A Summary of Unification Thought
Theory of the Original Image
I. Content of the Original Image
II. Structure of the Original Image
III. Traditional Ontologies and Unification Thought
Ontology: A Theory of Being
I. Individual Truth Being
II Connected Being
Theory of the Original Human Nature
I. A Being With Divine Image
II. A Being with Divine Character
III. A Being with Position
V. A Unification Thought Appraisal of the Existentialist Analysis of Human Existence
Axiology: A Theory of Value
I. Meaning of Axiology and Significance of Value
II. Divine Principle Foundation for Axiology
III. Kinds of Value
IV. Essence of Value
V. Determination of Actual Value and Standard of Value
VI.Weaknesses in the Traditional Views of Value
VII.Establishing the New View of Value
VIII.Historical Changes in the View of Value
Theory of Education
I. The Divine Principle Foundation for a Theory of Education
II. The Three Forms of Education
III. The Image of the Ideal Educated Person
IV. Traditional Theories of Education
V. An Appraisal of Traditional Theories of Education from the Standpoint of Unification Thought
I. The Divine Principle Foundation for Ethics
II. Ethics and Morality
III. Order and Equality
IV.Appraisal of Traditional Theories of Ethics from the Viewpoint of the Unification Theory of Ethics
Theory of Art
I. The Divine Principle Foundation for the New Theory of Art
II. Art and Beauty
III. The Dual Purpose of Artistic Activity: Creation and Appreciation
IV. Requisites for Artistic Appreciation
V. Technique, Materials, and Style in Artistic Creation
VI. Requisites for Artistic Appreciation
VII.Unity in Art
VIII.Art and Ethics
IX. Types of Beauty
X. A Critique and Counterproposal to Socialist Realism
Theory of History
I. The Basic Positions of the Unification View of History
II. The Laws of Creation
III. The Laws of Restoration
IV. Changes In History
V. Traditional Views of History
VI. Comparative Analysis of Providential View, Materialist View, and Unification View
I. Traditional Epistemologies
II. Unification Epistemology
III. Kant's and Marx's Epistemologies from the Perspective of Unification Thought
I. Traditional Systems of Logic
II. Unification Logic
III. An Appraisal of Traditional Systems of Logic from the Perspective of Unification Thought
I. Historical Review
II. Unification Methodology - The Give-and-Receive Method
III. An Appraisal of Conventional Methodologies from the Perspective of Unification Thought
I. Principle of Mutual Existence, Mutual Prosperity and Mutual Righteousness
II. Three Great Subjects Thought
III. Significance of the Four Great Realms of Heart and the Three Great Kingships
Logic is the study of the laws
and forms of thinking. A human being is a dual being of mind and body, which
are both governed by certain laws and forms. The body maintains its healthy
condition through its physio-logical functions, which are under the rule of
certain laws and forms.
Blood, for example,
circulates throughout the whole body, supplying nutrients and oxygen to the
terminal cells and tissues under these laws and forms. This means that blood
supplies nutritious elements and oxygen to the whole body through the “form” of
circulation. Perception and response in the human body are carried out with the
signals trans-mitted through the centripetal and centrifugal nerves. This means
that perception and response is carried out through the “form” of transmission
of signals in the nerves. In the blood, chemical reactions are always taking
place with the catalytic action of oxygen. These reactions are taking place
under certain laws. The blood flow is also under the fluid dynamic. Thus, the
physiological functions in the human body are carried out under certain laws
In a similar manner,
our thinking is carried out under certain laws and forms. It may seem that we
think freely without being restricted by any forms or laws, but this is not the
case. Since the time of Aristotle, who is considered to be its founder, formal
logic has dealt with the laws and forms commonly associated with thinking,
which contains various contents. In contrast to this, the dialectic of Hegel
and Marx dealt with the laws and forms in the process of development both of
thinking and of nature.
In this chapter, I
will first outline certain traditional systems of logic, focusing especially on
formal logic and Hegelian logic. Then, I will intro-duce the system of logic as
established on the basis of Unification Thought. Finally, I will examine
traditional systems of logic from the perspective of Unification Thought.
I. Traditional Systems of Logic
In this section I
will deal with formal logic, Hegelian logic, Marxist logic, symbolic logic, and
transcendental logic. Among these, I will explain formal logic in some detail,
since it is closely related to Unification Logic. I will explain other systems
more briefly, since I merely want to show that Unification Logic is able to
solve the difficult problems in traditional logic. Therefore, only certain
relevant points are dealt with, as was done in the chapter on epistemology.
Among the systems of logic, Hegel’s logic is treated somewhat in detail, since
there are many arguable points in it, and its explanation necessarily becomes a
little longer. It may be noted that to understand Unification logic itself,
this section can be skipped.
A. Formal Logic
Formal logic, which
was established by Aristotle, is more the study of the forms and laws of
thinking, and it does not deal so much with the content of thinking. According
to Kant, “That logic has already, from the earliest times, proceeded upon this
sure path is evidenced by the fact that since Aristotle it has not required to
retrace a single step…. It is remarkable also that to the
present day this logic has not been able to advance a single step, and is thus
to all appearance a closed and completed body of doctrine.”1 Formal
logic has existed, almost without change, for two thousand years since
Aristotle. This is because formal logic contains considerable truth, in so far
as it is concerned with thinking. Let me now introduce the main points of
formal logic, and point out which parts are valid, and which are insufficient.
1. The Laws of
enumerates the following four laws as the laws of thought.
(1) The Law of
(2) The Law of
(3) The Law of the
(4) The Law of
The law of identity
can be expressed by the form “A is A,” as in the statement, “A flower is a
flower.” This implies that, in spite of changes in phenomena, the substance of
the flower remains unchanging. This also implies identity in thinking itself.
That is to say, the concept of “flower” has one and the same meaning in every
case. Furthermore, this principle can also imply that two concepts are in
agreement, as in the statement, “A bird is an animal.”
The law of
contradiction can be expressed by the form “A is not not-A.” This can be regarded
as the principle of identity stated in reverse. In saying that “a flower is not
a non-flower,” one is actually saying that “a flower is a flower.” Likewise, in
saying that “a bird is not a non-animal,” one is actually saying that “a bird
is an animal.” One is an affirmative way of expression, and the other is a
negative way of expression, but the content remains the same.
The law of the
excluded middle can be expressed as, “Everything is either A or not-A.” This
means that there can be no third or middle judgment.
The law of
sufficient reason was first advocated by Leibniz. Its meaning is that every act
of thinking comes into being due to necessary reasons. Expressed in a more
general way, it becomes the law of cause and effect, which states that everything
has a sufficient reason for its existence. Reason here has two meanings:
namely, basis and cause. Basis is the opposite concept to conclusion, and cause
is the opposite concept to result. Therefore, this law means that thought
always has its basis, and that existence always has its cause. There are many
other laws, but all of them are derived from these four fundamental ones.
Formal logic also consists of three fundamental elements, that is, three
elements of thought: concept, judgment, and inference. I will explain each of
A concept is a general
representation (or idea) through which the essential characteristics of a thing
are grasped. A concept has two aspects, namely, intension and extension.
Intension refers to the qualities, or properties, common to a certain concept,
and extension refers to a set of beings to which the concept is applied. To
explain these, let me take living beings as an example.
Living beings can be
classified into concepts on various levels, such as animals, vertebrates,
mammals, primates, and human beings. Living beings are those beings that have
life. Animals, in addition to life, have sense organs. Vertebrates have a
backbone. Mammals have the nature of suckling their young. Primates have the ability
to grasp things. Human beings have reason. In this way, the living beings of
each level, represented by a certain concept, possess a certain common nature.
The qualities, or properties, common to a certain concept are called the
intension of that concept.
Among living beings,
there are animals and plants, and among animals there are mollusks, arthropods,
vertebrates, etc. Among vertebrates, there are reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.
Among mammals, there are primates, carnivores, etc. Finally, among primates
there are the various kinds of apes and human beings. A set of beings to which
a certain concept is applied is called the extension of that concept (see fig.
