Sign in Subscribe
IV. First Principles Philosophy

33｜Reinterpreting the History of Philosophy-Part 2

33｜Reinterpreting the History of Philosophy-Part 2

5. Hume | Skepticism as a Portal, Falling into the 5th Dimension Hume was among the first to truly perceive the limitations of Language and Reason. He saw clearly that:

  • The 4th Dimension (Language) cannot guarantee the necessity of the 3rd (Reason).
  • Even less can it reach the 2nd Dimension (the Ding-an-Sich). Thus, he entered the gateway of Skepticism. Yet the problem lay in the fact that he did not persist in looking upward toward a new dimension; instead, he retreated into the 5th Dimension of Phenomena: that which cannot be experienced, cannot exist. This step transformed him from a critic of dimensions into a mere Phenomenalist.

6. Wittgenstein | The End of Reason, Halted within Language Wittgenstein came closest to the dimensional truth. He grasped a pivotal fact: that what is called "Rational Structure" is, in essence, "Linguistic Structure." Consequently, he directly abolished the independent status of the 3rd Dimension (Reason), identifying it entirely with the 4th Dimension (Language). However, since the philosophical tradition defaulted to "Reason = World Structure," he further concluded that: "Language is the picture of the world." In his later years, he dragged Language back into the "form of life," effectively sliding the 4th Dimension into the 5th, arriving at "Language is Life." His work terminated Rational-centrism, yet it failed to point out whether a higher cognitive dimension exists beyond Language.

7. Nietzsche | Piercing Reason and Truth, but Failing to Establish a New Cognitive Dimension Nietzsche’s fundamental contribution lay not in proposing a new epistemological model, but in destroying the necessary identity between Reason, Truth, and Morality. Within the five-dimensional framework, it is clear that Nietzsche completed two critical deconstructions: First, he thoroughly denied the legitimacy of the 3rd Dimension (Reason) as a path to truth. Truth was no longer an "object to be known," but a result manufactured by construction, by power, and by the Will to Life. Second, he further pointed out: the 4th Dimension (Language) and concepts themselves are already filled with metaphor, compression, disguise, and the Will to Power; so-called "Truth" is but metaphors whose metaphorical nature has been forgotten. But Nietzsche’s problem was this: he completed the deconstruction yet refused to establish a new cognitive dimension. He did not return to the 1st Dimension (Absolute Truth), nor did he propose a mode of human cognition beyond Language; instead, he shifted the weight of cognition to the Will to Life, the creation of value, and stylized existence. Therefore, in the five-dimensional framework, Nietzsche’s position is: successfully piercing the false centers of the 3rd and 4th dimensions, yet halting after the deconstruction, refusing to enter a new cognitive structure.

8. Heidegger | Demoting Language, but Withholding the "Beyond" Heidegger’s vital breakthrough was this: he perceived clearly that Language cannot express Being itself, much less generate Being. Thus, he demoted Language from its ontological throne, returning it to a role of "indication" and "pointing" toward Being. This was a critical dimensional correction. Yet, he did not proceed to point out how Man might enter into a genuine relationship with Being after Language.

9. Existentialism | Acknowledging Existence over Reason, but Stopping at Individual Experience Existentialism, particularly as represented by Sartre, completed a definitive dimensional inversion: Existence precedes Reason, rather than Reason defining Existence. This was a frontal breakthrough against the tradition of Rationalism. In the five-dimensional framework, this meant:

  • Denying the 3rd Dimension’s (Reason) dominion over the 2nd Dimension (Existence).
  • Acknowledging that Existence does not wait to be understood, named, or demonstrated. This was a vital correction. Yet, Existentialism failed to further distinguish:
  • What kind of "Existence"?
  • Apprehended in what manner?
  • Whether there exists an ontological foundation for Existence that transcends individual experience. The result was that Existence was shrunk into the experience, choice, and freedom of the individual Dasein. This allowed Existentialism to acknowledge the Existence prior to Reason, yet it remained trapped within:
  • The 5th Dimension of the empirical layer,
  • Or within the 3rd Dimension’s subjective structure. In the five-dimensional framework, one might say: Existentialism correctly denied the priority of Reason, yet failed to establish a stable cognitive channel beyond Language and Reason.

10. Camus | Perceiving the Absurd, but Refusing to Enter the Dimension of Meaning Camus is close to Existentialism, yet his direction was more definitive. He saw clearly that:

  • The world does not respond to Man's inquiry for meaning.
  • Reason cannot provide an ultimate explanation for Existence.
  • Language cannot dissolve the sense of the Absurd in Existence. Thus, he refused false metaphysical answers and cheap promises of transcendence. Yet the problem lay in the fact that he equated "refusing false meaning" with "refusing Meaning itself." In the five-dimensional framework, Camus’s halting point was: acknowledging the failure of Language and Reason, yet treating failure as the terminus rather than the entry point. He chose rebellion but did not enter; he chose clarity but did not transcend.

11. Foucault | Surgically Deconstructing the Language-Power Structure, but Refusing the Ontological Foundation Foucault completed an exquisitely fine deconstruction of the 4th Dimension (Language). He pointed out clearly that:

  • Knowledge is not neutral.
  • Reason is not natural.
  • Truth must be licensed by the discursive system. In the five-dimensional framework, this was a profound revelation of how Language shapes Reason and the Subject. Yet Foucault consistently refused to discuss: Does a Truth exist prior to or beyond Language? Does an ontological foundation exist that is independent of discourse? Consequently, his intellectual structure was:
  • Deconstructing the 4th,
  • Denying the 3rd,
  • Evading the 1st and 2nd. The result: revealing how Language shapes the world, yet refusing to answer whether the world has a ground beyond Language.

12. Postmodern Thought | Refusing Dimensional Distinction, Turning toward Fragments and Play Postmodern thought is not a single philosophy but a shared posture:

  • Refusing the Whole.
  • Refusing Ontology.
  • Refusing the Ultimate Explanation. In the five-dimensional framework, its characteristics are stark: it no longer attempts to ascend dimensions but wanders horizontally between the 4th and 5th Dimensions. Language becomes a game; Truth becomes a narrative; Philosophy becomes a style. Postmodernism is not an error, but a weary response to all the aforementioned failures. But its price is this: the total abandonment of the quest for Ontology, denying Language and thereby denying all ontological dimensions.

Read next