WHAT IS SCIENCE?

Now the word science, as all good students know – comes from the Latin word scientia, which means to have the knowledge of something acquired through study and analysis. But in modern times, all science seems to get confused solely with empirical science itself. It is as if people nowadays think that all science is empirical. Even the hypothesis concerning the existence of black holes has been treated largely as a so-called empirical observation, though when we come to think about it at some great length, we soon realize that the hypothesis of a black hole is very speculative in nature, and not as empirical as people would like it to seem. Yet on and on the great edifice of science progresses; moving boldly as it were, with its head held up high, and hoping that its pride will not make it fall. Meanwhile, for students of philosophy: definitions, claims and terms are very significant, and are some of the ways in which the world is understood by philosophers. So how are we to start describing science in all of its manifestations? Perhaps we should begin by elaborating on the three main types of sciences that are  known to us since antiquity: namely the speculative, the demonstrative, and the empirical modes of inquiry. Hence alongside this, we know that every science has a "thing" or "object-domain" that it studies, and that it focuses on exclusively. For in ancient Sumer man looked up at the stars and other celestial bodies, so as to tabulate their observations into a coherent form of science that was combined with other mystical and primitive beliefs. And in so doing this, they created an empirical science of a certain kind. In other words, their observational methods became an empirical science – because both the observational and experimental modes of science are empirical in nature. Yet the experimental mode of inquiry, I must add, would have to wait for many more years before it was pursued and practised properly. Though before all of this had occurred, mathematics, quite rightly, had already began its long tentative climb towards becoming a demonstrative science in its own right alongside logic, whereas logic itself, in a sense, had become a science quite quickly, being as it was, conceived under the bright light of the Greeks, whom we know were very great and passionate lovers of wisdom and truth. And ever since Thales, philosophy has aspired to the status of a speculative, and empirical science, although many a cynic will flatly deny this, not on any rational grounds, but because philosophy has a dual meaning. That is, it also has a meaning synonymous with the notion of a person having a world view of their own, which that same individual, or someone else pursues, and that informs his or her behaviour in life.                                                                   

However, not all sciences can be neatly fitted into one of the three modes of inquiry that have already been mentioned. For example, psychology and sociology are sciences that are empirical and speculative – in so far that it is not possible to find many things that are more speculative than Jung's collective unconscious, or many of the ideas of Freud. And so it will be observed also, that several empirical sciences tend to rely on demonstrative science to support itself, such as the use of mathematics in physics. Yet plainly the arts soothe and console us, whereas the empirical sciences make us realize that nature does not reveal herself clearly to us without a great deal of effort on our part. Now science, has four main ways of testing knowledge: it can test it through demonstration, experimentation, observation, or by a combination of different forms of empirical and theoretical evidence that has been collated together. Though when we think about it carefully, a theory that so much of us accept: namely evolution, has been tested through this fourth category of scientific testing. And even many philosophical claims are tested under this fourth category, albeit unofficially and implicitly. But some scientists: such as Feynman and Hawking and a few others, have had a sort of elitist, cynical and narrow-minded view of anything that is not cold, hard, empirical, mechanistic science. For empirical scientists sometimes get too proud of their discipline, and end up thinking that it is superior to all other disciplines. Then also, one sometimes comes across silly people who claim that science is a religion of sorts; it is as if they have never looked up the meaning of the word religion and compared it to what science means. Otherwise why would they make such a nonsensical claim? Now I do not personally think that the meanings of words should be ignored, because if one chooses to ignore the meanings of words, one is reduced to supporting feelings and biases that cannot be located to any objective meanings or standards that constructively lead anywhere. And I also think that all science stems from language, knowledge, and from a common sense understanding of the world. For example, if something in a theory, or piece of knowledge can be experienced or observed in reality in the world in some way, and yet cannot be disproved, then it certainly should be considered a scientific truth: in other words, it is a foundation for science.                     

