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.
My lifelong quest has been to address the problem of nihilism raised so forcefully by the work of Nietzsche in the 19 th 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.
This article examines the background to bioethical debates in the context of contemporary claims regarding the “end of ideologies”. While bioethics is often presented as a neutral framework for ethical decision-making in medicine and the life sciences, this study argues that it remains deeply rooted in competing normative and philosophical traditions. For this, it adopts a conceptual and historical qualitative approach based on a critical and narrative review of the literature on bioethics, governance of biomedicine, political and moral philosophy, and sociology. The corpus was selected to include seminal works in bioethics, fundamental analyses of moral pluralism and decision-making in bioethics, as well as reference works of the debate on ideology, biopolitics, deliberation and technocratic governance. Drawing on these sources, this analysis reconstructs the axiological frameworks underpinning contemporary bioethical debates and examines whether the purported disappearance of ideologies from the bioethical debate leads to a real post-ideological bioethics. The article argues that ideology is not eliminated but rather its expression is transformed into implicit normative structures embedded within decision-making processes. Ideologies presence in bioethical debates is masked by what might be termed procedural and technological bioethics. These approaches aim to objectify the debates and ensure that bioethics meets the requirements of the scientific method. This analysis challenges the notion of bioethical neutrality and highlights the enduring role of ideological frameworks in shaping biomedical ethics. Ideological and axiological perspectives thus permeate bioethical debates and shape the direction of bioethical decisions and regulatory provisions, though an institutionalized arena for managing moral pluralism.
This article examines the gradual displacement of the Christian doctrine of the imago Dei as the primary ground of human dignity in Western intellectual history. From the seventeenth century onward, successive philosophical movements privileged autonomous reason, empirical sensation, or historical process over divine revelation as the source of epistemological and moral authority. The analysis proceeds chronologically, drawing primarily (though not exclusively) on the historical surveys of John M. Frame (2015) and W. Andrew Hoffecker (2007), while noting significant primary texts. The cumulative effect was the removal of a transcendent anchor for objective human value, resulting in various forms of relativism and consequentialist ethics. The article concludes by outlining a constructive approach by which confessional communities may re-articulate the intellectual and institutional resources of Christian anthropology in societies that once held human beings with dignity.
The rapid advancement of information technology and artificial intelligence within contemporary capitalist frameworks has significantly transformed communication practices. This transformation has led to a narrowed focus on communication, predominantly emphasising the exchange of information. Furthermore, content is frequently crafted to be visually appealing and persuasive; however, its accuracy, truthfulness, and reliability are often questionable. Consequently, these factors shape public perceptions and attitudes, diminishing social interactions locally and globally. In this context, this study revisits philosophical discussions on human communication by drawing on Buddhist and Cārvāka traditions while critically engaging with contemporary thinkers such as Habermas, Foucault, and Levinas to examine the politics of communication. This study addresses three primary concerns: First, it explores the evolution of human communication by analysing the interconnections between the self and others, intersubjectivity, relationality, and the embodied self within a historical context. Second, it seeks to establish the philosophical underpinnings of communication by drawing on the foundational tenets of Buddhism and Cārvāka, while also engaging with critical theorists to explore the discursive conflicts inherent in human communication. This study aims to investigate the basis of knowledge claims and the reliability of human communication by integrating Cārvāka materialism with the relational ontology inherent in Buddhism. Additionally, the research seeks to deepen this integration by incorporating critical-theory perspectives. This research study critically examines the social conditions requisite for genuine human communication. It explores the relational interdependence inherent in self-other interactions, the diversity of perspectives, the dynamics of contestation and negotiation, and the mechanisms of consensus-building within sociocultural contexts, where meanings are co-constructed through communicative processes.
