Philosophy or a Vision into the Essence of Things otherwise known as the Forms Pt 3.

Adam Saul Krok
7 min readOct 31, 2020



The essence of this is a compound: the Subjective mediates the Objective and vice versa.

The Phenomenological:

The essence of the Phenomenological is that thinking beings can distinguish between the appearance of things, and the essence of things. It is the split between thought and sensory perception, and the split between the Ideal and the Real. It also includes an aspect of Will. By Will, I mean conscious volition. It is through the Will that one can choose to follow the path of the Ideal or the Real, or some combination. Throughout history philosophers have argued the Moral question of following the Ideal or Real. I take the global perspective: that the world is part-Ideal, part Real and should be approached cautiously with regards to both. Those who follow only the Ideal become ascetic monks, crazy philosophers, repressed priests. Those who follow only the Real become animals and barbarians. The mean is to be praised, so that thought and action can be harmonized.

The Epistemological:

The essence of the Epistemological is the second order of knowledge, whether knowledge can be known. This mostly stems from the split of the Ideal and Real, between thought and material sensory perception. Radical doubt can always exist, but this proves nothing more than the infinite capability of consciousness for destructive thought, or the removal of Pure Intuitions from concept/words until nothing is left but the open set, i.e. consciousness itself.

The Existential:

The essence of the Existential is the need for purpose for Subjective agents. Consciousness is constantly interacting with the Objective, and needs a reason to do so. Humans are unique to the extent that we can choose this purpose, above the need for survival or propagation. It is worthwhile to note here that mystics consider the uniqueness of the Absolute Being that it has no purpose, something which I think humans partake in, in that we can reject the need for purpose at all, producing absurdity and atheism.

The Political:

The essence of the Political is to institute order for Subjective agents in an Objective world. It is essentially a battle between agents for the right to exist in a certain mode of being. This world, being of magnitude, dictates a logic of acquiring “more”: whether that be more power, resources or recognition. Roughly two political trends exist which correspond to the Ideal and Real. The Ideal advocates a law of equality; the Real a law of variation. The Ideal has led to such philosophies as communism, socialism, anarchism, direct democracy and all those philosophies we can roughly label the Left. The Real has led to such philosophies as conservatism, representative democracy, monarchism and fascism and all those philosophies we can label the Right.

It is worthwhile to recall here a near-forgotten political philosophy of the divine right of kings, which is monarchism derived from the Divine specifically, and not the whole Ideal {Divine, Mathematical, Logical}. After the justification of the divine right of kings disappeared from the list of legitimate reasons for governing, monarchism morphed into a realism that dictatorial fiat was a preferred system of government than the slavish, ignorant masses of people.

The Moral:

The essence of the Moral constitutes individual and collective responsibility between Subjective agents in an Objective world. It has traditionally been broken down into consequentialism and deontology, or the value of our moral actions derive from either the results or the intention of actions. Skepticism in all its guises, including nihilism, aestheticism or Nietzscheanism, claims there is no Objective morality, but rather Subjective willing and desiring. Religion claims there are moral duties owed to God, and by extension to other men and women.

I have elaborated a short list of different moralities, but now I want to answer the question of whether Objective morality exists or not. If there is one thing we can be certain about, it is that the universe, in all its variations, tends towards order. Though the second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that energy is wasted in a system, this can be viewed as an impetus for more-energy efficient systems to develop which use less and less energy to create more and more order. From the first chaotic soup of existence, emerged a grand scheme of law-based order, of staggering complexity and vast scope. It is not a stretch to declare that a world with Objective-Subjective morality as opposed to one without any Morality, is more likely to produce order than not; and for this reason it is more likely that an Objective-Subjective morality does exist where humans are judged for their actions in this life. That being said, do not take the naive,self-righteous, and quite frankly abominable fire-and-brimstone preachers for their words. A just judge considers circumstances. Very few actions are immoral — most are either amoral or of no significance. To think any single human should be responsible for the vast, infinite network of consequences resulting from their actions is absurd. The most a just God can ask for, is that each and every man and woman does a bare minimum not to harm others, and anymore should be lauded.

