A poem I wrote. *The State of The World* By Dragonstar

[dragonstar]

This poem represents my feelings about society as a whole
We humans need to be better than what we are in our current state.
The world is falling apart at it's seams and we have no one else to blame but ourselves.


The State of Our World

I walk upon the world and see madness.
I walk upon the world and see sadness.
I see everyone trying to find an answer,
but can’t find solutions through all the useless banter.

Some people are like cancer that hamper progression.
And only drive the state of our world into a further recession.
As I watch our world go into shambles, I wonder,
Are our problems too much for us to handle?

Then suddenly, I realized, there is a path of hope!
if by only the brightness of a candle.
Empathy and understanding is the solution to the problem!
This will stop our world from sinking to the bottom!

Can we progress? Can we achieve success?
If not, then we mind as well put all our efforts to rest.
I hereby challenge you all to your greatest test!
To work together and try your best!
For if we give up, and let our world fall to entropy,
There will be nothing for us! No hope. No reality.

[dragonstar]

Since, "recession," is a buzz word for politics, I would like to restate that this poem is about the state of our world.

There is no latent political agenda here. If anything, my agenda is centered around finding solutions to our madness.

[tetsuo]

The only way to fix the world, and it's manufactured social and political problems, is to evaporate organized leadership off the face of the Earth.

Our world and military leaders, politicians, and even the intellecual elite (including the media), all have a hand in helping segment individuals into groups based on (mostly arbitrary) external factors. These include race, ethnicity, sexual identity, political affiliation, class, and so many more. When we look at how many involuntaty groups and subgroups we are "apart of" it's easy to see why it's so hard to find peace. Not that we will ever find peace (or that it should be our goal), but there are just some things that the individual has no real hand in. Genocide, warfare, mass pollution, the disenfranchising of people, the list goes on. It simply isn't our fault. People don't start wars, organize death camps, or create social policies that destroy or oppress large portions of populations. They don't enslave, and certainly by themselves cannot bring about the destruction of mankind.

We fight each other because we're told to. We hate each other because we're told to. We kill each other because we're told to.

Let's stop thinking about "us," "we," and "them." How about "I?" We need to start thinking and acting for ourselves. We need to realize that the free self is the only important unit of society that we need to be concerned with. We need to recognize the importance of voluntary interaction amongst people in an open world. We need to teach our children that selfishness and free will are just as imporant as charity and selflessness. (Also the proper definition of selfishness and free will, that would help a lot. Maybe it would put an end to all this high school type Objectivist thinking.)

I think most people feel the same way you do about our current situation. We all just have a different way of looking at it. We're living in a crazy world, probably always will. But is it really our fault? We need to stop looking up to our leaders, and even to each other for help.

I'm ranting, but hopefully it makes some sense, and is at least relevant to your post :)

[dragonstar]

The only way to fix the world, and it's manufactured social and political problems, is to evaporate organized leadership off the face of the Earth.

Our world and military leaders, politicians, and even the intellecual elite (including the media), all have a hand in helping segment individuals into groups based on (mostly arbitrary) external factors. These include race, ethnicity, sexual identity, political affiliation, class, and so many more. When we look at how many involuntaty groups and subgroups we are "apart of" it's easy to see why it's so hard to find peace. Not that we will ever find peace (or that it should be our goal), but there are just some things that the individual has no real hand in. Genocide, warfare, mass pollution, the disenfranchising of people, the list goes on. It simply isn't our fault. People don't start wars, organize death camps, or create social policies that destroy or oppress large portions of populations. They don't enslave, and certainly by themselves cannot bring about the destruction of mankind.

We fight each other because we're told to. We hate each other because we're told to. We kill each other because we're told to.

Let's stop thinking about "us," "we," and "them." How about "I?" We need to start thinking and acting for ourselves. We need to realize that the free self is the only important unit of society that we need to be concerned with. We need to recognize the importance of voluntary interaction amongst people in an open world. We need to teach our children that selfishness and free will are just as imporant as charity and selflessness. (Also the proper definition of selfishness and free will, that would help a lot. Maybe it would put an end to all this high school type Objectivist thinking.)

