A Summary of Unification Thought

Preface

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
IV.Conclusion
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

Ethics
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

Epistemology
I. Traditional Epistemologies
II. Unification Epistemology
III. Kant's and Marx's Epistemologies from the Perspective of Unification Thought

Logic
I.   Traditional Systems of Logic
II.  Unification Logic
III. An Appraisal of Traditional Systems of Logic from the Perspective of Unification Thought

Methodology
I.   Historical Review
II.  Unification Methodology - The Give-and-Receive Method
III. An Appraisal of Conventional Methodologies from the Perspective of Unification Thought

Appendix
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

Notes

Bibliography

Logic

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 and forms.

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 Thought

Formal logic enumerates the following four laws as the laws of thought.

(1) The Law of Identity

(2) The Law of Contradiction

(3) The Law of the Excluded Middle

(4) The Law of Sufficient Reason

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 these next.

2. Concept

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. 10.1).


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:

             (1) 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.

3. Judgment

a) What is a Judgment?

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 Judgment

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 certain?).

c) Basic Forms of Judgment

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 Undistributed Terms

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.”


Distribution and 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 term ‘animal’.

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.

4. Inference

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.

a) Deduction (Deductive Method)


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 syllogism.

Major premise:   Every man (M) is mortal (P).

Minor premise:   Every hero (S) is a man (M).

Conclusion:        Therefore, 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.

b) Induction

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:

Horses, dogs, chickens, and cows are mortal.

Horses, dogs, chickens, and cows are animals.

Therefore, all 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.

Thus, strictly 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.

c) Analogy

Another important 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.

(b) Those 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

Characteristics of Hegel’s Logic

The characteristics 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 Hegel’s logic.

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 world.

Outline of Hegel’s Logic

Hegel’s logic 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.

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.

Determinate Being

Having examined 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 Being.

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.

Therefore, in 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.

Being, Essence, and Notion

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 united.

Logic, Nature, and Spirit

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

Triadic Structure of Hegel’s Logic

As already 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

As already 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 dialectical logic.

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 correct thinking.

Linguistics also 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 propositions):

Through the 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:


Philosophers often 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.

As already 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.

For Kant, 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

The Starting Point and Direction of Thinking

Traditional systems 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.

Therefore, thinking 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 Thinking

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.

Related Fields

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 Original Image

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 two-stage structure.

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 main topic.

Structure of the Formation of Logos and the Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation

As already 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 Human Thinking

Originally, human 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.

The Two-Stage 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 logical structure.

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 creation.

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.

Figuratively 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 rational stage.

The Development 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).

Thus, thinking 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

Thinking (or 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.

The subconsciousness 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 cell.

The subconsciousness 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.

The subconsciousness 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 rules.

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.

Categories are 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.

Primary Categories

(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

Secondary Categories

(1) Quality & Quantity                     (2) Content & Form

(3) Essence & Phenomenon                        (4) Cause & Effect

(5) Whole & Individual                    (6) Abstract & Concrete

(7) Substance & Attribute

Since Sungsang & 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 Thought

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.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

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 3.28 feet.

(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.

Thinking and Freedom

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 normally.



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

Formal Logic

Concerning formal 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

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 into materialism.

In Hegel’s 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 view.

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 responsibility.

Furthermore, Hegel’s 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 grows.

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 created beings.

Dialectical Logic

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.

Thinking (or 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 Unification Thought.

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.

Symbolic Logic

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.

Transcendental Logic

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 guaranteed.

 

A Comparison 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 table. 10.1).


>> Go to top


© 2006 The Research Institute for the Integration of World Thought. All rights reserved.
sitemap