The True Purpose of Philosophy

    Given the current state of things, I was impelled to expand on the topic. I was brought up with a fairly common attitude (I judge) about Philosophy, what it is, what it does, and what it is for. Essentially, the belief is that Philosophy is for stuffy old men who have no real-world skills and it exists within a closed system—a bit like a snake eating its own tail—passing itself as science. This leads to a number of outcomes: it discourages any respect or appreciation for Philosophy, disconnects it from "the real world", discounts anything associated with it, makes the pursuit of, or ever interest in, Philosophy "silly", and undermines the contributions it has made to society and the world. I had minimal exposure, as I think is common, in my education and it mainly left me with the impression that it was something that happened 'long ago and far away'. Words like "ancient" and "lofty" would come to mind if I had been asked to describe Philosophy. Now, this may seem backwards or absurd to those who had any kind of broad education (as I expect most often happens outside the U.S.). I understand if that is the case, but want to be clear that even if this is not universal within my country of residence, it is common enough. In part, I make the point for outsiders looking at the U.S., potentially wondering why so many clearly incorrect beliefs and so much false information continues to make the rounds. In part, at least, I can attribute it to a lack of critical thinking skills because of the above attitudes about Philosophy.

    We come now to the reason and title of this post. If Philosophy is not just an erudite, ego-stroking, idealistic pursuit of useless nonsense, what is it? In actuality, it is a means to determine truth despite being flawed humans. This is my own simplistic way of explaining, of course, but I came to understand the value of Philosophy once I began to study Psychology and Neurobiology. We learn that human brains are not actually "thinking machines", but are error-riddled assumption devices. There are numerous popular books nowadays which explain that our perceptions are filtered through expectations, our brains manipulate sensory information to make "sense" of reality, and we can be completely convinced within our own thinking of something that is patently false. In fact, all these things happen within every individual everywhere all the time every day. We are not "observing" reality, we are actually "interpreting" the world around us. Once we understand this, it behooves us to find ways to correct for these automatic, internal processes and potentially construct ways to counteract the errors they create. This is, in effect, the basis of Philosophy: to check the things we think in order to error-correct the innate ways our brains process information.

    Let us take a couple practical examples, because there are certainly more esoteric areas. On first exposure to Logic, it can look like a collection of silly "if, then" statements. However, it is a part of Philosophy dealing with how to establish if something holds true and if the steps in arriving at a conclusion actually make sense. Recognizing this, it begins to have more utility to everyone. Next, Epistemology is a big, unwieldy word that seems to bear no resemblance to any other (again, a simplistic excuse to dismiss it). In actuality, it deals with establishing how we know what we know. Quite fundamental, and useful, one might begin to think. Instead of assuming the factual nature of whatever pops into our consciousness, we can interrogate this idea and establish if it does agree with reality. The way that philosophers approach and use this system is part of what makes it rigorous, along with actually making it the basis for much science—in addition to a science unto itself.

Hopefully, this is helpful in some way, and possibly can demonstrate to others who still hold the attitude I did previously how important and practical Philosophy can be. Instead of relegating it to history or uselessness, as it seems happens with most of the education around this topic in the U.S., we might better integrate this into our curriculum. In many ways, it is an oddity that this has not happened already. I do not need to attribute this to any sort of nefarious conspiracy, but it does seem to aid in making fools and dupes out of the citizenry.

Revisiting the Fixed Past

It seems an important distinction between progressive and conservative thinkers: that of the fixed or growth mindset. To refresh this concept, one may believe that a person is either born all they will ever be (fixed) or that people can change and develop as they age (growth). This may also reflect thinking on human nature and whether people can be included in "civilization". It is this fundamental difference which seems to creep into public discourse between those two camps—without making an explicit appearance, however. It must present a difficulty in resolving any issues under debate, this foundational belief about what is possible both individually and collectively. If one is of the opinion that people can never change, what use could there be for prisons and the concept of "rehabilitation"? This also allows such people to assume that "better" people exist in some immutable form; if this sounds like a cozy companion of prejudice, you may be onto something. Additionally, fixed-mindset adherents tend to invoke some idealized, mystical past in much of their arguing. Somehow, society and ordinary peoples' lives were better at some earlier point. Beyond that period, change is hopeless—because the one thing that needs to change simply cannot: people. No matter how much technology improves, we still only have humans with fixed ability. Contrarily, if one believes people can grow and learn better ways of being, then problems can be cured.

