The Universal

Man

NORBERTO R. KEPPE

Proton Editora Ltda

São Paulo
 Translation and revision
Carlos Cesar Soós and Richard Lloyd Jones

Cover design(*)
Päivi Tiura
Pedro Jair Xavier Cardoso
(*) The cover depicts the great Greek philosopher Plato
who helped lay the foundations of Western philosophy.

Book design and graphics

Beatriz Perran Taborga de Abreu
Mara Lúcia Szankowski

Printed and set in Brazil

by Gráfica Energética
Copyright © 2009 Proton Editora Ltda.
All rights reserved
ISBN

First English edition, 2009

 Notification

One of the main purposes of this book is to analyze the validity of thought in modern
science. A lot has already been said about homocentrism, but whether or not true knowledge or an
authentic science even exists in today’s civilization has never been addressed. The inductive process
used by modern scientists marks a return to a period before philosophy itself was developed – more
precisely to the sixth and fifth centuries BC, when Thales of Miletus (640-550), Anaximander (611-
546) and Anaximenes (588 –524) strove to arrive at a sensualist (through the senses) solution to
problems. The issue was later confused by those thinkers who developed a rationalist solution (the
Eleatics), followed by the atomists at the end of the fifth, beginning of the fourth century BC) until
finally things reached a psychological solution. The problem at the moment is the huge resistance
we see to a return to philosophy (theodicy), which is, after all, the source of all knowledge.
In modern “thought”, we see three very specific influences. The first and strongest is
Voluntarism from England, along with its Pragmatist arm in the United States; the second is
Cartesian intellectualism, which spread throughout the Latin world; and the third comes from the
German Criticism of Immanuel Kant (and later Hegel’s Idealism), which has remained more
confined to the German speaking countries and their neighbors (Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, the
Czech Republic, Slovenia, Poland) and other various nations that were connected to the German
civilization. In truth, we are living in an era where science is not science, philosophy is not
philosophy and, worst of all, theology is not theology, and so we are left with a bunch of beliefs that
are far from reality.
All the unilateral phases of humanity carry too much of a strong feeling of bitterness, such
as the medieval theological period with all its atrocities, the philosophical phase that followed it ,
which was far from absent of displeasure, and today’s scientific orientation, which is actually
proving itself to be the most dangerous of all. It is important to clarify that, just like the triangle that
has three sides as part of its one single figure, theology, philosophy and science can only survive if
they are unified, which can stop them from becoming pathological. We must understand that
science, philosophy and theodicy are three independent and integral fields in themselves, and yet
are interdependent at the same time. All of them have their own physiognomy and objective, and at
the same time a common character in their essences.
After all, which element could the human being dispense with: feeling (love), knowledge
(truth), or consciousness (action)? No, the three are fundamental, they have the same value, and if
one were missing, all of them would be harmed. The identical thing happens with science,
philosophy and theology; these elements are so interdependent that none of them can survive if one
is missing. Let’s say that each one in itself, without the others, is insufficient—even dangerous—but
each one is indispensable for the others to exist. Let’s look for example at the issue of action. Here
we can see that the human being can only understand and like what he accomplishes, for love or
truth can never even exist if there is no action.
There are three fundamental sectors of life (reality), and those are feeling (love), knowledge
(truth) and action (consciousness). Reality is eliminated if any one of these is missing.
Metaphysics itself is universal. This field of study is also known as the third degree of
abstraction, and it includes the two previous ones – physics (first degree) and arts (second degree).
The human being is exactly like this also, that is, universal, which means that he possesses three
sectors in his interior. Since this is mostly hidden, it must be urgently reawakened so that man can
return to his true place and develop society to its authentic apogee. Abstraction characterizes
universality and the three-fold nature of man. Our work is not to turn the human being into
something universal, but to lead him back to what he was in his origin (which was already
universal). The rejection of this has made him sick. Man is a metaphysical (trilogical) being, and
trilogical is in parenthesis because metaphysics constitutes the third degree of abstraction, and is
therefore three-fold. That means formed by three elements, which are the physical, artistic and
trans-physical, and not physics, mathematics and metaphysics as the majority of philosophers have
decreed.
For many centuries humanity has been trying to accomplish a world of deliriums through
inverted philosophy and science, which placed matter and a priori induction in first place. We have
to admit that the inductive process takes the liberty from the human being because it obliges him to
accept wrong ideas and people simply because they are in power. But the more strength these
erroneous ideas and individuals have the more man loses his liberty, which can only be born in
contact with the universals.
If the philosophy of science wanted to use the inductive process, why did researchers choose
mathematics (which is deductive) as the basis for their studies? Galileo and Newton, and even
Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Leibniz himself accepted it! This is a contradiction, but its
occurrence can be explained because of the malleable and more superficial character of this field of
knowledge. In any event, it proves that science must be based on a deductive process. All education
is processed a priori, from the secondary to the primary, from particular to general, trying to pass
through the senses to reason.
When Plato said that the world of Ideas was revealing of the world of universals from the
divine mind, his gifted intuition was perceiving the existence of the supreme reality that commands
all humanity. Consciousness is directly linked to intuition and the universals.
The purpose of this book is to help man to be universal; or better, to be that which he is in
his essence, and which he has not been able reach yet because of his lack of perception. When we
speak about universality we have to consider the three fundamental fields of life with identical
emphasis: feeling (theology), knowledge (philosophy) and correct action (experimentation).
Unfortunately, what usually happens is that the theologian often rejects the others, and so do the
philosopher and the scientist. I am trying to say that the three fields are basic and have similar
importance to the destiny of man and society. Let’s say that the universal man is exactly that one
who lives in all three sectors, respecting them with the same intensity and without disagreements
between one and the other.
 Presentation

