"I Think, Therefore I Am."
"As je pense, donc je suis." (René Descartes, Discourse on the Method)

Dean Gotcher

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

According to this "method" of thinking, which was advocated by Descartes, we think because we "doubt" what "is." Philosophy is simply you 1) thinking (dialoguing with your "self") about how the world that "is," preventing you from doing what you want to do, when you want to do it, 2) thinking about how the world "ought" to be, where you can do what you want to do, when you want to do it, then 3) thinking about how the world "can" be, once whatever is preventing you from doing what you want to do, when you want to do is removed, i.e., thinking about how to remove it. It is therefore in "doubt" that thinking begins. For "doubt" to begin we must first be dissatisfied with how the world "is." "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

According to Karl Marx without "lust," thinking, i.e., "'self' actualization," i.e., "I am" can not begin. "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words, for "self," i.e., for "I am" to become "actualized," the world that "is" ("I AM, that I AM"; "Because I said so" or "It is written," i.e., the father's/Father's authority) must be called into question, i.e., "doubted." Abraham Maslow, years later affirming Karl Marx (and his agenda of 'liberating' children, i.e., mankind from the father's/father's authority, i.e., from individualism, parochialism, nationalism, "traditional culture," etc., under God, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, the main objective) wrote: "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values [right and wrong] of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory [Freud considered all children sexually active] to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)

According to Georg Hegel it is in the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., the child's desire for ("lusting" after) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation), which the world stimulates, and his hate of restraint where "doubt," i.e., "self actualization," i.e., 'reality' ("What is rational is real and what is real is rational," i.e., "The rational alone is real") originates. "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so he can be his "self" again, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Therefore, according to dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' 'reasoning' begins not only with the child's love of pleasure but with the child's hate of restraint as well, where he is 'driven' to escape the pain which comes with missing out on pleasure, including the pain which comes with others not affirming his "self," i.e., not affirming his carnal nature, i.e., not affirming his love of pleasure and hate of restraint, but standing in its way.

According to dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' it is in the child's carnal nature, not in the father's/Father's authority where thinking, i.e., 'reasoning' begins. This is why the child responds with "Why?" when the father's/Father's authority gets in his way, then, when the father/Father prevents dialogue with his "Because I said so"/"It is written." he responds with "Your are not being reasonable," i.e., "rational," i.e., "You don't understand," making the father/Father "unreasonable," "irrational," etc., according to the child's 'reasoning' ability. It is in the child's doubting, i.e., questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the father's/Father's authority where the child becomes, i.e., 'liberates,' i.e., "actualizes" his "self," i.e., thinks, i.e., 'reasons,' i.e., 'justifies' his "self." It is in society (socialism) he puts this "thinking" into action—for the sake of others, i.e., for the sake of "the people," i.e., for the sake of "self."

Karl Marx, explaining Maslow's "good social conditions" and "bad social conditions" wrote: "It is not individualism [the child holding his "self" accountable to the father's/Father's authority, humbling, denying, dying to his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him [Marx saw the child's act of obedience to the father/Father, which goes counter to his own carnal nature, as empowering the father/Father, giving the father/Father the authority to "repress" him; he wrote: "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father/Father, i.e., to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, and/or to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will—"empowers" the father/Father to establish commands, rules, facts, and truth which] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force [the father/Father by established laws, i.e., commands and rules which go counter to the child's carnal nature "represses" the child, "alienating" him from the other children of the world]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)] . Society ["human relationship based upon self interest," where the children, through dialogue, 'discover' their identity, i.e., their "self" in "the group," i.e., in society ("In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to be "of and for self" and the world only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6)

Since, according to Karl Marx, only "science" can recognize and 'justify' man's, i.e., the child's carnal nature, and the world which stimulates it. Anything external to "science,' i.e., "nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature, inhibiting or blocking it, i.e., preventing the child from becoming "actualized" must therefore be negated. "Sense experience must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) By establishing the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's "lust of the flesh," i.e., "sensuous needs," "lust of the eyes," i.e., "sense perception," and "the pride of life," i.e., "sense experience" as the ground of being, rejecting the father's/Father's authority, the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint becomes the means to determine whether the "social condition" is "good "or "bad"—where "freedom" to actualize his "self" becomes "good" and having to humble, deny, die to his "self," in order to do the father's/Father's will becomes "bad."