As long as this central dichotomy is not just unresolved but unacknowledged it is no wonder that laws and culture are hobbled.

Proposal for a True Universal Currency

How we currently calculate the value of an item is purely economical, in the pedestrian sense. Some version of: “I’ll pay a little more than the total price of components, production, transportation, and sale of the item”. Let us look at a small example to understand the process better. In creating clothing, the demand for various other components was also born; in order to make one thing, we need various tools, ingredients, or processes. The basis for clothes is thread, which can come from sources like cotton, wool, or newer artificial fibers. Any of these require land, water, and effort in order to cultivate, harvest, and produce. While animal or artificial fibers require somewhat different ingredients, they are similar enough for our discussion. Land must be cleared for farming and/or factories, requiring energy for labor and machinery to make a plot usable. The crop must be cultivated, and most often water is involved, requiring further energy output for reservoirs and distribution networks. Finally, once ready for harvest, energy must be used to gather it for processing: reaping crops, shearing sheep, or manufacturing plastics. Additionally, fibers can be stored for the future as well as transported to where the fibers will be transformed into usable thread and then clothing. If we are to create enough thread to clothe a population, there is tremendous infrastructure and construction necessitated. While shoppers see the price of a shirt, the production of that one article is repeated tens of thousands of times requiring a tremendous apparatus that extends beyond just the shirt company. To arrive at a final price, many contemporary examples would also include government subsidies, tax breaks, undercutting competitors, advertising, and on ad nauseam. Additionally, we are not accounting for the loss of habitable land given over to industry, the toll on workers (physical or otherwise), or the environmental impacts of various practices. There are many costs which only get calculated later if enough people raise enough of a fuss. Once established, technologies become more political and decisions have more to do with what industry will allow to be considered than the actual components. In short, what gets considered a “cost” is subjective and often poorly understood. This illustrates some of the underlying problems with the current system. It would be better to have a simpler, universally applicable, and objective way to arrive at the value or cost of any item. As you might expect, there may be such a thing, but we must first explore some basic science in order to make the connection.

First, notice that the word “energy” appears a number of times in our example above; whether electrical, physical, mechanical, or chemical, the work done can be expressed as units of energy. While we may be accustomed to using this term in various ways, for our discussion here we need to think of it as it is used in physics. This means two things: energy exists along an electromagnetic spectrum and only some of it is useful. Energy exists on a scale from radiation at the high end to heat at the low end. It moves "down" easily, i.e. standing in the sunshine warms you up. However, to convert heat back into electricity it takes more energy than we get from that change to heat. We can generate electricity using the falling water at a dam to turn an electromagnet, converting potential mechanical energy into electrical energy, but we would not be able to draw the same amount of water back up into the reservoir using the electricity we gained. This is because there is always some amount of loss in converting any form of energy into another. Once energy translates from light into heat, it is no longer available to perform tasks; once the water is boiled, that heat cannot be used as electricity again. Next, everyone recognizes that it is easier to destroy than create; it takes time and effort to make the sand castle, but it will quickly fall apart on its own. That is entropy: the tendency towards loss of order and need for energy to maintain order. Further, entropy is a universal process. While the news mentions "peak oil", "post-oil economics", etc., which are different ways of expressing our limited supply of petroleum, the same is true of all energy sources. You may remember learning in school that our Sun has a lifespan, and will burn up at some point in the future. More broadly still, there is a finite amount of usable energy in the entire universe and when that is expended further change will be impossible, expressed as the "heat death of the universe". Recognizing this might encourage some to “conserve energy”, but the purpose of this post is just to point out the limitations of our current financial reckoning and suggest improvements.

