For an average person who is mostly occupied with daily chores and responsibilities of providing food and other needs for the family, this debate between Plato and Aristotle makes no sense and seems like a waste of time for them. However, if I would make it simple enough for you to understand why such strong debate, you may change your mind at dismissing this matter so quickly. So here is what’s going on in this elaborate debate of forms and universal. Plato believes that knowledge comes from somewhere and it is not in us, while Aristotle believes that there is no such thing, we are who we are, we have a brain and we think, we make decisions and we act, hence nothing mystical about this existence of ours at all. I will in fact use the example of the horse that Crane and Farkas use in their book “Metaphysics, a guide and anthology,” which I had to study while taking one of the Philosophy courses in 2012. These authors explained that for Plato forms exist first but they do not exist in the material form or physical reality. Forms exist in metaphysical reality. Hence even a horse exists because it is thought to exist based on a relationship of the horse to something else, to humans for example that would need the horse and use the horse for transportation. However, Aristotle argued that horse is a horse and does not need to have any relationship with anything in order to exist. With this argument Aristotle opened the door to idea that humans have no purpose either. Indeed using Aristotle’s argument then everything that exist does not have any purpose at all in their existence.

If we continue a bit further with Aristotle’s idea we can also say that we are a random creation as a result of random factors favoring existence of life on earth. While Plato was against this. Plato believed that we have a purpose and everything that is created in the universe has a purpose, hence humans have a purpose. What is our purpose then? Is our purpose to be born, to learn and feel satisfaction from knowledge but then suffer, and then feel pain and then joy, laugh and cry, in the end we always die? Is this our purpose? Our purpose as seen from this point of view would support Aristotle’s argument that we do not have a purpose in our existence. However, the fact that knowledge is increased from one generation to another and we can do more with the knowledge given that our ancestors could do proves that we have a purpose in our existence, to enrich the collective consciousness and who knows one day we may all reach what all reasonable beings crave, immortality. But this immortality cannot be reached by improving DNA, that would be Aristotle’s idea. Plato’s idea is that we reach some sort of immortality while we learn more and put this knowledge to good use, for a good purpose. Nevertheless, we can never be like God, hence we cannot be immortal, but only approaching immortality by extending our life. And according to Plato, all is possible through the increase of knowledge. Now, believe me knowledge is not increased by you sitting and meditating all day. Knowledge comes to you when you are ready and it may seem as if it came through meditation or kundalini sort of thing  (I will share about this topic in the future, as any are being deceived nowadays with some sort of knowledge given to them through other means).

Knowledge therefore, comes to you when you are curious, read a lot and apply what you learn with kindness, not to gain power and control over others but to use that knowledge to understand others and forgive others. But in order to do that you must start from yourself. You must start learning more about the choices you made or still make and face the reality, of why you made those choices. Often we avoid such self-discoveries because it is painful to accept that sometimes we may have made mistakes and our choices may have been the wrong ones. But that is why I emphasized in my book “Secret Beyond the Secret” that it is important to learn to love yourself and then accept yourself and then you will be able to face your mistakes and forgive yourself. If you do not learn to love yourself first, you will judge yourself like you expect others to judge you. The moment you feel this self-judgment the feeling of guilt will make you go into self-defense mode. You will either repress these feelings or you will manifest a defensive behavior toward the whole world to prove to others (in fact you should prove it to your consciousness) that you are right in the choices you make. Indeed I have made some wrong choices too in the past. However, instead of lying or denying the facts I accepted them as wrong choices, but I did that with such ease and peace of mind because I learned to love myself first. Therefore, instead of feeling guilty and learning hopelessness, or repressing the guilt and manifesting it as anger toward the whole world, I accepted that my choices were wrong but they were wrong due to limitation of the options I was given.

But can an improved DNA help us make better decisions? I believe that if by improving DNA we mean helping ourselves to remember more facts and lessons we learn, having a better memory so that we will have a lesser reaction to negative emotions, then yes, such improvement would be beneficial for us. However, it will not improve our intentions or the way we make our decisions which it totally depended on the amount of knowledge we have accumulated through many lives during our existence. And if we say that by improving our DNA and manipulating it in a way that will make us less vulnerable toward chemicals, pollution, and sedentary life style, and even less vulnerable from the food we eat, and fluoride in our water, then I would say OK that sounds great but why do we have so much pollution in the first place and who ordered fluoride in our water? If people want to stay healthy this must be our choice not a mandatory. If it becomes a mandatory, like the fluoride down our throats with the water we drink that does not sound like someone has the best of interest in mind for me. Where is my free will? Yes, it would be great if all these outside factors would not have so much effect in our endocrine system, which is responsible for producing hormones, and hormones are responsible for our emotions, and emotions are responsible for our actions, and for all the actions and decisions we make we must pay the consequences, then I would say, let’s go for it. Let’s make our lives easier and improve our DNA.

But the question now becomes, if we would and could manipulate our DNA, and would be able to create a superhuman with supernatural abilities, would this human be like a god and be more superior to us? Should this human be the one to lead us? Hell no. Superior abilities does not mean superior soul. In fact it could just work the opposite way. This superior being with superior abilities may become so crucial and so selfish thinking that is God just because he/she/it has some abilities that others do not possess. What makes one divine, as I explained in the previous post, is knowledge not physical abilities. In fact in my theory of antimatter I concluded the same thing that Plato had concluded without even knowing Plato’s philosophy yet. I became curious about Plato’s philosophy when I realized that I was saying things in my book that Plato had already said before me, and I was shocked. Was I copying Plato? But how come? I did not know anything about his work? Hence, I took the philosophy course and I came to realize that what came to me at some point in April 2008 was this connection to some collective knowledge and that is why I knew certain things before even reading them. That’s because from my precious experience and knowledge I have accumulated from previous lives and form this life they all aligned at some point to give me the visions I needed to explain the hypothesis of antimatter. In this hypothesis I explain that human soul is made of antimatter, something that is not matter but that possesses energy, magnetic energy, and which in contact with our material body made of atoms and other charged particles would transform this magnetic field of antimatter into electromagnetic field. It is due to this electromagnetic field that we possess in different amounts that are able to perceive differently from others. The more of this antimatter we possess the more knowledge we become, the more empathetic, the less judgmental, the right person to lead indeed. So from Antimatter’s hypothesis Plato was right, Only philosophers and knowledge people should lead. Yet, I do not agree on one person leading but I believe that a group of knowledge people must lead, and decisions must be made as a team, a team of knowledge people, that are experts on their chosen fields of knowledge. Was Plato right? Yes he was. Knowledge comes to us, but we must acquire it. And so, improving DNA or manipulating it will not make us smarter, or make us holier. Our divinity is gained through knowledge, not through manipulations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s