Update on Censorship.

I am unable to update copyright protection at this blog today. It is my intention that all posts remain copyright protected and available on the Internet during my lifetime. No response to my communications from U.S. officials has been received by me. I will continue to pursue the truth in my matters. No explicit rejection of my claims has been made by anyone that I know of nor have I been offered an opportunity to respond to (or challenge) whatever claims continue to be made by N.J.'s OAE, DRB, AG (or anyone else) about me including fictitious so-called "background reports." I have also not been told to refrain from communicating with the authorities which is bizarre. U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal prosecutors are usually very good at making it clear when they are not interested in something or someone. It is impossible for me to post or publish new essays under these conditions. In fact I am unable to write philosophical or literary essays at all. I will do my best to continue writing on some topics, somehow and somewhere, even if it cannot be online or the writings cannot be published under my name in America. I am sure that the computer crimes committed by Mr. McGill (or his friends) that are preventing me from writing at blogger could be corrected by Google (or blogger) in seconds if they wished to do so. It may be that Google/blogger has -- or continue to have -- no choice about the current situation or are intimidated by "someone." I will disregard slanders posted online, allegedly, by Trenton's "anonymous" attorneys or so-called "courts." There are no photos of me on the Internet. I am not on Facebook or Twitter. I have never been charged with a crime. I have never been arrested for any alleged offense. My legal ethics was challenged in N.J. by persons threatened (or paid) to lie under oath by individuals associated with the OAE which is something that agency and N.J. no longer denies (or lies about) even if the OAE is still covering-up or "stonewalling" concerning my matters. It is only when persons lie and commit crimes that they try to cover up their actions and failures especially if they happen to be lawyers in Trenton. It is beyond my comprehension that OAE lawyers in New Jersey call themselves "ethical" persons while remaining hypocrites who are false to their oaths as attorneys betraying the same laws that they are required to uphold perhaps in exchange for a bribe of some kind such as a state court judgeship. Psychological protocols calling for "ignoring" the complaints of victims of abuse, or of those subjected to criminal violations of human rights including torture, are designed to produce a state of apathy or "learned helplessness" in the victim(s). The goal is for the complainant to "go away." I doubt that such tactics will be effective with me. I continue to receive invitations to serve on federal juries -- usually several times per year in fact -- despite New Jersey's accusation that I am not "inclusive." During my time of non-writing at this blog I have sent packages of information and evidence to the U.S. Attorney General and U.S. Supreme Court. Neither my communications (nor those of others) concerning these matters have received the decency of a response, denial, or any sort of rejection from any U.S. official or police officer -- nor from the courts -- as of the date of my review of this text in 2024. Surely it is not too much to expect lawyers and judges to return the phone calls of citizens or to respond somehow -- preferably truthfully -- to urgent messages or communications bearing on public safety in accordance with the law. Thefts and threats, mysterious disruptions of my phone service, or destruction of my property will not alter my actions or opinions. I can only hope that Marilyn Straus is well and still safe from Lourdes Santiago and her "multi-gendered" friends including Senator Menendez's former law partner Lilian Munoz and/or Estela De La Cruz let alone the likes of Nydia Hernandez or Maureen Manteneo and Mary Anne Kriko. Silence and suppression of my controversial speech is unexplained and it is illegal as is the continuing public content-based censorship and threats to my welfare and/or the safety of my family members that I have experienced. Silencing me amounts to admitting the truth of my criticisms, of course, as well as N.J.'s inability to respond to my arguments. The same is true when, allegedly, John McGill posts outdated and now discredited findings of corrupt Trenton agencies headed by croneys of indicted and sanctioned politicians such as Mr. Menendez or Joe Ferreiro. I wonder whether Justice Neil Gorsuch is sincere or accurate in his recent and very interesting book when he claims that, in the U.S., the Constitution does not allow ANY person to be relegated to silence and ignored by governmental institutions -- nor by the courts -- much less by the police or Manhattan's District Attorney? Justice Gorsuch states that every human being is entitled to a "good faith and timely" response from government agencies to all inquiries concerning matters of vital importance to him or her touching on fundamental rights or the protections afforded by laws (including free speech guarantees) so that everyone may expect that: " ... judges should seek to act by neutral principles; that persons deserve to know in advance the laws that govern them. And that everyone -- whether it's today's hero or tomorrow's villain -- deserves the protection of the written law." A Republic if You Can Keep It, p. 144. (No exception is listed for cover-ups in New Jersey or New York by lying attorneys from Trenton's OAE stepping out of state to target a victim in Manhattan.) October 5, 2021 at 3:12 P.M. Packages containing a copy of the foregoing comment with evidence of N.J.'s computer crimes and censorship aimed against these writings have been sent to the following recipients by priority mail with tracking numbers listed. Not everyone will receive exactly the same items making it difficult (I hope) for N.J. officials to continue lying about these matters if they respond at all to my communications: U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, tracking number #9505 5146 2835 1278 1599 96 (delivery 10-8-21); Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, tracking number #9505 5146 2835 1278 1600 08 (delivery 10-6-21); Cuban Embassy to the U.S., tracking number #9505 5146 2835 1278 1600 22 (delivery 10-8-21); N.J. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and his tribunal's Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), tracking number #9505 5146 2835 1278 1600 39 (delivery 10-6-21); The New York Times, tracking number #9505 5146 2835 1278 1600 46 (delivery 10-6-21). October 8, 2021: Once again I am in receipt of a jury summons from the New York District Court which is a gratifying affirmation of my "good character" to serve as a juror that will upset N.J.'s OAE -- even if that agency ARRANGED for for this latest juror "experience" given the now evident non-finality of its alleged "final decision" -- and I will, therefore, return the jury form by priority mail, retaining my proofs, so as to appear at the appropriate time on November 5, 2021 at the Constance Baker Motley Assembly Room, RM 160, 500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10277-1697. Copies of this completed form may also be sent to U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain and U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts with the aim of ensuring that I will not, inaccurately, be accused of failing to respond to this jury notice "in a timely fashion" as required by law. Despite the frightening silence of government in violation of the law I will always do my best to comply with all of my legal obligations. Everyone I know is pleased to learn that Trenton officials continue to post "anonymous" (if inaccurate) items about me in 2021 even as they struggle to avoid facing me. As a prospective juror I was required to complete a voluminous questionaire providing information that is to be kept "confidential" by the U.S. Ditrict Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). In the event that N.J. (or other officials) seek to obtain this questionaire -- as a useful source of free discovery perhaps -- it should be noted that my answers were brief "yes" or "no" responses establishing my good faith as a juror. All pages attached to this questionaire for extra comments were left blank by me. Any calls from state or federal government agencies concerning matters where my answers are legally required will be answered in a similar minimalist fashion and always with a polite smile. An envelope that was correctly addressed to Chief Justice Roberts was returned to me undelivered because, allegedly, the post office could not "locate" the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. I will mail the contents of this envelope to Chief Justice Roberts, again, with a copy of the same envelope indicating that his office could "not be found." Copies of that curiously stamped envelope will also be sent to the U.S. Attorney and Cuban Embassy so that any persons observing this situation in Cuba as well as other countries may draw their own conclusions concerning the United States of America's commitment to freedom of speech and transparency or "due process" of law in the legal system as well as respect for human rights and legal ethics to say nothing of the efficiency of the U.S. Post Office. My jury service at the District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) officially ended November 29, 2021. I am informed that the minimum fee for federal jury service is $100. December 10, 2021 a package containing the returned envelope was sent by express overnight mail to Chief Justice John Roberts at the U.S. Supreme Court with the hope (if not the certainty) that postal workers will "locate" the building in which his chambers may be found under tracking number # EI 211883112US; a package was also sent by priority mail to Merrick Garland, Esq., U.S. Attorney General at the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) tracking number # 9505 5121 7078 1344 3779 33; another parcel was sent to the Cuban Embassy -- or the "Embassy of Cuba to the U.S." -- in Washington, D.C. tracking number # 9505 5121 7078 1344 3779 26. If I ever receive a response from any U.S. official (or our "free" media) to my communications over the past 24 years or more -- to say nothing of requests for the truth by others as well as hundreds of online posts dealing with my "N.J. issues" -- I will certainly make that response public to the extent that I can. As of March 2023 there is no response of any kind from any American official or judge, police officer or prosecutor, journalist or university teacher (including law professors who wish to answer me) for some mysterious and unexplained reason despite the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and requirements of legal ethics. October 11, 2023 at 2:53 P.M. A package containing proof of computer crimes resulting in violations of Google/blogger intellectual property rights as well as criminal censorship disregarding my freedom of speech and copyright protections will be sent to Gogle C.E.O. Mr. Sunder Pichai, Google Corporate Headquarters, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA, tel. (605) 253-0000. The international audience for this blog will have the opportunity to judge Google's commitment to freedom of expression online and independence from US government agencies and law enforcement (including the NSA). A copy of this proof of mailing to Google will then be mailed to the Cuban Embassy to the U.S. with further proof of these mailings to be posted here. October 27, 2023 at 2:55 P.M. It is impossible to witness the events in Gaza while remaining silent even for someone subjected to censorship with several home computers mysteriously destroyed who is ignored by U.S. authorities. No one condones or denies the horror of the terrors inflicted on Israelis on October 7, 2023. The UN General Secretary points out that the Hamas attacks arise from a "context" of occupation and oppression that includes the murder of Palestinian children nearly on a daily basis over a period of decades. Nevertheless there is nothing that justifies the killing of innocent civilians anywhere or by anyone. This includes the murder of innocent Palestinian civilians taking place before our eyes in Gaza and the West Bank. To remain silent about this atrocity is to be complicit in the crime. As I write these words more than 7,000 persons have been killed (2,300 of them are children); more than 10,000 have been seriously wounded and cannot now receive adequate medical attention even as over 1,000 more, who could be saved, are dying slowly because they are buried in rubble and cannot be reached by rescuers. Most of these additional victims are also children. Hospital patients and the elderly will die quickly from this point on because fuel is not replaced, food and water are cut off and becoming scarce, while communications are blocked, so that an entire population (like me) is relegated to silence and can be ignored by U.S. authorities and world opinion without undue stress or guilt felt by those comfortable persons doing and saying nothing to stop this evil. Israeli "military actions" in Gaza are best described as "collective punishment" in violation of international law and fundamental human rights conventions accepted by all of the civilized world. U.S. complicity in what has been called "state terrorism" by Israel is shameful and will make peace as well as cooperation between regional powers difficult for many years to come. No decent human being should remain silent concerning crimes against humanity such as genocide or be intimidated by governments from protesting on behalf of victims denied a voice or any human respect and recognition. These crimes are not worthy of the Jewish state. November 6, 2023 at 1:36 P.M. packages were sent by priority mail to Mr. Sundar Pichai, Google C.E.O. tracking number #9505 5121 7079 3310 5097 29 and the Cuban Embassy to the U.S. in Washington, D.C. tracking number #9505 5121 7079 3310 5097 05. Delivery of both of these packages is expected on November 8, 2023 before 5:00 P.M. The UN once again called for an end to the embargo against Cuba by a nearly unanimous vote. Only Israel and the U.S. were in favor of the embargo. The only appropriate response to the events in Gaza is an immediate cease fire, massive humanitarian aid, and some international security for the Palestinians until a two-State or dual-sovereignty solution to the crisis can be found. I am astounded to discover that, like the Palestinian people, I am ignored by U.S. legal institutions and officials, media as well as lawyers, judges, police and politicians fail to respond to my communications and those of others concerning the matters discussed in these blogs even when required to "answer in good faith" by statutes or the Constitution. To be relegated to silence is for persons and their rights to be consigned to the category of the sub-human or non-existent or death. I continue to find all such denials of legal recognition not only for myself, but also for millions of Palestinians along with other persons (like the Cubans) unethical, even criminal or evil. "If one Palestinian person survives," a Gaza resident explained, "resistance to injustice will continue." For as long as I live I will continue to demand the truth about my life from New Jersey's Supreme Court and OAE. Tragically, it is now subject to doubt whether anyone will survive in Gaza or the West Bank given the obvious genocidal crimes committed against the Palestinian people. The ongoing murders of journalists seeking to tell the truth about Palestine is part of an attempt to deny an entire people a voice to comment on their struggle against destruction. I am subjected to censorship for similar reasons. Medical professionals, intellectuals, UN workers and others (some of whom are not Palestinians) are also targeted in an effort (I believe) to make Gaza unlivable when the guns are silent. It has become difficult sometimes for me even to reach these blogs from public computers in order to post a sentence or two on any subject. This computer crime is clearly part of the continuing effort to deny me a voice about my life and experiences, as I continue to insist, in New Jersey's legal system. Every word I type is costly or an ordeal. Nevertheless the stakes are so high -- this is about your Constitutional rights as well as mine -- that I will continue to struggle to speak freely about these matters for as long as I am able to do so. The horrors in Gaza have surpassed my worst fears in 2024 even as the hypocrisy and lie that is N.J.'s legal system concerning my life and experiences as an attorney victimized by a corrupt ethics process is an international example of what should never happen to any lawyer in a democratic society. I am grateful to persons from many parts of the world expressing support for my efforts to obtain the truth and a modicum of justice while struggling against censorship and slanders. If it is true that my dilemma and battle have been linked to Julian Assange's struggle for freedom and justice then I consider the association a compliment to me. There continues to be a mysterious silence from U.S. authorities and media concerning my "case." The trial date in the Nadine Menendez federal matter has been adjourned until June, 2024. A status conference will then be held to evaluate the "mysterious" illness of Mrs. Menendez and whether the trial against her can (or will) proceed. Also, if there will be such a trial at all, it will have to be determined when or where the proceedings can take place given the possible future status of Mr. Menendez and the witnesses in the matter. The N.J. re-investigation of the lethal collision of Mrs. Menendez's previously "gifted" Mercedes vehicle with an unfortunate and now dead pedestrian seems to have disappeared from the N.J. Attorney General's office. It is my understanding that May 6, 2024 continues to be the trial date for Mr. Menendez. This development amounts to a tacit achievement of the postponement and severance sought in the denied Menendez pre-trial motions where the acceptance of the adjournment now extracted from the D.O.J. came from the top (Mr. Garland?) and not from the trial prosecutors in the Southern District of Manhattan (S.D.N.Y.). Will the U.S. Attorney once again simply "drop" the prosecution of Mr. Menendez at some future point without explanation? As for myself I continue to receive no response to my communications (strangely enough) from U.S. officials, media, academics, and interest groups -- including PEN and Google/blogger -- and neither do others who have sought answers in connection with my situation. I am hoping, however, to receive another threatening letter from the OAE or John McGill or, perhaps, to be invited yet again to serve on a state or federal jury.