I think most people feel the same way you do about our current situation. We all just have a different way of looking at it. We're living in a crazy world, probably always will. But is it really our fault? We need to stop looking up to our leaders, and even to each other for help.

I'm ranting, but hopefully it makes some sense, and is at least relevant to your post :)

Theoretically, although highly improbable, if there were an organized leadership that promoted individualistic thinking, logic, empathy, and reason, do you feel we would be better off? I ask this because I feel that, in some cases, leadership is needed. For example, and not to be condescending in any way, as a child is being raised, it has to learn how to speak, not to eat everything it sees, and so forth. All of these are learned from a leader follower relationship. Now, let's say throughout the rearing process the parents instilled the ideology of critical thinking and empathy. What if our educational institutions did this? What if our leaders in government did this?
To me, this seems like a good solution.

It would solve many problems associated with race, ethnicity, sexual identity, political affiliation, class, etc. People would know how to think and better their lives for themselves and others.*


(When I say, "how to think," this is in reference to being taught how to think for one's self and their fellow man/woman.)

[tetsuo]

I ask this because I feel that, in some cases, leadership is needed. For example, and not to be condescending in any way, as a child is being raised, it has to learn how to speak, not to eat everything it sees, and so forth. All of these are learned from a leader follower relationship. Now, let's say throughout the rearing process the parents instilled the ideology of critical thinking and empathy. What if our educational institutions did this? What if our leaders in government did this?
To me, this seems like a good solution.

One does not live with their parents forever. Once a person is mature enough to venture out on their own, they are able to decide for themselves whether the lessons taught by their parents are applicable. If the government is doing this, "maturity" never comes. There is no graduation from the state, so in a sense we will always be the children. I assume there will be punishments for those who do not exhibit empathy, critical thinking, and the other values you say are important? How does enforcment work? How exactly are these lessons being taught?

Even though I believe morality can be objective, I have a problem with our values being handed down to us by a government. How do we know what they are telling us is correct (what I mean is, how do we know if our leaders truly understand what is right and wrong, and where do these vaules come from)? These values have no moral worth if we are following them just because we are indoctrinated to. It's just as wrong as giving moral importance to the Ten Commandments just because it is the word of God (I'm not an Atheist btw).

No matter the goals of the leaders, isn't there an inherent problem with a society made up of leaders and followers? (I'm not talking about parenting, as that is natural, and whether it's involuntary or not, there is no moral problem. It's when there is an unnatural and involuntary leadership or ruling class that we should question it's egitimacy.)


Theoretically, although highly improbable

Yeah, but improbable or not, it is important to realize that it might be the only truly fair way. As a thought experiment it is incredibly interesting. It's also pretty improbable that our leaders will ever try to teach us anything that can help us become free. It'd be ironic.

To try and actually answer your question:


if there were an organized leadership that promoted individualistic thinking, logic, empathy, and reason, do you feel we would be better off?

No. These are all attributes that all humans already have. If we are truly free, and exhibit these values, what exactly is the government going to teach us that we don't already know, and for what reason? Teaching us these values in an unfree society (like in our current situation) seems to me, to be a big waste of time.

It's pretty cool to have a discussion like this on a fart forum.

[dragonstar]

I like you : )


One does not live with their parents forever. Once a person is mature enough to venture out on their own, they are able to decide for themselves whether the lessons taught by their parents are applicable. If the government is doing this, "maturity" never comes. There is no graduation from the state, so in a sense we will always be the children. I assume there will be punishments for those who do not exhibit empathy, critical thinking, and the other values you say are important? How does enforcment work? How exactly are these lessons being taught?

No. There would be no punishments for people lacking those qualities nor would anyone be forced to think a certain way. In this social structure, people would be encouraged to think in a productive manner. Also, my parent-child analogy wasn't the best.
I meant to use it to show the gradual progression of leader-follower situations and where they're needed. For instance, when in school a student is being led by the teacher and in government, the government is supposed to be led by the people.


What if our leaders in government did this?

Sorry I should have at least given more context. By leaders in this sense, I'm referring to the government leading in a manner in which they should be leading. (Being for the people and by the people.) The government, in and of itself, should be similar to managers in a way of speaking.