When we compare any
two concepts, that concept whose intension is broader and extension narrower is
called a “specific concept” (or subordi-nate concept), and that concept whose
intension is narrower and extension broader
is called a “generic concept”
(or superordinate concept). For example, when we compare the concept of
vertebrate with the concepts of reptile, bird, or mammal, the former is a
generic concept in relationship to the latter; and the latter are specific
concepts in relationship to the former.
Also, when we
compare the concept of animal with the concepts of mollusks, arthropods, or
vertebrates, the former is a generic concept, and the latter are specific
concepts. Further, when we compare the concept of living beings with the
concepts of plants or animals, the former is a generic concept, and the latter
are specific concepts. If we repeat this operation over and over again, we will
eventually reach the highest generic concept, beyond which no other concept can
be traced. Such concepts are called “categories” (see fig. 10.2).
In addition, the
pure concepts that reason possesses by nature (rather than through experiences)
are also called categories. These categories vary from philosopher to
philosopher. The reason for this is that the most important and fundamental
concepts in each thought system are con-sidered categories. Accordingly, the
definition of categories varies from philosopher to philosopher.
Aristotle was the
first philosopher to establish categories. He set up the following ten
categories, taking clues from grammar:
substance (2) quantity
(3) quality (4) relation
(5) place (6) time
(7) position (8) condition
(9) action (10)passivity
In the modern age,
Kant established twelve categories, which were mentioned in “Epistemology,”
based on the twelve forms of judgment.
a) What is a
An assertion of
something about a certain object is called a “judgment.” Logically, a judgment
is an affirmation or denial of a relation among certain concepts. When
expressed in language, a judgment is called a proposition. A judgment consists
of the three elements of subject, predicate, and copula. The object to which
thinking is directed is the subject; the predicate describes its content; and
the copula connects the two. Generally, the subject is expressed as ‘S,’
predicate as ‘P,’ and copula as ‘-’. A judgment is
formulated as “S-P.”
b) Kinds of
As for the kinds of
judgment, the twelve forms of judgment proposed by Kant are still employed in
formal logic today. The Kantian twelve forms of judgment refer to the four main
headings of quantity, quality, relation and modality, each of which is divided
into three subdivisions. They are as follows:
Quantity Universal Judgment: Every S is P.
Particular Judgment: Some S is P.
Singular Judgment: This S is P.
Quality Affirmative Judgment: S is P.
Negative Judgment: S is not P.
Infinite Judgment: S is not-P.
Relation Categorical Judgment: S is P.
Hypothetical Judgment: If A is B, C is D.
Disjunctive Judgment: A is either B or C.
Modality Problematic Judgment: S may be P.
Assertive Judgment: S is in fact P.
Apodictic Judgment: S must be P.
As explained above,
Kant established three forms of judgment in each of four headings of quantity,
quality, relation, and modality. In our daily life, we face various incidents
and situations, and in order to cope with them, we think in various ways.
Needless to say, the content of thinking is different from person to person.
However, as far as judgment is con-cerned, it is in accordance with the
above-mentioned forms of judgment. That is, a judgment is either a judgment of
quantity (much or little, many or few), a judgment of quality (is or is not), a
judgment of relation (among concepts), or a judgment of modality (How is it
c) Basic Forms of
Of the above forms
of judgment, the most basic is the categorical judgment. If the universal and
particular forms of judgment concerning quantity, and the affirmative and
negative forms of judgment concerning quality are combined with the categorical
judgment, the following four kinds of judgment can be obtained:
Universal Affirmative Judgment: Every S is a P. …………………(A)
Universal Negative Judgment: No S is a P. ……………………… (E)
Particular Affirmative Judgment: Some S is a P. … … … … (I)
Particular Negative Judgment: Some S is not a P. ……… (O)
The twelve forms of
judgment, with the exceptions of disjunctive and hypothetical judgments, can be
treated as categorical judgments. Then, if we arrange these categorical
judgments in terms of quantity (a singular judgment can be treated as a
universal judgment) and quality (an infinite judgment is included in the
affirmative judgment), we arrive at the four basic forms of judgment, A, E, I,
and O. The code letters A, E, I, and O derive from the first two vowels of the
Latin words affirmo (‘I affirm’-A, I) and nego
(‘I negate’-E, O).
d) Distributed and
In order not to fall
into error in making a categorical judgment, one must examine the relationship
between the extension of the subject and that of the
predicate. In one case, a term
(subject or predicate) in a judgment applies to an entire extension, but in
other cases, it does not. When a term in a judgment applies to an entire
extension, that term is said to be “distributed.” When a term applies to only a
part of its extension, that term is said to be “undistributed.”
undistribution of subject and of predicate are important concepts in a
judgment. In a judgment, there is a case where both subject and predict are
distributed, but there is a case also where subject and predicate can not both
be distributed, and there is yet another case where only one of either subject
or predicate can be distributed.
For example, in the
universal affirmative judgment “every man (S) is an animal (P)” (judgment A),
the subject is distributed while the predicate is undistributed (see fig.
10.3). In other words, the term ‘man’ applies to the proposition “every man is
an animal,” throughout its entire extension, but the same is not true about the
In the universal negative
judgment “every bird (S) is a non-mammal (P),” subject and predicate are both
distributed (see fig.10.4).
In the particular
affirmative judgment “some flowers (S) are red (P),” both subject and predicate
are undistributed (see fig. 10.5).
In the particular
negative judgment “some birds (S) are non-carnivorous animals (P),” the subject
is undistributed, since some S does not belong to P, while the predicate is
distributed (see fig. 10.6).
In the above judgments A,
E, I, and O, the distribution of terms is a rule of judgment. If one violates
the rule, one’s judgment will fall into error. If, for example, one draws the
conclusion “every lover of mountains is a hermit” from the judgment “every
hermit is a lover of mountains,” one will fall into undue distribution; thus,
the judgment is a fallacy. In a universal affirmative judgment, S should be
distributed, whereas P should be undistributed. In this example, however, both
S and P are regarded as distributed.
Inference refers to
the process of reasoning whereby a conclusion is derived from one or more propositions.
In other words, a conclusion “therefore, S-P” is
derived from already known judgments, which are called premises. When there is
only one proposition as the premise, the inference is called a “direct
inference.” When there are two or more propositions as premises, it is called
an “indirect inference.” Indirect inference includes syllogism, induction, and
analogy. Let me briefly explain each of these.
Deduction refers to an
inference wherein a particular conclusion is drawn from more than one
universal, general premise. The representative deduction is the syllogism, as
indirect inference, which draws a conclusion from two premises.
The first premise in
the syllogism is called the major premise, and the second premise is called the
minor premise. In the categorical syllogism, the major premise contains the
major term (P) and the middle term (M), and the minor premise contains the
minor term (S) and the middle term (M). The conclusion contains the minor term
(S) and the major term (P). The following is an example of the categorical
Major premise: Every
man (M) is mortal (P).
Minor premise: Every
hero (S) is a man (M).
every hero (S) is mortal (P).
The above can be
expressed with signs as:
M is P.
S is M.
Therefore, S is P.
In this syllogism,
the extension of the major term (P) is larger than that of the middle term (M),
which is larger than that of the minor term (S), as illustrated in figure 10.7.
The method by which
one attempts to reach a general assertion from a number of observed particular
facts is called inductive inference, or induction. It is regarded as an
application of the syllogism. The following is an example of induction:
chickens, and cows are mortal.
chickens, and cows are animals.
animals are mortal.
Is the conclusion “therefore,
all animals are mortal” correct? This con-clusion is a universal affirmative
judgment. The term “animal,” therefore, has to be distributed. In this
inference, however, it is undistributed, since horses, dogs, chickens and cows
are a part of animals. The conclusion is stated in the form of a universal
affirmative judgment as shown in fig. 10.3. However, this conclusion is, in
fact, a particular affirmative judgment as shown in fig. 10.5.
speaking, this inference is erroneous. However, such an inductive inference is
possible in natural science because of the application of the “principle of
uniformity in nature” and the “law of causality.” The former means that all
phenomena in the natural world have the same form, and the latter means that
the same effect is always brought about by the same cause. Accordingly, from
our experiences the induction is considered to be correct.
mode of inference is analogy. Suppose there are two objects of observation, A
and B, and it is known, through our observations, that A and B both have common
natures (a), (b), (c), and (d). Furthermore, suppose that A has another nature
(e), and it is difficult to observe whether B has the nature (e). In this
situation, one may conclude that B also has the nature (e), which A does. This
is an analogy. For example, through observations of the earth and Mars, it is
known that the two planets have the following common natures:
(a) Both are
planets, revolving around the sun while rotating on their axes.
