Research Article
Emergent Evolutionary Holism and Utopian Horizon Value Theory: Our Next Step Forward
Glen Theron Martin*
Issue:
Volume 14, Issue 4, December 2026
Pages:
133-147
Received:
14 September 2026
Accepted:
28 September 2026
Published:
29 October 2026
Abstract: My lifelong quest has been to address the problem of nihilism raised so forcefully by the work of Nietzsche in the 19th century. This nihilism remains, of course, very much manifest in the current world disorder. This quest was indicated in the title of my first book, From Nietzsche to Wittgenstein: The Problem of Truth and Nihilism in the Modern World (1989). In the course of this quest, I have encountered two fundamental dimensions of human existence that bring us beyond nihilism: first, the mystical realization of the unspeakable oneness of existence which is present at all times in the background of our experience, the eternal now that frames all human thought and action. Second is the temporal, emergent evolutionary upsurge to actualize the values arising from the Cosmic evolutionary process. With a host of others, some of whom are reviewed in this paper, I argue that the “One” (as it is called) is going someplace through the emergent evolutionary upsurge of the Cosmos. Human beings have evolved to facilitate this process. The two dimensions (time and timelessness), of course, are necessarily intertwined. Nevertheless, this essay focuses on this second dimension of human existence that likewise overcomes nihilism. It discusses the “early-modern background” from which we are emerging, the question of language and its symbols, contemporary “spirituality,” our increasing understanding of Cosmic evolution, the key role of Kant’s “Transcendental Unity of Apperception (TUA),” the concept of “Utopian Horizon” deriving from these reflections, and the conclusion concerning “our next step forward.” It brings together viewpoints of many thinkers to develop an overview of our human situation revealing the fundamental role of the future, human ethical values, and our utopian horizon. In closing, it considers our next step forward in the form of an Earth Federation.
Abstract: My lifelong quest has been to address the problem of nihilism raised so forcefully by the work of Nietzsche in the 19th century. This nihilism remains, of course, very much manifest in the current world disorder. This quest was indicated in the title of my first book, From Nietzsche to Wittgenstein: The Problem of Truth and Nihilism in the Modern W...
Show More
Research Article
Creation, Interpretation, and Expression Generated from Hypothesis: Philosophers Search for Origins, Scientists Investigate After Origins -A Evidence-Based Paradigm
Sudarsan Saha*
Issue:
Volume 14, Issue 4, December 2026
Pages:
148-152
Received:
25 September 2026
Accepted:
19 October 2026
Published:
31 October 2026
DOI:
10.11648/j.ijp.20261404.12
Downloads:
Views:
Abstract: This analytical review examines a recurring epistemological asymmetry between philosophical inquiry and scientific investigation: philosophy frequently asks what an entity, process, or order ultimately means and from where it originates, whereas empirical science ordinarily investigates observable consequences, mechanisms, relations, and conditions after a phenomenon has become accessible to measurement. The distinction is useful but should not be treated as an absolute division. Both disciplines formulate hypotheses, interpret evidence, revise concepts, and confront underdetermination. The central argument of this paper is that creation, interpretation, and expression can be represented as stages in a hypothesis–evidence–explanation cycle rather than as exclusive territories of philosopher or scientist. Historical and contemporary examples from metaphysics, philosophy of science, cosmology, evolutionary theory, quantum theory, and philosophy of mind are used to test this framework. The review distinguishes ontological questions about origins from methodological questions about evidence and from semantic questions about interpretation. It argues that scientific evidence can constrain philosophical hypotheses without by itself settling metaphysical questions, while philosophical analysis can clarify concepts and assumptions without replacing empirical investigation. A more productive paradigm is therefore dialogical: hypotheses generate questions; observations and experiments constrain explanations; conceptual analysis identifies hidden assumptions; and interpretations connect models to claims about reality. The paper concludes with a research agenda for interdisciplinary epistemology that preserves methodological boundaries while encouraging reciprocal correction.
Abstract: This analytical review examines a recurring epistemological asymmetry between philosophical inquiry and scientific investigation: philosophy frequently asks what an entity, process, or order ultimately means and from where it originates, whereas empirical science ordinarily investigates observable consequences, mechanisms, relations, and conditions...
Show More