Even though I believe morality can be objective, I have a problem with our values being handed down to us by a government. How do we know what they are telling us is correct (what I mean is, how do we know if our leaders truly understand what is right and wrong, and where do these vaules come from)? These values have no moral worth if we are following them just because we are indoctrinated to. It's just as wrong as giving moral importance to the Ten Commandments just because it is the word of God (I'm not an Atheist btw).

If morality is objective, then where does the source of morality come from? Would it be one's god? The cosmos? This is why I believe morality is subjective as is seen throughout the different cultures of the world.

As for the rest of your response I feel it's coming from an idea of governmental leaders being the "dictators" of our existence. What I said was misleading sorry about that.


No. These are all attributes that humans already have.

We do have these innately yes but we have to be taught how to use them effectively.

I for one was lucky to be around people that encouraged empathy and critical thinking. I would have made some incredibly dumb decisions if it weren't for others encouraging me to think about what I was doing.

To reiterate on what I mentioned earlier, if people began to think and empathize effectively, there would be little to no racism, sexism, problems with income inequality, etc.

There also would be no need for a political affiliation as there would be only one right choice. The one that helps society prosper.

[tetsuo]

I like you : )

Thanks. Same here my friend.



Sorry I should have at least given more context. By leaders in this sense, I'm referring to the government leading in a manner in which they should be leading. (Being for the people and by the people.) The government, in and of itself, should be similar to managers in a way of speaking.

But what happens if the government (is this a world government?) veers off the straight and narrow? If it has the power to influence peoples value judgements, wouldn't it have the power to cause great harm as well? As history shows us, the state grows in power and influence exponentially as time moves on. Even it it's original incarnation does everything you wish it to do, what will stop it from evolving into something more? Certainly not the people, as they are easily misled into thinking that harmful policies, are actually being put into place for their benefit.


I'm referring to the government leading in a manner in which they should be leading.

The problem I have with this, is, who is the one to decide that this change needs to take place? The intellectuals? revolutionaires? it doesn't matter. How can someone form a new type of governemnt without causing harm, without securing a monopoly on violence, without causing the same problems that we have now? In what way can power be weilded over the people, in that it seems fair and just?

At best, the people might use this power to influence social (not moral) issues. In my eyes, if it is majority rule over a minority (or even the other way around) there is no way I can legitimize it.



If morality is objective, then where does the source of morality come from? Would it be one's god? The cosmos? This is why I believe morality is subjective as is seen throughout the different cultures of the world..

Morality comes from something you mentioned earlier. Critical thinking. Although people might take different paths (culture, etc.) in finding the answers to their moral dilemnas, when using the right tools, all people should come to the same conclusion. It's objective in that way. A clear thinking person, no matter their background, should realize that murder (or another actions against others) is wrong.

"Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" I tend to put some faith in that.

As for your last statements, it is my belief, that in a voluntary world, most people will freely choose to express themselves in a manner that does not impede on the rights of others.

I do not believe we need leadership to coax the good out of us. I think that the governments attempts to do so has failed more often than not.


EDIT: After rereading your post, it seems to me that you believe that government (maybe this is what you meant by your parent analogy?) should act as the caretaker of society until it can mature and act autonomously? Am I right in believing that?

[dragonstar]

But what happens if the government (is this a world government?) veers off the straight and narrow? If it has the power to influence peoples value judgements, wouldn't it have the power to cause great harm as well? As history shows us, the state grows in power and influence exponentially as time moves on. Even it it's original incarnation does everything you wish it to do, what will stop it from evolving into something more? Certainly not the people, as they are easily misled into thinking that harmful policies, are actually being put into place for their benefit.


Well, in the scenario I present, it certainly wouldn't be a perfect system.

But would it be better than a bunch of people walking around without a set social structure?

Now by this, I'm not saying it's better to be ruled by a government completely. I'm saying I feel it would be more efficient if we had an organized social structure. Yes there is room for corruption but if the masses are all functioning at a higher level of thought, they would be dramatically less susceptible to manipulation.