(b) They have air.
(c) They have almost
the same temperature.
(d) They have the
changes of four seasons, and they have water.
Then, based on these
facts, one may conclude that there are living beings on Mars, since such beings
exist on the earth.
Analogy is often
used in our daily lives. For example, present-day advanced scientific knowledge
has been acquired through analogy, especially in the early stages of the
development of science. Also, analogy plays an important role in our family
life, group life, school life, business life, and creative activities. Therefore,
the accuracy of analogy becomes an important issue. The requisites for the
accuracy of analogy are:
(a) There should be
as many similarities as possible in the objects to be compared.
similarities should not be accidental, but rather essential.
(c) There should be
no incompatible qualities in these similarities.
In formal logic,
there are several other kinds of inferences to be dealt with, such as direct
inference, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllo-gism, the theory of
fallacy, and so forth, but I will conclude here, since my intention was only to
introduce the main points of formal logic.
B. Hegel’s Logic
of Hegel’s Logic
of Hegel’s logic are that it is not a theory about the laws and forms of thought,
but rather it is a theory about the laws and forms of the development of
thought. Furthermore, his theory is not about human thought, but about God’s
thought. Accordingly, Hegel’s logic is the study of those laws and forms with
which God’s thinking developed. God’s thinking developed from thinking about
Himself to thinking about nature, and then to thinking about history and the
state, and finally into thinking about art, religion and philosophy. The laws
and forms concerning the development of such thinking are characteristics of
As Hegel himself
stated, his logic treats the development of God’s thinking prior to His
creation of the world, and it is thus “heavenly logic,” or a description of “God
as He is in His eternal essence before the creation.”2 However,
unlike formal logic, it does not deal merely with the formal laws of thought.
Although it holds itself forth to be the development of God’s thinking, it
attempts to deal also with the most universal definitions and laws of the real
Outline of Hegel’s
consists of three branches, namely, the Doctrine of Being, the Doctrine of
Essence, and the Doctrine of Notion. These three branches are each subdivided,
such that the Doctrine of Being consists of Quality, Quantity, and Measure; the
Doctrine of Essence consists of Essence, Appearance, and Actuality; and the
Doctrine of Notion consists of Subjective Notion, Objective Notion and Idea,
and these are each further subdivided. For example, Quality in the Doctrine of
Being consists of Being, Determinate Being, and Being-for-Itself; and Being
further consists of Being, Nothing, and Becoming.
The starting point
for the development of Hegel’s logic is the dialectic of Being, Nothing, and
Becoming. After passing through these three stages, Being moves on to
Determinate Being. This Determinate Being has three further stages, and after
passing through these, the Determinate Being moves on to Being-for-self.
Being-for-self has three additional stages, and when they are passed through, it
moves on to Quantity.
Quantity moves on to
Measure by passing through its own three stages, and when Measure has passed
through its three stages, the theory concerning Being comes to an end.
Next is the theory
concerning Essence. Hegel’s logic moves from Essence to Appearance and from
Appearance to Actuality. Then comes the theory concerning Notion. Notion moves
from Subjective Notion to Objective Notion and from Objective Notion to Idea.
Within Idea, there are three stages, namely, Life, Cognition, and Absolute
Idea. Absolute Idea is the final destination in the development within logic.
Then the world of
logic or the world of Idea negates itself, in order to realize itself truly,
and moves on to the realm of Nature. According to Hegel, Idea moves on to
become external to itself, in other words, Nature is the self-alienation of
Idea, the negative of Idea, and Idea in the form of otherness. There are three
stages of Mechanics, Physics and Organics in the realm of Nature.
Further, Idea, which
externalizes itself by negating itself, returns to its
original self by further
negating the negation. Idea as having recovered itself through human being is
Spirit. Spirit passes through the three stages of Subjective Spirit, Objective
Spirit, and Absolute Spirit. Absolute Spirit stands at the highest point in the
development of Spirit. Absolute Spirit develops itself by passing through the
three stages of Art, Religion, and Philosophy. The above description of Hegel’s
system can be illustrated in the following diagram (see fig. 10.8).
The Dialectic of
Being, Nothing, and Becoming
Hegel’s logic, starting
with Being, deals with the process of reaching the Absolute Idea. Being is
discussed in the Doctrine of Being, where he begins with the dialectic which
consists of Being, Nothing, and Becoming. Hence, I will examine the dialectic
of Being, Nothing, and Becoming, because this portion constitutes the core of
Hegel’s logic starts
with Being.3 Being means simply that which exists, but this is the
most abstract of all concepts, and is an entirely indeterminate, empty thought.
Therefore, he says it is negative, namely, Nothing. For Hegel, Being and
Nothing are both empty concepts, and there is little distinction between the
two.4 Next, Hegel says that the unity of Being and Nothing is
Becoming. Both Being and Nothing are empty abstractions, but Becoming, which is
the unity of the two opposites, is the first concrete thought.5
With this logic of
Being, Nothing, and Becoming as the basis, the logical developments of thesis,
antithesis, and synthesis; and affirmation, negation, and negation of negation,
etc., which are usually regarded as Hegel’s method, came to be established.
Being, Nothing, and Becoming, we move on to the examination of the Determinate
Being. Determinate Being is Being with a certain form, Being considered
concretely. While Being means simply that which exists, Determinate Being means
that which is something. Moving from Being, Nothing, and Becoming to
Determinate Being, in short, means moving from the abstract to the concrete.
Becoming is a contradiction containing Being and Nothing within itself, and
through this contradiction, Becoming transcends itself to become Determinate
In this way,
Determinate Being is a definite Being, a qualified Being. This determinateness
of Determinate Being was called Quality by Hegel. However, even though we may
say determinate, what is considered here is simple determination. The
determination that makes Being a Determi-nate Being implies the affirmative
content of something, and at the same time, it implies limitation. Therefore,
the quality that makes something what it is, is reality, when seen from the
affirmative aspect of something, and at the same time it is negation when seen
from the aspect of not being another thing.
Determinate Being, reality and negation, or affirmation and negation, are
united. Next, Determinate Being proceeds to Being-for-self. Being-for-self
refers to the Being that is neither in relationship to another thing, nor
changing into another thing, but staying as itself in every way.
In the Doctrine of
Being, starting from an analysis of what it is to exist, Hegel discussed the
logic of change, or the logic of generation and disappearance. Next, the
Doctrine of Being proceeds to the Doctrine of Essence. Here, the unchangeable
aspect within things and the inter-connectedness among all things are
discussed. Next, it proceeds to the Doctrine of the Notion as the unity of the
Doctrine of Being and the Doctrine of Essence. Here, the fact that things do
not cease to be them-selves while changing into other beings-that
is, self-development-is discussed. The driving force
of this development is the notion and life.
Then, can one say
that God’s thinking proceeded in the way of Being, Essence, and Notion? We can
understand this if we watch the process of our cognition as we perceive things
from the external to the internal, he says. In the case of perceiving a flower,
for example, we first perceive the existence of the flower phenomenally. Next,
we perceive the essence of the flower. Then, the notion of the flower is
formed, in which the existence of the flower and the essence of the flower are
As mentioned before,
according to Hegel, nature is Idea in the form of otherness, or Idea as
self-alienated. Therefore, if Logic is made to be the thesis, then the
philosophy of Nature becomes the antithesis. Next, Idea regains consciousness
and freedom through the human being and becomes Spirit. Accordingly, the
philosophy of Spirit becomes the syn-thesis.
The natural world,
also, performs the dialectical development of thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis, that is, the three stages of Mechanics, Physics, and Organics. This
does not mean, however, that nature itself develops, but rather, this is the
process through which the Idea behind the natural world manifests itself.
First, the concept of force appears; next, the concept of physical phenomena;
and then, the concept of living beings, he says.
