III.

Note 17. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter3/section5/martin-heidegger#p-16019" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">4.1. Heidegger’s View of the Human Being</a>”

Heidegger spoke of “they” (Das Man) as follows: “The ‘who’ is not this one, not that one, not oneself [man selbst], not some people [einige], and not the sum of them all. The ‘who’ is the neuter, the ‘they’ [Das Man].” Being andTime, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Southampton: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 164.

하이데거는 **‘속인’ (俗人)**에 관해서 다음과 같이 말하고 있다. “그 누군가는 이 사람도 아니고, 저 사람도 아니고, 그 사람 자신도 아니고, 몇 사람도 아니며, 또 모든 사람들의 총계 (總計)도 아니다. ‘누군가’는 중성적 (中性的)인 것이고, 즉 세인 (世人)〔‘사람’ (Das Man)〕인 것이다.” — [Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Southampton: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 164.]

Примітка 19. До розділу “<a href="/ut/chapter3/section5/martin-gajdegger#p-16018" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">5.4.1. Погляди Гайдеґґера на людину</a>“

Гайдеґґер говорить про «них» так: «Хтось» — це не цей, не той, не ти сам, не деякі люди і не їхня сукупність. «Хтось» є нейтральним, це «вони» [Das Man]» (Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Southampton: Basil Blackwell, 1962. P. 164).

Chapter 3

Divine Principle and Biblical Foundation for the Inner Hyungsang

Difference and Homogeneity between Sungsang and Hyungsang

Yang and Yin Are Also Dual Characteristics of God

1.2.1. Relationship between Yang and Yin, and Man and Woman

1.2.2. Solution of Actual Problems through Understanding that Yang and Yin Are the Attributes of Sungsang and Hyungsang

1.3.2. Individual Image and Universal Image

1.3.4. Individual Image and the Environment

1.3.5. Preciousness of Human Individuality

2.1.4. Creation of the Universe and Heart

2.2.3. Logos Is the Union of Reason and Law

2.3.4. Creativity and the Portion of Responsibility

2.3.5. Human Perfection and One’s Portion of Responsibility

2.3.6. Original Creativity and Cultural Activity

2.1. Give and Receive Action between Sungsang and Hyungsang

2.1.1. What Is the Give and Receive Action Between Sungsang and Hyungsang?

2.1.3. Round, Harmonious and Smooth Nature of the Give and Receive Action

2.2. Subject and Object, and the Four Position Foundation

2.2.1. What Is the Four Position Foundation?

2.2.3. Subject and Object Occupy Different Positions

2. Formation of the Four Position Foundation

2.1. Constituents of the Four Position Foundation

2.2. Inner Four Position Foundation and Outer Four Position Foundation

2.3. Two-Stage Structure of the Original Image and Two-Stage Structure of Existence

3.1. Inner Identity-Maintaining Four Position Foundation

3.2. Outer Identity-Maintaining Four Position Foundation

3.3. Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation

Inner Sungsang Is the Union of Spirit Mind and Physical Mind

Operation of Ideas is Give and Receive Action

Thinking Is a Contrast Type of Give and Receive Actions

f) A Summary of the Explanation of the Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation

Center of the Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation

Subject of the Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation

Object in the Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation

Result of the Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation

3.4. Outer Developmental Four Position Foundation

a) What Is the Outer Developmental Four Position Foundation?

b) Outer Developmental Four Position Foundation Is formed on the Basis of Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation

c) All Creative Activities are Made Through the Two-Stage Developmental Four Position Foundations

d) Constituent Elements of the Outer Four Position Foundation

3.1. What Is Origin, Division, and Union Action?

3.2. Origin-Division-Union and Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis

3.3. Critique of the Theory of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis

5.2. Difference between Purpose of Creation and Ideal of Creation

5.3. The concepts of the purpose of creation and the ideal of creation are different

5.4. Ideal of Creation Is the State in Which God’s Love Is Fully Realized

Note 1. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-image#p-16037" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">1.1. Sungsang and Hyungsang</a>”

Note 5. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-image#p-15911" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Original Hyungsang and Science</a>”

Note 7. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-image#p-15910" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Difference and Homogeneity between Sungsang and Hyungsang</a>”

