[This post will use anecdotes with reference to US politics. It’s fine if you’re not familiar with it, they’re only supplementary. This post contains embedded content that I’ve seen to not load in the WordPress Reader.]
When I first got to college, I proudly identified as a progressive, a liberal. Little then did I know about the political foundations of this movement – What it was built on? What were they trying to accomplish? What were they basing their rhetoric on? Liberalism intrinsically appeals to the younger, politically active generation – that is in the present-day, Millennials – by using attractive rhetorics and popular opinion to give shape to their arguments. I’ll elaborate more on this statement later in the post but for now, let’s try and figure out how they manage to coerce so many people into joining their movement, let alone sustain themselves.
liberals cover their lack of information and/or intellect under the protective blanket of popular opinion
Humans like it simple. Any professor of communications will tell you how rhetorics single-handedly get more attention to marketing messages and political agendas. They are powerful and tell people that something ought to be innately true and no amount of evidence discrediting it can ever balance out. From the teachings of table manners in kindergarten classroom to your average liberal college campus where students get a hand on safe sex, rhetorics are extensively used in perpetrating these key messages. Popular opinion and rhetorics go hand-in-hand by complementing one another. Home appliance manufacturer Whirlpool uses the supposed possession of a 6th sense by their machines as a marketing message. Why 6th sense? It is believed to be a notion representing extraordinary diligence, a thing intrinsic to intelligent life – finding a central place in many sci-fi works. The basis for popular opinions may not be understood by everyone, but the opinions are and that is what matters.
What the majority of people deem correct is also what rhetorics should learn to coincide with to resonate with their audience, and to get their message across with the strongest effect. If the majority of people in a political system deem homosexuality as appropriate – any rhetoric that wants to be successful at appealing to the most people must follow behind this popular consensus. Sometimes, they might help reinforce what’s already there or help incorporate a new idea into this existing base. Rhetorics are able to do this because people don’t readily question the rationality of it when they have or are already believing a higher opinion to be true, almost like they’re mathematical proofs.
Love trumps hate. The people united, will never be divided. No ban, no wall, immigrants are welcome here. This is what democracy looks like.
Change. Believe. Hope.
Does any of these ring familiar? I bet it does, you Antifa commies! Continue reading “Liberals: Their Motives And How They Sustain”
There are several lines of thought in philosophy – the most popular being the separation of the soul and body. The Venn diagram of the what these domains are supposedly believed to contain are exclusive. Something like that would have made sense in 16th century France, where theological ideas primly shaped the everyday functioning of society, where a spiritual domain was required. Ancient philosophy was essential to establish the foundations of ethics and morale – approaching a time where advanced political systems were emerging in Europe such as the democracy. Once a philosophy of people was established, what was left was conquering and rationalizing perception and reason and knowledge – in that order. Today, modern science tells us more on sensory perception than any philosophy, and the rules of reason have come to be known under a wider subject of logic. Knowledge has moved past being a substance of the mind acquired through sensory experience and thought to scientific consensus – where senses are used arbitrarily to reach personal satisfaction of any conclusion. At any time, we can employ logic and mathematics to go back or forth from present knowledge to understand it’s coming into existence or predict what could be or coming.
In the present day of the 20th century, science has far progressed past this phase of individual reasoning. We have build a framework into which we fit things and if they don’t, we conclude them false. A framework consisting of mathematics and science, ruled by logic or pure reason. However, as the society of today moves past the moderating theology that helped maintain humane order of the ancient land, into secular and liberal institutions – we must develop a new and contemporary philosophy to help sort through the ethical and moral conundrums of the present-day. Especially now with artificial intelligence around the corner, we must work on this fast.
Continue reading “The Need For A 20th Century Philosophy”
[Also included in this section is a lengthy introduction that will be foundational to upcoming sections. I might seem to use culture and society interchangeably, but society should refer to a people’s culture, accounting for their demography while culture is an ideologically constituent part of a demography. Cultural ideology on a whole encompasses the theological and philosophical realms.]