Finally, the human
being appears, and the Spirit develops itself through humankind. This
development takes place in the three stages of Subjective Spirit, Objective
Spirit, and Absolute Spirit. Subjective Spirit refers to the spirit of the
individual; Objective Spirit refers to the socialized spirit, or the
objectified spirit transcending the individual.
Objective Spirit has
the three stages of Law, Morality, and Ethics. Law refers
not to something systematized
like the constitution of a state, but to elementary forms in human
relationships, like a group of people. Next, man comes to respect the rights of
others and to lead a moral life. However, there are still many subjective
aspects (individual aspects) there. Thus, ethics appears as the norms that
everyone should commu-nally observe. The first stage in ethics is the family.
In a family, members are linked with one another through love, and there is
freedom there. However, in the second stage, namely, civil society, the
interests of indi-viduals conflict with one another, and freedom becomes
restricted. Thus, in the third stage, the state, which integrates the family
and civil society, appears. Hegel considered that Idea would manifest itself
fully through the state. The state in which the Idea is actualized is the
rational state. Human freedom will be fully actualized in that state.
Finally, there appears
Absolute Spirit. Absolute Spirit manifests itself through the three stages of
art, religion, and philosophy. When it comes to the stage of philosophy, Idea
regains itself completely. The dialectical movement of Idea returns to the
origin in this way. Nature appears; the human being appears; the state appears;
art, religion, and philosophy appear; and finally Idea returns to the Absolute
Idea (God).6 By accom-plishing this return, the entire process of
development comes to an end (see fig. 10.9).7
of Hegel’s Logic
explained, the beginning of Hegel’s dialectic is the triad (the three stage
process) of Being, Nothing, and Becoming, which is the dialectical development
of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis through contradiction. The triad process
repeats several times, and these processes are combined to form the highest
triad of Logic, Nature, and Spirit. The three stage process in Logic is Being,
Essence, and Notion, and in the stage of Notion, God’s thought becomes the Idea
(finally, the Absolute Idea). Passing through the stage of Logic, the Idea
alienates itself and appears as Nature, and then, through humans, it appears as
Subjective Spirit, Objective Spirit, and Absolute Spirit. Finally, it returns
to itself, namely, the Absolute Idea, the starting point.
The philosophy of
Nature and the philosophy of Spirit are not inde-pendent from logic in Hegel’s
philosophy. Logic, which is the first stage of the triad, contains the
philosophy of Nature and the philosophy of Spirit as prototypes. As already
explained, God’s thought becomes Idea in the stage of Notion in the triadic
process of Being, Essence, and Notion. The Idea is the prototype of the
philosophy of Nature and the philosophy of Spirit. In other words, it has the
blueprint of the universe. Hence, the philosophy of Nature and the philosophy
of Spirit are but the manifestations of the prototype within the Idea, in the
same way as the moving pictures on a screen are the reflection of the pictures
in a role of film. In other words, Hegel’s logic, which is the first stage of
the triad, is the prototype of the philosophy of Nature and the philosophy of
Spirit. Therefore, Hegel’s entire philosophical system is contained in his
logic. The dialectic of Hegel, which deals with the development of God’s
thinking, is usually called an idealistic dialectic.
The Circular Nature,
Laws, and Forms in Hegel’s Dialectic
explained, Hegel’s dialectic is a returning and circular movement whereby the
original stage is restored at a higher standard through the repetition of the
three stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This nature applies to the
lower level triads as well as to the higher level triads. In addition to this,
Hegel’s dialectic has a completing nature, since there is no more development
when the Absolute Spirit has restored itself.
Let us briefly
compare the laws and forms in Hegel’s logic with those of formal logic. The
laws in formal logic are the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and so
forth, and the forms are the forms of judgment, and the forms of inference. In
contrast, the laws in Hegel’s logic are dialectical laws, such as the law of
development through contradiction, the law of the transformation of quantity
into quality, the law of negation of the negation, and so forth; the form is
that of a dialectical development, namely, the three stages of thesis,
antithesis, and synthesis. A logic with such a form of development is called a
C. Dialectical Logic (Marxist Logic)
According to Hegel,
Idea manifests itself as nature in the clothing of matter; therefore, objective
reality is Idea. Marx, however, asserted that objective reality is matter, and
that ideas are merely the reflections of the material world on human
consciousness. Yet Marx accepted, without change, Hegel’s dialectic of thesis,
antithesis, and synthesis, and asserted that it is in fact the form of material
development. Accordingly, in opposition to Hegel’s “idealistic dialectic,” Marx’s
dialectic is called a “materialist dialectic.”
Based on such a
materialist dialectic, Marxist logic was established. The materialist dialectic
is the same as the idealistic dialectic in that both have the three-stage
process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis; therefore, Marxist logic is also
called a dialectical logic. Its original characteristic is its opposition to
formal logic, especially to the law of identity and the law of contradiction;8
that is because, according to dialectical logic, in order for things to
develop, A should be A and at the same time it should be not-A; and because the
laws of thought should be the reflection of the material development of things.
From the position of a materialist conception of history, Marxists assume that
the forms and laws of thinking advocated by formal logic belong to the
superstructure and have a class nature, so they should be rejected and a new
dialectical logic created, in opposition to formal logic.9 However,
if formal logic was to be rejected, then one would inevitably run into
difficulty: without formal logic, it is impossible to conduct coherent and
faced a similar difficulty. Based on the assertion that language belongs to the
superstructure, and has a class character, it was argued that a new Soviet
language should be created in place of the old Russian language.10 However,
this was almost impossible. Therefore, in 1950, Stalin published a paper
entitled “Marxism and the Problems of Linguistics,” asserting that language
does not belong to the superstructure nor does it have a class nature. With
this thesis as the starting point, a series of discussions took place in the Soviet Union from 1950 to 1951 on the subject of how to evaluate formal logic. From those
discussions, the conclusion was reached that the forms and laws of formal logic
do not belong to the superstructure and do not have class nature. Concerning
the relation between formal logic and dialectic logic, it was decided that, “while
formal logic deals with the elementary laws and forms of thinking, dialectical
logic is a higher logic concerning the laws of development of objective reality
and of thinking, which is the reflection of objective reality.”11 Yet,
logic based on a materialist dialectic, namely, dialectical logic, makes only
basic assertions, such as criticizing the laws of identity and the law of
contradiction. As a matter of fact, it has not been systema-tized as of yet.12
D. Symbolic Logic
Symbolic logic, which is a
development of formal logic, is an attempt to apply the correct method of
judgment by using mathematical symbols. Symbolic logic contrasts with formal
logic in certain important ways. In formal logic, the subject matter is the
relationship of implications between terms, that is, the relationship of
implications between the subject and the predicate in a proposition. In
contrast, symbolic logic focuses on the connection between terms, or between
propositions, and its subject-matter is the study of the laws of thought
through the use of mathematical symbols.
The five basic forms
of connection between propositions are as follows (where p and q are two
combination of these five basic forms, any complicated deductive inference can
be accurately expressed. For example, the basic laws of formal logic, namely,
the law of identity, law of contradiction, and law of the excluded middle, can
be symbolized as follows:
proposed extensive thought systems, but the question is whether or not their
logical constructions are correct. In order to ascertain their correctness, we
need to use mathematical symbols and make calculations. Symbolic logic came
into being from such a point of view.
E. Transcendental Logic
Kant’s logic is
called a transcendental logic. Concerning the question of how objective
knowledge can be obtained, Kant held that objective knowledge can be obtained
by thinking, through one’s forms of thought, about the sense content gained
through forms of intuition.
explained, thinking follows certain forms: the judgment forms and inference
forms in formal logic; the three stages of dialectical form in Hegel’s logic;
the forms of intuition and twelve forms of thought in Kant. Kant divided
judgment into four headings: quantity, quality, relation, and mode. Further, he
divided each of these into three kinds, establishing twelve forms. Based upon
these forms, he established twelve forms of thought, or twelve categories. A
category is the most basic framework through which we think. Categories are
also called a priori concepts.