Note 8. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-image#p-16301" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Materialism, idealism and the “Theory of Oneness” from the point of view of monism</a>”

Note 9. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-image#p-16301" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Difference and Homogeneity between Sungsang and Hyungsang</a>”

Note 10. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-image#p-15915" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Appliance Geulincx’s occasionalism idea to epistemological questions</a>”

Note 12. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-character#p-16303" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2.1.5. Heart and Culture</a>”

Note 13. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-character#p-15919" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2.1.6. Heart and Prime Force</a>”

Note 16. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-character#p-15923" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2.2.2. Logos Is Reason-Law</a>”

Note 17. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-character#p-16305" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2.2.3. Logos Is the Union of Reason and Law</a>”

Note 18. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-character#p-15927" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2.2.3. Logos Is the Union of Reason and Law</a>”

Note 19. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section1/divine-character#p-15927" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2.2.3. Logos Is the Union of Reason and Law</a>”

Note 21. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/relative-relationship-between-sungsang-and-hyungsang#p-15929" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Give and Receive Action between Sungsang and Hyungsang</a>”

Note 22. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-15933" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2.2.1. Subject and Object, and the Four Position Foundation</a>”

Note 25. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-15938" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">3.1. Inner Identity-Maintaining Four Position Foundation</a>”

Note 27. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-15942" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">3.3. Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation</a>”

Note 28. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-15944" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">3.3. Inner Developmental Four Position Foundation</a>”

Note 29. To the Subsection “<a href="http://localhost:3000/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-15946" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Inner Sungsang Is the Union of Spirit Mind and Physical Mind</a>”

Note 30. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-15948" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Inner Sungsang Is the Union of Spirit Mind and Physical Mind</a>”

Note 31. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-15950" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Purpose Is the Center</a>”

Note 32. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-15952" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Logos as Plan</a>”

Note 34. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-15956" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Outer Give and Receive Action</a>”

Note 36. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/give-and-receive-action-and-four-position-foundation#p-16308" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Created Being as Result</a>”

Note 37. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section2/origin-division-and-union-action#p-15962" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">3.1. What Is Origin, Division, and Union Action?

Note 39. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter1/section3#p-16309" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Ontology of Unification Thought</a>”

A. Traditional Arguments to Prove the Existence of God

(1) The Theory of the Original Image and Hypothesis

[Core Parts of the Theory of the Original Image]

Example 1: Bipolarity of Sungsang and Hyungsang

Example 2: Bipolarity of Yangseong and Eumseong

Chapter 1

As was stated in the Preface, Unification Thought is the thought which has appeared to lead humankind eternally by fundamentally solving all the difficult problems of humanity. Yet, the fundamental solution of all these difficult problems is possible only through a correct and full understanding of the attributes of God.

The theory concerning the attributes of God, in Unification Thought, is called the Theory of the Original Image. “Original Image” means the attributes of God, the causal being. The attributes of God consist of “form” and also of “function” including nature, character, ability, etc. We call the former aspect the “Divine Image” and the latter aspect the “Divine Character.”

In such historical religions as Christianity and Islam, the attributes of God have been expressed in various ways: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, supreme good, supreme beauty, supreme truth, righteousness, love, creativity, and so on. Unification Thought certainly affirms such characteristics as these as included among the attributes of God. Yet, we can not solve actual problems fundamentally by limiting ourselves to this traditional way of understanding God’s attributes.

Unification Thought considers such attributes as those mentioned as belonging to the Divine Character of God. A more important aspect of the attributes of God, however, is the Divine Image. The Divine Image consists of dual characteristics, as is explained in the Divine Principle. Only through a correct and full understanding of the Divine Image, as well as the Divine Character, will we be able to fundamentally solve the problems of human life, society, history, and the world.

The Divine Image of God in Unification Thought refers to the dual characteristics of Sungsang and Hyungsang, and Yang and Yin, and to the Individual Images. The Divine Character in Unification Thought refers to Heart (Shimjung), Logos and Creativity. In this Theory of the Original Image, the content of the Divine Image and the Divine Character will be explained in the section “Content of the Original Image,” and the relationship between Sungsang and Hyungsang will be dealt with in the section “Structure of the Original Image.”