As far as this being a world government, no. It would be more efficient if the governments were separated but kept in contact with each other for purposes of productivity and networking.


The problem I have with this, is, who is the one to decide that this change needs to take place? The intellectuals? revolutionaires? it doesn't matter. How can someone form a new type of governemnt without causing harm, without securing a monopoly on violence, without causing the same problems that we have now? In what way can power be weilded over the people, in that it seems fair and just?

The people, if taught critical thinking and empathy, would be the ones to decide change.
Once the people realize they have all the power the corrupt governments will fall.
If this took place, there wouldn't be any need for violence because the masses would be coming together for a logical cause.


"Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" I tend to put some faith in that.

That is a badass quote.


EDIT: After rereading your post, it seems to me that you believe that government (maybe this is what you meant by your parent analogy?) should act as the caretaker of society until it can mature and act autonomously? Am I right in believing that?

Yes. However, this can only take place in a world in which the people are the ones with the power. In other words, corruption would be neigh impossible since the people wouldn't allow it. The government would only be a caretaker in the sense that it organizes the peoples' ideas.

Here's a good analogy. The government is a computer and the people are the programmers. When the people want to do things on a massive social scale, the "computer" can do it for them. And when there's a bug in the computer, the programmers fix it.

The government are the people and the people are the government. In this symbiotic relationship, a society can prosper.


if it is majority rule over a minority (or even the other way around) there is no way I can legitimize it.

I agree 100% with this.

In my scenario, people wouldn't be ruled directly by government. The government would be made by the people and the people would be the government. (The government being the "manager" and the people being the "workers.") The workers, in this sense, allocate some of their own to become managers of their country. This creates a symbiotic relationship between government and people.

[tetsuo]

That is a badass quote.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

It inspired much of what I've been advocating, albeit indirectly.


I guess the only other questions I have for you is, what is the difference between "the people" and "the government?" If this relationship is as symbiotic as you wish, can a critic point to a single person for complaint? To the whole mass consciousness? Is there a ruler, a president, a body of laws? How does the individual fit in with all of this?

The only way I see a government being run "by the people" is through socialism (i.e. in name only), syndicalism, or a democracy (which you seem to be against). But still, in this system, social change could only happen if a majority of the people will it, right? Even at a higher level of thinking, there will still be those who dissent, and if this form of leadership doesn't "dictate our existence" not every person will be on the same playing field. How are differing ideas handled?

I guess the only way I could agree with this, is, if your system allowed for other systems to form as they are willed by the people.

Nations, countries, and states, in competition with each other to acquire the smartest, and most skilled individuals, set up various forms of government. Freedom of movement would allow people to enter and leave a state anytime they wish. It's kind of like products and services moving through the free market. Communism, socialism, and fascism might exist, but your system and mine might as well. The most efficient, and free form would attract the most people. It's really the only fair way for "the people" to decide which form of government is the best for them.

Although I'm against most authority, I have no problem with local organizations being set up by the people to help build roads and accomplish other minor functions. Your system seems to involve more than that, or am I still not understanding completely?

I ask too many questions. :) But I'm just glad your idea of social organization is based on logical thinking and not emotions. I wish people in power thought like you.

[dragonstar]

Sorry for the late reply. Been quite busy lately :P


I guess the only other questions I have for you is, what is the difference between "the people" and "the government?" If this relationship is as symbiotic as you wish, can a critic point to a single person for complaint? To the whole mass consciousness? Is there a ruler, a president, a body of laws? How does the individual fit in with all of this?

The only way I see a government being run "by the people" is through socialism (i.e. in name only), syndicalism, or a democracy (which you seem to be against). But still, in this system, social change could only happen if a majority of the people will it, right? Even at a higher level of thinking, there will still be those who dissent, and if this form of leadership doesn't "dictate our existence" not every person will be on the same playing field. How are differing ideas handled?

The people and the government are one and the same because they support each other. Also, if anyone has a difference in opinion on how things should be ran it would only be accepted if it benefited society. For example, even in this free thought society, one could have an opinion to re-institute slavery, kill all the Jews, execute all non-believers, etc. But it wouldn't be accepted because the people would be rational enough not to allow it. As far as how different opinions are handled, nothing would happen to any person so as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process.