I believe that my function is to demolish myths. During my entire working life, I have
pointed out the myths of physically oriented medical science, psychology based on physiology and
politics dominated by economic power—all of which continue to cause enormous damage to
civilization. I have also tried to demonstrate the incorrect path that modern physics is treading
because physicists have been following an inverted metaphysics. This time, my desire is to
conscientize the last remaining myth in the field of experimental science as it has derived from the
philosophy of science. Obviously the ivory tower of arrogance that has been erected by academics
will be the most difficult of all to make fall, but its position is not as secure as it once was and it
must crumble to pieces soon.
I can honestly say that the twentieth century was a century full of human insanity in all
areas, and this means we must conscientize this quickly so the worst can be avoided. I believe we
must reach the conclusion that there is no true science today (the same science which has been
praised so much during this century), and nor is there any authentic philosophy or theology. Despite
what the scientists say to the contrary, this is the reality of this civilization of ours, which has
become terribly sick exactly because of the absence of true science. This book is an attempt to
analyze this situation.
What we should notice is that when science, philosophy or theology are separated from each
other, an environment of intransigence and censorship is created that leads to fast decay. This is
exactly what happened beginning in the fourteenth century when experimental science was
elaborated independently from the knowledge that was available from the past. Even when theology
and philosophy were united it was not enough to convince the people of their veracity, and the
situation was exacerbated after a study of science was elaborated in a manner completely opposed
to metaphysical thought. I am showing that beginning in that century, a new sector of study that was
not assimilated inside the existing structure entered civilization. In Ancient times and the Middle
Ages, society oriented itself solely based on the two fields of philosophy and theology. This was not
entirely complete, of course, but still our view was not impeded by an out-of-reality inductive
science, which actually became a powerful obstacle for understanding truth in its entirety.
Once the process of Aristotelian induction was accepted as the criterion for truth, humanity
backtracked at least eighteen centuries to the sensualist period of thought and the ideas of Thales of
Miletus (640-550 BC), Anaximander (611-546 BC) and Anaximenes (588-524 BC) where opinion
(doxa) prevailed rather than true knowledge (aleteia). We have to admit that today we live on
opinions much more than before, and display a total lack of seriousness with the truth. Any scientist
or philosopher must see that if the way to knowledge is shown to be other than through the senses
(and this goes against Aristotle’s idea that nothing dwells in the intellect that hasn’t passed through
the senses first), the foundations upon which modern science has been built will uproariously
collapse. It is important for us to perceive that scientists have elaborated a number of opinions about
all sorts of things without distinguishing what is fundamental from what is simply opinion.
In any event, we mustn’t criticize Aristotle or even Plato too much for the errors they
committed, first because they organized their systems of thought when they were still very young
and without much life experience, and second because of the absence of a greater knowledge of
practical science, which has been only achieved in these past few centuries. Humanity today follows
Aristotle’s intellectualism, mixing that which is universal with the particular. This he got from his
father, who was the king of Macedonia’s medical doctor and a member of the Asclepiades and
Aesculapius families, who were all focused on the natural sciences. Obviously, Aristotle did not
have the enchantment of his master, Plato, who was a poet and an artist above everything else.
Incredible as it may seem, I am arriving today at very different conclusions from those I had in the
past—especially about the European philosophy of life, which always strove to give the impression
that they possessed scientific perfection. This, however, is not so, especially in speaking about the
American, English and French philosophers.
The point is not to construct the universal man but to realize that the human being is
universal, or trine. In all of us there naturally exists an emotional side where faith (theology)
predominates, an intellectual side where thought (philosophy) resides and a scientific
(experimentation) side when the human being puts into action whatever he believes and thinks. The
human being is universal and has always been, whether we’re talking about the ancient civilizations
or especially about the Greek civilization, where culture was much more extensive than today.
When Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle organized metaphysics, they addressed
issues of a scientific, rational and theodician nature, a word created by Leibniz to designate a
natural form of theology. In any event, man was seen as trine in Ancient Greece, and that explains
why both Plato and Aristotle researched that aspect in their work: « le Bien, la Pensée et L’Ame
constituent ce qu’on a appelé la « Trinité platonicienne »: elle jouera un grand rôle dans le
néoplatonisme » (“Goodness, Reason and Soul constitute what we call the “Platonic Trinity”, and
this would play an important role in neo-Platonism”) (Author of Plato, chapter II, page 132). I
would say that the universal human being can only be trine; if not, he is not universal.
 Introduction