2.1. Yang and Yin Is Another Dual Characteristic

2.2. Yang Substantial Being and Yin Substantial Being in Human Beings

3.1. Individualization of Universal Image

3.2. Specific Differences and Individual Image

1.1 A Connected Being Seen from the Viewpoint of Structure

1.2. A Connected Being Seen from the Viewpoint of Purpose

1.3. A Connected Being Seen from the Viewpoint of Relationship

1.4. A Connected Being Seen from the Viewpoint of Position

1.5. Materialist Dialectic and Interconnectedness

2.1. System of Individual Truth Beings in the Created World

ii) Circular Motion in Time (Spiral Motion)

c) Spiritual Circular Motion (Sungsang Circular Motion)

3.4.1. Development from the Viewpoint of Unification Thought

3.4.2. Communist Perspective on Development

4.1. Position of Existence Seen from the Viewpoint of a Connected Being

4.3. Order in the Universe and Order in the Family

An Identity-Maintaining Nature and a Developmental Nature

Note 2. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter2/section1/sungsang-and-hyungsang#p-15966" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">1. Sungsang and Hyungsang</a>”

Note 3. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter2/section1/sungsang-and-hyungsang#p-15966" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">1. Sungsang and Hyungsang</a>”

Note 4. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter2/section1/sungsang-and-hyungsang#p-15966" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">1. Sungsang and Hyungsang</a>”

Note 5. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter2/section1/yang-and-yin#p-15969" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2. Yang and Yin</a>”

Note 10. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter2/section2/mode-of-existence#p-15978" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">a) Basic Circular Motion</a>”

Note 11. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter2/section2/mode-of-existence#p-15980" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">3.4.1. Development from the Viewpoint of Unification Thought</a>”

Chapter 2

The word ontology, as it has been used in philosophy, originates from the Greek word Ontologia, which consists of onta (what exists) and logos (logic). Ontology is that field of philosophy which deals with the fundamental matters of existence. Likewise, in Unification Thought, ontology deals with the common attributes of all created beings, the way they exist, their movements, and so on, all based on the Divine Principle view of God’s creation. Hence, Unification Thought ontology deals with all created beings, including human beings. However, since the human being is the lord of dominion over all things and occupies a position different from that of all other created beings, the human being will be discussed in more detail in a separate chapter, the “Theory of the Original Human Nature.” We can note that, whereas the Theory of the Original Image deals with God, ontology in Unification Thought deals primarily with all things.

In this ontology, we will ascertain whether or not the attributes of God, as they are explained in the Theory of the Original Image, are actually manifested in all things and, if so, how. If it can be shown that the attributes of God are universally manifested in all things then the veracity of the Theory of the Original Image becomes more certain and persuasive. Therefore, ontology, which deals with the attributes of all things, can be described as a theory that confirms, in visible terms, the attributes of the invisible God. In other words, Unification ontology is a theory that supports the Theory of the Original Image, which itself, is a deductive theory based on the Divine Principle. Today, the natural sciences, which deal with all things, have made rapid progress. Yet, in most cases, scientists have been observing the natural world from a purely objective point of view, without giving any consideration to God. Since all things were created according to the law of likeness, the scientific facts as observed by scientists can be expected to be in accordance with the attributes of God, and so the natural sciences will come to support the Theory of the Original Image. In fact, in Unification ontology it will be clarified that the achievements of the natural sciences today are indeed supporting the Theory of the Original Image.

According to the Divine Principle, human beings were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), and all things were created in the image of the human being. Prior to creating the universe, God first envisioned the image of the human being, which resembles God’s own image. Then, using the human image as the prototype, and in likeness to it, God formed the ideas of all things. This is called “creation in likeness.”

Because of the human fall, however, human beings, and their societies, lost their original nature and fell into an unprincipled state, even though all things of creation have remained as originally created. For this reason, we can never find in actual human beings or societies the way to solve our problems, in other words, the problem of existence, and the problem of relationship. This is why many saints and sages of the past have sought to understand the way for people to live, not by observing humanity but by observing the movements of the stars, the growth and decline of living beings, the changes of the four seasons, and so on. They were unable, however, to clarify why it is possible to obtain from the natural world, the truth for people and society. They obtained only a merely intuitive realization of the truth.