Now there is a distinction between there being an Objective-Subjective Morality, and there being a mechanism within the world for enforcing it. I am of the opinion that the universe does not punish even the wicked, for the reason I mentioned above (no one is truly wicked, no not even that facetious argument for Hitler being so). The universe is amoral in delivering justice. We make our own justice in this world.

The only punishment the wicked receive is arguably the lifestyle they create for themselves through their actions. Cruelty, greed, selfishness is not a life to be envied in that every single moment of life becomes a struggle and competition between other people, leaving the vice-ridden person in a vacuum of despair and loneliness. Yet, it is still arguable whether the loneliness and isolation of vice, overrides the material benefits the “wicked” accrue for themselves through their actions. Our last resort, if this still bothers us, is to cry out to God like Job.

Surely if one thing can be condemned wholeheartedly and which is most likely punished, if not in this world, but another, it is actions derived from cruelty, that is a malicious, destructive action whose basis is unfounded. Revenge and retribution differ only in intent and extent. Cruelty, callousness, meanness all lead to a brutal society which inevitably disintegrates.

The rest of what the public would consider moral actions, to follow the law of their country, is merely positivism. By positivism, I mean the action is “immoral” only because it has been outlawed by fellow citizens who decide the law.

There is another form of what we could call Moral law, or natural rights. By natural rights, I mean laws which derive their force from an appeal to that Objective-Subjective law which supposedly permeates the universe. This can be institutionalized within a country, and the extent to which a country does so, the more likely the society is to be a kind and harmonious one. This type of law approximates the divine courts. Yet it is, as I have said before, up to humanity to implement this and not the responsibility of the divine.

Finally, when natural rights and positivism clash, we produce the Moral rebel. A person who is an outlaw to his home-country though he stands for a higher law. Socrates, Nelson Mandela, MLK, Gandhi, et al. These men are to be lauded and remembered for eternity because they stand for eternal principles of the divine order.

The Economic:

The essence of the Economic is the production, consumption and distribution of goods and materials within a given society. Insofar as human behaviour relates to production, consumption and distribution of said goods, that behaviour can be considered Economic. The Economic is not pure and isolated; it is influenced by and enmeshed within the Political and the Moral. It is a complex system where considerations of the available means of production, the desired private goal of society’s outcomes such as wages and livelihoods of labor or capital gains and livelihoods of owners/employers, and national goals of the production of certain strategic goods.

Many more eloquent and sophisticated thinkers have described the essence of Capitalism, and its various morphologies whether in the past, present or future. But we may say that Capitalism is essentially about the pursuit of profits by capitalists. Capitalists accrue wealth by charging a premium for creating goods, above the level of perfect, equilibrium market price. In an ideal world, the various needs and wants for goods would equate to their usefulness within society, allowing for a perfect distribution of goods from where they are produced to where they are needed. A centralized system which could account for all the cumulative desires and needs of society, would create goods in exact correspondence to that need. Capitalism is essentially wasteful. It approximates the needs and wants for goods by setting up competing firms and corporations which wastefully produce similar products.

Communism, or socialism, is essentially about controlling the means of production and directing them towards a democratic, or social purpose. In the still primitive age of technology we find ourselves in, communism essentially cannot allocate goods as effectively as the imperfect, but better price mechanism. This is because the modern, Western liberal democratic state deliberately demarcates and protects the private realm of citizenship from the public one. Communism is essentially coercive in that it requires participation in the public good which naturally detracts from private freedom. It is for this reason that the most ambitious, and individualized individuals tend to flee socialistic systems towards the United States. Liberal democracy has surrendered or acquiesced that morality cannot be imposed; communism coerces morality.

Communism essentially views a system from the whole to the part; Capitalism from the part to the whole. To the extent the individual can be reconciled with the community will determine the Moral, Political and Economic health of a society. Too much communitarianism will crush the individual at the expense of an abstract system; too much individualism will disintegrate the system.



Adam Saul Krok

Writer, poet, philosopher,