Abstract. All ancient stories begin with the creation of the world and man. In the stories, it is said who is the creator and therefore the supreme lawgiver, it is said what is, it is said what is good and what is bad. With less ambition (?) I begin the presentation (my story of what and how). I will present a reasonable „whole“ of natural scientific knowledge about the world and man. Look at your cell phone. Does its shape remind you of any natural object, anything in the known Cosmos? Most human things are somewhere in the middle: natural form/material and freedom, as much as can be obtained from the material used. There is no need for a mural on the building where I live, there is no cosmic need for my photos, the shape of things is adapted to my hands, height, and the color of the frames of my glasses is completely irrelevant and cannot be justified by anything. Few traditions, misconceptions, convictions, superstitions, and customs are the only measure and direction of culture (blue color for boys and pink for girls, for example). The human world is an engraving imprinted in unmotivated matter. Tradition is the only limitation and direction of culture (understood in the broadest sense). Another direction is provided by biology (evolutionary goals).


Let us consider three signs, three points, and three things.




We have these three questionnaires, or three books, or three hills, whatever. Now, if we use them like this:


?       ?

everyone will say that they are arranged according to the „triangle idea“. Now follows the key question (one can also say a banal question): what is the relationship between the „idea of the triangle“ and the individual question mark? They are not in any relationship. The situation that we have prepared and that we are observing is what brings them together. Dots, atoms, books, cars, questionnaires, etc. we can stack and rearrange in various ways and it won’t have any effect on the dots/atoms/books/cars themselves. (The answer is banal, but it is important in recent philosophy. In „speculative realism“ the question arises whether it is possible to think about something that is beyond thought. For example, „Did the Sun exist before the creation of the first people?“, etc. Source: Quentin Meillassoux „Métaphysique, speculation, correlation“[1].)

On the other hand, under the influence of physical forces, various arrangements of atoms and molecules in space arise, but this is dealt with by the corresponding sciences[2]. Spatial arrangements of atoms and molecules do not belong here.

If I consider a bowl of sand as that which exists, which is, which must exist (which in this sense is indestructible), then I consider the pattern which I write with my finger in this sand as that which also is and which exists, but also as that which must not exist, i.e. the pattern is then that which is „our“, „human“, „ought“, etc.

The question is, how do ideas or thoughts exist? What do we see and how do we see the invisible that „connects“ or „makes sense“ of the spatial arrangement of these three questionnaires? If we look at the triangle, these three question marks placed as three tips of the triangle, it will be remembered/transformed again as a „bundle of atoms“ (molecules, neurotransmitters) and as a certain connection between neurons in our brain (according to all current knowledge of brain physiology). What was and how it was remembered, on the occasion of the use of these three questionnaires, is the „idea of the triangle“. It is a scheme or strategy in which only the participants change. When repeated a certain number of times, it remains permanently stored in the brain. With each perception, new schemes and strategies are evoked.

 Moreover, it is important to emphasize that there is no physical analogy between what one sees, for example, and the way it is stored in the brain. All the diversity of the world translates into an electrochemical aspect[3], meaning that all content is encoded in three ways: Frequency, Intensity, and Connection/Wiring[4]. If we look at a flower, no flower shape will form in the brain. So much for brain chemistry and physiology. It is enough for this presentation. This area of research is rapidly developing in all directions: Physics, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, and modeling.

Let us now return to the question of the relationship between things and ideas. We are talking here about the relationship of, for example, playing cards and some games with those cards. I argue that, for example, the rule „take two pairs“ (or three of a kind, or the so-called full, or three of a kind is stronger than two pairs and the like) in poker has nothing to do with atoms, with paper or plastic that the cards are made of. Cards can also be made of metal or wooden tiles. Card rules are like laws, fixed and unchangeable, and these rules/laws have nothing to do with the laws of nature (with laws like Newton’s laws, for example). All these ideas („triangle“, „two pairs“,…) exist only as „local phenomena“, „local coincidences“, like patterns in the sand, i.e. they do not exist as the atoms themselves do.