Is New Jersey America's Corona Virus?

December 21, 2020 There has been no response to my communications. I am still unable to write at this blog or online. My pages have been altered so that I find it difficult to edit this text and all of my blogs have been damaged in a similar way. The "persons" who signed-in to my blogs September 8, 2020 are "Katherine O'Carroll" ko2475@columbia.edu and "Frederick Knox" knoxfrederick212@gmail.com as well as e.lichtschein@gmail.com. If these persons exist (which is doubtful) I have certainly never met them or "him" ("Malbus") if they turn out to be the same individual. No doubt these are the same person(s) as "M.M. Larios" and "Phil George" at "Against Dark Arts." I will do my best to continue posting essays at these blogs (if possible) and I will begin to list sources here in the weeks and months to come even under these very difficult circumstances. I can not space between sentences to create paragraphs, for example, and I may not be able to return to this site. What you are witnessing is state censorship in criminal violation of the U.S. Constitution and other laws with the consent of American officials -- possibly including so-called law enforcement officials -- even as I will continue to resist this "silencing" effort to the best of my ability. My thoughts are with Julian Assange at this difficult moment in his life that is so similar to what I and other dissidents, journalists, intellectuals and lawyers experience from a government that is out of control. A package was sent to the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan September 10, 2020 Tracking No.#9505 5142 0126 0254 2950 85 and packages have also been sent to U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader-Gingsburg and Clarence Thomas. I am prevented at this time from creating other blogs online. I cannot send or receive email as of this date. I do not know whether all of the posts at blogger continue to exist. Graham Greene says: "Writing is a form of therapy; sometimes I wonder how those who do not write, compose or paint can manage to escape the madness, the melancholia, the panic fear which is inherent in the human situation." To prevent any person from writing in order to be read by the public is to kill the voice or destroy the freedom of that person. The effort to silence my voice and deny my autonomy will never succeed.

At this time I am unable to create another blog at blogger. 

I have no idea why these changes have been made at this copyright-protected site. 

I was required to sign-in to a "multiple-user" account at blogger today.   

I may be unable to sign-out. 

I will continue to try to reach my texts.

I write these words on August 21, 2020 at 1:50 P.M. not certain of whether I will be able to sign-in again. 

The library in New York is closed. 

I cannot be confident about the security of these writings, but I will do my best to continue writing online either by purchasing another laptop (two of my computers have been destroyed) or by returning to blogger using public computers at a re-openned New York Public Library.

As of 2020 there is no response from any American official, judge or justice, prosecutor or police officers to my communications nor to inquiries by others -- including (I believe) international authorities -- as regards my matters (or many related issues) that I have brought to the attention of the U.S. courts and government.

Surprisingly, evidence that a person (or persons) from Trenton's New Jersey government offices misrepresented him- or herself (or themselves) as the Jury Administrator of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan and who earlier claimed to be New York's "Letitia [sic.] James" and "Cyrus Vance, Jr.," as well as "admitting" or "not denying" paying a witness to lie under oath in legal proceedings against me, is not a subject of concern to the authorities. ("An Open Letter to Cyrus Vance, Jr., Esq.") 

Worse crimes committed very likely by the same people from New Jersey in Manhattan continue to be ignored by the New York Police Department (NYPD) for mysterious and unexplained reasons. ("John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.")  

None of my letters and attachments has been returned to me nor have I been asked to refrain from further communications with the U.S. Supreme Court or Department of Justice nor with other officials in New York or elsewhere. 

Legal entities or offices and tribunals are normally very good at making it clear when they do not wish to be bothered with someone or something. 

The NYPD is not bashful about expressing an opinion or telling people "what's what" in the charming expression of a former Commissioner.  

There are no refutations offered by Trenton's Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) of factual allegations against N.J. legal officials, nor any comments on the hundreds of pages of empirical evidence that I have supplied to public officials in this country which have now been made international that include the entire contents of the former "Philosophy Cafe" at MSN, phone records and postage receipts as well as copies of letters and envelopes received by me. I will send copies of the altered sign-in page at blogger to the U.S. Department of Justice. ("The Invicta Watch Company" and "The Invicta Watch Company Caper.") 

Use of the U.S. Post Office to perpetuate a criminal fraud is also a federal crime even in New Jersey and for Senator Menendez or the remarkable so-called "lawyers" at the OAE. ("Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics.")  

Persons committing federal crimes are usually deemed to be "unethical." 

Criminality is certainly the sort of thing lawyers should avoid especially if they are alleged "ethics attorneys" in New Jersey or elected officials in the U.S. government. ("Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes.")

Relegating persons and important legal issues to silence while engaging in more computer crimes and illegal government surveillance is a very dangerous mistake because it dehumanizes persons who are always entitled under federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution as well as international human rights laws to a "public and good faith response" from the state, transparency in legal proceedings, and the full truth concerning their lives and public records from all legal entities to say nothing of respect for their fundamental rights from politicians. ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "Bribery in Union City New Jersey.")

If any New Jersey lawyer or former lawyer -- such as Lourdes Santiago or Gilberto Garcia -- plans to continue lying about me please have the minimal decency to do so to my face rather than when my back is turned away from you and preferably on the record in a federal courtroom. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.") 

More lies and cover-ups from New Jersey can only damage the credibility of the state's befouled legal system such as it is.

Beyond that unfortunate state this sad spectacle undermines the credibility and respect due to the American legal system (I have reason to believe) before an international audience of American lawyers' peers from many parts of the world. 

Millions (if not billions) of persons do not exist or count as human beings for the American legal system -- including a majority of U.S. citizens, perhaps, who are not billionaires and cannot afford pricey lobbyists -- and I normally prefer the company of such "ordinary" people to the self-declared "movers and shakers" in Trenton, Newark, or "the sparkling metropolis" that is Jersey City. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State.")  

I persist in this effort to obtain the truth about my life and the lives of many others because my rights are formally indistinguishable from those of other Americans. 

To ignore my claims to the truth from state government -- truths that I am entitled to by law -- in criminal violation of their legal responsibilities and oaths as lawyers, judges, officials in New Jersey is, potentially, to deny similar claims by others, who may be incarcerated unconstitutionally or in violation of their state legal rights, or who may seek redress of their claims under applicable court rules in any of New Jersey's dismal tribunals or their federal counterparts.

If I can be ignored illegally soon others will be relegated to silence and dismissed without comment when they stand before the bar and, perhaps, they are already.  ("What is Law?") 

The hypocrisy and mendacity of OAE lawyers engaging in public outrageous and illicit conduct then climbing on a soapbox to pontificate about anyone's character or ethics as they seek to prevent him or her from speaking through the use of computer crimes and other tactics is enough to induce nausea. 

Earlier today I found my blogger profile "blocked" or inaccessible from Google. 

The dashboard to my blogs has been altered without my consent and in violation of copyright laws by persons "unknown" with surprising access to New Jersey judiciary computers during the months of the pandemic quarantine or "shut-down." 

I can never be certain of reaching my blogs nor can I guess what adventures I will have to undergo to continue writing. 

The persons responsible for these censorship efforts are New Jersey "attorneys" affiliated with (or protected by) the OAE which still claims to be "concerned" about my ethics and untroubled by their own lack of ethics.

It makes me sick to experience this contradiction between the promise and reality of law in a state that is all-too aptly described as "America's legal toilet." ("N.J. Judge James Troiano and More Feces in State Courts.") 

Please remember to "flush" New Jersey in order to improve your courts and politics by dealing at last with this crisis for your purported legal ethics system. ("New Jersey is America's Legal Toilet" and "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court.")

Speaking of "sickness" is highly appropriate given recent revelations that Governor Phil Murphy is suffering from a malignant cancerous tumor that is scheduled to be removed.

Mr. Menendez is afflicted with "undisclosed" health issues possibly including a "sexually transmitted disease" (STD) or malignant stage four cancers. 

In light of the hundreds of thousands of Garden State residents tormented by similar cancers made possible by chemical poisoning facilitated by the state's countless crooked politicians, judges, prosecutors, lawyers and cops there must be more important things for N.J. government to worry about than little old me. ("Judge John F. Russo, Cancer, and Corruption in the Garden State" and "New Jersey's Filth, Failures, and Flaws.") 

Political interference with the legal process that seems to concern Democrats when alleged against Mr. Trump and the D.O.J., evidently, is hunky-dory when corrupt Trenton politicians and their "appointees" to the judicial bench engage in the practice. ("New Jersey Supreme Court's Implosion" and "New Jersey's Political and Supreme Court Whores.")

Smearing feces on the walls of chambers in the lovely Brennan Courthouse that serves Hudson County is painful for me to hear of, but it may be highly symbolic of what is being lost in New Jersey's legal profession and failed courts even if it does not overly distress the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps, based on their continued official silence. ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")   

The essay below with one hundred sources attached making it obvious how great is the threat and danger for New Jersey's citizens and all of the state's unfortunate residents resulting from corruption (and this very situation that is now about as public as it can be) and calling for action from government, courts, police and prosecutors will be sent (it may take some time for me to do so) to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with whom I have communicated during the "shut-down"; William P. Barr, Esq., U.S. Attorney General at least as of this writing to whom I have also sent several parcels; and the Cuban Embassy in the U.S.; along with the Dallas Morning Star and other newspapers that are still "prohibited" from covering this matter despite the "protection," if any, provided by the First Amendment. 

My essay will be posted in stages based on my fleeting access to public computers and the few opportunities I expect to have to write during the days and weeks to come. 

In the event that concern over the Corona virus results in closing the New York Public Library (permanently) I will make use of Internet Cafes or copy shops to access my blogs in order to continue writing online.  

Obviously, it will take "as long as it takes" for justice to be achieved and for my full text to appear. 

I will certainly persist in my efforts to complete my "projects."

N.J. persons contemplating the agonies of loved ones dying of horribly painful cancers directly related to environmental factors -- cancers, again, enabled by political corruption and bribed judges -- may wish to reflect on the possible or "alleged" justice provided by the spread of diseases to the very persons who have brought so much suffering to many of their fellow citizens. 

I do not rejoice at the suffering of anyone. 

Unlike some of my former "colleagues" and "friends" I certainly would never attend a party to celebrate another person's misfortune. 

It seems fitting, somehow, that as cancer rates continue to soar in N.J. more members of the state's "ethical" legal profession succumb to the disease; for some reason there are new attacks against Jews and threats against judges (often the same people) appearing in the media; even as money continues to disappear from the state's coffers under mysterious circumstances. ("Have you no shame Mr. Rabner?")  

About 40%-to-60% of money collected as a result of N.J.'s new cigarette taxes will be stolen. 

This may be an optimistic assessment of the level of theft to be expected with the arrival of new revenues in Trenton.

The Corona virus pandemic has resulted (so far) in more than five million persons in the U.S. contracting the disease -- America leads the world in incompetence in terms of handling the crisis -- even as many states experience a new "spike" in virus cases. 

No matter what they tell you as residents of the Garden State this increase in contamination includes New Jersey where, for example, in Elizabeth 50 of 54 residents of an elderly care facility died of the virus due to the incompetence of staff and police. 

Besides this grim statistic is the discovery of new toxic burial sites and an explosion of lethal blood cancers in North Jersey. Medical facilities and professionals are overwhelmed and may resort to what they describe as "battlefield medicine" without informing the public of the fact. 

Politicians may be expected to lie to residents as courts will protect them in their criminality. 

Michael Levenson, "Governor of New Jersey Faces Surgery to Have a Tumor Removed," The New York Times, February 24, 2020, p. A17. (Senator Bob Menendez may have been diagnosed with cancer, AIDS, or another disorder, the matter is being covered-up at this time, but Governor Murphy has been forthcoming about his illness if nothing else: In March, 2020 Phil Murphy will undergo surgery for removal of a malignant tumor on his kidney. N.J. leads the nation, proportionately, in the frequency and number of cancer diagnoses especially, for some strange reason, with regard to cancers related to "environmental factors" and chemical waste. Corruption may have a little something to do with this grim and very sad reality in what has come to be called "The Soprano State." The sleaze that clings to New Jersey and its lawyers, judges, and politicians may also account for the applause that greeted news of Mr. Menendez's illness in Union City. Incidentally, kidney tumors have a high tendency to metastasize. Good luck, Phil Murphy.)

