Aristotle divided the universe into incremental layers of distance heading outward from a center. As such humankind became confined to the limits of 'a' system. We are an amazing species. Confining humanity to the restrictions of a closed space does something to humanity's psyche. It does not matter if the confines are physical or abstract, the results are the same. Confinement generates an overpowering need to 'escape', to once again 'breath' the air of expansiveness, to 'breath' the air of freedom, to 'breath' the air of the 'open spaces', to journey unimpeded. The closure of the system was not necessarily a 'negative' development. Aristotle moved humanity in the direction of understanding our universe as a physical entity. Aristotle's perceptions allowed science to evolve as just that, science. The development of science provided the means by which we could understand what lies within 'the system'. Our problem as a species, however, does not exist with understanding what lies 'inside' Aristotle's system but rather understanding what lies 'outside' Aristotle's system. Multiple philosophical paradoxes emerged through our decision to diminish the significance of the abstract. Ethical issues developed through our decision to disregard the interrelationship between the abstract and the physical, between seamlessness and multiplicity. 'Aristotle's system' leads us to the perception that 'the whole' is the universe and the universe is 'the whole'. 'Aristotle's system' leads to the philosophical perception that 'God is dead', metaphysics is dead, and philosophy reached its end with the development of the 'Hegelian non-Cartesian system'. It may have taken thousands of years, but philosophy, through 'Aristotle's system' reached the same point science reached in the mid-twentieth century: Philosophy reached the point of 'believing' there is nothing 'new' to learn. Philosophically much of society believes the only 'new' perceptions left to explore are simply variations of what we already 'know'. In regards to science, how wrong we were, as the second half of the twentieth century so dramatically pointed out. It may have taken thousands of years, but philosophy, through 'Aristotle's system' reached the same point science reached in the mid-twentieth century: Philosophy reached the point of 'believing' there is nothing 'new' to learn. Philosophically much of society believes the only 'new' perceptions left to explore are simply variations of what we already 'know'. In regards to science, how wrong we were, as the second half of the twentieth century so dramatically pointed out. In regards to philosophy, philosophy is about to discover it is no different than science in this regard. We cannot blame Aristotle for our having given up our pursuits regarding the essence of the whole, individuality, and the universe. Aristotle did not force us to take the limited approach we took. We, humanity, made that decision. In order to resolve our socially conflicting views and actions, we need to step back in time and begin to examine the entities of individuality, the universe, and the whole from a fresh perspective. Philosophical paradoxes will remain paradoxes until we integrate all three entities into 'a' system we can understand. Such a model is the task of philosophy to develop. The model of the 'whole' is what philosophy/reason must develop. Science measures, probes, and observes the universe. Mathematics formulates the universe. Religion stabilizes actions of free will within the universe. Philosophy - and metaphysics in particular - expands our perception of the whole and defines the role the universe and the individual play within such a system. Is there an alternative? Absolutely, and the alternative is provided within the pages of this book