With this understanding, of both the limitations of current economic accounting and entropy as a basis for the true representation of costs, we can construct a system which would express all activities as consumption of our total energy “budget”. Thus entropy would become a basic unit of currency and evaluation at once. For true cost-benefit analysis, we could do no better.

Why Villains Always Lose and Heroes Are Reluctant

It is odd that heroes in entertainment are the ones who just react to the villain's plan. Superheroes in comic books and movies, the "good guys" on TV shows, and even in literature and documentaries. From Bond to Batman to Brockovich, the individual the audience is supposed to identify with, who conveys the morality of the story, is not the one initiating change. In Joseph Campbell's hero's journey, it is the passive protagonist who is forcibly taken away from the known world and endures events which unfold around them. Why is it that we are meant to idolize the person in the story whose motivation is to stop the plans of others? This is a question about the psychological impact in the real world on the audience: us. If it is the case that we grow up with the notion (conscious or not) that being a good person means reacting or waiting for someone to rescue, what sort of expectation is that? These are the stories we share with our children. If we expect children are smart enough to pick up on the morality of the tale, do we really think they miss the message that the focus of "good guys winning" is just to stop the baddie from completing their scheme? This is the ideal we inculcate in our society: do not plan, do not attempt to influence others, and do not seek to shape the world, because only villains do those things. Just sit back and allow things to unfold, only taking action when something "bad" happens. Change is aberrant, and to be endured; events are out of our hands and happen to us, rather than because of us. The person who initiates or explores, who takes action, is somehow wrong. This means that having a plan is suspect, and the good act to prevent others from completing their plans. In short, our stories tells us to be reactive.

There are some arguments to note in this examination. First, that this narrative flow arises from human thinking and therefore demonstrates a natural occurrence reflecting the basics of storytelling. After all, conflict is drama, and drama drives interest; it makes no sense to tell a story that is not interesting to the audience. Second, that due to complex social networks, humans benefit from reactivity and passivity. These approaches maintain stability and conserves traditional structures that work, allowing steady and safe progress, rather than upheaval. Finally, that proactivity can lead to overbearing interference or invasive progress. The reason they are villains is that they are over-reaching in their plans, and should seek only to change their own lives, or at least set more humble goals. While these are fine points, they are more complex or deal with rational thinking, and the problem is more like subliminal messaging. The basic idea that good people only act to stop villains is so simple and pervasive that it is only a question now that we are examining it. Before now, it would have seemed unnatural to think of such a fundamental aspect of the stories we have heard all our lives. Most of the arguments around these three points can be allayed quite simply. We can recognize that stories could be just as compelling with protagonists who see problems in the world and begin to construct ways to overcome them, upsetting the status quo and building coalitions towards the betterment of all. There are a few of these stories already.

I will mention here just how good Black Panther is, and how well it illustrates my points. Certainly, one part is about how a prince becomes king, the hero's journey. However, the entire movie revolves around the tension between tradition and modernity, centered on maintaining morality in a changing world. The central character does not drive the action, because he is again reacting to the events being imposed by the outside world. T'Challa's idyllic life in Wakanda is ended by the murder of his father. Afterwards, his smooth transition to sovereign is interrupted by the return of a cousin (N'Jadaka) who was left to die by that same father. We get to see how stability can become stagnation and that the certainty of accession does not grant perspective. Here, we have an encapsulation of the entire discussion about villain versus hero, proactive versus reactive. The villain is right, has a plan, and in the end everyone benefits from his vision; however, the entire movie is about the hero who has to be dragged into the present and face the world because of the actions of that villain. T'Challa was not setting out to discover the best course of action for himself or his nation, he did not even recognize the problems of the world as important, and would not have questioned the policy of isolation on his own. It was only through the actions of N'Jadaka that Wakanda gained a ruler who was capable of appropriately leading.