Unification Thought, on the other hand, maintains that since all things were created in the likeness of human beings, it is possible to know the original characteristics of human beings and society through observing the natural world. In the Theory of the Original Image, it was explained that a correct understanding of the attributes of God is the key to solving the problems of individuals and society. Yet, creation was made in likeness; therefore, if we correctly understand the attributes of all things, then this can help us secure the key in solving actual problems. Consequently, ontology becomes another standard for solving existing questions.

In the ontology laid out here, each created being is called an “existing being.” Hence, ontology is the theory of existing beings. An existing being is examined from two points of view, namely, as an “individual truth being” and as a “connected being.” An individual truth being refers to an individual being resembling the attributes of God, namely, the content of the Original Image, and it refers to an existing being considered as such, independently and without regard to any of its relationships with other beings. In actuality, of course, all existing beings have mutual relationships with one another, and when a being is seen in terms of these relationships it has with other beings, then that being is called a “connected being.” A connected being thus refers to the same individual truth being, but in this case we are seeing it from the viewpoint of its relationships to other beings.

Since all existing beings were created in the likeness of God, the image of each being resembles the Divine Image. The Divine Image includes the universal image and the individual image; therefore, an existing being has both a universal image and an individual image. Here, the universal image refers to Sungsang and Hyungsang, and yang and yin, whereas the individual image refers to those peculiar characteristics which each individual being possesses. Let us first discuss the universal image of an individual truth being, namely Sungsang and Hyungsang, and yang and yin.

1.1. Kierkegaard’s Analysis of Human Existence

1.2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Kierkegaard’s View of the Human Being

2.1. Nietzsche’s View of the Human Being

2.2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Nietzsche’s View of the Human Being

3.2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Jaspers’ View of the Human Being

4.1. Heidegger’s View of the Human Being

4.2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Heidegger’s View of the Human Being

5.2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Sartre’s View of the Human Being

Note 1. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter3/section1/a-harmonious-being-of-yang-and-yin#p-15988" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2. A Harmonious Being of Yang and Yin</a>”

Note 5. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter3/section3/connected-being-consciousness-and-democracy#p-15998" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">3. “Connected Being Consciousness” and Democracy</a>”

Note 11. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter3/section5/friedrich-nietzsche#p-16011" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Nietzsche’s View of the Human Being</a>”

The theory of the Original Human Nature is a study concerning the image of what the original human beings would have been like, if the human fall had not happened. As stated in the Theory of the Original Image and in Ontology, throughout the long period of history human beings have struggled to solve the fundamental problems in human life and the universe. Especially today, after the collapse of Communism, new confusion has appeared worldwide. Faced with such problems as the north-south problem, racism, religious conflicts, injustice, corruption, the spread of various kinds of crime due to the collapse of traditional values, and the subsequent struggles and wars, the world is in the midst of a whirlpool of confusion. These problems all can be classified into “problems of existence” and “problems of relationship.” How can these problems be solved?

Throughout human history there have been people who questioned the reality of human beings, and looked for answers about the original state of human beings, which they believed, even if vaguely, to exist. They were religionists and philosophers. They seriously grappled with the question, “What is the human being?” and looked for the way to recover the original way of life.

Gautama Buddha, who was born in the middle of the fifth century BC in the Kapilavastu castle, now in Nepal, spent several years of his life practicing strict asceticism, and finally immersed himself in deep meditation. As a result, he came to realize that human beings originally possessed Buddhahood, but that through ignorance, came to be bound by worldly desires, and fell into suffering. Buddha taught that the way to recover one’s original nature is through a life of spiritual discipline.

Jesus inquired deeply into the problems of human life prior to starting his public ministry at the age of thirty, and he taught that human beings are sinners and that everyone must be born again by believing in the Son of God, that is, in Jesus himself. He proclaimed to the Jewish people, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). He traveled around Palestine, spreading his teachings, but he was unable to move the hearts of the politicians and religionists who were in power and, in the end, he was crucified.