Is there a ruler, a president, a body of laws?

There is no "ruler" in this case. It's just people coming together with progressive ideas on how to create a better society. The "president" would be more of an organizer. Not a ruler. As far as laws, yes. You can't rape, murder, steal, etc. And if a law proves to be inefficient, it is either replaced or rid of entirely.


I guess the only way I could agree with this, is, if your system allowed for other systems to form as they are willed by the people.

Free will for the win! You'll just be seen as crazy if you want all *insert race here* to die. And if one starts taking action towards such a feat, one would be dealt with accordingly. Yes, the individual would be detained, but instead of just being imprisoned, there would be highly comprehensive rehabilitation programs within the prison systems to help the inmates become productive members of society.


I ask too many questions. :) But I'm just glad your idea of social organization is based on logical thinking and not emotions. I wish people in power thought like you.

I try XD It's feels good to come across thinking minds like yourself as well!

[tetsuo]

Everything you are describing reminds me of what American democracy was supposed to be.


Anyway, both of our systems requires the work of rational individuals. Yours is a top-down approach, based on social engineering and organization. Mine is more haphazard, and is based on individuals making rational decisions for themselves, with very little organization.

To be free, a person must understand oneself. To understand oneself, a person must understand others. In this way, I define a rational person as "someone who can identify himself in others."

How do you define a rational person? I ask this, because I think this is the reason why our ideas are so different.

[dragonstar]

Our ideas are very similar. It's just that mine has managers and a support system to propagate logic and reason.

I define a rational person as a person that thinks about the consequences of their actions and how it will affect those around them. A person that doesn't lock themselves within a biased way of thinking and remains open-minded towards other ideas.

Around the age of 19 I finally began to have an open mind. (I'm 23 btw)

[tetsuo]

I guess our goals are pretty similair, although we still go about them in different ways

I just have trouble believing that an individual can make rational decisions in a world where reason is a commodity, owned and taught by the government. Hopefully I can explain this ...

I believe it is fallacious to see reason as an object that exists outside the individual. I don't believe reason and logic are the answers to our problems. Surely our leaders are not intellectually challenged. They certainly use "reason" when they write new laws and regulations. The problem is, they don't see others (the ones negatively affected) as rational individuals who can make these decisions on their own. One does not need to be intelligent to be rational. So whether someone is educated or not, they can certainly act rationally if they see themselves in the goals and dreams of others. (which goes back to my original definition of what I believe a rational individual is).

Your system might be effective in educating the people. But I don't believe it can solve the bigger issues. Any individual under the control of another, cannot act rationally, because they are not being treated rationally. They have essentialy lost their individuality, and thus any decision they make, whether the result is good or not, isn't being made using true reaon and pure intention.

To be more clear, hopefully. There is reason that comes from intellect (I believe this is "your" reason), the kind that is taught to us, which we use to solve non-social problems. And there is reason that comes from being. We use this when making moral decisions. It is foolproof, because we only have to look to how we would treat ourselves. (of couse it's more than that, but I'm probably not expressing myself properly, so I'll just leave it at that)

TL;DR You use reason as a means to an end. For me, reason IS the end, with individuality as the means to that end (in some manner of speaking)

I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative, I just need a place to flesh out my ideas. I was around 18/19 when I first started thinking about stuff like this. I'm 21 now.

[dragonstar]

I don't believe reason and logic are the answers to our problems. Surely our leaders are not intellectually challenged. They certainly use "reason" when they write new laws and regulations. The problem is, they don't see others (the ones negatively affected) as rational individuals who can make these decisions on their own

My system isn't perfect. :P But you wouldn't have to worry about lobbying and grand-scale corruption in my system. Our "leaders" usually want to make the better decisions but are bought out by wealthy elites that finance their campaigns.

We humans need guides in terms of how to think effectively. If there's none, then chaos is inevitable. Humans are creatures of reason. To say, "reason is the end" is to deny yourself of yourself. We need to be taught how to reason effectively in order to have a more efficient society.