Hence science should be a body of knowledge, so solid, that one is able to make predictions with it, which are later confirmed by observations and tests, because knowledge that cannot be tested, verified, or observed by experience, or evidence is doomed to fail as being true knowledge; though all knowledge that is known to be true, should continually be re-examined, and redefined. And so when we combine what has already been stated about the nature of science, we realize that there is a science of many things that match the criteria of what a "science is" by definition; for instance, going back to the example of philosophy that I mentioned earlier, which I will now continue, seems to me, to be a science that studies "wisdom, knowledge, and truth" in an analytical, rigorous, systematic, empirical, and speculative manner, as a means to enable us to live more wisely, because we love wisdom, knowledge, and truth. For I have never heard an argument that convinced me that philosophy was not a science in the way I have described. In fact, most of the people that argue against philosophy being a science, nearly always argue from the false, and conflated argument, which assumes that all science is empirical in nature; they suffer from a lack of having a proper analytical rigour, in regard to definitions, words, and concepts of things.

Thus the science of phenomenology has taught us that our minds need to be studied and analyzed in such a manner as to prevent us from fooling ourselves into accepting things in a prejudiced, self-serving way. It has also made us realize that we need to question all the wrongheaded things that we have inherited from our culture and upbringing, so that we can verify things for ourselves, and allow those things to speak for themselves to us directly. But to convince others of our position, we need to begin with common sense, evidence, as well as rigorous arguments, otherwise we will never find common ground amongst one another and the things we talk about.

Yet some people also state that the discipline of science uses methods of finding out about things, or how they work, by observing and measuring them in some way; so that for something to be considered a science, it must have a quantitative element of measurement to its methodologies. Now this quantitative element of measurement, I must add, can come in the form of statistics, or surveys, especially in regard to philosophical matters in particular. But measurement is always limited in accuracy, even in physics, which means that in science, one has to rely on the law if identity, consistency and approximations, rather than on accuracy for good results.

And so when we ponder the matter carefully, we come to realize that the discipline of science, as well as its methodologies in general, tend to be connected with a belief in it as "being an authority in whatever field" of study it is connected to, and this is because its methodologies are considered to be the most effective and useful. Yet because of the speculative nature of some aspects of the discipline of science, and because of the difficulties of conclusively proving its many hypotheses and theories, means that it will become increasingly unsure of itself. In fact, natural science, in my estimation, will in the future be aimed more towards technological breakthroughs, rather than in the proving of speculative theories.

Now a common criticism that is usually directed at science in general, concerns the fact, of whether it really explains the inner nature and essence of reality or not; seeing that some people will say that it only loosely describes what it does not fully understand. For even Richard Feynman himself, once claimed, that no physicists really knew what energy was. And Aldous Huxley, in his essay called "Education," mentions that we use electricity all the time, but do not really know what it is. In addition, Nietzsche was also known to have thrown this type of criticism at science too. But what are we to make of this? Is this not a philosophical problem? I think it is, and will remain so, because explanations of the inner nature of the world, will always be viewed as speculative and metaphysical. So we can claim, with much humility, that the natural sciences cannot fully extricate itself away from philosophy; though many scientists have tried and failed. One could even say that natural scientists are like curious, optimistic children trying to uncover the nature of the world, but are continually ignoring how incomplete and limited seems their endeavour. And like the children that they are, they cannot help denigrating, and poking fun at philosophy and philosophers for pointing out these limitations.

Indeed, for something to be a science, one must be able to observe, test or demonstrate its claims at any point in time, which is one of the reasons that Schopenhauer points out that history cannot be considered a science, because it does not have the ability to do this.

Thus Thomas Reid mentioned that all philosophers needed to use self-evident axioms and clearly defined concepts for their discipline to be more scientific and unambiguous. Obviously concepts need to be based on real things in the world to have any profitable use. Yet concepts are very rarely useful when used in too general a manner. Hence to use concepts well, one has to explain and define how one is going to use them, and in what context. The particular meaning of the concept also has to be defined well, so as to eliminate ambiguity.

