Unfolding

“Philosophers have interpreted the world, but the point of it is to change it.” -Karl Marx It is way too boastful to call myself a philosopher in the enterprise since I am in no sense recognized by the world. But let us reciprocate the triangular schema of power to a point wherein I can claim to be a philosopher without even any world recognition. Call anyone who loves knowledge or wisdom and in the perpetual pursuit of it a philosopher and since everybody is capable of such an endeavour then everybody can be a philosopher but another borderline is yet to overcome between authenticity and inauthenticity. As a third party I am not to condemn others of inauthenticity but I can be critical to some point that I can make the other reflect upon to re-evaluate himself.  Branding names is not my concern but I merely am a voice of conscience reminding them of what a superman one could become. I have been reflective over the days whether if I served humanity right in enlightening the

            First let us understand what Anthropocentrism is before proceeding to answering the question. Anthropocentricism is a popular trend in the Modern Western realm in philosophy wherein it highlights the importance of the role of man and man being the center of everything in contrast to the Medieval trend of theocentrism which highlights God as the center of everything. Man is elevated into a status that wherein what exist beyond him owes its existence to man himself being the center and that is how Descartes moved in his philosophy so as with the rest of the Modern thinkers who highlighted man’s capability of knowing, establishing first man’s capacity into knowledge so that he can prove anything else that exists outside from him.             But here in the question is a negation of such hold which means to say that anti-anthropocentrism is wherein man is not the center unlike what is mentioned above. Later on we shall delve on why is this the case with the Laozi and the

According to Bertrand Russell that there is this contention between the ideas of science or positivism with religion because neither of the two meet or that for him there is no place for religion to validate its own claims. Or even to the point that religion had its grounds on materiality but exemplified to extent that it has become somewhat too lofty.  As for the first article regarding “nature and man”, that for Russell there is no dichotomy or separation between man and nature because it is obvious that man is in nature and in so doing man is part of nature; that the existence of religion is the result of man’s failure to bring a scientific perspective into the interaction with nature. Man over exemplified nature in to the extent of the supernatural or the nature “suprafied”. In this world, there is nothing but the correlation or the coexistentiality with matter, especially to thinking or thought to what we deem about it in the early times as something immaterial. Just like as how