An innate desire to creatively and artistically express oneself is among the fundamental of human wills. I’ve often emphasized my theory of cognition and religion and culture being as one closely woven net, almost like an inseparable fabric. As a result of my insistence of the mentioned, I’ve managed to offend many people. Culture encompasses the various demographic intricacies operating in one’s immediacy – these include popular theological and philosophical ideas, geography and race and complex environmental feedback mechanisms. Religion refers to the majority religion among a demography that influences their theological ideology as mentioned above. Cognition, in this context, is defined as an individual’s ability to perform tasks of reading and writing, comprehending and reproducing information effectively and efficiently with respect to some statistical benchmark. Like gravity, IQ and other metrics of cognitive ability are all relative – and it wouldn’t do justice to compare the IQ of a chimpanzee with a gorilla. Just like the animals, I believe every civilization, over time, with the aforementioned factors of complexity, developed a standard cognition among their people that we call today as average – like the international average IQ of 100. Inductively reasoning from present-day IQs of many civilizations might be key to understanding their culture and religions.
Metrics such as the popular IQ measure an individual’s ability to perform specialized tasks by narrowing down with the specifics at hand. It is iterative and systematic. You could train your brain with IQ tests for a couple weeks leading up to your counsellor’s appointment and pull off a few 10 or more points on your existing IQ. Such cognitive metrics measure how well your brain has specialized – from the time of birth, that is. I believe as one gets older and leaves childhood, IQ is no longer a complete and holistic measure of one’s cognition. Therefore, a fair measure of brain function would be accomplished through divergent reasoning. Divergent tests measure the collocially-called creativity metric – also a statistical measure of how well an individual’s brain is divisive. As one progresses in age with experience, this divergent and rather chaotic type of cognition manifests into convergent cognition. Everything from the simple essay prompts to analytical problem solving can be employed in the task of measuring this lesser-known type of cognition.
Continue reading “Culture: How Does It Affect Us?”
This likely will be my last time discussing religion. Unlike the last two times where I directly spoke out against certain religions and how they manage to work in contemporary times, today’s installment will be more on understanding why they work – a question that will require a philosophical analysis of this concept. Our discussion will be focused on exploring why religion might have been necessary and maybe still is. Later, we will get to understanding some shared ideologies among religions.
Where do we start? A new World Order? Sure, let’s start here – despite your forced consent that would’ve otherwise made no difference if you’d answered. The fundamentalists of religion saw the state of political chaos – the anarchy – invading our civilization as the people grew. With more people came more demands to meet their individual and collective needs. People would then give in to their animalistic instincts – their innate desires and ambition – and that would soon overcome any order of the people. Imagine a world without law and order, a world where ethics and moral were foreign ideas – this is exactly the kind of place religious fundamentalists realized and saw. In fear, they envisioned a word of order. A world where man’s innate desires were suppressed for the greater benefit of his fellows – and indirectly himself. The fundamentalist knew order cannot result from the reign of another man – because man’s ambition of a control of his territory would destroy his obedience – and conflict would soon prevail. The solution was to device something of an outside entity – a supreme and perfect being in all regards of man. An entity that lives and grows in apparent truth with the belief of man and other men.
Resources come at a premium – and anyone from a third-world can perfectly relate to this. Nothing is free. In a world survived by man’s innate desires, it would have been hard to ensure fair distribution of vital resources such as food. Also, as anyone who watches the National Geographic can describe – these desires are often lawless in modern hindsight. Animals aggressively secure their territory, their food and their potential mate at any costs. They fight among themselves and among others and form clans – where they venture together into unknown territories to conquer or mark as their own. The fundamentalist knew man was no different from his ancestor and such instincts would soon creep in as they outgrew in numbers eventually leading them to their own destruction. A need for a system of order was in dire necessity. A system to channel man’s own emotions – that he has been naturally predisposed with – against his unknowing will for the benefit of other men and himself. A concept of religion was therefore required.
Continue reading “Religion: Earliest Attempt At World Order”
This is part II to my previous post on subjectivism in science. The last part for those of you wanting to catch up, explored the mechanisms by which subjectivism creeps into scientific literature and also ways to alleviate it. Part II will explore subjectivity in observation or more generally, observation bias – from a practical and metaphysical standpoint.
you interact to perceive
mutual exclusion is nothing but an illusion
Scientific instruments are limited to their resolution, accuracy and precision. An instrument can only resolve within finite numerical intervals, only being able to gauge some metric with some degree of statistical consistency. The fixed numerical gaps between which an instrument can register is called its resolution. All instruments have a resolution that is predetermined from design – and probably something you can expect to find on the back label. Accuracy and precision are parented in statistics. The ability of the instrument to consistently register close to some numerical value is called precision, while its ability to register closer to the actual numerical value is called accuracy. The keywords are highlighted.