Katie Brenner & Adam Goldman, "D.C. Prosecutors Felt Besieged Long Before Stone," The New York Times, February 24, 2020, p. A1. (I wonder who is yanking the chain on federal prosecutors "unable" to deal with my matters? A little sunshine can only help. Political interference with the OAE is nothing new. Little favors for politicians from their appointed judges was one of the obstacles lawyers dealt with every day in New Jersey. Many lawyers practicing in the Garden State today will be required to lie about this fact if they want to "get ahead." It is well understood by decision-makers that you have to take care of the mayor, say, or Bob Menendez's girlfriend in court whatever the law says or an attorney argues before a bought or frightened judge. No doubt D.O.J. lawyers will be required to lie about political pressure placed on them in my matters and others. Evidently, this reality of New Jersey law also does not distress the U.S. Supreme Court. "New Jersey's Judges Disgrace America.") 

Jan Ransom, "Convicted in New York, Weinstein Will Face Next Trial in Los Angeles," The New York Times, February 26, 2020, p. A24. (Mr. Weinstein requests kosher cuisine and other "comforts" of home while incarcerated. I wonder whether all inmates are treated equally in the system? I doubt it. Increasing anti-Semitic attacks in New Jersey and elsewhere, as we will see, are aligned with perceptions of unequal treatment favoring Jews in the court system, or protection of prominent Jewish persons -- such as Debbie Poritz and Stuart Rabner -- until favors and privileges are made impossible by exposure, if that ever happens in Trenton, which I doubt. New Jersey's sleazy legal officials are beyond being shamed into good behavior. "New Jersey Rabbi Charged With Child Molesting.") 

Alan Feuer, "Weinstein Hires Aide for Prison," The New York Times, March 5, 2020, p. A25. (Another paid representative and professional has now joined Mr. Weinstein's camp: " ... a prison consultant named Craig Rothfeld." This person is an incarceration "guru" who assists the wealthiest criminals to "ease into the full prison experience." According to the Times: "Mr. Rothfeld's private firm, Inside Out Ltd., was created to help new inmates understand the details of what he calls 'the journey' -- the confusing and often frightening passage from living an ordinary [millionaire's] life to living behind bars." Mr. Rothfeld will no doubt see to Mr. Weinstein's kosher catering needs and television entertainment experiences behind bars as well as arranging medical care and visitation for friends or such items for which applications to the courts may be necessary as occasional "massages and private therapy sessions" to cope with depression. What could it hurt?)

Tracey Tully, "Budget Would Raise N.J. Cigarette Taxes to Highest State Level," The New York Times, February 26, 2020, p. A23. (New Jersey makes up for imposing the highest state "sin" taxes in the nation by ensuring the largest amount of theft from the public treasury, thanks to organized crime, of any comparable jurisdiction. Mafia cigarette suppliers are already devising schemes to benefit from the new taxes with increased sales of under-the-counter and stolen crates of cigarettes. Most of the revenues from these new taxes will disappear. Increasing expense associated with smoking also enhances the so-called "coolness" factor for young smokers. Consequently, there will be a spike in teen smokers as a result of making cigarettes more expensive according to well-known statistics. This will probably also lead to a greater number of cancer cases down the road in what is already America's "cancer alley." "Mafia Influence in New Jersey Courts and Politics.") 

Peter Baker, "Trump Assails Supreme Court in a Startling Turn, Criticizing Two Justices and Stoking Mistrust of the Judicial System," The New York Times, February 26, 2020, p. A1. (Can the U.S. Supreme Court be "reached" to use the elegant expression favored in New Jersey's legal profession? Is it easier to intimidate the justices as Mr. Trump is seeking to do? Why is the U.S. Supreme Court so seemingly frightened these days when it comes to a host of matters brought before the justices? Is the current Supreme Court pressured to "accommodate" powerful politicians or "bosses" at the expense of the obligation to apply the principles of the Constitution fearlessly and equally to all citizens or to ensure the proper administration of all courts in America? "Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.")  

Adam Liptak, "Roberts Condemns Schumer's Remarks," The New York Times, March 5, 2020, p. A19. (Sen. Chuck Schumer's veiled threats against President Trump's Supreme Court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, generated an unusual response from Chief Justice Roberts. Divisions on the Supreme Court seem to have paralyzed the justices who are unable to properly administer or defend not only the federal court system, but even the various state court systems -- such as New Jersey's failed judiciary -- that are descending, according to international observers, to below a Third World level in many instances leading to what must be called a full-blown human rights crisis in America, especially in prisons for non-millionaire inmates without "incarceration gurus" to ease their "journeys." Esther Salas was a presence in my former office along with Lilian Munoz illicitly contacting my former clients and committing other offenses. I fear that Ms. Salas and/or her family members may be subjected to further attacks which I deplore. I hope that Judge Salas will someday tell me the truth about her activities in my office and who paid for her services at that time. Jose Linares protected a former employer, David Samson, at a sentencing hearing without consequences for him despite canons of judicial ethics that required the then federal judge to recuse himself from that hearing for his "pal." Will these facts concerning corruption among members of the federal judiciary interest Chief Justice Roberts? Will I receive a response to my inquiries from any U.S. official? Will I be able to sign-in again at blogger in September of 2020 after new alterations of this site? Only time will tell.) 

Dustin Racioppi, "2010s in N.J.: A Decade of Political Corruption," The Record, December 29, 2019, p. A-1. ("New Jersey can't seem to shake its image as a haven of political corruption. [emphasis added] The last decade did it no favors." The new decade has already seen New Jersey lead the nation in corruption and incompetence within the legal as well as political systems to say nothing of the astonishing cancer rates that seem to be related to Trenton's sleaze. New Jersey is number one in the nation for political corruption and endemic UNETHICAL practices among attorneys. Happily, politicians paid to allow for illegal chemical dumping and disposal of medical waste on filthy beaches are now dying of the very same cancers they have often brought to their fellow state residents. Is this New Jersey's "ethics" Mr. Rabner? Is this "wild justice" something for which the legal system should be credited? Why are you so "bashful" these days Mr. Rabner? No threatening letters anymore from the OAE? What would your rabbi say about disdain for the rights of others Chief Justice Rabner? "Stuart Rabner's Selective Sense of Justice" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.") 

Claudia Lauer & Meghan Hoyer, "Hundreds Left Off List of Accused: Orders, Dioceses Argue About Naming Priests," The Record, December 29, 2010, p. A-10. (N.J.'s young people and children are sexually abused in Catholic schools, also by rabbis in Jewish congregations, and in public schools to a greater extent than in neighboring states, allegedly, often with the complicity of legal authorities concerned, at least in the wicked old days, to protect Catholic clergy and powerful persons from negative publicity. Anything is preferable, allegedly, to "Little Debbie" Poritz or Stuart Rabner -- or their rabbis -- being "embarrassed" by revelations of incompetence or worse. "New Jersey is the Home of Child Molesters" and "New Jersey Welcomes Child Molesters.") 

Deena Yellin, "Bergen Native Claims Abuse, Sues Church," The Record, March 1, 2020, p. A-1. (Tish Cahill, of Ridgewood, joins the many thousands of New Jersey residents who are or have been victims of abuse at the hands of priests, rabbis, legal officials and, allegedly, even the state's senior Senator Robert Menendez. Does "Little Debbie" Poritz still like the girls? "Wedding Bells Ring For Menendez!" and "New Jersey is America's Child Abuse Capitol.") 

Jennifer Paltz, "NYC Ups Policing in Heavily Jewish Areas," The New York Times, December 29, 2019, p. A-14. (After anti-Semitic attacks in New Jersey, NYC immediately increased police protection in Jewish neighborhoods. I am sure that after attacks against African-Americans -- something which has become almost a daily reality -- the same "extra protection" would be provided by the NYPD for African-American citizens in neighborhoods where they are well-represented. Except, of course, that many of the attacks against African-Americans, allegedly, come from police officers and so-called "Right-wing Jews." This is the phrase used in the Times "Right-wing Jews." Fascistic Jews sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. In the age of Mr. Netanyahu or Jared Kushner, however, these developments seem "normal." "New Jersey Rabbi Charged With Child Molesting.")

Svetlana Shkolnikova & Hannan Adeley, "N.J. Schools Prepare for Corona Virus: But Districts Receive Little or No Guidance," The Record, March 1, 2020, p. A-1. (In addition to a concern that your child will be sexually molested in the number one state for abuse of minors in schools there is now an expressed fear of Corona virus in the same failing schools, besides lead in the water supply, added to exposure to harmful chemicals often buried under the schools. I can see why middle class parents with their infant children are leaving New Jersey in droves.) 

Andrea Salcedo, "An Emotional Start to Hanukah in Jersey City in the Aftermath of Terror," The New York Times, December 23, 2019, p. 19A. ("Less than two weeks ago, two gunmen charged the [JC Kosher Supermarket] in an anti-Semitic attack, leaving three bystanders dead and shocking Jersey City's 'thriving multiethnic community.' ..." In the past months since this attack there have been anti-Semitic incidents reported in every county in New Jersey as well as throughout the tri-state area evoking great concern among the authorities. Mysteriously, threats of new attacks against the likes of Stuart Rabner have been received by the authorities in Trenton. I can only hope that Mr. Rabner will be kept safe. "Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

Adam Nossiter, "Mobilizing to Confront a Wave of Anti-Semitic Vandalism," The New York Times, March 5, 2020, p. A14. (Matching the explosion of anti-Semitic attacks in the U.S., especially in New Jersey, are similar attacks against Jewish sites in France and the U.K., also in much of the rest of Europe. American allegations of "double standards" favoring Jews are echoed in Europe for some mysterious reason. I wonder why so many people feel this way about favoritism and protection of Jews in legal systems or by sold-out politicians? How many Jews are treated by U.S. police as Mr. Floyd was treated? How often are Jews murdered or tortured in Wisconsin? Portland, Oregon? Many of us "cannot breathe" because of the oppression sanctioned by courts protecting cops and politicians or crooked judges like Mr. Rabner. If your child is suffering from a blood cancer resulting from buried chemicals allowed by corrupt state politicians please feel free to express your feelings to the "bosses" in Trenton or Hudson County. "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "Menendez Charged With Selling His Office.")  

Johnny Diaz, "Police Say Woman in Iowa Ran Over a 14-Year-Old Girl She Thought Was a 'Mexican,'" The New York Times, December 22, 2019, p. 32A. (It is instructive to see the difference in reaction on the part of the authorities to the deliberate harming of a young "seemingly" Mexican girl by a woman, probably a lesbian, overtly driven by hatred at the same time as children at the nation's border were separated from their parents and incarcerated in concentration camps, even as others have been shot, without either expressions of sympathy from the authorities or "increased police protection" in Latino neighborhoods. Complaints by Latino immigrants are mostly ignored -- I am relegated to silence for example -- as increased threats are received from organized crime and cartels promise reprisals against persons violating the rights of the Latino community. Latinos and African-Americans are ignored by police officers when they are victims rather than culprits. Are there double standards that -- for some reason -- lead to attacks against Jews benefiting from the same bifurcated standards, or hypocrisies, and probably for a small fee? Nicole Marie Poole Franklyn chose to run over a 14-year-old child because the little girl "looked like a Mexican." It is unlikely, police say, that Ms. Poole Franklyn will go to prison: "She went on to make a number of derogatory statements about Latinos [and African-Americans] to investigators." Does brown and black skin still make persons fitting targets for attacks that will be ignored by police? Is it OK when lesbians commit the crime Ms. Santiago? Lilian Munoz? Estela De La Cruz? Alexandra Ramirez? Nydia Hernandez? Maria Martinez a.k.a. Barcelo? How many of you "ladies" raped Marilyn Straus while she was under hypnosis or unconscious? Women like Marilyn Straus "do not matter" Ms. Poritz? "Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love Fest" and "New Jersey Lesbian Rapes a Disabled Man" then "New Jersey Rabbi Arrested For Child Abuse" and "New Jersey's KKK Police Shocker.")   

"JERSEY CITY -- JC Kosher Supermarket no longer has broken windows and strips of yellow police tape."

I am told that Jersey City has become New Jersey's version of Paris:

"Less than two weeks ago two gunmen charged the market in an anti-Semitic attack, leaving three bystanders dead [and] shocking Jersey City's thriving multi-ethnic community." (N.Y.T., 12-23-19, p. A19.)

Since the occurrence of this dreadful incident that has generated pious and insincere hand-wringing from N.J.'s hypocritical politicians and judges (many of whom I know to be not only corrupt but aggressively anti-Semitic) there has been an increase in similar incidents not only in the wretched "Garden State" but also throughout the tri-state area, nationally, and in Europe as well as elsewhere. ("Legal Ethics Today" and "New Jersey's Tainted Legal Ethics.") 

Aside from the platitudes of politicians anger is expressed at street level by many ordinary people concerning N.J.'s "insider politics" and "double standards" that are aimed at protecting corrupt and prominent persons -- persons who are usually "perceived" to be Jews, whether rightly or wrongly -- at the expense of the poor who are typically members of despised minority groups. 

I suspect that simply being a poor person makes one a member of a "socially despised minority group" that is quickly becoming a majority under Mr. Trump's "compassion for the rich and screw everyone else" social policies.