Kant held that the
forms of intuition and the forms of thought are a priori, and not related to
experience. His logic is called a transcendental logic. Cognition, however, can
not be achieved with only a priori forms. Cognition takes place when the a
priori forms are connected to the sense content from an outside object, whereby
an object of cognition is finally synthesized. Kant’s forms of thought are
forms for cognition. They are concepts, or categories. A concept is something
like an empty container. It is meaningless if there is no content. For example,
the concept of “animal” has no substance (content) and it is merely a concept,
whereas individual beings that really exist such as chicken, dog, horse, shark,
and so on are beings with concrete content.
things-in-themselves can not be known. The things them-selves send various stimuli
to our sense organs, whereby this manifold of sense-sense content, or
sense qualities-is perceived. When the sense content
and the concept of an “animal” are united the object of cognition is
synthesized, for example a chicken or a dog. Thus, the forms of thought
themselves are only an empty framework, and only when they are filled with the
qualities from the outside, is the object of cognition synthesized. Thus, in
Kant, cognition is that of the synthesized object.
Formal logic since
Aristotle has dealt with the general forms and laws of thought, without
considering the object of thought. Kant’s logic, however, was epistemological
logic, aiming to verify how knowledge about the object is achieved.
II. Unification Logic
A. Basic Postulates
Point and Direction of Thinking
of logic have focused primarily on the laws and forms of thought, but
Unification logic begins by considering, first of all, the starting point of
thinking itself. Unification logic starts from the question as to why thinking
takes place at all, and then examines the forms and laws of thought. Why does a
human being think? The reason is that, prior to the creation of the universe,
God engaged in thinking. That is, prior to the creation of the universe, God
established the purpose of actualizing love based on Heart, and then made plans
in accordance with that purpose. That constituted His thinking, or Logos (Word).
Accordingly, a human
being, who is created in God’s likeness, establishes the purpose of actualizing
love based on heart, and then proceeds to think in order to accomplish that
purpose; that is the original way of human thinking. Purpose here refers to the
“purpose for being created” which consists of the “purpose for the whole” and
the “purpose for the individual.” The purpose for the whole is to serve, with
love, one’s family, neighbors, nation, and all humankind, to please them, and
moreover, to please God. The purpose for the individual is to satisfy one’s own
desires. Ultimately, these dual purposes are the purposes for which the human
being should live and for these purposes, the human being engages in thinking.
Between the purpose for the whole and the purpose for the individual, the
former should be given priority.
is to be carried out primarily to actualize the purpose for the whole, and
secondarily to actualize the purpose for the individual. Hence, the purpose for
the individual is for the purpose for the whole. Thus, originally human beings
are supposed to think not for the purpose of satisfying their own individual
purpose, but for the purpose of loving others. This is the starting point, and
the direction, of original thinking.
The Standard of
What is the standard
of thinking? Just as Unification ontology and Unification epistemology find
their foundation in the Original Image, so too, the system of Unification logic
has its foundation in the original Image. Therefore, the standard of thinking
is in the Original Image, and that is the logical structure of the Original
Image; namely, the inner developmental four position foundation and the
formation of Logos (plan). In other words, the standard of thinking is the
harmonious give and receive action that takes place between the Inner Sungsang
and Inner Hyungsang centering on the purpose based on Heart.
Another point that
should be mentioned before proceeding to the main topic is the relationship
between logic and other fields. Formal logic does not deal with the
relationship with other fields. Then, in order to correct its deficiency,
dialectical logic and transcendental logic appeared as its alternatives. In
Unification logic, the starting point of thinking is the actualization of the
purpose of creation based on God’s love, and its standard is the logical
structure of the Original Image; therefore, there is a wide range of related
fields. This is because the origin of thinking is God’s Word (Logos), or God’s
plan, and every field of culture is established based on this plan.
In the Original Image,
the inner developmental four position foundation, through which Logos is
formed, is the first part of the “two-stage structure of creation.”
Consequently, Logos, which is the Word, and at the same time a set of universal
laws, functions in all created things. Similarly, logic is related to all other
fields, since the inner developmental four position foundation (the logical
structure) is related to the outer developmental four position foundation, in
the formation of the two-stage structure of creation.
The inner four
position foundation in the two-stage structure of creation becomes the logical
structure, and the outer four position foundation becomes the structure of
cognition, and the structure of dominion. The structure of cognition, which is
the four position foundation in the acquisition of knowledge from nature, is
formed in scientific research, and the structure of dominion is the four
position foundation formed in production and practice, such as in industry,
government, education, art, and so on. Thus, logic, which is based on the
logical structure, is closely related to all other cultural fields, which are
based on the structures of cognition and dominion.
Structure of the
Here, I can briefly
review the structure of the Original Image. As explained before, the Original
Image consists of the two stages of the inner and outer four position
foundations. This structure is called the “two-stage structure of the Original
Image.” The similar two-stage structure in created beings is called the “two-stage
structure of existence.” Further, each of the inner and outer four position
foundations assumes an identity-maintaining nature and a developmental nature,
thus forming the identity-maintaining and developmental four position
foundations. The inner and outer developmental four position foundations are
called the “two-stage structure of creation.”
Since every created
being is made in the likeness of these two-stage structures, every individual
truth being possesses the “two-stage structure of existence” and the “two-stage
structure of creation.” Therefore, in human beings, the structure of logic,
structure of cognition, structure of existence, and structure of dominion all
assume the two-stage structures; thus, every four position foundation formed in
our daily lives necessarily assumes the two-stage four position foundation, or
This also means that
any field in which the formation of the inner four position foundation is
emphasized, and any area in which the formation of the outer four position
foundation is emphasized are in a complemen-tary relationship to each other.
For example, logic, which is mainly related to the inner structure, and pedagogy, and others, which are
mainly related to the activity of dominion, thus focusing on the outer
structure, are in a mutually complementary relationship. In conclusion, all the
two-stage structures in human society derive from the two-stage Structure of
the Original Image; therefore they are all interrelated (see fig. 10.10).
B. Logical Structure of the Original Image
Let me now proceed to the
Structure of the
Formation of Logos and the Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation
explained, logic is the science concerning the laws and forms of thinking. The
foundation of Unification logic lies in the inner four position foundation in
the Original Sungsang of God, especially the inner developmental four
position foundation. Therefore, we have to examine how thinking is made in the
inner developmental four position foundation.
As explained in the
Theory of the Original Image, the Inner Sungsang of the inner
developmental four position foundation refers to intellect, emotion, and will,
and the Inner Hyungsang refers to ideas, concepts, laws and mathematical
principles. In the inner
developmental four position foundation, give and receive action takes place
centering on purpose, which is established centering on Heart (love). That is
to say, give and receive action takes place in order to actualize the purpose
of Heart, whereby Logos or a plan is formed. Therefore, the plan formed is the
plan for actualizing the purpose of love. This is the logical structure. Thus,
the logical structure refers to the inner four position foundation of Logos
which is formed through the inner give and receive action to actualize the purpose
of love (see fig. 10.11).
Human beings should
also form inner four position foundations for the sake of actualizing the
purpose of love, in likeness to the logical structure of the Original Image.
Thus, thinking should be carried out in order to realize love.
Original Way of
thinking is motivated by heart or love. That is, thinking is for the practice
of love. Freedom is for the practice of love as well. If someone does evil acts
or hates others in the name of freedom, it is actually an abuse of freedom. The
practice of love is to realize the world of love, or the world of the ideal of
creation. If people think more and more for the sake of the realization of love,
the world of love can soon be realized.
Structure of Creation
Here, I will explain
the relationship between logic and the two-stage structure of creation, which I
have often mentioned. The two-stage structure of creation
consists of the inner
developmental four position foundation and the outer developmental four
position foundation that are formed successively. At that moment, Logos is
formed as the inner developmental four position foundation, which is the
Then, what is the
relationship between logic and the outer develop-mental four position
foundation? Is the outer developmental four position foundation necessary for
logic? Yes, it is absolutely necessary. This is because in Unification logic
thinking is carried out in order to actualize the purpose of creation, or
actualize love; therefore, the practice of love is the requisite for loving.
