People seem to often get offended when people escalate the rhetorical intensity of a conversation, not recognizing that sometimes passive acquiescence is a similar escalation, especially in the context of very serious and real provable bahavior and/or situations.
Opinions are of little help with the deeper problems. They should naturally derive from the philosophical context as best able to be done with the most stringent cognitive tools.
That is why we all need to work together on this. Not just in the realm of opinions, but in the depths of philosophical argument. We need targets of outcome that we can shoot for, and with all of our diverse opinions, there are reasonable means to come to humanitarian and sane outcomes.
No more superstition. No more ridiculous unsubstantiated opinions.
We argue from the secular sphere, with a sense of communality, and acceptance that there needs to be fundamental guarantees that we take this all on a case by case basis, and the case may take longer than anyone can have in a short, opinionated conversation.
And we need to have at least some sort of peer review, from a broad section of the community.
Which is why, I guess, the rule of law is the best approximation we have of holding the greed, prejudice and discrimination of people at bay.
Peace through philosophical strength.
It's not quite algebra, but there are best principles to follow that can approximate a best case.
Intelligence must become self-conscious, realise its own power, and, on a global scale, transcending functions that are no longer appropriate, dare to exercise it. History will not overthrow national governments; it will outflank them. The cultural revolt is the necessary underpinning, the passionate substructure of a new order of things. — Alexander Trocchi
No comments:
Post a Comment