It should give us pause when the villain is beaten, and the hero goes back to waiting for something else to go wrong. Why are they not planning how things can be better, or challenging themselves to prevent the need for such extreme plans? How are we emulating that reactionary model in real life?

Humans First!

I have been hearing an expression which reveals a sentiment I take exception to. I also recognize that I am behind the times on this, as a little research turns up equivalent terms from 2014. What I refer to is the new sense and way of speaking of pets as a 'parent-child' relationship. Expressions such as "dog [mom/dad]", "pet parent", and "fur baby" indicate the level of care such individuals evidently feel for their pets. Some even lavish attention and expense on their pets that seem like Christmas came early. As a parent, the idea that a person chooses to devote their attention to another species is not entirely my issue. I think having compassion, and even agape love, for animals of all species is noble. I care about the extinction of animal species and the mistreatment of domesticated animals. I believe it is a privilege to own an animal, and that includes the responsibility to care for that animal. I have owned a variety of pets in my life, and would enjoy the opportunity to again.

The reason I find this important enough to talk about is that it betrays a variety of problematic attitudes. Initially, I resented the implication that my status as parent was not as valuable or respectable because it was on par with owning a creature. I do realize that no one was making that explicit statement, and one engages in equivocation to draw the parallel. Still, the wording is a choice and it is one that expresses an equivalence where there is none. At best, it is great marketing disguised as a positive change for the animals. However, I find that it covers at least a couple truths. First, we steal baby animals from their actual parents for our own purposes, after breeding the animals for profit. Second, all these animals are the products of human manipulation; they are genetically modified organisms. We literally created everything about these pets: appearance, demeanor, and purpose. There is at least one breed of dog that cannot reproduce without humans. Finally, there are the startling number of animals who are killed each year as surplus.

These facts betray the weight of responsibility we have to these creatures, and how different having a pet is from children. As much as we owe pets for their companionship and service, our first duty is to ourselves. This is the only thing that makes the current treatment of animals minimally acceptable. Ultimately, no matter how loving one is towards a pet, a human life always takes precedence. If a human baby and a pet are both in peril, the human life must be saved. This is not an opinion. If we reach a point where we no longer consider every human life as eminently valuable, our species begins to lose our chance to survive. Consider that we evolved and continue to exist on this planet because of the fundamental rule that we continue to want to live. No matter what the cosmos throws at us as a species, we persist. I begin to think this attitude reveals a flaw in some folks that do not believe we deserve to continue as a species. At any rate, I think this simple exploration demonstrates how nonsensical the trend is. So everyone can stop using those terms now.

The Factory Model of Humans

There seems to be a notion – bolstered by the ubiquitous "self-help industry" – that our beliefs are our only limits. As if there is a standard, set point, or style that every person can attain or adopt. The thinking seems to be that success is within everyone's reach, if only they follow the "[insert number here] simple steps to success". Meaning that by emulating them, we can become (or achieve the results of) the person we envy or admire. I do not mean to discuss here the issues of lack or perceived deficit individuals judge in themselves, that is for another time. The focus of this post is on the means to improve, not the drive to do so.

The above thinking approaches people with the attitude that we can "cut and paste" talents and abilities. That if we adopt the tendencies of others, then we can be like them and experience the same success, lifestyle, or even livelihood. It is both the 'quick-fix' and the 'outside agency' parts of this attitude that are troublesome here. Let me address each separately.

First, the short-cutting of experience. It is an understandable desire, to cut out hours of practice or exploration in order to reach the conclusion. The idea to eliminate the unnecessary middle ground of practice and failure; to jump directly to the "right solution". However, it is misguided - as there is no such thing. I suspect that the results may only be successful because of the experience and intuition developed by the explorer. It is especially difficult for people to explicate their internal processes, as demonstrated by the need for study of elite athletes to understand what makes them effective. At any rate, the answer to this problem does not solve all those to come; it is necessary to be prepared to tackle them as well, and that requires a great deal of experience.

