“We came from the womb to the fair
We took a shroud and returned to the grave” – Yunus Emre
The most fundamental right of human is his home.. The greatest tyranny is depriving people of their homes. To avoid oppression, a person must have his own rights, that is, he must exercise them. The most basic tyranny that a person who does not know his rights would face is in terms of his own existence. Because existence can only be perpetuated by a right. Every element of damage to the basis of the existence of someone whose existence is founded on the right produces cruelty. Standing up to oppression is the most fundamental human obligation. Standing up to injustice begins with reclaiming one’s most basic right, one’s home, from the oppressors.
To expound on these points, we would want to first define the concepts of right and existence by offering a “understanding of existence.”
In everyday usage, the word “existence” is understood in the context of having something. We encounter it in ordinary uses such as “I have a house, I have food, I have a job”. At the same time, this word is also used to express all kinds of realities, and it enters into circulation again in different meanings according to the arbitrariness of reality research. For example, a description of a scientific reality that is based on repeated experiments and logical reasoning based on them and common sense is considered to exist. A contrary description is judged by its opposite. For example, we hear experts in the field of biology say “evolution exists”. What is meant by this is that there are data obtained from experiments, observations, reasoning and common sense that are in accordance with the idea of evolution and prove it. Therefore, the existence of this description of the living being as the idea that the living being evolves by speciation in the process is accepted as a fact. The existence here is the “depiction of evolution” that encompasses these events and patterns into a single picture. In philosophy, in the field of “ontology”, ideas are put forward about the nature of “being”, its patterns, connections, opposites and their relations. The concept of “being” here is now almost completely different from the “being” in the sentence “I have a job” in the first example. In fields such as theology, logic, mathematics, art, psychology, history, economics, etc., the conception of existence is modified with descriptions appropriate to their fields. Above all, the field that analyzes these conceptions with their basic meanings is called “metaphysics”. Metaphysics is treated in contexts such as “after physics”, “science about foundations”, “essence”, and has its own chronological burden. However, we do not go into the details of their introduction; we only continue by partially expressing the assumption of existence that we have prepared for this article.
In order to form a valid judgment about existence, the “object” must be recognized. The object here is a general object. Object is an Old Turkish equivalent of the word “thing”.
Recognizing the object depends on understanding what happens in the recognition activity towards the object. To see this, it is enough to look at what happens and what we do when we address the “object” with the question “what is it”. The question “what is it?” is a point of departure for the object to move from being unknown to being “known”. The point of departure is where it is understood that what was previously believed to be known is an unknown. In other words, when we realize that we don’t actually know what we thought we knew, we turn to the object again with a “what is” question. This movement calms down when the question is removed from the object.
The question of what the object is allows us to understand that the object has a dual structure as a known thing and an unknown thing. The two here is not a numerical two. Because as a numerical object, “2” is also an object and it accepts the question “what is”. In other words, “2” is also a mathematical object of dual nature, with a known and an unknown aspect. Thus, we understand that the elimination of the dual nature of the object depends on the removal of the categorical “two” from the object. In this sense, if the “two” is removed, the object shows a kind of unity.
We consider the two in the binary structure of the object as the basis of the object and the object. The known aspect of the object is the face of the object; the unknown cihed (direction, face) of the object is the basis of the object. The object that is based on turns into a reality over which the problem is removed, in accordance with its basis. We call this reality “the world.” In this sense, the earth is different from the earth. Understanding the earth does not give knowledge of the earth.
In terms of its dual structure, the object is limited. What limits the object is the basis of the object. In this sense, we call the limited object “mawjud” in the sense of “embodied” or “embodied”. Existence is embodied “mawjud”. We cannot think of a limit for the body. Because we perceive the “limit” in terms of “existence”. Mawjud is the limited and finite. In other words, existence is limited and finite.
We cannot think of a being that exists without its original right. Haqq here is Bodily existence. Because in order to think this, it is necessary to think that the right can be denied on the basis of existence. However, it is impossible for someone who exists to deny the right based on his existence. This is because the existent exists because it is limited and finite. It is meaningless to think that the limited and finite can make a general judgment about the transcendent based on them. To put it more clearly, one’s ability to deny the right depends on one’s own possession of a right beyond one’s existence. But for the existent, this beyond does not exist. For whatever exists is limited and finite. Therefore, the first task of the existent must be to reach the right that makes its existence possible, so that its existence has a right in every aspect. The one who has the right will be able to preserve his existence against oppression. Otherwise, resisting oppression cannot be achieved.