Socrates observed the decadent chaos of the polis (city-state) and taught that the true way of human life is to love true knowledge. He encouraged people to “know thyself,” to make an effort to bring one’s inner self into the light. For Plato, the supreme ideal of human life is to recognize the idea of the Good. For Aristotle, reason is what makes a person human. He said that virtue is best realized in the communal life of the polis, and that the human being is a social animal (or polis-animal). Greek philosophers, generally speaking, held the view that reason is the essence of human nature, and that if a person’s reason is allowed to operate fully, that person will become an ideal human being.

During the Middle Ages of Western society, Christianity reigned over the human spirit. The Christian view of human nature at the time was that human beings are sinful and can be saved only by believing in Jesus. In this view, reason was regarded as ineffective. In the modern period, however, currents of philosophy that emphasize human reason have again come to appear. Descartes considered human beings to be rational beings, and said that correct knowledge can be obtained only by reason. He coined the well-known proposition “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). Kant claimed that human beings are persons of character who obey the inner voice of moral obligation, ordered by practical reason, and he argued that human beings should live according to their reason, without succumbing to any temptations or desires.

Hegel, too, regarded human beings as rational beings. According to him, history is the process of the self-realization of reason in the world. Freedom, the essence of reason, was to be realized along with the development of history. According to Hegel’s theory, human beings and the world should have become rational with the establishment of the modern state (i.e., the rational state). In reality, however, people still remain deprived of their human nature just as they always had been, and the world has continued to be as irrational as it was before. Kierkegaard opposed extreme types of rationalism such as that offered by Hegel. Kierkegaard did not agree that humankind would become increasingly rational as the world progresses, as Hegel had claimed. In actual society, he said, human beings are no more than average people, whose true nature had been lost. Accordingly, only when a person carves out life independently as an individual, apart from the public, can that person’s true human nature be regained. Thus, the conceptual framework for dealing with people in actual society, who have lost their original nature, and for seeking to restore human nature independently, was subsequently developed as the thought of existentialism. This will be further explained later in this chapter.

Feuerbach, in opposition to Hegel’s rationalism, regarded the human being as a sensuous being. According to Feuerbach, humans are species-beings possessing reason, will and heart (love), which is their species-essence, but they have alienated themselves from their species-essence, objectified it, and have come to revere it as God. Therein, he argued, lay the loss of human nature. Thus, Feuerbach asserted that human beings must recover their original human nature, and that this can only be done through denying religion. Departing from Hegel’s idea of actualizing freedom, Karl Marx called for the true liberation of human beings. In the early capitalist society of Marx’s time, the lives of laborers were indeed miserable. They were forced to endure long hours of labor, and were given wages that could barely sustain their lives. Disease and crime were rampant among laborers, who were deprived of their human nature. In contrast, Marx said capitalists were living in great affluence gained from their merciless exploitation and oppression of laborers. In his view, the capitalists themselves were also deprived of their own original human nature.

Determined to liberate humankind, Marx first adopted Feuerbach’s humanism as the way to restore human nature; later, however, he came to realize that human beings were not only species-beings but also social, material, and historical beings engaged in productive activity. This led him to the view that the essence of humankind is the freedom of labor; however, in capitalist society, laborers were deprived of all the products of their labor, and they labored not by their own will, but by the will of the capitalists. Therein, precisely, lay the laborers’ loss of human nature, according to Marx. Thus, Marx concluded that in order to liberate laborers, what must be done is to overthrow capitalist society, wherein laborers are exploited. When such liberation occurred, capitalists could also regain their own human nature, Marx thought. Furthermore, based on the materialist view, Marx concluded that human consciousness is determined by the relations of production, which are the basis of society, and that the capitalistic economic system must be changed violently by force. Nevertheless, the Communist countries, in which revolutions took place in accordance with Marx’s theory, have become dictatorial societies wherein freedom is suppressed, and human nature is violated and neglected. Those are the societies in which people have increasingly been losing their original nature. This implies that Marx made a great error in his understanding of the cause of, and in his method for solving the problem of, human alienation.

Human alienation, however, is not the problem of Communist society alone. In capitalist society as well, individualism and materialism are rampant, and a self-centered way of thinking―whereby people think they are permitted to do anything they please―has become pervasive. As a result, in capitalist society, too, human nature is increasingly being lost.