Practice refers to the actualization of what one has thought in his or her
mind; in other words, it is the formation of the outer developmental four
position foundation. The object of one’s practice is all things and human
beings. That is, practice is to love all things and human beings. Thus,
thinking is necessarily accompanied with motivation, purpose, and direction;
and it should be practiced as an action (see fig. 10.12).
This unity of
thinking and practice has its origin in God. God first made plans or formed
Logos, and then began to create all things and human beings. That is, God
planned (formed Logos), and started creation. This is the “two-stage structure
of creation.” Formal logic only deals with the forms and laws of thinking. From
the viewpoint of Unification logic, formal logic is not incorrect, but it is
incomplete. A unity of knowledge and action or the unity of theory and practice
is necessary. Its theoretical foundation is the two-stage structure of
C. The Two Stages in the Process of Thinking and the Formation of the
Four Position Foundation
The Stage of
Understanding and the Stage of Reason
In cognition, there
are three stages: the sensory stage, the understanding stage, and the rational
stage. This corresponds to the Unification Thought law of completion through
three stages. Since the sensory stage is the entrance through which information
comes in from the outside, it is only the formation stage of cognition;
thinking is conducted in the growth stage of understanding, and in the
completion stage of reason. In the understanding stage, thinking is affected by
the information coming from the outside; in the rational stage, however, thinking
is carried out freely.
Kant, also, speaks
of three stages of cognition. The stage in which one receives the sense content
coming from the outside through the forms of intuition is the sensory stage;
the stage in which one thinks through the forms of thought is the stage of
understanding, and that which unifies and arranges the knowledge acquired in
the stage of understanding is the stage of reason.13
In the case of
Marxism, the stage in which the sense content is reflected on the brain is the
sensory stage. Next is the logical stage, or the rational stage, in which
judgment and inference take place. Beyond that there is the stage of practice
in which truth is confirmed through practice. For Marxists, forms of thought are
reflections of forms of existence in the external world.
In terms of cerebral
physiology, as was explained in the chapter on epistemology, it is considered
that the sensory stage of thinking takes place in the sensory centers; the
understanding stage, in the parietal association area; and the rational stage,
in the frontal association area.
In the understanding
stage and also in the rational stage, a logical structure resembling the
structure of the Original Image is formed. In the understanding stage, thinking
is restricted by the sense content entering from the outside. This content,
from the external world, and the prototype of the internal world, are collated,
completing cognition up to that point. Here, an internal, completed
(identity-maintaining) four position foundation is formed as the cognitive or
logical structure. In the rational stage, thinking is free to develop on the
basis of knowledge obtained in the understanding stage; here, a new conception,
or a plan (a multiplied being), can be established. The structure at this point
is the inner developmental four position foundation.
speaking, the sensory center (sensibility) corresponds to the entrance of a
house; the parietal association area (understanding) corresponds to the
reception room; and the frontal association area (reason) corresponds to the
living room or study room. When informed of the visit of a guest, the host
receives the guest in the reception room. This can be compared to the sensory
stage. Then, the host tries to understand what the guest says while meeting the
guest face to face. At that time, the host is not in a position to think freely
about just anything he chooses, because his thinking is shaped by his
conversation with his guest. This can be compared to the understanding stage.
But when the visit is over, the host can retire to a private room and think
freely, referring back to what the guest has said. This can be compared to the
of Thinking in the Stage of Reason
In the stage of
reason, how does thinking develop? Thinking is made through give and receive
action. First, through give and receive action between the inner Sungsang
and the inner Hyungsang, a first step logos, or plan (a multiplied
being) is formed as the conclusion of the thinking. This sometimes concludes
the process, but in most cases, it is necessary to form a second step logos
(plan) based upon that conclusion. The logos formed at the first step has been
stored in the inner Hyungsang as an idea or a concept and is mobilized
as a datum for the next step of thinking, together with many other data (ideas,
concepts, etc). In this way, the logos of the second step is formed, which is
again stored in the inner Hyungsang to be mobilized in further thinking.
Then the third step logos comes to be formed. Subsequently, thinking proceeds
to fourth and fifth stages, etc. Thus, in many cases, even simple thinking does
not end in the first stage but continues many times. This is the process of
forming the four position foundation in the rational stage. It is called the
development of thinking in a spiral form (see fig. 10.13).
continues to develop infinitely in the rational stage, since it is a
developmental four position process. However, in the development of thinking, a
new step begins after the previous step is completed; thus, the development of
thinking consists of the successive formations of completed four position
foundations. Therefore, thinking develops by repeating these completed steps.
Basic Forms of Thought
cognition) at the stage of understanding takes place with the sense content and
prototype entering into give and receive action centering on purpose. First,
the purpose must be properly established. The correct purpose refers to the purpose
of creation based on heart (love).
As explained in
Unification epistemology, the protoimages and the images of relation formed in
the protoconsciousness of cells and tissues are transferred to the
subconsciousness within the lower center through the peripheral nerves, and
they are integrated and stored there. These are a priori prototypes (original
prototypes) with which human beings are born. The images of relation become
forms of thought, which put certain restrictions on cognition and thinking.
in the lower center has certain forms (images of form). Suppose, for example,
that an individual has appendicitis. The lower center, which integrates
protoconsciousness, knows in advance the information concerning the Sungsang
and Hyungsang (functions and stru-cture) peculiar to the appendix.
Therefore, the lower center immediately perceives an abnormality. Thus, the
lower center sends an appropriate instruction for the appendix to return to its
original, normal condition.
When the movement of
the stomach is too strong, it can cause con-vulsions, and when the movement is
too weak, it can cause gastric ptosis; the lower center knows the information
concerning the strength of the stomach movement. When the movement is too
strong or too weak, the lower center adjusts the strength properly. This kind
of information is related to yang and yin.
The cell has a
nucleus and cytoplasm; the nucleus controls the cytoplasm. The nucleus and
cytoplasm are in the relationship of subject and object. The subconsciousness
of the lower center has information concerning subject and object within the
also has the sense of time and space. Thus, when an infection occurs somewhere
within the physical body, the subconsciousness sends white blood corpuscles to
that location, and tries to cure it.
also knows the relationship between finite and infinite. For example, red blood
corpuscles die after they have lived for a certain period of time and new red
blood corpuscles are created. In that way, new cells are continually being
created within the body, and old cells die away. The subconsciousness is aware
of this finitude. In the body, there are also cells and organs that exist and
function while maintaining their durability, perpetuity, and cyclic nature. The
subconsciousness knows about this infinity of cells and organs as well.
In this way, the
subconsciousness of the lower center knows the forms of Sungsang and Hyungsang,
yang and yin, subject and object, time and space, finitude and infinitude, etc.
The images of these correlations reflected in the subconsciousness are the
images of form, which are sent to the cerebral center and become the forms of
thought in thinking.
The role that the
forms of thought play in thinking can be explained by comparing it with a
soccer game. In a soccer game, players run and kick the ball as they please;
yet, they do it while following certain rules. Likewise, reason freely proceeds
with thinking, but thinking is made with certain forms, which are under the
influence of the images of form; in other words, thinking follows certain
Forms of thought are
otherwise called categories which are the highest generic concepts. In
Unification Thought, categories are established on the basis of the principles
of the four position foundation and give and receive action. This is because
the four position foundation and give and receive action are the core
principles of Unification Thought. First, ten basic categories are established,
the meaning of which has been explained in the chapter on Epistemology.
In the past, many
thinkers established various categories, and among those categories, there are
many that are related to the categories of Unification Thought. For example,
there is the category of essence and phenomenon, which corresponds to the
Unification Thought category of Sungsang and Hyungsang.
divided into primary and secondary. The primary categories are the ten basic
forms peculiar to Unification Thought. The secondary categories are developed
on the basis of the primary categories. Among these, there are some that
correspond to the categories of tradi-tional philosophy. The following is a
list of the primary and secondary categories. There is no particular limit to
the number of secondary cate-gories: here, only a few are mentioned.