If the most fundamental right of an entity is to exist, its most fundamental duty is to find the right that legitimizes this existence. Without finding its right, the existent is in danger of being found as a non-existent being among the existents. However, what is more important is that the existent who cannot find his/her right, when he/she carefully examines his/her existence, finds himself/herself to be nā-existent. In the final analysis, finding oneself as nā-mawjjud is nothing but an indescribable torment and a diminished imagination. For this reason, one’s ability to resist all kinds of persecution about one’s existence, both from oneself and from external sources, depends on the realization of one’s own existence as “true existence”.
An existence is only limited and finite. Otherwise, we would not be able to “speak” of existence and realize ourselves as existent. Because “betting” is realized through the limited; and the realization of “own existence” depends on realizing a limited “self”. Otherwise, when speaking of the existent, one would have to speak of the unlimited and infinite, and the only way to speak of the unlimited and infinite through “speech”, which is limited and finite, is to make the unlimited and infinite limited and finite. Therefore, in order to be able to speak and obtain results, there must be a being as a limited and finite entity.
One cannot speak of a limit and an end point for an existent without considering a beginning and an end for its existence. In other words, to put it in another way, it is impossible to talk about a being and form a judgment about it in its own circle without taking into account its beginning and end and without understanding this issue. In order to form a judgment about it by considering a general existence in the sense of beyond the limit and the end of the existent, it is necessary to transcend the limit and the end. This cannot be accepted as something that is expected to be understood within the circle of limited and finite judgments.
Abstracting the limited and finite existent in terms of its limit cannot be considered as transcending the existent. By means of the sequence of existents, abstracting the existents and putting the sequence at the center cannot be considered as transcending. In order to be able to think that the sequence is essential, it would first be necessary to show that the existent comes into existence based on the sequence. However, for the sequence to emerge, there must first be a being. Therefore, the existent is also transcendent to the sequence of existents. To say it again, thinking of a general existence in the sense of beyond the limit and end of the existent and forming a judgment about it depends on transcending the limit and end. Therefore, it is impossible for that which exists on the basis of this circle to speak of that which transcends this circle without any imaginary basis.
However, the opposite is possible without the need for imagination. In other words, it is possible for the one who has a body by transcending the circle to judge by entering the circle. In this article, we do not center on either of these two points. We act by centering the being in terms of its own circle.
As a being, the human being also has limits and ends. In other words, the human being is limited and finite in terms of existence. Therefore, it is necessary to think of a beginning and an end to human existence. In order not to cause carelessness, it is necessary to determine the human beginning and end in terms of a human individual, in terms of the existence of the individual. In this case, the beginning of a human individual must be considered in terms of its coming into the world. What precedes the coming into the world is not clear from the point of view of the existing human being. Since this point is not clear, the world is the place where existence begins. The departure from the world is the end of existence.
Here, too, one point needs to be made clear. Considering what has been explained above in terms of the existent, the human being’s coming into the world as an existent cannot be considered in the sense that the world was present before its existence. Otherwise, the existent would be based on the world that preceded it. However, the main issue is to reveal the basis of existence. In this respect, we cannot think of the world in the expression “coming into the world” as the world in the ordinary sense of the earth and its cultural map. Therefore, at this point, we divide the concept of “world” into two meanings.
The world that comes into being in terms of the arrival of the being, and the world that comes into being in terms of the fall of the being.
The first of these is the world in terms of the being itself. That is, the being itself is a world. The second is the world that comes after existence. The second world in this sense is the world found by the one born from the womb. The individual as a being is a world unto itself. This world encompasses its object without the need for a second world. For this reason, it does not owe its object and the foundations of its existence to the second world. Therefore, it is free from the world in terms of the source of its existence. (These are not statements that can be tolerated by many experts in religion and thought who have spent centuries trying to link man to the earth and what occurs on it and so on. This is because almost all of these experts base their own existence and that of those under their influence on the earth, its analogs and what occurs on it. In this way, they gain dominance. Even though this dominance is constantly threatened with every child born and hidden in the Nile).