"Behavior science" is only Marxism in disguise. As the famous psychotherapist, Carl Roger's wrote in his book, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy: "The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality [is common to the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, which all children have in common]." "Experience ["sense experience"] is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." "The words 'seem to' are significant; it ["sense perception"] is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (The scriptures warn us: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25) "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" This is the pathway of "behavior science," 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority, so he can be his "self," of and for the world only.

Thus Karl Marx, reasoning from "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature only, could 'justify' his hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., his agenda of negating the father's/Father's authority from the face of the earth. He wrote: "Once the earthly family [with the children having to submit to their father's authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to submit to His Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to their "self" in order to do His will], the former [the earthly father's authority system, with children having to trust in (have faith in) and obey the father] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the children's personal thoughts and social actions—no longer fellowshipping with others, based upon the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (customs, traditions, doctrine) but, through dialogue, "building relationships" with others based upon common "'self interests'" (their carnal desires of the 'moment') instead]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

"Building relationships on self interest" sounds "good" until you discover gold with your new "self interest friend." Then you had better watch your back because your "friend's" "self interest," i.e., his love of pleasure (what he could do with all the gold) and hate of restraint (not being able to "do his thing" with you standing in his way) could cost you your life. When law is based upon "self interest," making all subject to "human nature," i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, "rule of law," i.e., sovereignty is negated. This goes in line with Marx's view of law. "Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block the child's carnal nature, i.e. the child's love of pleasure, i.e., his "lusts," i.e., his desire to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his hate of restraint]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities [carnal desires and abilities] of the people [of rather the "needs and capacities" of those in control of the people, i.e., their "sensuous needs" and "sense perception"] change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) It is "self interest" which silences those who might otherwise speak out in support of someone who is speaking the truth, in a room full of lies—their fear of loosing the affirmation of the group, and thereby lose access to that which they are "interested in," i.e., that which they covet, keeps them silent (they are "thinking" at this time are they not, i.e., deciding which paradigm they are siding with, already siding, in their silence, with the one)—their silence ("thinking") revealing their love of "self," i.e., "covetousness"  over and therefore against the truth.

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3 Silence in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e., "self interest" makes unrighteousness, i.e., "self interest" the "norm." Once unrighteousness, i.e., "self interest" becomes the "norm" those who speak the truth will be persecuted, with those who might agree with them, but wanting ("lusting" after) that which unrighteousness offers, i.e., their "self interest," being silent. It is in "covetousness," i.e., your "self interest" that "win-win" has its meaning, with you getting your "self interest" (maybe) and those seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you getting theirs, with your support (affirmation), your "self interest," i.e., silence 'justifying' (empowering) them.

Karl Marx knew that, according to human nature, people, who rebel against the father's/Father's authority in order to do what they want to do, tend to revert back to using the father's/Father's authority when they get in power, perpetuating the process of the father's/Father's authority onto the next generation, preventing 'change.' For 'change' to take place it was therefore necessary to set in motion a process which would go against nature, preventing the father's/Father's authority from reappearing in the next generation. Marx wrote: "The philosophers have come up with many different views of the world [have interpreted the world in many different ways], the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx Feuerbach Thesis #11). It was the process of 'change' itself that was therefore necessary—in order to prevent the father's/Father's authority from reappearing in the individuals thoughts and actions, and in society. It was therefore necessary to look at the world in a different way—to no longer look at it as black and white, right and wrong based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., absolutes, but as gray, ambiguous, relative, along a continuum of 'change' based upon "feelings," i.e., opinions (Agree, Strongly Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, No Opinion).  "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) It was therefore necessary that people, trained in the process of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapist," facilitators of 'change,' Transformational Marxists, i.e., the "vanguard party" come between the children, i.e., the next generation of citizens and their parents and show them how to "properly" think and act, i.e., 'liberate' them from the father's/Father's authority—re-attaching them to "the group," i.e., to society, i.e., to themselves instead. Rogers continued: "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness." (ibid.)