African-Americans and Latinos are often detested by many so-called "Right-wing Jews" (I wonder if Judge Bolstein is still alive and I can only hope not) who are quick to place their hands on their hearts and shed a few public tears when a predictable response to their hostile attitude and disdain -- I have experienced it first-hand -- occurs in the form of a terrible incident of violence. ("Why I am not an ethical relativist" and "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.") 

When the legal system ignores legitimate requests for truth and justice it is only a matter of time before persons identifying with such legitimate aspirations for truth and justice by some of us will explode, violently, in a manner that is so public that it can no longer be relegated to silence. 

My response to injustice will always be legal and philosophical to undermine stereotypes of me generated by Trenton's bureaucrats probably seeking to cover their "posteriors" as it were often by inserting errors in my writings. ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.") 

Not everyone feels as I do about this peacefulness or concern with rationality and law. 

I can certainly attest to the rage that people feel about New Jersey's continuing nightmare and the many lives destroyed by Trenton's incompetence, racism, and paid-for inefficiency. ("New Jersey's Feces Covered Supreme Court" and "New Jersey Supreme Court's Implosion.") 

Based on comments that have to come to my attention I surmise that New Jersey's beleaguered residents are fed up with the thefts, lies, hypocrisy, abuse and suffering caused by sleazy individuals beholden to "bosses" -- like Angelo Prisco -- as exemplified by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, for example, or his one-time lesbian sidekick "Little Debbie" Poritz. ("Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" then "New Jersey's Political and Supreme Court Whores.") 

Trenton's politicians may be worse as the adventures of Bob Menendez and Stephen Sweeney in recent years make abundantly clear. ("New Jersey Welcomes Child Molesters.")

This is to say nothing of the countless convicted fraudsters and scam artists who once graced the state's legal profession and politics only to face indictment and eventual convictions such as Joe Ferreiro and his little friends. Mr. Ferrero did not approve of my ethics. ("Joe Ferreiro Indicted Again" and "Menendez Charged With Selling His Office.")

It must be possible for officials in Trenton to stop LYING and covering up their sins and crimes long enough to simply tell the truth, finally, about my matters and so many other disasters that are literally killing people in Hudson, Bergen, and Union Counties especially, but also throughout the state. 

Shame and humiliation have no effect on Trenton's bemerded OAE lawyers who simply continue to lie, happily, even when confronted with inconsistencies in their statements and evidence of attorney's participation in computer crimes targeting their critics, or in generating bogus "background reports," or committing far worse offenses such as sending me fake letters concerning student debts that no longer exist in violation of a federal tribunal's ruling:

"A bias incident report published by the New Jersey State Police and the state attorney general's office found that 35 percent of the 569 reported bias incidents in 2018 [expected to double in 2019 and triple in 2020] were motivated by the victim's religion. In 2018, 172 anti-Semitic [anti-Jewish] incidents were reported in N.J., the same number [were] reported in 2017, the report added." (N.Y.T., 12-23-19, p. A19.)

Many similar incidents were probably not reported by victims deeming the state system "hopeless." 

I will offer numerous examples from other parts of the country and lots of places in the world of similar "feelings" in my list of sources along with more instances of disgusting criminality in the "filth-pile" that is New Jersey's legal and political reality.

How people can stand to live in New Jersey and raise their children in an environment akin to a dump tolerating their betrayal by public officials who endanger persons' lives out of criminal incompetence is beyond me: 

"Between 2006 and 2018, Jews were the religious group most frequently targeted in reported bias incidents." (N.Y.T., 12-23-19, p. A19.)

What a shock it is to learn this fact.

N.J. Jews also seem to be the greatest beneficiaries of "discretion" that is helpful to them from police, prosecutors, judges and politicians for mysterious reasons. ("New Jersey Rabbi Arrested For Child Molesting.") 

This strange discrepancy in how people are treated in the legal system may have something to do with anti-Semitic attacks in New Jersey that are echoed in attacks elsewhere said to be based, again, on identical motivations or alleged "perceptions" in the population. 

Despite efforts by N.J. politicians (Ms. Loretta Weinberg) to deflect hostilities towards African-Americans more violence against Jews is expected. ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest" and "New Jersey Lesbian Sends Nude Photos to Minor.")  

"In New York City, anti-Semitic hate crime complaints have increased by 20 percent, according to data provided by the New York Police Department. The department [reported] 213 anti-Semitic hate crime complaints as of December 15, 2019 -- 36 more than last year." (N.Y.T., 12-23-19, p. A19.) 

The NYPD -- unlike the New Jersey State Police -- usually tells the truth about such matters while only ignoring "gentiles" (like me) when we communicate evidence of serious crimes against us to please politicians from a neighboring state, certainly Jewish victims of lesser crimes than I have reported are rarely ignored, but are very likely to receive "increased police protection." 

Trenton officials, sadly, still LIE habitually about unpleasant matters either out of necessity or from inclination in order to squirm out of their responsibility for what their state has become and the harm they continue to do to so many helpless and powerless people. (Again: "New Jersey is America's Legal Toilet.")

 

Markus Gabriel's "Neo-Existentialism" and the New Realism.

What follows is a brief comment on Markus Gabriel's philosophy. 

I have not discussed the exchanges between Professor Gabriel and his interlocutors in connection with the essay on "neo-existentialism" because I wished to develop my reaction to this text independently of the comments of others. 

My next essay to be posted here will examine New Jersey issues including the spreading plague of anti-Semitic attacks, more child molesting incidents, contamination and diseases linked to additional recently discovered and illegally buried chemical waste that is only aggravated by the Covid pandemic. 

These aspects of New Jersey life are made possible by the astonishing corruption and incompetence among lawyers, judges, police and politicians that seems to be in keeping with the Garden State's understanding of legality and ethics.

That essay will be sent with one hundred sources attached documenting New Jersey's quality of life issues and levels of corruption in the legal system that are beyond description to Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court; William P. Barr, Esq., U.S. Attorney General; the Cuban Embassy in the U.S. and other international authorities; along with The Dallas Morning Star and other newspapers.  

Primary Sources:

Books:

Markus Gabriel, Neo-Existentialism (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2018).
Markus Gabriel, I am Not a Brain: Philosophy of Mind for the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2017).
Markus Gabriel, Transcendental Ontology: Essays in German Idealism (London: Bloomsbury, 2015).
Markus Gabriel, Fields of Sense: A New Realist Ontology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh U. Press, 2015).

Periodicals:

"Markus Gabriel" Retrieved from: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=markus_gabriel&ocdid28950805.
"Interview of Markus Gabriel by Anja Steinbauer," http://www.philosophynow.org (2018).
"Graham Harman Interview of Markus Gabriel," http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com/books-fields-of-sense.html.
Markus Gabriel, "Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in the Age of Neuroscience," http://www.notredamephilosophyreviews.org (November 27, 2018). (Reviewing Gregg D. Caruso & Owen Flanagan, eds., Neuroscientism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in the Age of Neuroscience, Oxford University Press, 2018, $34.95, ISBN 978019460730.)
Sebastian Gardner, "Transcendental Ontology: Essays in German Idealism," http://www.notredamephilosophyreviews.org (December 15, 2015). (Reviewing Markus Gabriel, Transcendental Ontology: Essays in German Idealism, Bloomsbury, 2015, $32.95 (pbk), ISBN 97805671808.) 
Tom Sparrow, "Fields of Sense: A New Realist Ontology," http://www.notredamephilosophyreviews.org (October 4, 2015). (Reviewing Markus Gabriel, Fields of Sense: A New Realist Ontology, Edinburgh University Press, 2015, $34.95, ISBN 9780748692880.) 

A list of one hundred or more supplemental sources will accompany this essay.

Introduction: "Philosophy in a New Key."

Philosophy is always in search of renewal. 

In the eighties and nineties of the twentieth-century Richard Rorty announced the end of philosophy or its transformation into literature. ("Richard Rorty's Ethical Skepticism.") 

Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida made very similar claims in the aftermath of the events of 1968. The post-structuralist "French virus" only struck after Ludwig Wittgenstein's claim decades earlier that he had answered all philosophical questions in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus which Wittgenstein then found to be mistaken and repudiated in the posthumous Philosophical Investigations that was intended to be even more lethal for philosophy. ("Michel Foucault and the Authorship Question" and "Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz" then "A Philosophical Investigation of Ludwig Wittgenstein.")   

At about the same time that Wittgenstein was "ending" philosophy Martin Heidegger contended that philosophy could never be same after his magnum opus Being and Time. 

Friedrich Nietzsche declared philosophy to be ended in the nineteenth century with the "dynamite" of his philosophy that officiated at the "death" of God. ("Friedrich Nietzsche on Self-Realization.")  

Hegel had already argued long before Nietzsche's Zarathustra "appeared" that history had ended with himself as the "last philosopher" who embodied "Spirit" coming to know itself as "Spirit" (Geist). 

Immanuel Kant -- the "all-crushing critic of metaphysics" -- had previously terminated the intellectual project of Western civilization, of course, understood as the quest for "the meaning of reality" by declaring any such grand metaphysical ambition to be utterly hopeless because it could only result in an effort to escape the "bounds of sense" defined as human epistemic limitations. ("Immanuel Kant and the Narrative of Freedom.") 

From antiquity Western philosophers have happily announced the end of philosophy as well as the renewal of grand theory in their own works of "genius." 

This is especially true of German philosophers for some reason who, it must be said, have also made many of the foremost contributions to human knowledge over the past several centuries. 

Markus Gabriel is the latest of these brilliant German thinkers to appear among us in order to explain that we have got things wrong for two thousand years and that he will set things straight at last.

Professor Gabriel has declared himself a "neo-existentialist" and a "new realist." ("Guerrilla Aesthetics and the Lobotomizing of the American Mind.") 

I begin my comment on Professor Gabriel's essay by offering a sense of what these terms are taken to mean with the proviso that "neo-existentialism" is a lot like your grandfather's good-old post-World War II version of Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialism and a further reminder that the last time the phrase "new realism" was bandied about in philosophical circles it designated the writings of Cook Wilson and H.A. Pritchard at Cambridge University along with the "common sense realists" inspired by G.E. Moore early in the Edwardian period of British history.

Philosophy will always be with us. 

Perhaps the ancient Romans were wise to remind us that "there is nothing new under the sun" because of the continuity in human nature which is why philosophy will always be with us.    

Before setting the stage for Professor Gabriel's entrance on a high note I should give readers a "feel" for the leading players and rivals for your affections among philosophers today. 

Markus Gabriel has been called the "Jonas Kaufman of contemporary German philosophy." 

I do not know Mr. Kaufman's views of Kant. 

I doubt that Professor Gabriel can hit a high C, but he is an engaging writer and highly original thinker. 

Aside from the division between analytical and continental philosophical schools that I will delve into later in this essay there are sub-divisions within continental thought among "Speculative Realists," "Object-Oriented Ontologists," Frankfurt School "Critical Theorists," French "Structuralists and Post-Structuralists," "Postmodernists," "Phenomenologists," "Classical Existentialists," "Phenomenological-Hermeneuticists" (my category), "Feminist Theorists," and "Psychoanalytical Schools of Philosophy," "Neo-Marxist thinkers," and others to say nothing of pragmatists in America as well as global philosophy as represented in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. 

It is important to attach the appropriate technical labels to Markus Gabriel's writings and arguments before Professor Gabriel is invited to challenge the same terms, concepts, and categories in his efforts to re-draw the philosophical map. 

In the interest of full disclosure I should explain that I am, like Charles Taylor, highly sympathetic to Professor Gabriel's project and, possibly, even more aware than he is of the harm and evil that may result from the ideology of "scientism" that has taken hold of whole areas of popular culture in America and much of Europe as a result (among other reasons) of widespread philosophical ignorance. ("The Wanderer and His Shadow" and "Drawing Room Comedy: A Philosophical Essay in the Form of a Film Script.") 

I am on the side of Professor Gabriel and Charles Taylor along with many others in this debate (including Thomists), besides the humanistic scholars in areas other than philosophy, struggling to retain the claims of the person to dignity and spiritual as well as aesthetic sides to life that are not subject to "naturalistic materialistic reduction" nor can they be dismissed, as Dr. Phil would say, as mere "denial" of our animal drives:

"To be rational is not the same as to be reasonable."

William Barrett makes this important point in commenting on what must now be called "retro-existentialism":

"In my time I have heard the most hair-raising and crazy things from very rational men [and women] advanced in a perfectly rational way; no insight or feelings had been used to check the reasoning at any point."

It may be significant that we now often use the phrase "reality check" as a limitation on our theoretical flights of fancy:

" ... we accept in our public and political life the most humanly unreasonable behavior, provided it wears a rational mask [selfish genes?] and speaks in officialese ["enhanced interrogations"] which is the rhetoric of rationality itself. Witness the recent announcement that science had been able to perfect a 'clean' hydrogen bomb -- to be sure, not perfectly 'clean' yet, but '95 percent clean' or even '96 percent clean.'"

Cyberwarfare that destroys infrastructure and hospital technology or medical professionals' ability to care for patients has been called "clean warfare" by the Pentagon in 2019:

"Of course the quantitative measurement makes the matter sound so scientific and rational that people no longer bother to ask the human meaning of the whole thing." (Irrational Man, pp. 270-271.)

When scientists, philosophers, journalists, or politicians tell you that your "self is an illusion"; your identity is a "cultural construct without a referent"; your "mind is only your brain"; love is an "illusion created by your evolutionary drives"; life is entirely "meaningless" except for shopping for more possessions; and all religions are nothing but foolish superstitions -- you have a right to be skeptical about these claims even when they are made by persons claiming academic or cultural authority. 