Second, that the solution comes from someone else, rather than from within. This is a true problem, as it redirects the power from 'me' to 'the other'. Instead of building confidence in myself and my ability to find answers, it builds reliance on another. The next time I come up against adversity, have I built up resilience and capacity to overcome, or do I need to return to the fountain of wisdom that I used last time? The answer is evident when the gurus only answer one question in a book and require a subscription to tackle more.

Ultimately, this model doesn't fit with human nature, which is fractious and diverse. Yes, I (and you) can learn, change, and grow; that does not mean we will (or can) do so in the same ways. In fact, it may be important that we do not. Leaving that aside, can we or should we get the same results the same way? Is it beneficial to have a success "formula"? I take the large proportion of divorces as evidence of needing to find one's own way. There is certainly no shortage of people who offer advice to married couples, and yet the divorce rate has remained static for decades. Instead, there are likely only a few "universal" constants, while the rest are open to interpretation and personalization.

"You Know"

This may be a pet peeve masquerading as an erudite post, but I think there's some value to bringing it up. I certainly own that I dislike the expression, "You Know," I think it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. The main problem I have with it is it's overuse. When I hear the expression more than I hear actual content, then it's a problem. If it takes the place of real words that convey meaning, then it's detrimental. This is exactly what I witness, time and again.

It's not communication because if I already knew, then I wouldn't need to listen to you. What I'm listening for the words that inform me of your meaning, those that let me understand what you felt, experienced, or think. I can't do that just by imagining what I would feel or how I would react-because those are my own things. What "I know" is what is already inside me, and those would be assumptions, projections, and most likely wrong if I applied them to you.

So, for my sake if not your own, please take the time to find words that mean something and actually allow me to understand you. Maybe we could even find a "You Know"-free day, a sort of national holiday without this inanity.

Notions of Normalcy and Operating At Capacity

When I was younger, I thought that people were all like me. On the inside, I mean. I thought that even though they looked different, that within that unique but fairly standard packaging they thought in much the same way I did and had the same capabilities and aptitudes. Certainly there were some small number who had mental or physical handicaps-again, whatever their individual packaging consisted of. At heart, though, where it really mattered, I thought any differences could only be shallow ones and that we all had a core that would lead us onto the same basic track.

As I've become a more complex thinker (or at least think of myself as such), I've revisited and re-evaluated this concept. I'm starting to wonder if it is actually more that we tend to operate within a narrow range of mental and physical specifications. What if there are a greater degree of adaptations we encompass instead of a sort of "on/off", "yes/no", "normal/abnormal" status? Instead, there may be a number of significant differences that allow individuals to operate within the confines of our systems. After all, it's not like we're products on an assembly line-there's no stress-testing or design studies on each model. If we manage to do most things for ourselves, that's generally good enough.

I've been hearing this new buzzword "neurodiversity" lately, and I suppose what I'm talking about may relate to it. This is about 30 years after the notion of "multiple intelligences". The idea takes a bit of wind out of IQ and expands from a single "academic/learning" understanding of intelligence into several distinct types. The validity of either point of view is not at issue, I mention it to note that the desire and search to understand how people operate and the way that the internal influences the external is still being examined.

A Brief, Nonprofessional Opinion About Discrediting Science

It occurred to me that the way I have heard science attacked lately takes one main form.  What I hear is folks saying that science is not factual, that all science has to offer is theories and "guesses".  In turn these people are arguing that since science does not claim to be absolute, it is just another belief system.  In short, the way religious individuals are criticising science is by claiming that it is not any better than their own religions.  Therefore, ironically, they are actually supporting and even proving that religions are less valid than science.


Just because scientists do not claim to have "The Truth" does not mean that science is flimsy or disreputable.  Certainly the inability of laypeople to understand hard science has no effect on the validity of it.  In reality, scientists get into some pretty far-out areas of the universe.  Places where our everyday thinking about things like "water is wet' no longer apply.  These are things we just can't say we understand completely.  We still have microwave ovens and P.E.T. scans, G.P.S. and cell phones, refrigerators and genetically-modified foods.  That's all science-based, not running on faith.