(1) Existence & Force (2)
Sungsang & Hyungsang
(3) Yang & Yin (4)
Subject & Object
(5) Position &
Settlement (6) Unchangeability & Changeability
(7) Action &
Effect (8) Time & Space
(9) Number &
Principle (10) Finitude & Infinity
(1) Quality &
Quantity (2) Content & Form
(3) Essence &
Phenomenon (4) Cause & Effect
(5) Whole & Individual (6)
Abstract & Concrete
(7) Substance &
& Hyungsang, among the primary categories, resemble essence &
phenomenon or content & form, why use such a new, uncommon term? Those
concepts which constitute the fundamentals of Unification Thought are such
concepts as four position foundation, Origin, Division, and Union Action, give
and receive action, and so on. If these were to be taken away, it would mean
that Unification Thought would lose its skeleton. Therefore, we can not but use
these terms as categories of Unification Thought.
Categories and thought
systems are closely related. It can be said that when one sees the categories
of a thought system, one knows the thought system itself, and when one grasps a
thought system, one knows its categories. Categories are the signboard of a
thought system. Since Unification Thought is a new thought, it is natural to
establish categories with new terms appropriate to this new thought. Marx’s
thought has Marxist categories; Kant’s thought has Kantian categories; and
Hegel’s thought has Hegelian categories. Likewise, Unification Thought must
have Unification Thought categories, showing the characteristics of Unification
Thought. These are the ten basic forms constituting its primary categories.
Basic Laws of
In formal logic, the
basic laws of thought are the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the
law of excluded middle, and the law of sufficient reason. From the perspective
of Unification Thought, there is an even more basic law, namely, the law of
give and receive action. This law is not only the law of logic, but it also
applies to all fields including politics, economics, society, science, history,
art, religion, education, ethics, morality, speech, law, sports, business and
natural sciences (physics, chemistry, physiology, astronomy, and so forth).
This law also
applies to the entire created world; namely, the entire physical world (universe)
and the whole spirit world. To be sure, it also applies to epistemology, which
is closely related to logic. The reason why the give and receive law is so
ubiquitously at work is that it is God’s law of creation, which derives from
the give and receive action between God’s Original Sungsang and Original
Hyungsang. God created all things in the likeness of His attributes;
therefore, give and receive action in God becomes the law of the created world.
The law of give and
receive action is the most fundamental law, governing all other laws. In other
words, the basis of physical laws, chemical laws, astronomic laws, etc. is the
law of give and receive action. The laws and forms of traditional systems of
logic, including formal logic, are also based, ultimately, on the law of give
and receive action. Thus, the law of give and receive action is the basic law
of thought. In order to show this, I will make some comparisons between a
syllogism and the law of give and receive action.
Syllogism and the
Law of Give and Receive Action
A syllogism is an
inference in formal logic. In order to show that the law of give and receive
action is the foundation of the forms and laws of formal logic, let us
consider, for instance, the following syllogism:
Man is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
The conclusion is
drawn as a result of the give and receive action between the major premise and
the minor premise, centering on purpose; namely, the conclusion is drawn
through the comparison of the two propositions: “Man is mortal” and “Socrates
is a man” (see fig. 10.14). Furthermore, the proposition itself is established
through the comparison of two concepts (subject and predicate) as shown in
figure 10.15. The same thing can be said of the following example:
(a) One meter is
(b) The width of
this desk is 2 meters.
(c) Therefore, the
width of this desk is 6.56 feet.
In this case, the
conclusion is obtained through a comparison of propositions (a) and (b).
The Law of
Identity and the Law of Give and Receive Action
The same thing can
be said of the law of identity. Consider, for example, the proposition, “This
flower is a rose.” This is a judgment in which “this flower” and “a rose” are
compared in one’s mind and it is concluded that they are the same. Comparison
is a contrast type of give and receive action. Thus, the law of identity is
based on the law of give and receive action. The same thing can be said of the
law of contradiction. In this way, the forms and laws of formal logic are all
based on the law of give and receive action.
Logic emphasizes the
forms and laws of thinking. Then, one may think, “Are we restricted by laws and
forms in our thinking?” or “I wish I could think freely without any
restriction.” In fact, however, forms and laws in thinking give us
freedom in thinking. Thinking without laws and forms
will break down. It is the same thing as a train unable to move without rails.
Only when both our mind and body are in accordance with laws, can they work
All the physiological
functions of our body work in accordance with natural law: respiration,
digestion, blood circulation, and transmission of information in the nerves are
all under certain physiological laws. If physiological functions deviate from
natural laws, our body will become ill right away. The same thing can be said
of our thinking. Consider, for example, the law of identity, “A is A.” If we do
not use the logical term “is,” we can not understand the meaning: If someone
says “This flower, a rose” instead of “This flower is a rose,” it is not
completely clear what he or she means.
The same thing can
be said concerning form. Consider, for example, a universal affirmative
judgment (Every S is P): “Every human being is an animal.” If we take away the
form that “every S is P,” and we just say “human being, animal,” our listeners
will not understand our meaning, and as time goes by, we will forget the
meaning of what we say.
In this way,
thinking necessarily follows certain forms and laws. There can not be thinking
that is completely “free,” unrestricted by any law or form. Freedom of thinking
is the freedom to choose any one from among various concepts. Thus, while
following laws and forms, thinking has the “freedom of choice.”
When people think
about love, for example, they have the common purpose or common direction of
the actualization of love. In their specific thinking, however, purposes and directions
are different from person to person. It is because each person has the freedom
of choice; therefore, he or she freely determines his or her specific purpose
or direction. Then, how is thinking made freely? Freedom in thinking is the
spiritual apperception to freely synthesize or associate ideas and concepts
within the inner Hyungsang. It is the freedom of planning, which is
based on the freedom of reason.
III. An Appraisal of Traditional Systems of Logic
from the Perspective of Unification Thought
logic itself, Unification logic finds nothing to criticize, and so Unification
logic is in agreement with the laws and forms of thought dealt with in formal
logic just as they are. Nevertheless, human thinking has not only the aspect of
form, but also the aspect of content. Also, thinking has purpose, direction,
and relations with other fields. Therefore, thinking is not to be done just for
the sake of thinking itself, but rather for the sake of cognition and practice
(dominion), and for the sake of actualizing the purpose of creation. That is,
the laws of thought are merely conditions wherein thinking can take place.
Hegel’s logic tried
to interpret philosophically the way God had created the universe. Hegel
understood God as Logos, or Idea, and considered Idea to be the starting point
of the creation of the universe. Hegel first explained the development of
Being, Nothing, and Becoming in the world of Idea. Since Being as it is
contains no development, he thought of Nothing as something to be opposed to
Being. Then, according to him, as the unity of the opposition between Being and
Nothing, Becoming comes into being. There is a problem in this view, however.
For Hegel, Nothing originally is merely an interpretation of Being, and Being
and Nothing are not separated.14 However, Hegel separated Being and
Nothing, and explained it as if Being and Nothing were opposed to each other.
Another problem is
that he held that Idea develops by itself. From the perspective of Unification
Thought, idea belongs to the Inner Hyungsang in the structure of the
Original Image, and develops as follows: As the functions of intellect,
emotion, and will-particularly reason within the function of
intellect-act upon the idea centering on purpose, the Logos (conception
or plan) is formed, which becomes a new idea. Accordingly, Logos, or Idea, is
something formed within the mind of God, and there can never be the case that
Idea develops by itself. Criticizing the “self-development of the Idea”
advocated by Hegel, Max von Rumelin, of Tubingen University, said:
The amount of effort
we have made to understand the meaning that Hegel’s so-called speculative
method had for its founder, Hegel, is beyond description. Every person thinking
of other people and shaking his head, would ask, “Do you understand? Without
your doing anything, will the Idea move by itself within your mind?” We were
told that those who answer yes are people with a speculative brain. We, who
were different from them, merely stood at the stage of thinking in the category
of limited understanding…. In our minds, the reason we had
failed fully to understand that method was the dullness of our own talents; we
did not have enough courage to consider that the reason lay in the very lack of
clarity and in the defects of the method itself.15
Further, Hegel held
nature to be the self-alienation, or the form of otherness, of Idea. As was
pointed out in the Theory of the Original Image, this view regards nature as
the expression of God, and is a view that can lead to pantheism, making no
distinction between nature and God. Thus, it has the potential to easily turn
dialectic, nature was merely an intermediate step in the process leading to the
appearance of humankind. Nature is like the scaffolding of a building under construction.
