as a result of man's mind. In other words, Descartes' res cogitans ("thinking thing") presupposes that the world does not exist. Surely Descartes' and Husserl's idealism follows from this methodological precedence of subjectivity. On the other hand, Heidegger does not speak of man as Consciousness, I, Subject, Self, Agent, etc. but only as Dasein. For Heidegger, the subject is not a "naturally occurring thing", but, on the contrary, it is a philosophical category of thought that arose at a particular point in history. In reality, the modern idea of subject as a philosophical abstraction was created as a tool for solving philosophical problems. Thus, in place of the transcendental subject, Heidegger proposes the analysis of Dasein. For Heidegger, Dasein is "always already" in the world, which is to say that Dasein is not separated from the world. In brief, we do not inhabit a world that is fundamentally separated from us.

Now recall that Descartes' proposal resembles the Christian idea that we are in the world, but not of it. Yet Dasein is in the world and belongs to the world. So, in place of the being out of the world of the transcendental subject, Heidegger proposes that Dasein's activity of existence is "in-der-Welt-Sein" (being-in-the-world). Indeed, Dasein means being-in-the-world. Note that the preposition "in" indicates involvement and not spatial location. Dasein is one being among all other beings. Thus the human existence is always coexistence with others and with material world. Besides, Heidegger claims Dasein's ontological primacy over Descartes' "thinking thing". Descartes assumes the "thinking thing", that is, the subjectivity, as the ultimate reference point for his philosophical system; the "I think" is the foundation for his certainty in absolute knowledge. On the contrary, for Heidegger without Being there is no Dasein. Finally, because Dasein is described mainly in terms of temporality, Heidegger's proposal speaks of an existential time in place of a time of inner time consciousness as was proposed by Husserl's phenomenology. According to Heidegger, time is a dimension where Dasein moves on. In truth, Dasein is constituted by time and language. But both pre-exist to Dasein.