 It is important to note that a thing or event exists in the brain in the same way as ideas, i.e. they exist as piles of atoms and specific compounds. Things and ideas seem completely incommensurable and insurmountable in our theory, but in the brain, both things and ideas are remembered in the same way as molecules and neuronal connections. I believe that here lies hidden the secret of the possibility that we can learn something about nature and matter. In this sense, the laws of nature stand in our brain as a necessary structure/organization of the brain.

The „situation“ described above of a man looking at three questionnaires is a macrostructure that turns into a microstructure, into the physiology and anatomy of our brain, and vice versa.

We build machines and devices, and they work and fulfill our tasks or purposes, but these atoms are still completely „indifferent“ to our tasks and purposes. The atom does not care whether it will be in this or that place, in this or that relationship. It matters only to us because our consciousness is based on this „difference“. All kinds of living beings remember because the survival of living beings is based on the memory/stability/repetition of certain processes and conditions. The fact that we move some atoms here and others there does not change the nature of things – and has nothing to do with the nature of things. We only change, we build on existing buildings.

This parallel between „natural“ and „human“ is presented to overcome the chasm between „is“ and „ought“ and is probably the most important philosophical-theoretical field: ethics (David Hume and the so-called Hume’s precipice). Namely, following the presentation so far, we can immediately say that it is not about an abyss or a split at all, but about a specific human position. The human specificity of „free choice“ (free will) e.g. it exists and exists as a kind of „local phenomenon/principle“ within the totality of the natural (it exists in the way of „two pairs“ or „triangle“ from the beginning). Neither is this specificity something that disrupts nor is it something that cannot be integrated. Finally, it is not the basis of nature either. The freedom to do bad things, to do evil, to make wrong choices as well as good ones, meets the indifference of matter, i.e. of nature, so to speak; it will absorb all shocks. Within the totality of nature, man is like a fleeting breeze. Everything that man declares as good and bad, as valuable,… meets with the silent approval of the Cosmos!

The idea of „pair“ e.g. is a label/word of all existing and imagined classes with two members, therefore, it „appears“ in the development of the consciousness of each person after it has been observed, demonstrated, and acted out a sufficient number of times (that „number of times“ is defined chemically/physiologically to produce „trace“ in the brain). When we see two apples on the table, we think „Two apples“, then we go around the house and see that we have two pictures on the wall and two chairs on the terrace. But that idea of „pair“ is not the essence of things because there are various classes of things. „Pair“ is not a property of things, ie. we don’t pair things out of necessity. When, however, we discover that something is paired by necessity, then it is a natural fact, a natural law, such as the pairing of electrons in chemical bonds.

It is important to note that in the pairing of electrons, there is a necessity of natural law, ie. the necessity of the action of forces, while in pairing two apples on our table there is „freedom of choice“ („freedom of creation“), and to interpret that free pairing/decision as an optional local coincidence.

This is how the idea of „free choice“ (and freedom in general) is formed, individually and historically. The meaning and position of „free choice“ is „local“ (as with questionnaires, various forms can be arranged from the beginning and other forms can be rearranged immediately). If we impose any maxim/norm on reality (if we insist on implementing it in every situation), it is clear that we will deform/change reality.

The fact of modern power and the superiority of the human world over the natural world should not mislead. On our planet, that „local“ has already become global because we arrange a lot of things according to „ought“, we also got involved as factors of climate, ecology and geology. We are currently organizing the world and spending resources according to the ruling: „ought “ of free initiative, the free market, that is, according to the list of „ought“ prescribed by the ideologues of liberal capitalism, and we see how we are violating some optima that the planet and the living world have established.

We are witnessing the political debate and struggle over the directions of use and consumption of „natural“. It is clear that the ideologues of capitalism are leading the human race to ruin, but it is important to understand that they are leading the world to ruin because it is possible to lead it to ruin.

If, therefore, we want to establish ethics, and somehow resolve the question of the origin and truth of ethical attitudes, we have little choice. Nothing will „objectively“ oppose any of our „ought“ except survival and life.


