Exordium

These are the results of the inquiries undertaken by a student of Isocrates pertaining to matters of both high mystery and earthly enterprise. Accordingly, the conclusions reached herein are by no means absolute fact – the ultimate goal of these inquiries is to relay the relativistic and paradoxical nature of the universe. It is the view of the auctor that nothing at all is ever absolute, that the cosmos is eternally evolving and mercilessly dynamic; there lies the paradox. Nothing endures but change.

Such beliefs vie with the philosophies of some of my Athenian colleagues, who aspire to know ultimate reality and eternal forms. They would argue that the world we see and hear is nothing but an illusory shadow of the divine world of truths, and that our every endeavor has a perfect, absolute counterpart in that divine realm. I understand the reason for these arguments, as my colleagues seek only to improve our society and institutions by fashioning them after the universal forms, such that these institutions can only be harmonious, benevolent, and effective. But can an ideal form really exist for every decision we must make? How can we ascertain that our conclusions through metaphysics produce the form rather than another deceptive shade? For how long can we afford to seek out these elusive truths, only to leave our institutions to weather the very real torrents of the material world?

I also seek to improve our institutions and preserve our society, but through a different means entirely. I contend that reality, such as it is, comprises nothing but immediate human perceptions and the conclusions drawn accordingly. All knowledge is speculative and tentative, subject to change under the scrutiny of individuals so long as time marches on. We cannot know anything for certain, and we should not pretend to; no morsel of information should be deemed as absolute truth. As thus, it is my view that the divine world of absolutes and forms – praised so highly by my colleagues – is the actual illusion, the actual shadow. It is unnecessary to align ourselves with the specter of ultimate reality, but it is desirable to allow a measure of fluidity in our fashioning, so that our inevitable mistakes can be remedied empirically. Hence, the importance lies in how we interpret the myriad results gleaned from observations made by our very eyes and ears.

How, then, can we wade through this seeming quagmire of variables and uncertainties that I have proposed? This, I believe to be the proper domain of those we call philosophers and seekers of wisdom. Knowledge and information is freely available for all to gather and observe in the natural world, but it requires a sort of insight to put forth a conjecture, based on these likely incomplete observations, that contains the best course of action. An individual that I can rightly call a philosopher would be capable of attaining this insight, whether through study or experience. From this agile model, we are able to identify problems and immediately offer solutions, rather than reaching back into an absolute world to find where we have strayed from a form. Such agility is to be prized in a dynamic reality. Intransience and inability to adapt, especially if it is embraced knowingly and willingly, can lead only to the failure of the institutions we hold dear.