I exist only because i think, and i have created my fundamental right to differ on what appears to be the obvious. A human beings right to think independently is actually imperative to the continued existence of the human race. However, this right has been grossly abused by human beings themselves who are being increasingly thought for. A testament to the growing number of uneducated graduates we have filling up the world today.
Education is actually suppose to be the learning of knowledge. The process of knowledge acquisition and personal enlightenment are grossly limited by the existence of systems. A mind must be left to run free to attain the purest form of mental civilization. governments, schools, etc are actually blatant impediments to the process of enlightenment, and in the famous words of Walter reed(killah priest) "religion is like prison for the seekers of wisdom". Some of these systems are literally impossible to avoid while others might be able to be gradually compromised into a state of relative insignificance. Any type of system has many limitations and any form of limitation is an impediment to learning. Therefore, the less the limitations the greater the possibilities to learn and acquire knowledge. In light of the above, for any individual to suggest in the least that any system holds any significant form of enlightenment can be considered to be a mass misrepresentation of the facts. Let people go to school as they may be able to learn a little from this, but dont make them believe that once they have a PHD they have learned it all.
The arrogant state of conventional intellectualism is obviously unfounded and in need of urgent review. The current policy makers and "know it alls" have proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are actually "know nothings". They have unfortunately bought into a century long lie that has given them mental superiority based on ridiculous paper qualifications. "Until Philosophers are kings, or kings have the spirit of Philosophy, cities will never have rest from their troubles" says Socrates as reported by Plato in the republic ... Well i guess we have to brace for a whole lot more trouble.
Posts
2 comments:
And yet you, yourself, are so within a system - the system of Western thought. You even quote Plato. Is this not a social net in which you are involved, this Great Conversation? Do you not benefit from this network? Do you not learn from others?
And what is the purpose of your knowledge? You seem to imply it is to better govern. But why govern well if other people are of no use to you? And would you be willing to take up a mantle like that of the Philosopher King - are you prepared? Is anyone? How might you become prepared to govern if you involve yourself solely in the acquisition of intrapersonal knowledge and wisdom?
People themselves are a subject of positive study, and a vitally important one. To me, "ought" statements are fine - but without "are" statements, they are useless. Perhaps people "ought" to be more open-minded, more intellectually curious, more independently critical - but "are" they? Could they ever be? How can we use their own natures to make their "are" into our "ought?"
[Re. your comment on my blog: I'm actually a college student planning to major in either public policy or social psychology. I have a bit of background in Great Books (Plato included), though, and a hobby-ish interest in Carl Jung's work. . . so that is what you are seeing.
You seem like an interesting guy - I'm happy you came across my blog. :) Looking forward to future correspondence.]
Very interesting comment ...
You seem to have misunderstood my proposition for mental independence to mean mental isolation. I think they are two completely different things. What i am advocating in this piece is not the isolation of human thoughts, but a greater level of independence from a conventional system of thought. Yes i do imply that greater knowledge equals to greater understanding which in turn translates into better governance but i never meant to imply that other people are of no use. The mantle of the philosopher king can fall on any true philosopher who understands the complexity of the mandate and who can be rational in any situation.
As regards to me being within a "system of western thought", I will agree to being within a system of thought, but will question how western this system of thought is. As i mentioned, the establishment and existence of some systems are completely unavoidable, that is why I am certainly within a system. However, my reference to Plato is but i tiny part of a much bigger picture. I also referenced Walter Reed(Killah Priest) who is a very different kind of philosopher and does not subscribe to the teachings of people like Plato or his teacher Socrates.
On a general note however, i think i catch the main point of what you are trying to say and agree with you to a certain extent. The point made in your last paragraph is in my opinion 100% on the money.
[public policy sounds pretty cool and social physiology sounds fun .. I have read a bit of Carl Jung myself and I think he is a pretty decent psychologist .. I study international business here in Sweden and its just ok .. Thanks for the comment and i also look forward to future discussions .. cheers]
Post a Comment