To be more clear, hopefully. There is reason that comes from intellect (I believe this is "your" reason), the kind that is taught to us, which we use to solve non-social problems. And there is reason that comes from being. We use this when making moral decisions. It is foolproof, because we only have to look to how we would treat ourselves. (of couse it's more than that, but I'm probably not expressing myself properly, so I'll just leave it at that)

I won't go as far to say it's foolproof. Say you meet a group of people that think honor killings are the best way in which to deal with a woman who sleeps with another man outside of marriage. (This really exists btw) People like these have to be taught how to think effectively. If there's a system in place to teach them, those ways of thinking would become practically extinct. The person would still have their individual rights and ideas, but will then use it in a productive manner.


I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative

Lol no. That's the problem with text. You can't see the other 97% of communication (Words are about 3% of communication.)

We're just debating like civilized people. ^_^

[tetsuo]

Our "leaders" usually want to make the better decisions but are bought out by wealthy elites that finance their campaigns.

Really? Most of our "leaders" are simply idealogues with an unnatural amount of power and influence.

You say humans are creatures of reason, yet we still need to be taught how to think effectively? That would make us creatures of education. Again, this is assuming there is a right and wrong way to formulate ideas. To think of moral reasoning as one would a mathetical equation, reduces ethical problems to mere logical accountancy. Forcing us to think of morality as something outside of ourselves. By doing this, we lose our free will and individuality, as well as reducing the overall power and importance of moral thinking. Saying reason comes from outside of us, or that it needs to be coaxed out of the masses, implies there is an omnipotent group that possesses flawless reasoning. Who possesses this perfect knowledge? Do you trust education with this widespread social experiment? Why don't our current education systems work to stop the actions that you find irrational?

Why are honor killings wrong? Because the perpertrator "used the wrong way of thinking" to come to the conclusion that the offender should be killed. Or is it because taking another persons life is ALWAYS wrong, no matter the thought processes behind the action?

It is pure knowledge, not empricial knowledge, that is used to solve moral problems. Pure knowledge comes from understanding oneself to be a rational being. To treat others with respect,is to treat yourself with respect. One who harms others, has no respect for reason.


To say, "reason is the end" is to deny yourself of yourself

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

p.s. If I had to guess, I'd say you come from a science/technology/engineering background.

[dragonstar]

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

p.s. If I had to guess, I'd say you come from a science/technology/engineering background.

I came to that conclusion from seeing how other groups of people operate when left completely to their own devices. Yes my way is more of a "guide the individual towards the correct path" approach. To give you an example of what I mean, there are currently people in this world that have institutionalized the killing and torture of homosexuals. Is it right to do this? Well the people doing it feel it's the right thing. (The ones influenced by culture that is.)

By guiding the mind in the way I describe, there is still free will but a more rational free will. So in a sense yes.

One would be educated not indoctrinated.

[tetsuo]

To give you an example of what I mean, there are currently people in this world that have institutionalized the killing and torture of homosexuals. Is it right to do this? Well the people doing it feel it's the right thing. (The ones influenced by culture that is.)

These people allow outside influences to guide their morality (If it isn't the State itself that has outlawed homosexuality, as some nations have done). Education won't change them, especially if their culture is heavily influenced by religion, or if it is the states doing.

All of the examples you have been using come from developing nations with oppressive state control. In third world countries, one can hardly blame the people for these types of crimes, as they are usually the victims. This type of negative culture can only persist when sanctioned by the state. When people are free to travel and do business as they wish, culture evolves as different types of people intermingle with one another. Is it fair to blame these "irrational" people for being forced to follow an antiquated culture? It's not like they have a choice.

[jpelirrojo]

Our ideas are very similar. It's just that mine has managers and a support system to propagate logic and reason.

I define a rational person as a person that thinks about the consequences of their actions and how it will affect those around them. A person that doesn't lock themselves within a biased way of thinking and remains open-minded towards other ideas.

Around the age of 19 I finally began to have an open mind. (I'm 23 btw)


That's not true philosofically talking. What you said is the definition of an empirical subject according to Immanuel Kant (metaphysic).

The rational person is the one who has a will to do the things, has a desire and as its consequance he tend to do what he want. Taking a rational subject to the most extreme way of thinking... that person will do what he wants over all the inconveniences.