Markus Gabriel's philosophical arguments are helpful in the effort to evaluate and (I hope) dismiss such trendy claims in the age of Twitter and Facebook or something called "feministing."

I. WHAT IS "NEO-EXISTENTIALISM"?  

John Searle is reputed to have said that the difference between analytical and continental philosophers is that the former group answer questions with an argument whereas the latter respond by giving you a name. 

Searle's stereotypical comment is not accurate.

Much continental philosophy is conducted by means of exchanges of rigorous arguments among philosophers adhering to rival schools. 

Analytical philosophers often invoke their own canonical figures, such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, or Davidson, by way of offering an objection or "coding" an argument in support of a philosophical conclusion. 

There is something to be said for the distinction proposed by Franz Brentano between the scientific and artistic ways of practicing philosophy. 

These "styles" often overlap, even in the writings of the same philosophers, but there is (or has been) a greater affiliation among continental thinkers with the arts or artists while analytic(al) philosophers have attempted to align themselves with science and scientists.

Markus Gabriel has been clear in his views of this regrettable division in Western philosophy:

"I believe that philosophy is primarily the attempt to work out an overall vision of how our human thought fits into the strange place that we call 'the world.'"

I am not sure how this will be possible at all if, as Professor Gabriel insists, "the world does not exist." In any case further clarification is offered:

"Philosophy, for me, means being responsible for the fact that we have no clue what this show into which we are thrown is or means. [If it means anything.] For this means we first work out a vision of how things hang together, [emphasis added] which is a central part of our work." ("Graham Harman Interview of Markus Gabriel," pp. 3-5.)

To speak of "how things hang together" (if they do), or to suggest that there is no single way that things make sense, may well be to offer exactly the kind of metaphysical picture of the philosopher's "world" (or reality) which Professor Gabriel says elsewhere is impossible because the world as such a construct does not exist. ("The Return of Metaphysics.")  

Similarly, to say that one is a "new materialist" is difficult to reconcile with the additional claim that one believes in some "immaterial entities." 

To say both of these things amounts to claiming that one is a vegetarian who sometimes eat meat:

"I thus contend that there are immaterial entities which I consider essential for any possible insight of sound human understanding." (Gabriel, I am not a brain, p. 6.) 

A materialist is generally held to believe that ALL that exists is material or reducible to the material object that gives rise to other alleged existents (if any). 

Professor Gabriel contends:

" ... there are no coherent world pictures, and that religion is no more identical to superstition than science is to Enlightenment." (Gabriel, I am not a brain, p. 8.)

In his neo-existentialism essay Professor Gabriel states in defining this concept: 

"Neo-existentialism is the view that there is no single phenomenon or reality corresponding to the ultimately very messy umbrella term 'the mind.' Rather the phenomena typically grouped together under this heading are located on a spectrum ranging from the obviously physical to the non-existing." (Gabriel, Neo-existentialism, pp. 8-9.) 

Professor Gabriel elsewhere offers the familiar distinction between mind or the mental (pour soi) and the natural (en soi) central to his philosophy thereby re-arranging Jean-Paul Sartre's ontology. 

Belief in immaterial entities is combined with acceptance of "many" realities while Markus Gabriel distinguishes "world" from "universe" (Gabriel, Neo-existentialism, pp. 10-11.), then conflates or blends the two concepts one of which he claims does not exist (Gabriel, I am not a brain, p. 14.), concluding, finally, that "neither nature or [sic.] the universe is the sole domain there is" defining the "new realism as the view that we can actually grasp reality as it is in itself by way of our mental faculties." (Gabriel, I am not a brain, p. 13, emphasis added.)   

As previously noted Professor Gabriel has also argued, repeatedly, that "there is no way reality is in itself" because he "believes in many realities." (Gabriel, Neo-existentialism, p. 45.) 

It is puzzling that Professor Gabriel contends that there is no single thing called "reality [the world] of which all things are proper parts." (Ibid.) 

It is a strange form of "new realism" that is compatible with "many realities" and/or kinds of reality but no more unusual for a "new materialist" to accept immaterial things as real. 

This logic leads to the conclusion that 1). there is no single reality or "world" that exists; 2). nevertheless, we can grasp "reality as it is in itself" with the power of the human mind. 

These statements, I fear, will cause Professor Gabriel to experience difficulties in his encounters with analytical philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett, who are fond of logic-chopping critiques of philosophical writings.

The semantic and logical difficulties are not very important in assessing Professor Gabriel's philosophy, in my view, because he is correct about a central and most important philosophical dilemma that we face in the scientific age in which we live whether we like it or not.   

Every philosopher chooses his ancestors and affiliations. Professor Gabriel has aligned himself with classical German idealism and contributed to the development of that tradition by way of reinterpreting phenomenology and other recent schools of thought thus placing his writings squarely within the continental tradition:

"I here side with the German idealists" -- Gabriel's mediated "new" realism is not far from (and may overlap with) recent anti-realist approaches to metaphysics as I suggest -- "who all pointed out that we can not replace a vision by a more geometric style argument for the simple reason that we can never overcome the vagueness of philosophical expression (and language as such). Notoriously, early analytic philosophy (like many other movements before) failed in providing us with a clear criterion of what counts as a clear analysis of a concept or a clear presentation of an argument." ("Graham Harman Interview of Markus Gabriel," pp. 3-5.) 

Like Sartre, whose entire body of work is a reaction to the modern philosophy he inherited that included the analytical tradition and its German roots, the terms and concepts "deployed" in recent new realism and neo-existentialism are derived from Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger by way of opposition to the extreme deformations of the "discourse of postmodernity" at the end of the twentieth century.

Continental thought today is reacting against the "wasteland" that was late modern thought in the works of major recent philosophers proclaiming the death of philosophy and end of man without moving beyond the inherited language of the German-French tradition of the past two centuries which makes it likely that history is about to repeat itself with all forms of new realism encountering a revival of anti-realism, on one side, and, on the other, novel rejections of humanism as well as the concept of truth combined with a dangerous embrace of nihilism as in the work of Ray Brassier. 

"The existentialist tradition contains thinkers such as Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Sartre. What they all have in common as a minimal assumption is the belief that Geist, the specifically human mind, brings with it a capacity to create institutions in light of our socially mediated gap of how our actions and explanations fit into a larger context." ("Neo-existentialism," p. 40.)

Any work of philosophy is a contribution to the history of the subject in the minimal sense at least that it must offer a creative interpretation (or "hermeneutic") of our contemporary situation in thought, the status of our vocabulary and conceptual resources or language in general, at a time when entertainment and advertising as well as far more cynical forces are constantly at work to contaminate all modes of thought, especially scientific language or philosophy that seeks to rise above the ephemeral or political terms which cannot be avoided. 

Philosophers from now on must be obsessively self-aware, in the continental tradition in particular where charges of vagueness and obscurity have done damage for years, concerning their time-bound and conditioned discourse and regarding "thinkers-who-are-their-thoughts" to paraphrase Hans-Georg Gadamer. ("Why philosophy is for everyone.") 

Neo-existentialism is a welcome protest against dehumanization resulting among other things from scientists' and their admirers' claims that "mindedness" is reducible to neurons firing in the brain and that the whole cosmic drama of creation along with the total adventure of the human species on our planet in all of the world's civilizations may be reduced to "selfish genes" seeking their perpetuation at "our" expense. ("Richard Dawkins and the Atheist Delusion.") 

Professor Gabriel is surely correct to suggest that this deflationary interpretation of the meaning of current scientific learning is only another mythology or, worse, an ideology (scientism more than any form of naturalism) that is false to the complexity of human experience to say nothing of our needs for meaning and purpose which we are certainly not required to accept on rational grounds or because of overwhelming empirical evidence outside the selective use of scientific tools and claims by the anti-humanists themselves. ("Has science made philosophy obsolete?") 

Stalking through the pages of Professor Gabriel's essay is a sinister villain -- the "Darth Vader" in neo-existentialism's version of "Star Wars" -- which may be described as something called "naturalism" defined in very particular and tendentious terms and occasionally confused with "scientism" which does indeed pose a threat to Western metaphysics as well as ontology and also an ethical dilemma. ("The Naked Ape.")  

Leading scholarly reference works differ substantially in how these terms and related concepts are defined: 

"Most generally, ["naturalism"] is a sympathy with the view that ultimately nothing resists explanation by the methods characteristic of natural science." (Blackburn, Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 235.) 

Please compare Ted Honderich's Oxford Companion to Philosophy, pp. 604-605 with Robert Audi's more religion-friendly definition in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 517-518. 

To speak of "nothing" resisting the scientific method of explanation (or of being "sympathetic" to such a view) while covertly aligning the concept of "naturalism" in philosophy with the study of empirical phenomena is to sneak into the discussion absolutist assumptions for science in the realm not only of so-called "nature" (what is not natural?) but also with regard to ethics and metaphysics or ontology. 

This is to predetermine the issue of what furniture the universe contains by deciding that anything which science cannot understand or make amenable to its methods does not exist which would exclude the validity of this absolutist claim for science as non-existent since no scientific experiment can establish the universality of scientific method itself. 

All of this is reminiscent of logical positivist claims for the "principle of verification" which could not be verified and, hence, succumbed to its own weapon of choice in favor of Karl Popper's "falsification criterion" of scientific validity. 

The spiritual or aesthetic and moral lives of persons are as "natural" to human beings as breathing, eating, or dying. 

Science plays a limited role or none at all in trying to understand the totality of what these aspects of persons' lives contain (or mean to them or us) as "beings-in-the-world." 

To ask whether Charles Dickens or Jane Austen is the better novelist is not to pose a question that science can answer, although this inquiry is far from "unnatural" (or trivial), nor must we accept that this question is merely about subjective preferences and therefore not subject to rational argumentation or analysis.  

The concern with judgments about values (and laws) together with their applications and interpretations of different aspects of reality is simply not and never will be amenable to resolution through experimentation or the "testing" of empirical "events." 

No experiment will tell us whether Charles Dickens is a better novelist than Jane Austen.

The question of whether Harvey Weinstein is "guilty" of the charges against him cannot simply be referred to a laboratory. 

Objective criteria may be formulated, nevertheless, to sharpen our intuitions about the ways in which one of these writers may be "better" than the other concerning some aspects of novel writing and not others. ("Master and Commander.")

There are also (we hope) rational methods to determine whether Mr. Weinstein committed the crimes with which he is charged, or to what degree he may be responsible for his reprehensible behavior, or, perhaps, even innocent of all charges assuming that he is paying his defense lawyers' fees. ("Ronald Dworkin on Law as Interpretation.")  

The issue concerning the relative merits of the two British authors of the nineteenth century is not merely a question about language (or what we mean by "better"). 

Aesthetic values underlying the analysis of the works of these writers will creep into any effort at greater precision in terminology or assessments of relative merits in their texts. 

Analysis will not be enough to obscure the difficult value choice, decision, and/or discovery that must be made to answer our authentic question as to the merits of Dickens versus Austen.

Ethical and jurisprudential values will be a part of whatever societal choices are made concerning how we assess Mr. Weinstein's guilt or innocence. ("What is Law?")  

Amazingly, as we will see, it appears that rather than science offering answers to such aesthetic or jurisprudential inquiries, aesthetics and hermeneutic methods similar to those used by lawyers or critics of art have been borrowed by leading scientists in their most recent efforts to understand a universe as puzzling and protean as well as beautiful as the novels of Dickens and Austen. 

Naturalistic methods since the seventeenth century were aligned with materialism, especially prior to the twentieth century, but the opposite seems to be true these days. 

As a result of this historical fact simplistic and reductive forms of naturalism have often been "hitched" to realism like railway boxcars on a train as though all of "reality" were necessarily "material" (and nothing more) even as "matter" was assumed to be easier to "grasp" or understand than the non-material "something" out there (if anything may be so described) which is certainly no longer true. 

Scientists now understand matter as essentially "energy" which is far from fundamental in a universe subject to basic laws (fields and forces) constitutive of material reality. 

Idealists and anti-realists have reduced "reality" in the opposite direction from "naturalistic materialists" towards ideas or concepts (hence, scientific "conceptualism") in a move that makes materialism of the classical variety obsolete or superfluous. 

The greatest difficulty today is not simply that science has rendered philosophical options dating from the seventeenth century archaic but that new models of physical reality have unified the concepts or what was described by those concepts that was formerly thought to be very far apart. ("John Searle and David Chalmers on Consciousness.")   

Physicalism may be opposed to materialism today; a naturalist may be required to accept or argue that fundamental laws describable mathematically giving rise to all material entities support new forms of rationalism and even anti-realism as distinct from old-style empiricism in epistemology and traditional versions of materialism in metaphysics.

It should come as no surprise that, as valuable as the work of "new realist" Markus Gabriel may be, it is no more important or exciting than the scholarly writings of anti-realist, idealist, and Christian priest Keith Ward who is also an opponent of materialism in More Than Matter.  

Scientific findings may be interpreted to support new realism and sophisticated or "pluralist" ontologies, such as (I believe) Professor Gabriel advocates, that are necessarily non-reductive postulating multiple "real" aspects of the universe or what Professor Gabriel calls "realities."  

This is true both within analytical and continental schools as well as among scientists as much as philosophers and literary intellectuals.

"Naturalism [of a conventional sort] in my view boils down to an avoidance strategy. The reason for its existence and widespread acceptance among philosophers and scientists alike in many parts of the world is ideological." ("Neo-existentialism," p. 13.)

