I have started reading the Old Testament and I have across some interesting thoughts. God in order to test Abraham asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham being obedient to God took him up the hill and tied him up. When he was about to light the fire, God asked him to sacrifice a Ram whose horns were entangled in the thicket. The Sacrifice of Isaac can be an idiom meaning: an unpleasant situation becoming more pleasant. God help me to have the sacrifice of Isaac every day.
I have created a new branch of knowledge called Value epistemology. Value epistemology has its mirroring in an ontology (Being) that is constructive. There are two types of ontology: one being constructive ontology and the other being destructive ontology.
Camus and Sartre are philosophers who have espoused a philosophy of ontological destruction. For them life is chaotic and absurd and having no meaning. They also celebrate a being going into a fallen pit of anarchy. Let’s take Camus Myth of the Sisyphus. In it a man is condemned by the Gods to roll a boulder all the way uphill only to find that it rolls down. The man is forced to repeat this meaningless chore again and again. I would like to ask Camus: is life absurd? Is it chaotic! Camus’ philosophy is an incoherent one. If we follow Camus philosophy we won’t be able to live a life meaningfully. Aren’t we living in a society where we celebrate the meaning of life? We are not beings living in isolation. We are living in a community of shared meanings— or should be live as egotistic individuals. Is life marked the absence of reason and passion? We are beings living in three states—Catharsis, Angst and Ecstasy. Meaning of life is existentially realized.
What does Sartre have to say of Ontological Existentialism? Sartre’s Philosophy also celebrates the meaning of the absurd. Life for him is coherent mass of nothingness. We navigate our life by negating the meaning of existence. Is life chaotic and absurd? Is the choice we make to free ourselves meaningless one? Sartre goes on to say that: we are condemned to be free. How can we say that freedom is our condemnation? Was Sartre a psychological victim of World War II? Why is there so much negative theology in ontological philosophy?
I have read and reread existential Philosophers like Camus and Sartre and I have developed a new branch of existential ontology called constructive ontology. Constructive Ontology creates a new meaning that life is creative and having a purpose. We have to live a life in Valueblelization (from Value and Realization). Valueblelization means a creative living with celebration of sharing meanings in empathic harmony. For Valueblelization to occur an individual is a purposeist from (Purpose and ist). We have to authenticate ourselves in a democratic empathy of sharing meanings.
Summarizing I can say that the Philosophy of Camus and Sartre is destructive and rereading them I have made ontology a constructive one.