Once the building is completed, the scaffolding, which was used as a means of
constructing the building, is taken away. Likewise, once humankind came into
being, nature in itself became meaningless from the philosophical point of
He also said that
the human being is manipulated by reason in the development of history.
Consequently, the human being actually is a being to be manipulated like a
puppet by the Absolute Spirit. From the perspective of Unification Thought,
however, God is not unilaterally moving history. History is made through the
combination of the human being’s portion of responsibility and God’s portion of
dialectic has a cyclical, returning, and completing nature. According to Hegel, Prussia was supposed to become the rational state that had emerged at the end of
history. In actuality, however, Prussia disappeared from history without
becoming the rational state. Therefore, it follows that Hegel’s philosophy came
to an end with the end of Prussia. Problems such as these are abundant in Hegel’s
philosophy. We must say that the cause of these mistakes can be found in his
logic. Let us examine this point further.
Hegel grasped the
development of Idea as the dialectical development of thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis. The Idea alienates itself and becomes nature; and later, by becoming
spirit through humankind, it recovers itself. According to Hans Leisegang, this
way of thinking is unique to Hegel, and is based on his study of the Bible. Specifically,
Hegel’s philosophy of opposition, which is transcended by a higher synthesis,
is said to be based on the theme of certain passages from the Gospel according
to John, such as “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it
remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (John 12:24), and “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he dies, yet shall he
live” (John 11:25).16 From this position, Hegel conceived of God as
Logos, or Idea, and held that God manifests Himself in the external world just
as the life of a seed sown on the earth manifests itself on the outside. Here
lies the fundamental cause of Hegel’s errors.
From the perspective
of Unification Thought, God is a God of Heart (love), and having established
the purpose of creation motivated by Heart-an
emotional impulse to be joyful by loving an object-He
created the universe with Logos. Logos was the plan for creation in God’s mind,
and was not God Himself. In Hegel’s idealistic dialectic, however, God’s Heart
(love) or His purpose of creation are not mentioned. In Hegel, God is not
explained as God the Creator, but rather as a kind of life that germinates and
At this point, let
us compare Hegel’s logic and Unification Thought logic. There are similarities
between them, though the meanings are different. What Hegel calls Logos
corresponds, in Unification Thought, to God’s conception of, or plan for,
creation. Hegel’s process described as the dialectic of Logos corresponds in
Unification Thought, to give and receive action in the Original Image. Hegel’s
thesis, antithesis, and synthesis correspond to the Origin, Division, and Union
Action in Unification Thought. Hegel’s dialectic, which has a returning and
completing nature, can be understood, according to Unification Thought, as the
spiral developmental movement in nature through give and receive action
centered on the purpose of creation, and in history, as the history of
re-creation and restoration. Hegel tried to find the Idea through nature, but
Unification Thought holds that one can perceive the Original Image (Divine
Image and Divine Character) through all things symbolically. Therefore, the
problem of Hegel’s pantheistic nature can be solved by the Unification Thought
Theory of Pan-Divine Image, the view that the Divine Image is manifested in all
As mentioned before,
Stalin published a paper entitled “Marxism and the Problems of Linguistics,” in
order to settle the controversy which arose in the academic society of the Soviet Union. He concluded in it that linguistics does not belong to the superstructure and
therefore it has no class nature. As a result, the law of identity and the law
of contradiction in formal logic came to be recognized.
However, in the
framework of Marxism, the law of identity and the law of contradiction are
considered only as laws of thinking and are not laws of development of the
objective world. Hence, even if they accept the law of identity and the law of
contradiction in thinking, they claim that the objective world follows the
dialectical law of contradiction (the law of the unity and struggle of
opposites). This, however, is not in agreement with the basic tenet of
materialist dialectic that thinking is a reflection of the objective world.
Such a difficulty, or an aporia, occurred.17
In this way, after
the publication of Stalin’s paper, the law of the objective world (the
dialectical law of contradiction) and the law of thought (the law of identity)
became separated. In contrast, it is the assertion of Unification Thought that
changeability (developmental nature) and unchangeability are united in the
objective world as well as in thinking.
cognition) in the stage of understanding has mainly the identity-maintaining
nature, because cognition is completed for the time being by collating the
sense content coming from the external world with the prototypes from within.
However, thinking becomes developmental in the rational stage. Still, thinking
develops step by step; therefore, thinking has an aspect of completion (that
is, an identity-maintaining aspect) in each of these steps. Accordingly, the
law of identity and the law of contradiction are naturally recognized in
More precisely, what
does it mean that the materialist dialectic has come to recognize formal logic,
that is to say, that the laws of identity and of contradiction have come to be
recognized by the materialist dialectic? Originally, the basic assertion by the
materialist dialectic was that things should be understood as continually
changing and developing. However, the fact that the materialist dialectic has
recognized the laws of identity and of contradiction means that it has come to
affirm the unchanging nature of things, even if only with regard to thinking.
That has brought about a change in the essential nature of the materialist
dialectic. This is the same as a revision, or even collapse, of the materialist
dialectic. At the same time, it goes to show that the assertion of Unification
Thought, which views things as the unity of identity-maintenance and
development, is the correct one.
It is important to
pursue accuracy or rigor in thinking, and, from that perspective, there is no
reason why we should oppose symbolic logic. No one, however, can fully grasp
human thinking by mere mathematical rigor alone.
In the Original
Image, Logos is formed through the give and receive action between the Inner Sungsang
and the Inner Hyungsang. Since laws and mathematical principles exist
within the Inner Hyungsang, it follows that laws and mathematical
principles are contained in Logos; therefore, all things created through Logos
manifest laws and mathematical principles. That is why scientists are able to
study nature mathematically.
Human thinking has
God’s Logos as its pattern. Therefore, human thinking naturally involves
mathematical principles as well. In other words, it is desirable for thinking
to be made with mathematical precision. Here we can recognize the significance
of symbolic logic engaging in the mathematical study of thinking. We should
keep in mind, however, that in the give and receive action between the Inner Sungsang
and Inner Hyungsang, Heart is the center. This means that in the
formation of Logos (Word), Heart stands in a position higher than reason and
mathematical principles. Therefore, originally, a human being is not merely a
being of logos (i.e., a rational or law-abiding being), but is more essentially
a being with emotion (i.e., a being with heart, or an emotional being). Thus,
even if one’s thinking does not have mathematical strictness, if love or
emotion is contained in one’s thinking, the speaker’s meaning can still be
conveyed sufficiently well to others.
For example, when
someone sees a fire and shouts, “Fire!”, one can not know whether he meant to
say, “This is a fire” or “There is a fire burning.” In an emergency, however,
if enough emotion calling for help is poured into the utterance, even if there
is no grammatical accuracy in the words, people instantly understand the
meaning of the utterance.
The human being is
originally the union of logos and emotion. Therefore, by following only logos,
a human being expresses only half of his or her true value. By being only
rational, a human being is not fully human; only together with his or her
emotional aspect can a human being be truly human. Therefore, sometimes words
that have less accuracy can be more human. That is, there is an aspect in human
thinking that requires strictness, but a human being does not always have to
express everything accurately and logically. If we examine Jesus’ words, we may
find many illogical aspects there. And yet, why are his words great? It is
because God’s love is contained in them. Thus, even if our words may not
precisely follow correct logic, we can still fully convey our meaning to others
if the emotional element is properly included.
Kant asserted that
knowledge is acquired by thinking about an object (sense content) through a
priori forms of thought. However, from the perspective of Unification Thought,
the object has not only content (sense content) but also form (forms of
existence), and the subject of cognition also has not only form (forms of
thought) but also content (image of content). The truthfulness of thinking can
not be guaranteed only by what Kant called the a priori forms and sense
content. In contradistinction to that, in Unification Thought, the necessary
relationship between human beings and all things leads to the correspondence
between the laws and forms of thinking and the laws and forms of the external
world, and thus the truthfulness of thinking about the object can be
between Unification Logic and Traditional Systems of Logic
Finally, a diagram presenting a comparative view of Unification logic, formal
logic, dialectical logic, and transcendental logic is presented above (see
>> Go to top