This book is a clamor of warning about how modern science has been following a totally
erroneous orientation ever since the first philosophers in Ancient Greece accepted the inductive
process as a valid process to use for understanding knowledge. What this has led to is that humanity
has fallen into the hands of misguided individuals who have placed civilization in danger of
complete destruction. My intention in this book is to explain the grave mistake that philosophers,
scientists and even theologians made when they granted supremacy to the a priori ideas from the
human mind that were arrived at through induction.
Many people consider Aristotle the greatest genius of all time. Whether that’s true or not, the
fundamental orientation of all sciences came from his work; we could say that culture stands upon
his discoveries. I ask myself how such a great philosopher could have so ignored the philosophers
who came before him, and how he could have made such a crucial mistake as placing the realm of
the senses as the main source of knowledge. Why also did those who followed him never question
or attempt to refute his mistaken beliefs, which have so distorted the destiny of our civilization?
Aristotle’s predecessor, Plato, on the other hand, who considered the senses to belong to the domain
of opinion, was not much accepted.
Plato had already shown that any element based on the senses should not be taken into
account. He considered that the senses belonged to the realm of opinion, but he was not accepted
due to his erroneous dialectics. (In fact, the Middle Ages became infamous for its intransigence
exactly because of Plato’s dialectics). Modern civilization can be seen as a dwarf (our emphasis on
experimental science) sitting on the shoulders of a giant (philosophy-theology), and we haven’t
completely fallen to pieces yet only because of the philosophy and theology which still manage to
support us.
If light comes from the universals and we live in particulars at the moment, then we must
admit that we are living in a period of darkness darker than we have ever witnessed before, all the
while thinking that we have achieved total freedom of thought. On the contrary, not only the
common people but especially the dominant powers-that-be work to avoid any development or
alteration of the “status quo.” A good example of this can be seen in the experience we had in the
United States, when the American Government unleashed an ideological war against us, as if we
were in another dark ages.
Humanity urgently needs to accept living according to universal values – and will rapidly
move forward in development if it does. On the other hand, if we continue to give attention to the
particulars we’ll find ourselves continuing to go backwards as we are in every area today. There is
no doubt we must make the change fast in order to enter the cosmic civilization that will be starting
in the third millennium.
Both Socrates and Plato eventually admitted there was an inductive process (sensorialism),
but they paid much more attention to deduction (abstraction). Why did Aristotle and, later, Thomas
Aquinas focus so much on the inductive process? Plato accepted the dialectics of body and soul
(inspiring the later hylomorphism), and this deviated civilization from its natural course. Today,
with the unification of a corrected modern physics and psychology, we can get back on course. So-
called modern science took the human being away from theology by leaving behind philosophical
reasoning; I am showing that today’s scientist does not act according to reason anymore, which
makes him invalid for the theologian, and this is the reason society is in this extreme state of
confusion.
What I am hoping to achieve with this book is the reconstitution of the universal man who
has been so broken into fragments over the ages, leading to the inevitable consequences of war,
disease, hunger and all kinds of destruction. In order to accomplish this, I am addressing some
fundamental aspects of mankind’s culture and civilization and trying to correct all the erroneous
ideas and elements that have taken us from our true path.
In Part 1 of this book, I’ve attempted to show that humanity is actually driven by universal
ideas formed inside the human mind. These ideas are in opposition to particular concepts that have
seduced modern thought, thus leading humanity to become unbalanced. In Part 2, I discuss the
process of abstraction. This contradicts the modern emphasis on the senses, which therefore belongs
more to the realm of fantasy. In Part 3, I suggest that the being is the origin of everything that is real