What is the meaning of life? What is good and right?

 Definition 1: Moral is the optimization of resources and life forces/needs.

Moral (or good) is the optimization of resources/wealth and strength/needs. It is immoral to consume more resources than is optimal or to present one’s powers/needs as greater than they are. In general, the relationship of my-your, I-you,…. must be optimized in some way and to some degree, because only through this optimization/rationalization of the relationship does the space of freedom open up (freedom that does not threaten the freedom of others, no matter how one understands society: a community of God, communist community, liberal society, or global/planetary society).

Since humanity was created and has evolved under conditions of essentially limited resources and limited life forces/needs, the ethical problem is so old and so much has been defined/determined by this essential limitation.

Definition 2: If a resource is not limited, it is not a good or someone good.

When resources are unlimited, such as air, the attitude of good is trivial. The awareness that air is good or something good did not exist before the industrial age. Only in the last age has this attitude increased because resources are threatened, i.e. clean air becomes a good or something good. People think that they have a right to clean air, that someone is threatening their right, that such a right exists in the first place, that it is necessary to regulate relations between people, and finally that the positions and actions of certain people regarding air are good or bad (moral). Thus, a banal situation entered the mysterious sphere of ethics.


Existence axiom: There is at least one moral norm.

Axiom of specification (or positive norm): There is a moral norm a.

Remark 1: With norm a we did not immediately determine what morality is. It is only the first fragment or touch of the two wavering realms of thought and reality. We say that a is a normative specification of what is also determined by b, c, etc.

Definition 1: Every imaginable situation is describable by one set of is / ought norms.

Definition 2: A is B we call „is the norm“.

Definition 3: Ought C is D we call the „ought norm“.

Definition 4: Two situations are equal if they can be described/prescribed by the same set of norms.

Remark 1: If we replace norm a with norm b in one situation, we will get a different situation.

Remark 2: Norm and situation are inseparable, i.e. the norm creates/changes the situation, and the situation creates/changes the norm. Here we are not interested in what the norms are: whether they are good or bad, whether they are founded or not, whether they are true or agreed upon. Here it is important to understand that every norm is an inseparable part/aspect of every situation.

Definition 5: We call the observed set of norms that exhaust our notion of good as morality.

Definition 6: We consider a moral norm as given if we can define it as good.

Remark 1: Even though we do not have the quality of good in our sensory experience, we still have that quality in our experience.

Remark 2: We can with many reasons consider that „it is good to optimize resources and life forces/needs“, i.e. that optimization is the broadest definition of the term good. Kant turns his maxim into a principle of general legislation, i.e. it should be accepted by all people. It is a limiting case of optimization. Optimization as a term is nothing but that changeable/arbitrable/prevailing will of a society from case to case. Every isolated society in deserts, rainforests or remote islands has its own moral norms, i.e. over time, a kind of optimization of resources and survival took place. The norm/disposition and the sanction preserve the optimization. Therefore, it is moral or good to optimize resources/assets and strengths/needs. It is immoral to spend resources more than is optimal or to portray one’s strengths/needs as greater than they are.

We can say that good (or optimization) is an aspect of our experience in defining situations.

[1] Quentin Meillassoux, „Métaphysique, spéculation, corrélation“, u: Ce peu d’espace autour: Six essais sur la métaphysique et ses limites, réunis par Bernard Mabille, Les Éditions de la Transparence, Chatou 2010, 73–97.

[2] See e.g. fullerene or carbon with 60 atoms (C60), Professor Dr. Đuro Koruga, founder and long-time head of the Nanotechnology Laboratory (NanoLab) at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Belgrade.

[3] Sengupta B, Laughlin SB, Niven JE (2014) Consequences of Converting Graded to Action Potentials upon Neural Information Coding and Energy Efficiency. PLOS Computational Biology 10(1): e1003439.

[4] A. C. Guyton „Medicinska fiziologija“, Medicinska knjiga, Beograd 1989.