Max Scheler (1874-1928), who considered anthropology to be the foundation of all studies, classified human beings into three categories in his Philosophical Perspective: the intellectual person (Homo sapiens), the worker who uses symbols and tools (Homo faber), and the religious person (Homo religiosus). There were other views, also, about the human being advocated by other thinkers: the economic man (Homo economicus), the liberal man (Homo liberalis), the national man (Homo nationalis), and so on. None of these views of the human being, however, has touched on the essence of being human.

In this way, throughout human history numerous religious people and philosophers have attempted to find answers to the questions of what the human being is, and what human life is. Yet, their efforts have never been completely successful. Therefore, many people, who strive diligently to live correctly, but still can not find the meaning of human life, become pessimistic. In the Orient, for example, sincere young persons like Yoon Shim-dok of Korea and Misao Fujimura of Japan are among those persons and tragically, they became so desperate as to commit suicide.

One person who has devoted his entire life to providing fundamental solutions to such unresolved questions in human history is Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose thought is contained in this book. He has proclaimed, as is revealed in the Divine Principle, that originally human beings are children of God, even though, having lost their original nature, they have become miserable.

Human beings were created in the image of God, but due to the fall of the first human ancestors they have become separated from God. They can restore their original nature, however, by living in accordance with God’s Word, thus coming to receive God’s love. In this chapter, the problems of the human fall and the way to restore the original human nature will not be discussed (these topics are dealt with in the Human Fall and in the Principle of Restoration of the Divine Principle); our focus here will be on describing the original human nature itself. From the original standpoint, each human being exists as a being with Divine Image, which means we resemble the Image of God, and as a being with Divine Character, which means we embody the character of God. We are also beings occupying a certain position, which means we assume positions taking after the subject-object relationship in the Original Image. Each of these characteristics will be discussed below.

3.3 Absolute Standard and Human Individuality

The Five Moral Rules Governing the Five Human Relationships

VII.

VIII.

Note 3. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter4/section5/subjective-action#p-16042" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">2. Subjective Action</a>”

Note 4. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter4/section5/standard-for-determining-value#p-16044" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">3.2 Absolute Standard</a>”

Note 6. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter4/section6/weaknesses-in-the-christian-view-of-value#p-16048" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">1. Weaknesses in the Christian View of Value</a>”

Note 7. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter4/section6/weaknesses-in-the-christian-view-of-value#p-16049" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">1. Weaknesses in the Christian View of Value</a>”

Note 8. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter4/section6/weaknesses-in-the-confucian-view-of-value#p-16811" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">The Eight Articles</a>”

Note 10. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter4/section6/weaknesses-in-the-buddhist-view-of-value#p-16055" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">3. Weaknesses in the Buddhist View of Value</a>”

Note 11. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter4/section6/weaknesses-in-the-islamic-view-of-value#p-16057" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">4. Weaknesses in the Islamic View of Value</a>”

Note 12. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter4/section6/weaknesses-in-the-islamic-view-of-value#p-16059" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">4. Weaknesses in the Islamic View of Value</a>”

Note 13. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter4/section8/modern-views-of-value#p-16061" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">4. Modern Views of Value</a>”

Chapter 4

Our contemporary age is an age of great confusion and turmoil. Wars and conflicts continue unabatedly, and innumerable alarming and tragic phenomena, including terrorism, destruction, arson, kidnapping, murder, drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual immorality, family breakdown, injustice, corruption, oppression, conspiracy, and slander, are occurring worldwide. At the vortex of this turmoil, humankind’s most valuable assets are now almost obliterated. I am referring to the loss of personal human dignity, the loss of time-honored traditions, the loss of the dignity of life, the loss of mutual trust among people, the loss of the authority of parents and teachers, and the list goes on.

The fundamental cause of such confusion and turmoil is the decline of traditional values. That is to say, the traditional values of truth, goodness, and beauty are being lost sight of. Among these, the value of goodness in particular, is disappearing, and existing ethics and morals are rapidly collapsing. What is causing this ominous collapse of traditional values?

First, in virtually every field, including economics, politics, society, education, and art, a sense of God is being excluded as religion is neglected. Since many traditional values are based on religion, those values which are losing their religious basis can not but decline.