Sigmund Freud likewise believed "the individual is emancipated ['liberated' from the father's/Father's authority] in the social group." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification'—the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father] be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) According to Sigmund Freud, "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer exercises his authority over the family]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan, which in turn deifies the assassinated father and introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social morality ["social morality" as Rousseau's "civil government" (see below) which inhibits the process of 'change,' i.e. man becoming at-one-with himself and nature, according to his carnal nature]." "The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so is his restoration.... The crime against the reality principle [against the Father—the system of righteousness] is redeemed [undone] by the crime against the pleasure principle [by the children establishing rules and laws over and therefore against the other children—restraining the system of sensuousness in order to maintain civilization, removing Eros, "pleasure," from the workplace in order to get work done, i.e., in order to cloth, feed, etc. all the children]: redemption thus cancels itself [the system of sensuousness is thwarted because of the guilty conscience, the remnant of the system of righteousness, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, keeping the "old" social order, i.e., the "top-down" order in place (in order to get work done)]." "... according to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities ["equality"] belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros [the child's carnal nature of sensuousness, seeking "oneness," i.e. consensus with mankind (affirmation) not only in the world but in the workplace] itself." Thus, according to Freud "... the origin of repression leads back to the origin of instinctual repression ... early childhood." "... the 'external restrictions' [doing right and not wrong according to established commands and rules] which first the parents and then other societal agencies have imposed upon the individual 'interjected' into the ego [subjecting the child's will to the Father's will] and become its 'conscience'; henceforth, the sense of guilt permeates the mental life [how the child thinks]." "The id [the child's carnal nature] carries the memory traces of the dominion [the parent's chastening, i.e. fear of judgment] ... forward into every present future: it projects the past [the Father's will and the threat of judgment] into the future." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

By rejecting the authority of the Father, i.e. by refusing to recognize that "the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof," with God, driving "the children of disobedience" out of his garden, away from the tree of life, stating in essence "This is my garden, not your garden," Hegel, Marx, and Freud supported Rousseau, who wrote: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality) Thus, according to those possessed of dialectic 'reasoning,' evil does not reside in the hearts of men but in the social structure he finds himself living within. Their agenda is to deliver man from the "top-down" structure of right-wrong thinking and acting, reasoning from God's Word. By restoring him to his fleshy nature, he can actualize his full "potential" of becoming pure man, made only of the flesh and the world. All dialectic 'reasoning' goes in this direction, resulting in a world where a father's child is not his, a husbands wife is not his, a man's property and/or business is not his but the "community's, i.e., "the peoples," i.e., the "group psychotherapist's," i.e., the facilitator of 'change's,' i.e., the Transformational Marxist's (all being the same, "of and for self" only).

Hegel wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lust" for pleasure including their "lusting" after the affirmation of men, i.e., the "pride of life"], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down" right-wrong way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) As J. L. Moreno stated it in his book Who Shall Survive?: "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality."

This 'reasoning' of "I think, therefore I AM" (aufheben) first began in a garden called Eden, where two "children," through dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' 'liberated' their "self" from the "Father's" authority. This 'reasoning' is the basis of man's ology's, including psychology. "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "The 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

"I think, therefore I am" is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., 'liberation' of "self" from the father's/Father's authority, negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of the child, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the child (and those he is following) having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so he (and those he is following) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity in the process

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4

In "I think, therefore I AM" man becomes god in his own eyes. Seeing the world through his eyes he no longer fears God. He is therefore blind to his deceitful and wicked ways. Justifying his "self," he is blind to the judgment (damnation) which is coming his way. "The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 The 'liberal' or socialist can not see his hate of restraint (and the restrainer) as being wicked with his "self," i.e., his love of pleasure standing in the way, 'justifying' his hate of restraint (and the restrainer). "And for this cause [because men 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of pleasure more than God] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good," instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasure (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;" Ephesians 6:10-18

"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Romans 13:13 - 14:6

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:10-12

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Romans 14, 17

"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." Romans 14:22 - 15:1

"Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 15:5, 6

"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:5-6

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2019