II. IS "SCIENTIFIC NATURALISTIC MATERIALISM" STILL SCIENTIFIC?

The critique of naturalism by Professor Gabriel is really directed at an outdated form of naturalistic materialism and scientism. 

Many leading scientists in physics departments, but also biologists and neurochemists today have attacked materialism as a deeply flawed metaphysical "assumption" that is no longer warranted because it is actually grounded in the Newtonian physics of the seventeenth century culminating in the positivism of the nineteenth which is no longer tenable.

The Institute for Noetic Sciences in California is only one of the so-called "think-tanks" devoted to undermining "naturalistic scientific materialism" as an archaic as well as harmful ideology that has little to do with science.

Rupert Sheldrake, a foremost biologist affiliated with Cambridge University and one of the spokespersons for the Institute of Noetic Sciences, explains why materialism has been rejected:

"In biology and psychology the credibility rating of materialism is falling."

Dr. Sheldrake goes on to say:

"Can physics ride to the rescue? Some materialists prefer to call themselves physicalists, to emphasize that their hopes depend on modern physics, not 19th century theories of matter. But physicalism's own credibility rating has been reduced by physics itself for four reasons: 

First, some physicists insist that quantum mechanics cannot be formulated without taking into account the minds [Geist] of observers. They argue that physics [today] presupposes the minds of physicists.

Second, the most ambitious unified theories of physical reality, string and M-theories with 10 and 11 dimensions, respectively, take science into completely new territory."

This "new territory" is incompatible with any traditional version of materialism. 

The relevant mathematical "dimensions" may be thought of as "aspects" of the single complex and protean reality that we inhabit in the universe:

"Third, since the beginning of the 21st century, it has become apparent that the known kinds of matter and [or "as"] energy make up only about 4% of the universe. The rest consists of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy.' The nature of 96% of physical reality is literally obscure." (R. Sheldrake, "Setting Science Free From Materialism," EXPLORE, July/August, 2013, Vol. 9, No. 4., p. 3 available online at http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2013.04.004 updated 2019, and see also Professor Sheldrake's book The Science Delusion.) 

Roger Penrose, Amit Goswami, Brian Greene and many more scientists have discussed these developments and issues that may also be traced to the theoretical works of leading philosophers of science from Alfred North Whitehead to Hilary Putnam. 

All of these scientists and many more leading thinkers continue to agree that traditional forms of materialism are no longer a viable option in thinking about the ultimate nature of reality. 

Professor Gabriel's "Darth Vader" is now safely dead, except for some philosophers who may wish to revive him, but we certainly no longer have to fear a bleak materialist interpretation of life that enjoys the sanction of science. 

Daniel Dennett and analytical philosophers who take themselves to be advocates for highly disillusioned or skeptical and "realistic"  as well as utterly scientifically respectable positions while adhering to conventional materialistic monism are in fact arguing for an outdated ideology that may best be classified as a form of "scientism." ("Is Daniel Dennett an Unhelpful Samaritan?")  

Unfortunately, given some of Professor Gabriel's foundational ambiguities and the overlap in his categories or conceptual logic there is a real possibility that his important objections to crude naturalism and reductive or eliminative materialism will be overlooked in the Anglo-American philosophical community. 

Markus Gabriel has important things to teach us concerning the usable heritage of the classical German philosophical tradition which is now universal and (I suggest) he also displays a humanistic concern to retain a sense of the importance of the person and moral priorities in our ontologies leading to a possible future ethical philosophy.

Professor Gabriel has not yet published a systematic ethics or political theory nor has he expressed opinions that I am aware of concerning the philosophy of religion. ("Is it rational to believe in God?")  

Much of what Professor Gabriel has written is compatible either with a religious life-perspective or the opposite. 

Analytical philosophy seems determined to make itself irrelevant to the most important public discussions of our times. 

Analytically-minded philosophers in the English-speaking world have succeeded in earning the lack of attention they currently enjoy from the global intellectual community by failing to recognize the centrality of scientifically-based rejections of materialism while, nevertheless, claiming close affiliation with the sciences in their methodology and defense of materialism. ("Is clarity enough?") 

There has been an awful tendency to turn what analytical philosophers call "science" into a religion even as values are relegated to the realm of literary studies or statements of value are dismissed entirely as a matter for "linguistic therapy." ("Why I am not an ethical relativist" and "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")

It is possible today for a person to be an analytical philosopher and an anti-realist as well as anti-materialist as in the case not only of Keith Ward but also of such leading figures as John Foster and T.L.S. Sprigge. 

What is called for now is a reconsideration of the key terms and concepts in this discussion of ontology and, despite Professor Gabriel's protests, metaphysics: 

What is meant by philosophers using the terms "physicalism," "materialism," and the "new naturalism" are desperately in need of clarification. 

Professor Gabriel's philosophical work is a contribution to the clarification of these concepts for a new generation of philosophers transcending the continental versus analytical divide that will leave us at best with a sharpened assessment of the remaining options for students of the theory of reality today. 

Professor Gabriel will be horrified to learn that he is a kind of linguistic philosopher after all. 

A philosopher who defies conventional categories and labels to the same extent as Markus Gabriel points out that:

"You can go on refining the physicalist position, so as to accommodate all that Mary Shelly tried to teach us. As the position gains in sophistication it begins to awaken us to an enormous gulf in the world of organisms: the gulf between us and the rest. We have capacities that we do not attribute to animals, and which utterly transform all the ways in which we superficially resemble them. Two in particular deserve commentary: rationality and self-consciousness." (R. Scruton, Modern Philosophy, p. 223.) 

If physicalism now amounts merely to holding that what "is" must not violate the "laws" of nature that in turn must be abstract and not themselves "material" (as opposed to explaining the material world) if not the thoughts and dreams of those strange material beings with an inner life and "natural" tendency to imagine "what may be which never was" in order to make it real -- well, then, we can all be "physicalists" even as we reject old fashioned "materialism" in an entirely "naturalistic" way.

Philosophers rarely wish to be called "old realists." 

Perhaps it is no surprise that Professor Gabriel quotes Roger Scruton on more than one occasion:

"But what of the terms of our [scientific] theories? To what do they refer? This question has proved troublesome to empiricists. For in speaking of fields, waves and sub-atomic particles" -- to say nothing of "selfish genes" -- "we are not referring to anything that is directly observable."

We may observe "genes" but not the "selfishness" we choose to attribute to them. 

"Of course we observe the effects of these things; that is precisely what the theory says. But we do not observe the things themselves." (R. Scruton, Modern Philosophy, p. 190.)  

Perhaps we merely create a language of scientific concepts to explain what we observe or what may help us to organize our experience of what we are then pleased to call "reality." 

Is there such a thing as "reality as it exists in itself" beyond our categories and concepts or perceptual capacities fully knowable by us? Does such a reality in any meaningful sense "exist" so as to be "apprehended by the human mind" in a pristine fashion? If so, if we make such claims and speak in confident terms of "reality as it is in itself," are we not creating a "world" in a metaphysical sense which is precisely what Markus Gabriel claims is not possible because no such world does or can "exist"?

"Sometimes theoretical entities seem inherently paradoxical, like the entities studied in quantum mechanics, which are both waves and particles, and concerning which there may sometimes be no categorical truths, only probabilities." (Scruton, Modern Philosophy, p. 190, emphasis added.)

Roger Scruton acknowledges that the final sentence in this paragraph contains a truth-claim. 

Professor Gabriel often quotes Erwin Schrodinger to make a similar point concerning the limits of the epistemology of science. 

I will refer to John Wheeler, Einstein's colleague and successor in Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, who created the "participatory universe" model that has become so influential among cosmologists: 

"Participation is the incontrovertible new concept given by quantum mechanics. It strikes down the term 'observer' of classical theory, the man who stands safely behind the glass wall and watches what goes on without taking part. It can't be done quantum mechanics says." (J. Wheeler, Gravitation, p. 1275.) ("Drawing Room Comedy: A Philosophical Essay in the Form of a Film Script.")  

The arguments supporting these claims resemble hermeneutic theories concerning the "fusion of horizons" in all encounters between creators and recipients of art works within the "space" created by aesthetic experience. 

"Space-creation" is in fact a feature of the multiverse models only beginning to be studied, mathematically, of course, but also philosophically. ("The Algorithms Are Primary.") 

The universe in a paradoxical and annoying way invites us to participate in creating the very reality in which we also find ourselves "placed." 

This metaphor of "space-creation" that is also "placement" is appreciated, for example, by Thomas Nagel in Mind and Cosmos with a profundity that is, perhaps, not fully recognized by Markus Gabriel in his dismissal of the work. 

To be sure "new realism" is one option these days, but equally attractive and popular is the "new anti-realism" of so many philosophers within both continental and analytical traditions. 

Professor Gabriel's philosophy faces a "new" challenge concerning the issue of whether he is (or is not) a "dualist." 

Gabriel's ambiguity on this matter is consistent with a larger pattern of challenging the traditional categories in metaphysics while seeking to escape all of the labels that would assign him a clear "location" on the philosophical map. 

III. IS MARKUS GABRIEL A "DUALIST" AS DANIEL DENNETT CONTENDS?  

In referring to Markus Gabriel's concept of mind (Geist) and "mindfulness" as real aspects of human beings and their social lives Daniel Dennett raises the specter of "dualism" to accuse Professor Gabriel of being a dualist and, thereby, discrediting his philosophy for allegedly scientifically-based thinkers:

"The idea of the mind as distinct in this way from the brain, composed not of ordinary matter but of some other, special kind of stuff, is dualism, and it is deservedly in disrepute today." (Gabriel, "Neo-existentialism," p. 36, quoting Daneil Dennett with emphasis in original.)

"Monism" in metaphysics is the view that there is only one kind of "stuff" in the universe. 

It may be that this one kind of stuff is "matter" and, thus, for the materialist the only form of explanation that will usually be held to be valid when it comes to the understanding of empirical phenomena -- or all the transformations of matter -- will be science. 

"Idealism" is also a form of monism that says everything is ultimately abstract ideas or reducible to abstract ideas, concepts, or laws, and/or "spiritual" reality (or consciousness) requiring multiple forms of explanation in addition to science, or that what exists must be related to mind(s). 

"Dualism" says against monism that mind or consciousness and matter or bodies have different "essences" or are different "kinds" of things and that both are real requiring different forms of explanation or understanding.

"Pluralism" holds that the universe or reality contains any number of "kinds" of things or entities that are "real" such as God and/or gods or spirits and possibly other beings as well as material objects and "selves." 

Professor Gabriel's response to Daniel Dennett's accusation (a lethal charge for analytical philosophers today is the accusation of "dualism") seems to be to ADMIT the dire charge of "dualism" by apparently accepting the label for his philosophy. 

This was not Professor Gabriel's intention, I believe, and this may have something to do with the translation of his text or other linguistic difficulties. 

Whatever the reason, however, the language used by Professor Gabriel on this issue is unfortunate and may undermine his entire argument: 

"Sure, if Geist was some kind of extraordinary matter, it would deserve to be in disrepute today and should have been in disrepute at least since the dawn of philosophy." (Gabriel, "Neo-existentialism," p. 37.) 

Dualism in the context of this debate within ontology and metaphysics (philosophy of mind) dates from the Cartesian revolution in the seventeenth century, not from Plato's work in antiquity:

"But my warranted assumption that you are awake, that the University of Bonn is an institution supported by the German taxpayer, etc., are not even candidates for things composed of any kind of matter, be it regular or special kind of stuff." (Gabriel, "Neo-existentialism," p. 37.) 

Professor Dennett would respond here that these claims by Markus Gabriel establish the validity of the criticism because Geist or mind is and must be (like everything else) either reducible to a material base or non-existent as a mere fiction. 

Radical materialism, as I have suggested, assumes an understanding of what is "matter" as well as concerning the options on these issues today that is exactly what has been discredited by recent science, much more than by what continental philosophers have said, although many phenomenologists and others have rejected materialism for their own independent reasons. 

Materialism has traditionally formed a natural alliance with realism in metaphysics.

The realist of all varieties insists that what is not a material "object" must be deemed epiphenomenal (at best) or "unreal" because existence or reality is necessarily independent of the mind whereas the anti-realist questions whether anything is either knowable or existent independently of the mind of the knowing agent ("there is no knowledge without a knower" according to Berkeley) in some form whether human or divine. (S. Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 319-320.)   

In the aftermath of the scientific revolutions of the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries the Daniel Dennett brigade in philosophy has been disconcerted to discover that their realist and materialist philosophy has found opposition not only among philosophical adversaries, who have always been around to annoy them with their idealist objections, but, again, even more by colleagues in the so-called hard sciences who were once believed to be allies of what has been called  "naturalistic scientific materialism" that has recently been discarded by many scientists.  

As the poets and artists and Donald J. Trump have always known, in the words of Wallace Stevens, "I am what is around me." ("Is truth dead?")

This is a conclusion that is antithetical to realism and materialism of all varieties. 

Baruch Spinoza added to our difficulties (as great philosophers usually do) by offering yet another option in metaphysics called "dual or double aspect theory" as a version of monism:  

Professor Gabriel's philosophy, properly understood (ideally by himself), belongs in this bizarre additional category as, indeed, does my philosophical school that includes a number of Germans such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and, if I read him correctly, Sebastian Rodl. 

