Things progress in politics and in history but not in the way we usually think. Continue reading A VERY BRIEF LOOK AT PROGRESS
Who Deserves To Rule? No one.
Why does everyone seem to just looooove it?
People seem to do an awful lot of talking about whether or not our society is meritocratic! Usually, I would need to provide evidence that this is true, but anyone who has ever heard of the word in political discussion knows that it is almost always central. But why? It is simple. People believe that a meritocratic society is a just society. If those with merit rule we have the best possible system! Or so the claim goes. It is rarely ever stated and only assumed. Usually, a person immediately reacts viciously in a debate if you suggest that they are against meritocracy. If you ever speak against the system people believe you are being anti-intellectual or ridiculous in some way. And usually, people will always proclaim they are for this system undoubtedly. I always felt that going against strict taboos is extremely exciting, and part of being a free thinker. So, I always questioned why people thought that those with merit really deserve to rule. I mean people must have some sort of justification, right? Continue reading AGAINST MERITOCRACY
The moment you saw the title you most likely to either suddenly rush to dismiss this entire article as nonsense or as some delusional warmonger or you immediately agreed with me and still decided to disregard most of what I wrote below. I encourage both types of people to read and consider what I plan to write below because I believe I approach the subject at hand with a breath of some nuance.
Many people have been both for and against world peace. They have stood at both sides of this debate fiercely staring the other side down with either disdain or as intellectually inferior, as it is with most debates so ancient (community versus individual, isolation versus globalization, chocolate versus strawberry ice cream). Of course, there is always a third group that also likes to stand aside from both and likes to speak of ‘pragmatism’ (as I have my own problems with people who claim they are being pragmatic). I will gladly say I am not that third group. Instead, I am a person who wishes to frame the way that world peace has been spoken about in both the historical and recent political climate in contrast to its supposed ends. I try to understand why peace achieved through some of those means would not bring about those ends and a bit about how that end might just simply conflict with the fact that humans have diverse viewpoints. I am a person who hopes to convey that even the goal of manipulating the ‘human condition’ such that these viewpoints wouldn’t exist would not be preferable in virtue of preferability being identical to a thing that is ‘valued more than something else’. Continue reading A Look At World Peace: A Critique
I haven’t written a ‘dealing with’ article in quite some time and this rather different from my other ones in that it is a bit more pedantic. This is an article about argumentation and problems I have observed when involved in it. If that doesn’t sound like it is for you check out another article on my blog. On to the meat and potatoes!
Days upon days of conversation with my opposite has revealed perhaps something interesting. When someone speaks about something that’s a ‘self-evident truth’, they are merely using the connotations of truth without any denotations. It is, in other words, to say, that they are using the word truth as rhetoric. The word truth is a tool without any meaning of its own to them. When they say ‘truth’ it is not a truth in any philosophical sense, but in a sophistical sense, merely a fashion of speech. They don’t have any meaning for the word they are using on their own, this is why dogmatists can say:
It is true because it is true;
I know because I know.
If you have been referred to this article by a friend or family member, it was probably because you might have felt and voiced your thoughts as deeply against the transgender movement. Afterall, “everything can’t be a social construct, right?” Wrong. And of course, this depends on what you mean by social construct. Categorization, for example, is a thing that humans do automatically (how we categorize is questionable, I am not saying that the binary or spectral dynamic of gender is a natural category, just one we seem to have). And some distinctions seem to be common. Including the preference of certain types of toys or more arbitrary distinctions like colour or shapes. This is a common way in which humans think and that doesn’t mean a different social environment could not change that. There is a saying in psychology: all that is psychological is biological and the biological psychological. That which creates social construct like etiquette, preference for colour and so on has a biological basis that isn’t what makes a thing a social construction. What makes a thing a social construction is whether it is a notion also predicated on your society. If you were to grow up somewhere completely differently the way you would express yourself, your understanding of nature and biology that could all change. The environment changes one’s physiology and there really isn’t a barrier between the biological and psychological.
What if I said the craziest thing to you right now? What if I said that not only gender and race but age was a social construct? I know, crazy! So let’s imagine two people having this conversation going to watch a movie at a theatre. The first a man, Pyrrho and the second a woman, Xanthippes. Continue reading TransAgeism: An Exercise in Incredulity
Anarchists often hear the argument that they simply want to regress states to the point that some local authority acts as the state. That these local communities hold the monopoly on legitimate use of violence for which everybody acts. This is incorrect. There are many ways that anarchists speak about what makes their anarchism anarchistic, but there are three lines of thinking they often follow: individual sovereignty, abolishment of a hierarchy of power, freedom of association (voluntary association). None of these three modes of thought allow for states to exist since all states are an involuntary monopoly on the use of force which necessarily violates individual sovereignty and necessarily puts the decrees of the state above the individual in a hierarchy of power. Continue reading On Contracts and States