I totally agree with that definition. Metaphisic shows us a way of thinking objectively (it's not in one of the extrems as rationalism and epiricalism), it remains in the medium of the path (not the pathos of Nietzsche xDD just another path xDD)

Sorry I have to bring up my oppinion because you were expressing your and i thought it would be nice to know about your arguments or somehow you defend your idea. That is not rational is cosmopolitan or open-minded.

PD: English it's not my first language.

[tetsuo]

That's not true philosofically talking. What you said is the definition of an empirical subject according to Immanuel Kant (metaphysic).

A Rationalist believes that reality, and as such our perceptions, are competly true (or that there is "truth"). Reality, ethics, mathematics, politics, are all based on logic, scientific. An Empiricist, is the opposite, knowledge (truth) comes from our experienceres. Are you sure he's describing an empricial subject here? It looks more like a non-philosophical definition of "rationalism" to me.

I think he is on the right path, but I don't know if he is a hard Rationalist or Empiricist. He's probably more like Kant, at least that's what I get when I reread this thread.

By the way Kant's doctrine is called Transendental idealism (that mixture of Rationalism/Empiricism you talk about). Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that tries to study being and existence. Transendental idealism is part of the the study of Metaphysics. Metaphysics itself isn't a Kantian invention.

[jpelirrojo]

A Rationalist believes that reality, and as such our perceptions, are competly true (or that there is "truth"). Reality, ethics, mathematics, politics, are all based on logic, scientific. An Empiricist, is the opposite, knowledge (truth) comes from our experienceres. Are you sure he's describing an empricial subject here? It looks more like a non-philosophical definition of "rationalism" to me.

I think he is on the right path, but I don't know if he is a hard Rationalist or Empiricist. He's probably more like Kant, at least that's what I get when I reread this thread.

By the way Kant's doctrine is called Transendental idealism (that mixture of Rationalism/Empiricism you talk about). Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that tries to study being and existence. Transendental idealism is part of the the study of Metaphysics. Metaphysics itself isn't a Kantian invention.


yeah in this aspect I committed a mistake. I did not mean Metaphysics, I meant trascendental idealism which is on a medium way between empirichal and rationalism (as you remarked in oyur previous thread). Well according to Kant, inside and putting appart all that aspects wich involves the classifying of all the things in our reality, a strong will of power (not Nietzsche applied word) means a person who does not mind the consequences of his/her acts because this person only wants to fulfill that thing (that is in his mind). Well, the point of view I talked you about is the most radical, when talking about behaviour and modals ("maxima"), of Kant's rationalism idea. As well as there are extreme way of thinking in rationalism, there is also another related to empirichal knowledge. The empirichal one consist of calculating the concequances of each of your performances. this implies a totally opposite way of thinking to rationalism.

Yeah I said I confused the Trascendental idealism with metaphysics... but just the name. I think the concept of metaphysic is clearly quite far, when comes to explaining or describing it, from Trascendental Idealism.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy wich studies the most non-realistic things such as the existence of the sould as well as the origin of human being but in a more philosophycal approach. Literally translated, it means " far away from the physics" and its origin is related to one of the most famous rationalist greek philosophers (I think is Platon).
But the most famous part of the metaphysics, in general talking, is the german one. With an important participation of Immanuel Kant (who in a moment said something like this: "you can learn to philosophize but a philosopher must have been born") when describing the reality of the world itself. I mean, when he showed us that in knowledege, there is a non-variable part (the subject who is starting to know) and a variable one which is the object we are observing in order to know. This aspect is related to metaphysics.
But to show you that from the very beginning I did not that (metaphysics) I will also talk to you about the studies or observations of Kant on human society as well as its way of behaving in society. Yeah, he talked about ethical knowledge (in this "field" he made important contributions) and he pinted that the only the best people in the world should domine in it because their behaviour is the most indicated (imagining all of them are good persons, intellgent...) to make the world better.

To this last part I referred to: ethical. Your previous discussion with dragonstar, the moment I interrupted LOL you were talking about ,what it seemed to me , ethics.