Dual aspect theories postulate a conception of reality as unitary within diversity because of reality's "diversity of features" or complexity and protean nature there are many variant or "real" aspects that are non-reducible to one another yet equally valid simultaneously in the single "reality" we inhabit. 

Accordingly, both material and mental aspects of human "being-in-the-world" are quite real for dual aspect theorists. 

Professor Gabriel comes up with something similar but more confused that he calls: "conditionalism." 

Regrettably, by seeming to accept and then offering a critique of dualism which Markus Gabriel claims is riddled with contradictions Professor Gabriel unknowingly discredits his own version of "neo-existentialism" within his philosophy of mind: 

"One of the many mistakes which underlie substance dualism and its ilk is precisely the thought that reality consists of two halves: the mental and the material. The question of how the two halves are related is as ill-posed as a metaphysics which divides the universe into two parts." (Gabriel, "Neo-existentialism," p. 77.) 

A reader will be compelled to conclude that: 1). Gabriel admits to being a "dualist"; then 2). Gabriel claims that dualism is incoherent; and 3). Gabriel's philosophy must therefore, according to his own reasoning, be incoherent and we need not bother to read his books.  

This is the result of terminology that is unfortunate and not accurate to Professor Gabriel's intended argument or to his genuine achievement. 

Professor Gabriel may be classified most accurately and charitably as a "dual aspect theorist" and his so-called "new realism," as we will see, is perhaps best understood as a form of anti-realism close to the Kantian-Hegelian idealism which he admires that is fully compatible with current scientific views, as I suggest, based on Professor Gabriel's exact words:

"At the heart of this anti-naturalism is a version of an indispensability thesis: our non-naturalistic knowledge of the human being is an indispensable starting point for any investigation of the universe. We simply cannot eliminate the human being from our view of what there is." (Gabriel, "Neo-existentialism," p. 102, emphasis added.)

This is a perhaps unconscious paraphrase of Immanuel Kant's famous "transcendental idealism":

"Obviously, this alone does not have metaphysical anthropic consequences precisely because the universe is the domain of objects that cannot comprise the human being. [But these objects may only be known by, or exist for, minds.] We leave traces in the universe that are only visible from the standpoint of the human being, invisible otherwise." (Gabriel, "Neo-existentialism," p. 102.)

Presumably the "invisible" cannot be known or exist for those who do not know or "see" it very much like the "noumenal" in relation to the "phenomenal." 

Professor Gabriel's statement quoted above is incompatible with any form of realism that I am aware of or can imagine. This is indeed such a "new" form of realism that it becomes the old "anti-realism."  

Professor Gabriel's idealism will always make him an opponent of materialism, but given current scientific understandings Professor Gabriel may well remain nevertheless (as I believe him to be) a naturalistic thinker who is respectful of science. 

Conclusion: Professor Gabriel's philosophy is still evolving. 

As I was studying Professor Gabriel's writings I also read Mary Midgley's What is Philosophy For?

Ms. Midgley's life-work was devoted to defending the role of philosophy in the intellectual conversation of Western civilization in a scientific age and at a time when this discipline and all of the arts and humanities for that matter have been under attack.

Professor Midgley carefully distinguishes philosophical method in the non-analytic tradition as an old-style existentialist from the techniques of the sciences explaining the many limitations inherent to any and all academic subjects or ways of apprehending reality and understanding ourselves:

"People occasionally ask me on what topic I am doing research," Ms. Midgley writes, "and I say that I don't do any, because I'm certainly not organizing any static mining operation of this kind. I suppose that instead I try to follow the argument (as Plato said) wherever it runs, and I may finally catch it in a territory quite far from where it started. In fact, arguments [dialectics] are altogether much more like rabbits than they are like lumps of gold. They can never be depended on to stay still." (Mary Midgley, What is Philosophy For?, pp. 16-17.)

I have followed Markus Gabriel's arguments down some very peculiar rabbit holes where they seem to turn into their opposites.

Far from being a weakness this elusive quality to Gabriel's arguments is a sign of something vital and alive in his philosophical work that is connected to the dynamic aspects of our intellectual lives today -- lives that seem to change and shift as we formulate and seek to respond to the issues that plague our lives in days of great moral and metaphysical confusion and strife that is often caused by the same sciences and technologies that we are forced to turn to for solutions even if we have few answers so far.

Religion has lost its hold on young persons especially and the humanities have been sidelined as luxuries or distractions from the "serious business" of life while politics is often a depressing spectacle of corruption, incompetence, confusion, and ignorance where bewildered politicians grasp for personal power and money at the expense of the people they govern.

The courts are even worse. Judges are for sale in one way or another. Prisons are places to keep the most violent members of the urban underclass, especially when they are members of despised minority groups, so that we can forget about them along with ignoring the social forces that make them criminals. 

Philosophy recalls us to our humanity through the use of simple intelligence by reminding us of all the ways in which we are not only members of the natural order but also something more as creators of meanings.

I agree with Professor Gabriel and Mary Midgley that there is and must continue to be an important place for philosophical arguments in our intellectual conversation and that this place cannot and will never be filled by the sciences.

I also agree that humanity matters. 

It pleases me greatly that, after the events of the twentieth century, a German philosopher (only one of many) is among the world's leading thinkers on these issues. 

Sadly, America is one of the nations most in need of restoring the humanistic tradition despite the country's philosophical richness and, I believe, also recognizing, once again, respect for the reality of ethical values in public life and within legal institutions as the impeachment process demonstrates on a daily basis. 

My strongest reservations concerning Professor Gabriel's ambitious project have to do with serious ambiguities and confusions in the foundations of his formal arguments and other troubles in the unfolding conceptual logic of his philosophy as a whole. 

These difficulties are not fatal because any confusions or ambiguities can be cleaned up by himself or others in future editions of his writings mostly at the footnote level. 

I certainly urge readers to continue to study Professor Gabriel's writings with the hope that all of us may bring philosophical methods to bear on the controversies in the public squares (whether electronic and/or "real world" versions of these social spaces) of our troubled societies. 

We now confront catastrophes that threaten the literal survival of the human species and that are, partly, the result of philosophical confusions structural to our scientific and political modes of discourse which will never be remedied without theoretical attention. 

We will not "survive" if we cannot say what it means for our humanity to endure the horrors we live with or the ways in which science may help or hinder our efforts at reform. 

Markus Gabriel is one of the few philosophers who may help humanity to meet this awesome challenge of achieving not only physical but also moral survival. 

"Philosophy, in fact, is all about how to think in different cases -- how to imagine, how to visualize and conceive and describe this confusing world, which is partly visible to us, partly tangible and partly known by report, in a way that will make it more intelligible as a whole."

Mary Midgley wrote the following words in her mid-nineties summarizing a lifetime of professional achievement as a philosopher in her final book:

"[Philosophy] is a set of practical arts, skills far more like skills involved in exploring an unknown forest than they are like the search for a single buried treasure of Truth. And because of this it is far more concerned with the kind of questions that we should ask than with how, at any particular time, we should answer them." (Mary Midgley, What is Philosophy For?, p. 50.)   

Supplemental Sources:

Amir D. Aczel, Entanglement (London: Plume, 2001), pp. 83-94 ("Wheeler's Cat"). (See the quote from John Wheeler in my text.)

Stanley Aronowitz, Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society (Minn.: U. Minn. Press, 1988), pp. 301-316 ("Scientism or Critical Science: The Debate in Biology").

Robert Audi, ed., The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press, 1995), pp. 517-518 ("materialism") and pp. 488-489 ("metaphysical realism") then pp. 599-602 ("materialism in the philosophy of mind") and pp. 617-618 ("physicalism").

Bruce Aune, Metaphysics: The Elements (London & Minneapolis: U. Minn. Press, 1985), pp. 161-186 ("Appearance and Reality"). 

William Barrett, Irrational Man: A Study of Existential Philosophy (New York: Anchor Books 1990, 1st ed., 1962), pp. 3-41 ("The Advent of Existentialism").

William Barrett, Death of the Soul: From Descartes to the Computer (New York: Anchor-Doubleday, 1986), pp. 143-161 ("Analytic Philosophy and the Computer"). 

John D. Barrow, The Artful Universe Expanded (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2011, 1st Ed., 1995), pp. 243-254 ("Player Piano: Hearing by the Numbers"). (What follows is my highlighted passage: " ... higher mathematical operations are not genetically programmed into the human brain -- and what possible evolutionary reason could there be for lavishing valuable resources upon such a luxury? They are more likely to be byproducts of multi-purpose pattern-recognition abilities [emphasis added] But simple counting, because it is so closely allied to linguistic operations and the logic of the brain's own programming for language[,] is effectively programmed in." Please compare with this text Markus Gabriel's discussion of Geist and Geistig phenomena.)

Morris Berman, Coming to Our Senses: Body and Spirit in the Hidden History of the West (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), pp. 297-344 ("The Two Faces of Creativity").  

Richard J. Bernstein, The New Constellation: The Ethical Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992, 1st ed., 1991), pp. 31-56 ("The Rage Against Reason").

Simon Blackburn, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1994), p. 225 ("naturalism") and p. 233 ("materialism") then p. 287 ("physicalism").

Larry Lee Blackman, ed., Classics of Analytical Metaphysics (Boston: U. Press of America, 1984), pp. 3-38 ("Philosophical Background"). (Can there be a properly "analytical" metaphysics?) 

Andrew Bowie, Introduction to German Philosophy: From Kant to Habermas (London: Polity, 2003), PP; 58-78 ("German Idealism"). (It may be necessary to add a chapter on Markus Gabriel to the next edition of this book.) 

Andrew Bowie, Schelling and Modern European Philosophy: An Introduction (London & New York: Routledge, 2006, 1st Ed., 1994), pp. 91-126 ("Freedom, Ontology and Language"). 

Ray Brassier, Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction (New York: Palgrave & McMillan, 2007). (Please see the author's "Introduction" and defense of the "new" nihilism.) 

John P. Briggs & F. David Peat, Looking Glass Universe: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos (New York & London: Fontana, 1985, 1st Ed., 1984), pp. 225-253 ("Rupert Sheldrake Seeks Hidden Forms"). 

Harry Brighouse, "Why is an Argument Clinic Less Silly Than an Abuse Clinic or a Contradiction Clinic?," Gary A. Hadcastle & George A. Reisch, eds., Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think (Chicago: Open Court, 2006), pp. 53-65. (This collection of essays includes perceptive critiques of analytic-style philosophy and the limitations of all forms of logic-based philosophy by capitalizing on the Python troupe's skits.)

Rudiger Bubner, The Innovations of Idealism (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge U. Press, 2011), pp. 3-43 ("Schelling's Discovery and Schleiermacher's Appropriation of Plato"). (Translation from the German by Nicolas Waller.)

David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford U. Press, 1996), pp. 333-357 ("The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics").

David Christensen, Putting Logic in its Place: Formal Constraints on Rational Belief (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2007, 1st ed., 2004), pp. 33-68 ("Deductive Constraints: Problem Cases, Possible Solutions"). (Please see my citation to Monty Python and Philosophy.)

David E. Cooper, Existentialism: A Reconstruction (Oxford & Cambridge, UK: Blackwell, 1992, 1st Ed., 1990), pp. 57-78 ("Being-in-the-World") and pp. 79-94 ("Dualisms Dissolved"). 

Francis Crick, "Thinking About the Brain," Scientific American, Sept., 1978, pp. 219-238. (Arguing that the brain/mind is an interactive "process" or unfolding narrative that overcomes the mind/body distinction.) 

Daniel Dennett, Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985), pp. 131-152 ("Could have done otherwise?").

David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality (London: Penguin, 1997), pp. 222-257 ("The Nature of Mathematics"). (My highlighted passage and emphasis: "Abstract entities -- including multi-dimensional objects -- that are complex and autonomous exist objectively and are part of the fabric of reality.") 

William Earle, James M. Edie, John Wild, eds., Christianity and Existentialism (Evanston: Northwestern U. Press, 1963), pp. 40-65 ("Christian Rationalism") and pp. 88-112 ("Sartre: Man as the Impossibility of God") then pp. 113-148 ("Heidegger & Tillich: The Absence of God"). 

Dorothy M. Emmett, The Nature of Metaphysical Thinking (London: McMillan, 1953), pp. 68-95 ("Realism, Idealism and Analogy in the Interpretation of Scientific Thought"). 

Bernard D'Espagnat, In Search of Reality (New York, Berlin, London: Springer-Verlag, 1983). (Please see the substantive Introduction to the main argument by a leading proponent of the consciousness-based interpretation of quantum mechanics.) 

Raymond Flood & Michael Lockwood, eds., The Nature of Time (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 99-124 (Paul Davies's essay: "Time Asymmetry and Quantum Mechanics"). 

Erckart Foster, The Twenty-Five Years of Philosophy: A Systematic Reconstruction (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 2012), pp. 179-372 ("The Premises Are Still Missing").

Hans-Georg Gadamer, Hegel's Dialectic: Five Hermeneutical Studies (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press, 1971), pp. 52-53 ("Hegel's Inverted World"). (My highlighted passage in this text is relevant to my review essay: " ... however far modern philosophy might go in unlocking the secret of organic life, in knowing what lives [are] we will never cease to make a turnabout in our thinking of that which, as the play of forces, lawfully determines organic nature: we will think of it, conversely, as the behavior of the organism [emphasis added] and understand the organism as living. [Freely.] Though a Newton of the blade of grass may one day appear, in a deeper sense Kant will prove to be right. Our understanding of the world will not cease to judge 'teleologically.' ..." This must also be true for scientists. The translation of this text is by P. Christopher Smith.)