I will state this as simply as I can:

1.  Belief systems (read: religions) are not rigorous and objective but are only as valid as the people who believe them.
2.  Religion precludes your involvement and testing; there is no way to go about "knowing" anything.
3.  Science is a series of observations, conjecture about what happened, followed by testing, and re-evaluation to make sure.  Repeat ad infinitum.
4.  Anyone and everyone can participate in science: make observations, hypotheses, test them, and show your data to others and you are a scientist.

Buy in Haste, Repent in Leisure

One of the most troubling parts of capitalism is that it does really well when people lack the ability to make an informed decision.  Throughout the history of buying and selling, having an uninformed and uneducated public is key to hucksters and their snake oil empires.  Claiming the whole time that people wouldn't buy their products unless those products worked and "you can trust me because [neighbor/friend/relative/famous person] did!"  The appeal of joining the crowd, of abdicating responsibility for vetting a product to the larger group, is that there isn't any one person to blame.  You can't blame your neighbor for getting you into it because everyone on the block did the same (maintaining friendly relations); you aren't at fault because everyone else bought the same thing, you aren't any better or worse than any of them (preserving your self image and status).  Looking back at what these carpetbaggers have done, it's easy to see why they kept moving: they had a hard time continuing to rip people off once their credibility was shot.  Nowadays, however, with a "global economy" and multinational corporations, we are seeing the same tactics being successfully used over and again.  Most likely this is due to "consumers" (1) not having the knowledge to adequately check products, (2) being overwhelmed with choices and advertising, (3) not making products' risks or shortcomings widely known, and (4) companies generating a slew of products and overwhelming the marketplace.  Asking "what is the difference between the product that came out last week and the previous version" from just last year?  Is it really so different that I need to spend more money?  Or are these things just flashier versions of the same thing or something I really don't need?

When we have finally have adequate education and gain the necessary experience, we will no longer be so easily taken advantage of.  This wouldn't just lead to an implosion of sales of worthless products, but rather to those products being successful which would endure and be helpful .

An Oft Overlooked Command

There is a lot of news lately about our military, and I want to focus on something that many in the military (as well as outside of it) fail to respect enough: the necessity of knowledge. There are too many people placing emphasis on "just following orders" or "just doing my job", rather than understanding what that means and whether or not they are justified in doing it. This is an extension of the general ignorance and malaise in society, a cop-out of having too much to know or understand. This is never a reason, only an excuse. Frankly, it's easier to have someone else do the thinking, but that isn't what life is supposed to be. Life isn't about easy; it's not easy to be a student or a parent, or beautiful, or healthy, or anything else. We are endowed with intelligence for exactly this reason: to not be used or hurt and so that we are not taken advantage of. All of which happen to some extent when we are not in control of our own lives, when we abdicate or subjugate our intelligence. We have brains so that we can overcome obstacles and apply control, rather than force. Just swinging the stick isn't enough, one must understand why, and if there is a way to not have to swing the stick at all, that is even better. That is where true intelligence, and therefore true humanity, lies.

Stockholm is Everywhere.

I will argue that what has been described as "Stockholm Syndrome" is a common and necessary part of society, indeed a vital part of being human in any culture. It is widely recognised that the mechanisms behind this psychological condition apply to not only hostage situations but commonplace, everyday relationships as well. The reason for the ubiquity and necessity of this dissociation of mind and reality is twofold: there are societal forces coercing us to accept lifestyles which it also pushes us to resist and there is a natural predisposition towards insanity in the human psyche.