We refer the reader to Prof. Dr. Yalçın Koç’s work, published in 2008, for a broad reading of how this story of our beginning, which is “paraphrased” in the Holy Qur’an as the place of “Kaal-u Bela” and the “fall from Paradise”, can be taken as a basis for the current age, with what kind of understanding and conceptual framework, and on the basis of which a “new” beginning idea can be developed in a solid and consistent manner. The context there is based on the same source as the context presented here, and the “sequential” framework here owes its “existence” to this work.
At this point, we must also say the following: These works are a “conceptual” concentrate of the syrup that our ancestors drank and offered to people for many ages. Someone who can “decode” this concentrate and drink it as a syrup recognizes this taste and immediately says: “this is the sherbet we have been drinking since time immemorial; we have also seen its Sâkî”.
Now;
A human being is born from the House of the Body into the womb of the Mother. This birth is the beginning. To take a globe or something similar as the basis for this birth is to reject the House of Body itself. Biological essence is not “Body”. The biological essence is neither the beginning nor the end in terms of its nature. Moreover, to consider the beginning of the “existent” in terms of biological essence is to link the existent to a pre-existing biological existent, that is, to subordinate the existent to the existent. In more modern terms, a biological beginning means enslaving the human being to a biological and physical determination. Linking the beginning of the human being to genetics, a biological quality and the like means imprisoning the human being in a world that is “predetermined” and “pre-limited”. There is no way out of such a world, because the way out is in terms of what is taken as the beginning. Moreover, there is no legitimate, valid justification for this imprisonment. The findings and scientific reasoning cannot provide a basis for rejecting the idea of a “beginning” in the sense of birth as a world. It is the reasoner himself who uses them as a basis for rejecting the idea of birth, who rejects birth without any justification, and to whom they enslave themselves. The reason for blindness in these matters has to do with the constitution of the world.
The human being is born as a world from the moment of conception. This birth is a realization. Then he comes into the world. This arrival is also a realization. Birth into the world precedes coming into the world. And the cognition opened through coming into the world is grounded by the closure of the cognition opened through birth into the world. In fact, this second realization comes from an “inside-outside” differentiation. The perception of what is a world comes into the world by undergoing an inside-outside differentiation. We can also express this as follows: The world from which one comes is an inside-outside dissociation.
Thus, we realize that the whole issue is essentially a transition from unity to disunity, and in this sense, from inside to the distinction between inside and outside. The perception of the world that comes with birth before the separation of inside and outside is closed with the separation of inside and outside. The “reopening” of this closed perception is possible through “rebirth” into the world, without being subject to any biological, physical, cultural, philosophical or theological basis or element.
For these reasons, both the creation of the world and the reconstruction of the world are a matter of perception. Reconstruction is from the Body, and construction is from existence.
Education in terms of the culture into which one enters after coming into the world is after the closure of the perception of the world opened through birth. The education received after this closure is a world construction.
The person constructs the world by being subordinated to the culture or cultures in which he or she is immersed, and by creating an inner and an outer world on the basis of differentiation. In the first case, it is done in “education” through the family, school, and institutions to bring us from childhood to adulthood. In the second case, it is what the individual does on his or her own, whatever that may be. Thus, with the individual’s permission in some way, the whole world constructs a world for the individual in place of birth. The fact that this world existed before the individual does not imply existence for the individual. The offering of an already existing world to the individual, as well as its being left to the individual, is a constitution for the individual. For it should not be forgotten that the world is neither prior nor essential in terms of what is born into the world. In terms of being born into the world, the world, whatever it is, is a posteriori. Therefore, the world that we will bequeath to the earth will be a world-formation for every child born into the world.
And it is important to remember that every child born into the world has all the necessary equipment to overthrow the world’s construction based on oppression. The issue of “morality” and “oppression”, which must be understood from this point of view, is also closely related to the issue of “religion of nature”, which is by no means understood correctly. Because at this point, all insides and outsides will be encompassed by a single principle. We will go into this in a separate article later.