Hans-Georg Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics (Los Angeles: U. Cal. Press, 1977), pp. 182-197 ("The Science of the Life-World"). 

Sebastian Gardner, Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 87-113 ("Transcendental Idealism"). ("Routlege" is sometimes spelled "Routledge." I will do my best to write the publisher's name as listed in the title page of each work cited.)   

Amit Goswami, Ph.D., The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World (New York & London: Penguin, 1995, 1st Ed., 1993), pp. 63-145 ("Idealism and the Resolution of the Quantum Paradoxes") and pp. 147-211 ("Self-Reference: How the One Becomes Many"). (My highlighted paragraphs appearing at page 162 are relevant to the discussion in this critique and even more to Professor Gabriel's argument: "The brain-mind is an interactive system with both classical and quantum components. These components interact [dialectically] within a basic idealist framework in which consciousness is primary.") 

Peter Gratton, Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), pp. 85-107 ("Object-Oriented Ontology"). 

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Reality (New York : Vintage, 2000), pp. 231-262 ("Quantum Geometry"). 

Jurgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991), pp. 1-23 ("Modernity's Consciousness of Time and Its Need for Reassurance"). (Translation is by Frederick Lawrence.) 

H.F. Hallett, "Substance and its Modes," Marjorie Grene, ed., Spinoza: A Collection of Critical Essays (Bloomington: Notre Dame U. Press, 1973), pp. 131-163 ("Substance and Its Modes"). (See Professor Hallett's discussion of "double aspect theory.")

D.W. Hamlyn, Metaphysics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press, 1985, 1st Ed., 1981 and 1984), pp. 34-59 ("Ontology") and pp. 105-126 ("Simple Substances: Monism and Pluralism").

Michael Hammond, Jane Howard, & Russell Keat, eds., Understanding Phenomenology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, 1st Ed., 1991), pp. 71-95 ("Phenomenology and Transcendental Idealism").

Graham Harman, Towards Speculative Realism: Essays and Lectures (Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2009), pp. 140-169 ("Space, Time, and Essence: An Object-Oriented Approach"). 

Karsten Harris, The Making of Modern Art (Evanston: Northwestern U. Press, 1968), pp. 131-143 ("The New Realism").

G.W.F. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Mind (New York: Dover, 2003, 1st Ed., 1910 J.B. Ballie Translation of 1807 original), pp. 54-130 ("Consciousness").   

Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics (New York: Anchor, 1985), pp. 157-175 ("Four Quantum Realities") and pp. 211-231 ("Bell's Theorem"). 

William Ernest Hocking, "Whitehead on Mind and Nature," Paul Arthur Schilpp, ed., The Library of Living Philosophers: Alfred North Whitehead (New York: Tudor, 1951, 1st Ed., 1941), pp. 381-404. 

Richard Holmes, "Is Husserl Committed to Idealism?," The Monist, LIX (1975), pp. 94-114. (An entire school of philosophy is now devoted to "transcendental phenomenology." Please see my reference to James Richard Mensch and Thomistic phenomenology.) 

Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1995), pp. 604-605 ("naturalism") and pp. 530-532 ("materialism") then pp. 679-680 ("physicalism"). 

Edmund Husserl, The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (Evanston: Northwestern U. Press, 1970, 1st Ed., 1938), pp. 3-18 ("The Crisis of the Sciences as Expression of the Radical Life-Crisis of European Humanity"). 

Don Ihde, Hermeneutic Phenomenology: The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur (Evanston: Northwestern U. Press, 1971), pp. 59-80 ("Phenomenology Within Kantian Limits").

Hans Jonas, The Phenomenon of Life: Towards a Philosophical Biology (New York: Dell Books, 1966), pp. 64-91 ("Is God a Mathematician?").

Menos Kafatos & Robert Nadeau, The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory (New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, London, & Paris: Springer-Verlag, 1990), pp. 111-125 ("Science and the Quest for a New Metaphysics"). (Announcing the "death" of materialism. Please see the writings of  scientist Fred Alan Wolf whose books have always been ahead of their times.)

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (New York: Anchor-Doubleday, 1966, 1st Ed., 1781, 2nd ed., 1787), pp. 221-457 ("Transcendental Dialectic") (This is the revised F. Max Mueller Translation with commentary that features the text of Kant's second edition italicized as compared with the first edition text. Kant's revisions from the first to the second edition are very helpful for students of his philosophy.) 

Walter Kaufman, Hegel: A Reinterpretation (Bloomington: Notre Dame U. Press, 1965), pp. 87-111 (See especially in terms of Markus Gabriel's philosophy pages 102-to-110: "Kant-Fichte-Schelling-Hegel.")   

Richard Kearney, Leading Movements in Modern Philosophy: Phenomenology, Critical Theory, Structuralism (New York & Manchester: U. Manchester Press, 1986, 1st ed., 1984), pp. 12-27 ("Edmund Husserl"). 

Lawrence M. Krauss, Hiding in the Mirror: The Quest for Alternate Realities, From Plato to String Theory (by way of Alice in Wonderland, Einstein, and The Twilight Zone), pp. 130-139 ("Out of Chaos"). 

Majit Kumar, Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality (New York & London: W.W. Norton, 2008), pp. 301-327 ("Quantum Reality"). (One of my highlights in this book emphasizes a crucial point: " ... having interacted, instead of two one-particle systems, there was just a single two-particle system and therefore any change to one particle would affect the other, despite the distance [temporal and/or geographic] that separated them." Please refer again to the discussion of Spinoza's ethics and see my essay: "Dialectics, Entanglement, and Special Relativity.")  

David Lewis, Counterfactuals (Oxford: Blackwell, 1973). (The classic exposition of ideas and paradoxes from the theory of "counterfactuals" and a key chapter in the history of "modal logic.")

Peter J. Lewis, Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2016), pp. 151-164 ("Dimensions").  

Michael J. Loux, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (New York & London: Routlege, 1988), pp. 21-50 ("The Problem of Universals: Realism"). 

E.J. Lowe, The Possibility of Metaphysics: Substance, Identity, and Time (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004, 1st Ed., 1994), pp. 190-209 ("Matter and Form").  

Bryan Magee, Ultimate Questions (Oxford & Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 2016), pp. 66-67 ("Can experience be understood without a subject of experience?").

Bryan Magee, Making the Most of It (London: Studio 28, 2018), pp. 5-165 ("My Oxford").

W. Marx, The Philosophy of F.W.J. Schelling: History, System, Freedom (Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1984). (Markus Gabriel is strongly influenced by Schelling's idealism and theory of freedom.) 

Thomas McCarthy, "Rationality and Relativism: Habermas's 'Overcoming' of Hermeneutics," Habermas: Critical Debates (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983), pp. 57-78 (Please note Professor Habermas's response to critics at pages 219-283.)

John McDowell, Mind and World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1996, 1st Ed., 1994), pp. 87-107 ("Action, Meaning, and the Self").  

James Richard Mensch, Intersubjectivity and Transcendental Idealism (New York: SUNY Press, 1988), pp. 176-203 ("A First Solution to the Problem of Intersubjectivity"). 

Mary Midgley, What is Philosophy For? (London: Bloomsbury, 2018), pp. 15-34 ("What is Research?"). (See also the critique of materialism in the final chapters of this book.)

A.W. Moore, The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press, 2012), pp. 371-580 ("Metaphysics in the Modern Continental Tradition"). 

Thomas Nagel, The Possibility of Altruism (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1970), pp. 57-76 ("The Interpretation of Prudential Reasons: Identity Over Time").

Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1997), pp. 77-91 ("Science").

Thomas Nagel, Mortal Questions (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press, 1979), pp. 165-180 ("What is it like to be a bat?") and pp. 181-195 ("Panpsychism").

Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Naturalist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2012), pp. 71-95 ("Cognition"). (This is a short book that may best be read in a single sitting.) 

Philip J. Neuhjar, Kant's Idealism (Georgia: Mercer U. Press, 1995), pp. 5-10 ("Idealism, Transcendental and Otherwise").

Frederick Neuhouser, Fichte's Theory of Subjectivity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press, 1990), pp. 11-31 ("Origins of Fichte's Theory"). 

Christopher Norris, Minding the Gap: Epistemology and Philosophy of Science in the Two Traditions (Amherst: U. Ma. Press, 2000), pp. 197-230 ("The Limits of Naturalism and McDowell's Mind and World"). 

Christopher Norris, Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics (London & New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 106-131 ("Quantum World Without End"). 

Christopher Norris, Fiction, Philosophy and Literary Theory: Will the Real Saul Kripke Please Stand Up? (London: Continuum, 2007), pp. 212-254 ("Free Will, Creativity and Structural Constraints: Linguistics as a Guide to Metaphysics").

William Outhwaite, Habermas: A Critical Inquiry (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1994), pp. 20-37 ("Scientism in Theory and Practice"). (I am not aware of a dialogue -- if there is one -- between Markus Gabriel and Professor Habermas.)  

Tim Parks, Out of My Head: On the Trail of Consciousness (New York: NYRB, 2019), pp. 28-49 ("Inside Out").

Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (New York: Vintage Books, 2004), pp. 1024-1027 ("Where lies the road to reality?"). (Please note the comments at page 1031: "In fact, almost all the 'conventional' interpretations of quantum mechanics ultimately depend upon the presence of a 'perceiving being' and therefore seem to require that we know what a perceiving being actually is." Refer once again to the "conscious universe" models in cosmology and then see: "Is it rational to believe in God?")

Michael Polanyi, Science, Faith and Society: A Searching Examination of the Meaning and Nature of Scientific Inquiry (Chicago & London: U. Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 21-41 ("Science and Reality"). 

Michael Polanyi, Knowing and Being (Chicago: U. Chicago Press, 1969), pp. 138-158 ("The Logic of Tacit Inference"). (These essays were edited by Marjorie Grene who may have contributed entire sections of the text without credit as co-author.) 

John F. Post, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (St. Paul: Paragon House, 1991), pp. 30-31. 

Steven Priest, Theories of the Mind (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1991), pp. 150-182 ("Double Aspect Theory").

Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 3 (New York & Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press, 1983). (See my essay: "Hilary Putnam is Keeping it Real.") 

Paul Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations (Evanston: Northwestern U. Press, 1974), pp. 211-266 ("Hermeneutics and Phenomenology").

Nathan Salman, Philosophical Papers Volume I: Metaphysics, Mathematics, and Meaning (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2005), pp. 111-118 ("Modal Logic Kalish-and-Montague Style"). 

Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology (New York: Washington Square Press, 1956, 1st ed., 1943), pp. ix-lii (Translator Hazel E. Barnes's Introduction and commentary on the text) and pp. 3-30 (Sartre's foundations: "The Pursuit of Being"). 

Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology (London & New York: Routlege, 2003, 1st Ed., 1943), pp. xi-xxi (Mary Warnock's Introduction and commentary to a revised translation of this classic work.)  

F.W.J. Schelling, Abyss of Freedom (Ann Arbor: U. Mich. Press, 1997). (Compare Schelling's famous essay on freedom with Markus Gabriel's discussion of "Freedom" in I am not a brain.) 

Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Inquiry (London: Coronet, 2012), pp. 212-250 ("Are Minds Confined to Brains?"). 

Charles Taylor, Hegel (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press, 1975), pp. 127-147 ("The Dialectic of Consciousness").  

Charles Taylor, "Philosophy and Its History," R. Rorty, J.B. Schneewind, eds., Philosophy in History (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press, 1984), pp. 17-30.

Charles Taylor, Philosophical Arguments (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1995), pp. 61-78 ("Lichstung or Lebensform: Parallels Between Heidegger and Wittgenstein"). 

Mark C. Taylor, The Moment of Complexity: Emerging Network Culture (Chicago: U. Chicago press, 2003, 1st Ed., 2001), pp. 157-232 ("Evolving Complexity"). 

Mark C. Taylor, "Infinite Restlessness," S. Zizek, C. Crokett, Creston Davis, eds., Hegel and the Infinite: Religion, Politics, and Dialectic (New York: Columbia U. Press, 2011), pp. 91-113.

Roger Trigg, Beyond Matter: Why Science Needs Metaphysics (Pennsylvania: Templeton Press, 2015), pp. 49-71 ("World and Mind"). (Please see page 57: "Perhaps Kant was right, and what we think we know may simply reflect the categories of the human mind.") 

Palle Yourgrau, Godel Meets Einstein: Time Travel in the Godel Universe (Chicago: Open Court, 1999), pp. 17-36 ("Godel's Idealism"). 

M. Mitchell Waldrop, Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), pp. 198-240 ("Life at the Edge of Chaos").

John Wheeler, "The Computer and the Universe," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol., 21, pp. 557-572 (1982). (Quantum principles undermine the distinction between mind and world.) 

John Wheeler, Gravitation (San Francisco: Freeman, 1973), p. 1273.

Fred Alan Wolf, Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Non-Scientists (New York: Harper & Row, 1986, 1st Ed., 1981), pp. 127-208 ("Is There an 'Out There' Out There?").

Richard Wolin, Heidegger's Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Lowith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton U. Press, 2001), pp. 101-135 ("Hans Jonas: The Philosopher of Life"). 

Dan Zahari, Husserl's Phenomenology: Cultural Memory in the Present (Sanford: Stanford U. Press, 2003), pp. 79-140 ("The Later Husserl: Time, Body, Intersubjectivity, and Lifeworld").