OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE YOU STOP TO THINK, AS WE ALWAYS PRACTICE HERE, RATHER THAN STOP THINKING. BEWARE NO ONE CAN DO THE THINKING ON YOUR BEHALF.
Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge;
it is thinking that makes what we read ours.
John Locke (1632-1704)
The chattering classes in the West, from mainstream to fringe, still take it for granted that history repeats itself, while, in fact, it's not history that haunts human beings for centuries; it's their own stupidity. As I have introduced in this website, the idea central to the epistemology of Soren Kierkegaard is "repetition" but the Danish philosopher defined it as forward recollection which requires your willingness to learn.
According to these learning-disabled people, now we are witnessing Cold War II or even signs that World War III is imminent.
With my days being numbered, for my part, I can't afford to waste a single minute talking about politics. It's something other than politics that made me search for Vladimir Putin's take on what's going on in Crimea, the remainder of Ukraine and ISIS.
In one of the videos someone asked Putin how he viewed the situation. In response, the Russian President said something like this: "Nyet. In those days, Russia and America differed ideologically, but today we differ philosophically."
Putin's keen observation prompted me to take a hard think at the November 9 vote in Catalonia from a philosophical angle. That led me to write in my most recent post that Catalans' quest can only be understood as a philosophical departure from the modern nation-statehood which is essentially based on the Enlightenment theories.
To my dismay my serious argument backfired in a way that reminded me of the Rules for Posting I've asked my supposedly well-educated audience to observe since the inception of this blog.
Before launching the taboo-free website 10 year ago, I'd intensively read many books dealing with fraudulent journalism. In one of them, author Bob Kohn quoted a journalist as saying, "Progress cannot be made on serious issues because one side is making arguments and the other side is throwing eggs."
This is exactly what's going on here these days. I got hysterical rather than philosophical responses from my audience as if I'd touched on an indisputably sacred thing for the Americans. To them it's especially unacceptable if it's a serf in America's Far-Eastern fiefdom who questions the principle on which the Evil Empire has been built.
My blood pressure hit 200 mmHg for the first time since 2012. It still stays there. But I thought I had to pull myself together to fight back if I still want the Okinawans to do the same. This is why I quickly came back with some elaboration on my argument against Mr. Locke's crap.
I must admit I haven't read the original text of Two Treatises of Government, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, or any other work of John Locke. When I still had time to possibly study his works, it was already too evident to me, from the unprincipled way the average American lived his life, that Locke didn't deserve to be called a philosopher as compared to these thinkers in the European Continent, China and India.
For one thing, although his words quoted at the top of this post may sound somewhat plausible to those who never bother to think, they don't make a bit of sense from the epistemology point of view.
Here Locke failed to clarify two things.
Firstly he couldn't tell what exactly the verb "think" should mean. To me it means, first and foremost, to take nothing for granted because as I've said many times before, there's no such thing as thinking that isn't creative. In other words, to think does not mean to choose the correct answer from among "Yes," "No," "I don't know," and "I don't care."
Equally important, Locke also failed to tell where man's ability of creative thinking comes from. As you were taught at school, he theorized that man's brain at birth is Tabula Rasa, i.e. a blank slate. He argued that through experience and reading afterward, one acquires knowledge. But the real question is exactly how he can acquire the ability to think that "makes what we read ours," if ever he has started from scratch.
We can see the same logical flaw, or gimmick to be more precise, in his idea about natural rights to "life, liberty and property." If our "state of nature" is like a blank slate, how can it be true that we were endowed with innate rights, nonetheless, or anything else for that matter?
He was wrong, too, about "social contract" which serves as the basis of legal rights according to his theory. Since there's no such thing in this world as a contract which isn't terminable, his social contract can't be a contract in the first place.
It is true Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers found Locke's philosophical rubbish quite useful as a dogma with which to propagate their political cause. They didn't really care if this particular school of empiricism was, in fact, nothing but a jumble of incoherent ideas. There's nothing particularly wrong, however, with these political racketeers who deliberately ideologized the words of their guru.
The problem lies with the fact that their posterity has decided to enshrine the delusive ideology as the founding principle of their country long after the expiration of its validity. Today even these anti-Semitic idiots who "think" they are seeking truth invariably base their delusive conspiracy theories on a childish premise that it constitutes an unforgivable crime to deprive someone of his inalienable rights.
Perhaps Locke and his American disciples were at fault for the fabrication because they forgot to provide their posterity with a prescription for the art of creative thinking. It's no accident that the entire nation of America now looks like a cult whose members have no ability to think, either innate or acquired.
I may be wrong, however.
I don't want to repeat the same thing over and over. But please be reminded one last time of what I wrote in September.
"A heavily intoxicated man always insists he is as sober as a judge. And a psychopath, almost by definition, doesn't doubt his sanity for a split second. Likewise, one who suffers the mental illness that I call premature senility never admits he is just shuffling information purely on an ear-to-mouth basis."
I may fall on Category 2 or 3 myself. That's why I always value frank feedback from my audience. So please feel free to correct me if you find my interpretation of John Locke inaccurate, or totally wrong.
This is the only reason I still keep on blogging this late in life.