and existent on Earth. I follow this with a study of knowledge that both Aristotle and Plato
misinterpreted when they accepted the senses as a form of knowledge. Then I explore the
misfortune of new modern thought, which not only has nothing of philosophy in it, but which has
also encouraged its followers to inhabit a delirious world. (This, by the way, is exactly what has
taken place with today’s science that has grown up like a headless Frankenstein separated from
reality.) Finally, in the seventh and last chapter about theology, I show that through the
accomplishment of something superior, it is possible to erect an authentic civilization.
 1 The Universals are in the Mind in a Formal Way
What are the universals? According to the definition, they are “the one in many” (unum in
multis), or “the one apt to be in several” (unun aptum inesse pluribus). This definition comes from
Vicentio Remer, who goes on to show that “science is based on the universals” (de individuis non
est scientia). I can go further in saying that science (or knowledge) comes directly from the human
being’s mind—and this is the reason it is impossible for a philosophy to come from science. There
have been four explanations for the formation of the universals: nominalism, i.e. names of things
only; conceptualism (conceptions of the mind); moderate realism—the mental process obtained
from things (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas); and absolute realism, which would exist only in the
exterior.[1]
Before any contact with the singulars takes place, the mind already possesses a formal
conception about everything that exists or can exist. If this were not the case, the mind would not
have the minimum understanding of anything (the predicates)—which, by the way, will never cease
to be in accordance with what they can be. Whatever the senses perceive depends entirely on the
internal conceptions of the human being. To suggest that the universals are not produced in the mind
is to deny that thought thinks. In addition, we must consider that the universals only reveal what
already exists in the divine being and in human beings, and constitute the connection between both.
This means induction is a way to replace God with the human being (Theomania). If the scientist
bases himself on experimentation of things which are already distorted, he will formulate equally
distorted concepts.
Aristotle’s process of knowledge always starts from some false premises: 1) the lesser leads
to the greater, 2) syllogism uses a basic (and mostly wrong) proposition to arrive at a “dogmatic”
conclusion, 3) Aristotle considers act to be above everything else, but then ends up basing his
school of thought on potential elements—and we do the same thing in considering the universals
and the predicates. The universals are the direct manifestation of the human being’s essential
structure; they are in the mind in a formal aspect and appear in things as predicates. Through the
meeting of one with the other comes the elaboration of words to describe them, and these names can
be more general (universals) or particular (particulars). In this case, we have to unite the
conceptualist idea (the stoics, Abelard, Ockham and Kant) with moderate realism (Socrates,
Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas), since nominalism only deals with secondary and resultant issues when
we give names to things based on intellectual ideas. This is precisely why Plato imagined the world
of Ideas!
The universals can be identified with first principles; in any case they appear in the mind in
a deductive way as a preconceived idea. This is the reason Plato devised a world of Ideas from
which all elements of knowledge would derive. The universals can only exist in the mind, not only
in terms of their origin but also of their very existence. They originate there and remain there as
long as there is thought. If it were otherwise, there would be no knowledge. This was probably
Aristotle’s greatest mistake, taking over modern science entirely and cutting off the enormous
impact it could have had if the human being had been better able to use his intellect.
Knowledge comes from act to potency, according to how much the individual is able to
capture it—from the general to the particular, from the global to the partial and from the universal
to the predicate. I could even say that there is nothing in potential state that could ever become act.
However, act could be restricted, constituting a fall and a restriction to reality.

[1] Vicentio Remer, Lógica Maior [Major Logic], pp 3 – 7

To order Keppe's Universal Man or any of Keppe's other books in English, click here