Throughout evolutionary history there have been adaptations, made by individuals and groups, which maintain homeostasis with the surrounding environment. That includes other peoples, other societies, and so there had to be a way to overcome the essential differences in encountering these foreign cultures. To whit, if one were to join another culture, by choice or by force, one needs to have some way of dealing with the new expectations and duties. This is important since the taking of prisoners and slaves is historically near-unanimous throughout all societies. The ability to empathize and excuse one's captors is vital in situations where escape is not an option. Not only does this facilitate physical self-preservation, but also as a mental measure. The constant rebellion against a situation, such as a rejection of ones' status or role, will lead to an increasing pressure upon the mind of the person. This will become unbearable if that individual cannot change that situation, even if only within his or her own mind. Imagine you believe yourself to be better than everyone around you and yet you are treated worse because of societal expectations. That belief will persist within your own mind, inescapably reminding you that you are not fulfilling your duty or potential. Not losing one's mind from all these conflicting stresses and messages is indispensable, especially in the daily life of modern times.

I mention the inherent instability of the human mind, and I do need to explain. I mean by this the capacity for deception: lies, to self and others. The ability to deceive others can be seen as an evolutionary adaptation, something that will contribute to survival. The capacity for self-deception, however, is different. It would seem to actually be contrary to ones' interest in most cases. To not be sure that ones' perceptions are accurate, means that one can never be sure that what one thinks is real actually is. This seems to be a maladaption, unless we factor in the nature of human culture, where this ability becomes useful and, as I've said, necessary.

Public Education v Private Profit

The purpose of universal public education is to allow all citizens (indeed, all humans if it were truly "universal") the methods and ability-not the opportunity-the ability to obtain and understand information. The idea being that these fully-educated, informed people can then agree on some Truth, which in turn drives the society further along the road of civilization. To begin, there has to be a basis for the consumption of information, a common pool of knowledge to work from. If the underpinnings of this information are not presented then the information has no value, no substance. If you don't know why 2 - 3 = -1, then you won't understand the charge of electrons and you'll have no hope of knowing how important phospholipids are. Further, if we don't all know the same information, it would be as though we did not speak the same language. Which, in effect, really happens: we are at odds-with one talking about this thing, while the other may be saying something completely different-all because we "understand" the subject differently. I use quotation marks around this word because it is outside of simple point-of-view, where we interpret the information in our own way. I refer to actually disagreeing on what the facts are, to each having access to different and/or incomplete information, whereby we can hardly be said to know or understand what we are talking about. Language is something to be discussed at a later time, but some of the same concepts do apply here. Thirdly, and this is vital: not to limit what can be known, but to allow the free-flow of conversation and ideas between individuals. Concurrently, I have to say that as with language and words, in knowing there are no such thing as "bad" facts. There should be no cap or constraint on what we learn or are exposed to, even. There should be neither censorship nor secrecy where public knowledge is concerned. The keeping of information from the populace by its government is wrong, this is self-evident as every time the knowledge is released however-many years later, it would have resulted in a better outcome had the full story been known. If people would have been informed about certain decisions made by the U.S. government with regard to the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and Bay of Pigs fiasco, for example. While ignorance is certainly comfortable for some, it is never blissful, and what you do not know can certainly hurt, and even kill you. Next, we are not allowed to learn or know, it is a necessity that we get information, indeed it is a right, just the same as Life and Liberty. Knowledge is part of the "Pursuit of Happiness" (or "Property", as Hobbes would have it), for how can one be happy unless the concept is understood or one can truly understand how to go about being happy? Again, that means we have to get access to all available knowledge; we need the tools, those concepts, to learn about every subject so we can understand our world and ourselves to the fullest. While it is sad that people no longer appreciate knowledge for its own sake as they once did, this attitude is actually a side effect to information being so readily available. This does not, however, change the nature of information, whereas its treatment by governments, corporations, and institutions does alter the makeup of information. If it is ignored by individuals, knowledge is still there, like a book just waiting to be opened; if these agencies want to ignore it, however, they can delete, change the appearance of, or limit access to data. This means that even if the population cries out for it, we may not get the facts, instead we are allowed only limited glimpses, if any at all. This is justified by different means: calling them state or trade secrets, or military or tactical intelligence, labeling the data as dangerous and potentially harmful, claiming it is "of no interest" or beyond the "lay-persons'" understanding, distraction or misdirection, and any number of others. Instead interest in (certain kinds of) knowledge is drummed up by advertising and packaging it in some guise that is appealing within the system of capitalism. So we are told that knowledge is, in essence, a safeguard against being fooled or taken advantage of. Incidentally, this is just another indication of how important it really is, to say that it can keep you safer, don't you think? Information becomes a tool, a shield, a theft deterrent, an investment in self-protection. In closing, I would say knowledge is perverted when it becomes a commodity, it is made to look like another petty thing to be bought and sold. It never is however; rather, information is something to be shared not hoarded, free and not constrained, open to all and any but never kept for one alone. And why is this? Why am I writing all of this, telling you that it is important? Why have I devoted so much space herein to the subject? Because this is for the betterment of the entire society, and indeed, the world. As each individual is improved, all of us-as a whole species, more than the sum of its parts-are better off. This is the function of educating our children, of creating a "school system": to encourage that expansion of knowledge and not force people to endure retracing and reiterating fallacies that are already known, but to create a populace which can build upon what is known and factual, and then dive into the unknown.