Second, materialism, atheism, secularism, and especially the viewpoints of Communism, are infiltrating everywhere, undermining traditional values. Communism has been working to divide people into opposing classes and then to foment conflicts between those classes by increasing mistrust and instigating hostilities everywhere. In so doing, it has been very critical of traditional values, attempting to destroy them by claiming that such values are feudalistic, intended solely to maintain existing social systems.

Third, conflicts among religions and philosophies themselves are hastening the collapse of values. Values are established on the basis of religions and philosophies; therefore, if disagreements among religions and philosophies exist, many people will come to regard these values as merely relative in nature. As a result, an increasing number of people are coming to believe that it is no longer necessary for them to respect such values.

Finally, the virtues extolled by traditional religions (such as Confucianism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam) are losing their power to persuade modern people, who are inclined to think more scientifically. The teachings of traditional religions often have contents which contradict scientific facts. Accordingly, they become unacceptable to modern people, who have come to place great confidence in science.

When we analyze the causes of the collapse of traditional values in this way, we come to realize that there is an urgent need for a new and fresh value perspective. Without such a fresh, new perspective, we may not be able to adequately prepare ourselves for the ideal world to come in the future. Then, what should such a new value perspective be like? First of all, it must be able to embrace the fundamental teachings of all religions and thought systems. Also, it must be able to overcome materialism and atheism. Furthermore, it must be able to embrace and even guide science. Ultimately, it must be a value perspective centered on the true love of God. It is precisely such a value perspective as this that is so urgently needed today so that we may prepare for the future society.

Then, let us examine as concretely as we can what the future society we should be preparing for might be like. This future society will be created by original human beings, people of integrity who experience God’s Heart and who have perfected their characters. A person of character is one in whom intellect, emotion, and will have developed fully and harmoniously, centering on heart. Accordingly, the future society will be established by people whose intellect, emotion, and will are developed harmoniously centering on God’s Heart. Here, implicitly, the idea of new values refers to those values sought after by the original faculties of intellect, emotion, and will.

The faculties of intellect, emotion, and will seek the values of truth, beauty and goodness, respectively, and through these, a true, artistic, and ethical society will inevitably be actualized. A true society is a society realized through one’s pursuit of truth; an artistic society is a society realized through one’s pursuit of beauty; and an ethical society is a society realized through one’s pursuit of goodness. To empower one’s pursuit of such values as these, a theory of education is necessary for the realization of a true society; a theory of art is required for the realization of an artistic society; and a theory of ethics is required for the realization of an ethical society. Since axiology is a theory which addresses the values of truth, goodness, and beauty in general, it is a comprehensive theory serving as a basis for these three more particular theoretical viewpoints.

The future society will thus be a society wherein the values of truth, goodness, and beauty will be fully realized; in this society, the economy will achieve the highest level of development through the progress of science, completely solving, once and for all, all of society’s economic problems. People’s lives will come to be focused primarily on the enjoyment of values, even as they are realizing them. The society wherein the values of truth, goodness, and beauty, centered on heart, are realized is a society of heart, creating a culture of heart; this is a society with a unified culture. I have so far explained that a new value perspective is necessary in order to prepare for the future society. Yet, this new value perspective is necessary not only for preparing for the future society, but perhaps even more importantly, it is necessary in order to clear the confusion of our present world. As mentioned, in today’s world values are generally collapsing due to various factors. In order to solve this problem, there exists an urgent need to re-establish a proper value perspective.

A new value perspective is also essential in the effort to unify cultures. That is, in order to fundamentally solve the world’s present-day confusion, it will be necessary to bring various traditional cultures into harmony. Cultures are based on certain religions or thoughts, and those religions and thoughts all advocate certain values. Therefore, in order to unite cultures, it is necessary to unite the various value perspectives such as the Christian view of value, the Buddhist view of value, the Confucian view of value, and so on. Also, it is necessary to unite the views of value of the East and the West. Therefore, once again, it is necessary to present a new view of value which can genuinely embrace all value perspectives.