Continue reading “Is Science Just Subjective: Are We Observing Or Interacting?”
In my previous writings, I have shown self-reliance and narcissism as wonderful methods of coping with emotion turmoil. However, they fail to remain foolproof as I’ve stated if one of two conditions are met,
- you are a minor still
- you operate in medieval legislation i.e., Islamic and Hindu countries
This method of self-reliance and narcissism which I’ve claimed to go hand-in-hand cannot work if the political system of your country prevents you from enjoying the liberties of a forward-thinking, contemporary culture – where you rely on yourself for everything. With that duly noted, this post will help formulate alternative measures for the temporary – until such time you can leave to a better place. Most conservative cultures – such as Islamic and Hindu – have deeply rooted ideas that the legislation cannot practically do away with – even the legislative ideas of an advanced and open form of government such as a secular republic – that it claims to be. In a country like India – the world’s most ignorant country by all measures – there is a cultural consensus about heirarchy – a belief that people of a higher order are perfect and it is unlikely from a moral place that they would ever do something you should accuse them of legally. So much that this cultural idea affects how willing a lawyer would be to take up your case, how much interest your local city police will take in your report given they even consider you for filing a report in the first place, and ultimately effecting your verdict by the judiciary.
the Indian judiciary is one steaming hot pile of cow shit!
Continue reading “Self-reliance Isn’t Foolproof”
I’d previously discussed about forms of dogmatic theism such as Christianity and Islam. Dogma is just a fancy word for philosophy without thought. It is quintessentially the analog of telling a child what is good and bad – there is nothing that can innately fall into one of these two categories. Our concept of good and bad are philosophical constructs that have manifested over time from religion and philosophy itself. Unlike its successor, philosophy, religion does not reason with its followers or allow room for people to interpret its dogma and reason further – which can threaten its very existence and religious fundamentalists know all to well about that! The threat of Hell and a concept of the afterlife were carefully stipulated to keep people from reasoning with their religion but I’ll have to save more on that for an upcoming post titled Religion: Earliest Attempts At World Order.
This post will serve as a sequel to my previous post titled An Atheist On Religions. I had made several updates and added newer, thought-provoking discussions after its date of publication – I urge you to start there first or this post will seem like a drag. In this post, I want to clear up some of the ideas I may have presented and add my after thoughts. We will also get to understanding how and why certain religions continue to be ballsy – when their own people or outsiders challenge their ways – potentially threatening the integrity of their God’s word.
Continue reading “An Atheist On Religions: A Sequel”
We are supposed to be talking logic this time. More specifically, I’d like to talk logic and people – how they use and understand logic.
While most people aren’t necessarily logical, they seem to have a decent grasp of what is logic. You and I are capable of everyday reasoning. But we find ourselves making decisions seeing past conventional logic – and it really has more to do with human psychology. Sometimes, nasty people exploit this loophole to win an argument, make a point, or even manipulate us like some theatrical puppet.
Continue reading “Fifth Tangent”
We made it! This tangent will explore entropy from a very philosophical standpoint (you’ll later understand why), therefore I won’t be spitting out equations unless I really have to, but let’s just hope it doesn’t come to that. So what is entropy? In all essential terms, entropy is really just the unique state of a system at some arbitrary time. This unique state can only move in one direction – from ordered to disordered as work is done by this system on its immediate surroundings. Entropy can move backwards – from disordered to ordered if work is done on the system by its surroundings. But what makes entropy truly fascinating and mysterious is it’s unpredictability – the quantum chaos observed in every system in the physical universe. This chaos is one that cannot be fully quantified because it would then violate the Second Law (of Thermodynamics) as we know it. Why does it violate said law? Because we can then turn back time, technically. By knowing the kinetic state and positions of particles in a system, we can easily treat the quantum particles as classical ones and apply our knowledge of classical mechanics to extrapolate the state of some particle in the system to some arbitrary time, which will allow us to manipulate the system’s disorderliness without doing any actual work on it – which is counter-intuitive and in violation of the Second Law.
Any system being governed by another entity cannot fully understand the entity that’s controlling it
Continue reading “Third Tangent”