One aspect of establishing the world is to acquire knowledge of the world. One’s knowledge of the world is usually formed by examining the objects around one. In some cases, this examination may also begin with an examination of oneself. But where the influence of the external world is strong, the examination of the interior is usually treated as a place that has already been examined. One examines the external world, tries to get to know it, and in this way builds knowledge of the world. But here a point about the interior is overlooked. Where one takes the concept of “the world” as a basis, one’s knowledge of the world is also based on one’s knowledge of oneself. Whether one does this consciously or not because one is unaware of it does not make any difference in this regard. In other words, it is a general situation that the person also has knowledge in the knowledge of the world. The difference in the situation of the unaware should be taken as the reason for the lack of knowledge of the world. If a person realizes that he is somehow an element of the known world, that is, if he begins to remember that he is the world, he gains a difference in his knowledge of the world compared to the one who does not realize this.
To attempt to study, recognize and know other things without studying, recognizing and knowing human beings is to attempt to obtain knowledge without knowing the “knower”. Such an understanding of knowledge usually results in narrowing and even destroying the activity of “knowledge acquisition” through works that are in the nature of creating a “storehouse of knowledge”. For the “knowledge” to be created without knowing the “knower” will always be incomplete, and moreover, the conception of who the “knower” is based on partial knowledge of the surroundings will lead to the delusion that the “knower”, who has never been examined, is “known” as if it has been examined.
In order to better understand the issue of the world’s construction in relation to these issues, some “educational” activities, which are seen as a condition for enlightenment and development today, should be examined and evaluated based on the results presented above. In order to show the importance of this examination and evaluation, which will constitute the body of our article, we will briefly give two examples by “paraphrasing”.
Once upon a time, once upon a time. In the end times, in the well of months… there was a mischief called enlightenment…
The distinction between subject and object that emerged in modern times, and the belief in obtaining knowledge accordingly, is based on the conceptions of substance that have come since Descartes. Descartes’ understanding of “res cogitans (the thing that thinks/gem)” and “res extensa (the thing that extends/gem)”, which he obtained through doubting and thinking, divides the world into what is thought and what extends. With this division, he takes “res cogitans” as the subject of knowledge and “res extensa” as the object of knowledge. “The spatialized, as the set encompassed by the res extensa, becomes an “objective field” over which rational activities such as measuring, comparing, moving from one to the other, and taking one back to the other dominate. However, since the “res cogitans” is made to “exist (… … … sum)” on the basis of the acts of doubt and thinking, it is appointed as the agent of this measuring activity. Thus, knowledge of the world is made to consist of “rational thought” and “what is spatialized”. This is essentially Descartes’ world. While Descartes’ world is in fact only Descartes’ world, it intervenes in other people’s worlds with its appearance in “philosophical form” through writing, oratory, in short, speech. People are exposed to this intervention and come to a decision stage. Some of those who make a decision (which is the majority) give up their own world and take Descartes’ world. Through this transformation, Descartes gains power over those whose worlds he receives.
In order to see the power of this power, we “extend” the example of the constructed world to another point of the world, Königsberg.
In the 18th century, Kant intervened in the world by publishing three critiques. The first of these has a content about the grounding of knowledge in terms of the nature, limits and working principles of thinking through the examination of “theoretical reason (thought)”. Similar to Descartes’ division of the world, Kant divides the world into rational natural science and rational psychical science. However, this division is deepened by creating a detailed pattern of the connection points of those involved in the division. These deepening points are called categories and “anschauung”. The world as the inner world and the world as the outer world, which are first differentiated and taken as the basis without justification, are carefully and subtly connected to each other by Kant’s visions and categories. This world, which has been established by connecting the inside and the outside, is put on the market and the world is intervened in. When an educated individual cannot resist this intervention, he or she relies on Kant to bind the discrete world he or she perceives. Kant, in turn, presents his finely woven world to the individual. The individual puts on this world and walks towards the world in this disguise. Through the way in which the educated are clothed in this world, Kant continues to intervene in the world. There may be times when this intervention is interfered with, for example, by a world builder named Hegel; however, these points of disagreement are not essential disagreements in the matter of the constitution of the world.
Because all of these disagreements are based on the unanimity to reject the House of the Body. Because if they did not reject it, they would not have established the world.
To be continued.
the main source of the article: https://ahmetturanesin.com/dunyanin-tesisi-i/