1.1. An Education for the Perfection of the Individual

1.2. Forms of Expression of God’s Heart

God’s Heart as Experienced in Adam’s Family

God’s Heart as Experienced in Noah’s Family

God’s Heart as Experienced in Abraham’s Family

God’s Heart as Experienced in Moses’ Course

God’s Heart as Experienced in Jesus’ Course

An Education for the Perfection of the Family

An Education for Becoming a Being of Reason-Law

An Education for the Perfection of the Nature of Dominion

Development of One’s Creativity and Formation of the Two-Stage Structure

One’s Education of Dominion must be Based on a Universal Education

Note 1. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter5/section4/comenius-view-of-education#p-16953" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Comenius’ View of Education</a>”

Note 5. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter5/section4/pestalozzi-s-view-of-education#p-16071" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Pestalozzi’s View of Education</a>”

Note 18. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter5/section4/democratic-view-of-education#p-16081" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">Democratic View of Education</a>”

Chapter 5

Education in today’s democratic societies is in crisis, as can be seen from the increase in juvenile delinquency, the degradation of the sexual morality of the youth, the frequent occurrence of school violence, and so on. Yet, a proper theory of education, able to overcome this confusion, is difficult to find anywhere, and present-day education seems to have lost its sense of direction.

Appropriate relationships between teachers and students are diminishing. That is to say, students do not respect their teachers, and teachers have lost their sense of authority and enthusiasm. In consequence, the relationship between teachers and students has largely become one wherein the teachers are merely selling knowledge, very often based largely on “political correctness,” and the students are buying it, so that schools have turned into places for buying and selling knowledge. Communist ideology has infiltrated these circumstances, turning schools into places teeming with disturbances.

The democratic idea as regards education is to cultivate democratic citizens who observe such principles of democracy as the sovereignty of the people, majority rule, equality of rights, while at the same time respecting the rights of others, fulfilling their own responsibility, and claiming their own, legitimate rights.

Against this democratic ideal of education, however, Communists lodge the following charge: “In a class society, can the ruling class ever truly respect the rights of laborers and farmers? To fulfill one’s own duty and mission in class society means to be a loyal servant to the ruling class, does it not? That is not true democracy.

True democracy is a democracy for laborers and farmers, in other words, a people’s democracy. Therefore, a true democratic education should be one for the sake of the people. Thus, in order to offer a true education, we should overthrow capitalist society and construct a socialist society.” Many people have been persuaded by such an argument.

This Communist challenge against capitalism will not lose its persuasiveness as long as social structures of exploitation, oppression, injustice, corruption, and so on remain in capitalist society. Therefore, these social evils must be eliminated. To do this, a movement for a new view of value based on God’s true love must be launched and, along with it, a new theory of education must be established.

Such a new theory of education should be established based on the standard that God originally intended human beings to achieve as they grew. Such a theory can then give proper direction to today’s educational institutions, which are in confusion, and can provide a vision of education for the future society. In other words, it is a theory of education that enables us to prepare for the future ideal society. The Unification Theory of Education presented here is just such a new theory of education.

Theories of education usually have two aspects. One is concerned with the ideals, goals, methods, and so on, of education, and corresponds to what is called the philosophy of education. The other aspect deals with education as an objective, observable phenomenon, and is called the science of education. The science of education inquires into educational curricula, student evaluation, learning techniques, student counseling, school administration, educational management, and so on.

These two aspects in education stand in the relationship of Sungsang and Hyungsang. The philosophy of education is the Sungsang aspect of education, whereas the science of education is the Hyungsang aspect of education.

Unfortunately, while the science of education has made admirable progress up to the present time, propelled by our modern tendency to hold science in high esteem, the philosophy of education has been relatively neglected, and so is in steady decline. The fact that education today has lost its direction implies the absence of a sound philosophy of education. Therefore, what is urgently needed today is the establishment of a new philosophy of education. The Unification Theory of Education presented here is offered in order to meet that precise need.

Unification Thought Appraisal of Kant’s Perspective of Ethics

Unification Thought Appraisal of Bentham’s Perspective of Ethics

Unification Thought Appraisal of Analytic Philosophy’s Perspective of Ethics

Unification Thought Appraisal of the Pragmatic Perspective on Ethics

Note 1. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter6/section1#p-16087" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">I. Divine Principle Foundation for Ethics</a>”

Note 2. To the Subsection “<a href="/en/ut/chapter6/section1#p-16089" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="__mPS2id">I. Divine Principle Foundation for Ethics</a>”

Heidegger on ‘they’ (Das Man): the neuter ‘who’ in Being and Time