Get it Done

It is a drive of people to have things done, it seems; out of the way, so that they can be crossed off "the list". Unfortunately, this includes other people as well; there is even that expression, "to write someone off." Once you've made up your mind and have given the person a fair chance and evaluated their merits, what's the use in changing your opinion; why allow all that hard work to be undone by new information? You don't want to have to do that, it is already "done". That's one down, and only 29 million, 426 thousand, and 62 more things to go, right? There is no time to be constantly thinking about what is going on around you, you have more important things to do. Those who get caught up in this are blinding themselves to the truth that there is nothing that is ever 'done' or that will never again need to be re-evaluated. Such a thing does not exist in my experience, and that of many others who speak of these things. Life is a process, one that evolves constantly; the best we can do is accept that. We all need to deal with life on its own terms, and do the best we can by it. Just because we think we understand something one day does not mean it will stay that way forever. Our understanding of the world around us is constantly being revised. We learn new information and make new theories all the time. That is the nature of knowledge and our lives. There is no last anything until we die, and even then there is a lot of debate.

Signs of Intelligent Life

What is it that defines intelligence, and I defy you to answer, "...being smart." The answer I will use here is that intelligence is simply the ability to think: to learn, reason, and theorize; it is not satisfactory in an academic or scientific manner, but serves the purpose we need it to here. The problem with the question is that once answered, it only leads to another question: what is intelligence for? Once we do know what intelligence is, we need to understand what it means for us. We do not have only enough brainpower to move our bodies and react to situations, that is to say we do not operate simply from instinct, although we definitely have predetermined responses or reflexes, both physically and psychically. The ability to think leads to the development of many technologies, certainly, but what else does it offer a species? It must serve a purpose aside from allowing one to solve problems and make tools. Isn’t the surplus simply wasted if that is its only function? Is intelligence something outside that, something intended for different uses which is wasted on those pursuits? Just as we don’t have hands solely to carry things, cogitation is not simply to imagine weapons. Each of these tools serves multiple purposes. The purpose of hands is not only to strangle and strike, but also to caress and hold gently. The ability to think demands the use of that ability, we can’t avoid it. So, when we use this ‘intelligence’, what should our goal be? Since we have it, and it can be used for so many things, what are the areas we should be investigating and focusing on? It seems that each new level of understanding leads to further questions, just as most pursuits in life may have no ultimate answer. Yet, if we aren’t to just blunder through life reacting and living as chance should have it, what does this ability allow us to do? Humanity’s prodigious ability to think is one of very few things we have going for us. Comprehending and understanding ourselves and our environment are the keys to our survival individually and collectively. We are not meant to live as salmon do, nor as bees; not that we are more or better than they, just that we have abilities they do not. Finally, an answer! However, one which only opens up another line of inquiry: which solution will allow us to survive? Once we recognize its purpose in our existence, we still need to agree upon implementing a response to our problems. For that we all need to agree upon the information we’ll use to formulate our answer, which is a topic for another time.