However, anyone who doubts that philosophy is a science, should take into account that many of the sciences like physics, biology, and logic were developed by philosophy in the first place. In fact, they were once thought of as philosophy itself. Nevertheless "a truth is still a truth, whether you call it science or not" is what I tell myself. Of course, historically "philosophy" and "science" have been synonymous terms. And even Newton, referred to himself as a "natural philosopher," whereas the word "science" for him, as well as for others, was a general word for any demonstrable knowledge, whether acquired by a philosopher or some other type of truth seeker. Furthermore, a change in language and convention have separated the two terms and robbed them of their original synonymity, which in my opinion, has created a great deal of confusion and negativity as a result.

So science as a discipline is always ready to correct the prior false conclusions that exist in its knowledge base when any new information arises that disproves it. There is even a belief that systematic knowledge distorts our view of reality because it is able to exist and be used for long periods of time with unnoticed errors in it. Yet it is all the changes and corrections to errors that in the long run makes a systematic body of knowledge more consistent and true, though they are not noticed initially.

ON PESSIMISM, OPTIMISM AND REALISM

On matters concerning social interaction, we sometimes come across certain dispositions and tendencies in different people, as well as in their outlooks on life. In some cases we are saddened, and in others we are uplifted, and yet we can still be enlightened by either of these two main feelings. The tendency towards the negative or the positive ways of thinking can teach us many lessons in life, and are both as equally valid as each other. Some people use the label of pessimism against others, or mention it as a term of abuse or insult, as an accusation, or a gimmick rather than as something to be studied or understood. Sometimes pessimism exists because people want to improve the world, so must point out what is negative in things, to do so. It has more or less been proven by psychologists that all optimists tend to be happier in life than pessimists, and optimists also tend to live longer than pessimists. Optimism can be viewed as a healthier and more useful drive for one's sense of well-being than pessimism. A major flaw that a lot of optimists do have though, is that they spend so much time being positive, that it ends up giving them an unrealistic view of reality, because at times they like to push away all that seems unpleasant to them. So they end up repressing all that is unpleasant or unwanted that exists within them. Even Colin Wilson, with all of his optimism, ended up rejecting materialism in favour of the supernatural and spiritual, which he knows is uncertain and elusive. This seems to me, to be putting one's faith in what might ultimately be a delusion. Spirituality is a crutch for feeble-minded people, and this is because healthy, realistic, strong-minded people are materialists. Most materialists believe in what is physical, real and actual, and do not waste too much time allowing themselves to be weakened by what is uncertain and elusive. Optimists maybe happy, positive people with a sense of well-being and so on, but they are not exactly the most realistic people in the world. Optimists tend to fantasize a lot; they are also very idealistic and subjective in nature. Realists tend to be highly objective and practical people who always try to balance and harmonize both the negative and positive tendencies of the psyche. A realist is a person who views the world, and represents things as they really are, without subjective distortion or bias. The sophists of ancient Greece were not realists as some writers have claimed, and this is because the sophists were not objective, sincere, honest or truthful enough to be considered proper realists. I consider the philosophers Epicurus and Democritus as genuine realists. A person who has any breadth and depth in their character will try to balance all the tendencies that I have mentioned, and they will be optimistic when they have to be and when it is justified, but they will also be able to be negative and realistic when they need to be, when it is called for, when it is justified, rather than resorting to a shallow optimism at all times and occasions even when it is unnecessary to do so. In reality, many negative things do occur in the world, yet optimists choose to ignore and repress these truths, so as to maintain a sort of inner, subjective, positive feeling that they like to project outwardly into the world. Nietzsche, in The Birth Of Tragedy, and Colin Wilson on page 70, of Beyond The Outsider, claim the ancient Greeks were pessimists; yet, this seems wrong from a logical standpoint, seeing as how pessimism is a label that can only really be attached to individuals as such, and is a statement that completely ignores all the ancient Greeks who were optimists, or positive realists. When we study and analyze the ancient Greeks, we get the feeling that they were a positive, life-affirming people, and not a bunch of pessimists. One of the best ways to understand the ancient Greeks, is through their mythology; most of which is complicated, and positive in nature, with only a few negative elements. Optimism and pessimism can sometimes be blind, but realism never falls into the trap of being blind, and this is because it always deals in what is actual and real. For example, when we are realists, we can usually give good reasons for why we believe so and so thing, whereas optimism or pessimism have a sort of uncertainty to them, and optimism in particular requires a kind of faith. Yet, there is nothing wrong with optimism as long as it is not blind. Optimism, when one really comes down to analyzing it, is really a type of hope and belief, a hope and belief that things will turn out for the good, for the best. What counts is that one's hopes and beliefs are well founded and can be realized in a realistic and factual manner. Deep down inside most human beings want what is best for themselves and for others. They just do not always articulate this very well, because life seems like a struggle, and is at times uncertain in its nature aside from procreation. Though, going back to the matter of Colin Wilson (whom I admire as a writer and philosopher) and his ideas, and the direction of his arguments generally; one will notice a tendency in him to create a dichotomy between optimism and pessimism, and to label people and things according to this, without much middle ground. Which is something, I must admit, I do not like about him, yet I do still think that he is a great thinker and writer nonetheless, irrespective of this fault. However, for most people like me, that have many dimensions to their own character; I find that in some matters I am optimistic and positive, and in others I am pessimistic and negative, whereas in most things I am a realist. And so cannot easily be reduced to one label.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE

In ancient times self-knowledge was considered to be an important and significant ideal for various reasons, it was even inscribed above the entrance doorway of the temple of Apollo at Delphi in the form of "know thyself". In modern times this ideal of self-knowledge is now even more desperately needed than before, especially when we consider how immensely conditioned people are by modern society as well as by the many dogmatic traditions that still exist today. The sheer ignorance that certain dogmatic traditions instills in many people who are vying for status and prestige within the system that we all know and exist in, is incredible, and it is a system which most of us know is based upon certain traditions and specific procedures that have been around for a very long time. We may even ask ourselves why self-knowledge is important in our day to day lives, especially in the modern and fast moving world many of us live in. Also we find that when we really attempt to discover our own inner nature, we find that it is our own desires, inclinations, dreams and aspirations which most indicate who we really are as people. So it is only by discovering who we really are within us that we are able to change ourselves properly and effectively. It can be said that it is from our own self-knowledge that we form our own character. Having our own unique character as an individual does not only consist of those things that makes us different to other people, which is what we generally think makes our own character distinct and unique, it is also what makes us alike to certain other people that we identify with, that makes our character identifiable to them and to others in how they identify with us generally. We cannot say that being an individual with our own character means that we are completely unique and separate from other people, and this is because we all have to share certain similarities with others, otherwise we would never get on with each other in any kind of meaningful way. To find out who we are does not be mean that we discover that we are these fixed and rigid creatures that are unable to change. When we discover things about ourselves we also discover what we like and do not like about ourselves. To improve ourselves requires that we at least attempt to change the things that we do not like about ourselves. Real progress in evolution is about the ability to change the things that we do not like about ourselves as well as the ability to adapt ourselves and our own inner nature to suit new circumstances. In our desire to understand ourselves, we come to discover that certain aspects of our own character cannot really be changed at all, so we learn to accept these aspects of ourselves, we learn to embrace them and develop them. Self-knowledge enables us to be more direct in our understanding of reality, it gives us a type of certainty we would not have if we were more unsure of ourselves. This does not mean that self-knowledge always makes us correct in our assessment of the world, but it does make us more genuine in what we think and feel about it. Self-knowledge is a quality as well as an ideal that gives us a sense of freedom in our relation to the world, it prevents us from being conditioned and enslaved by societal conditioning and impersonal ideals. I have written elsewhere that a person can be judged as being a sum of his or her own acts, for example, you cannot be judged for what you think or say, but only for what you do. Yet I must point out that even though we are a sum of our own acts, there is still a big difference between our acts and our own motives themselves. An example of the difference between our acts and our motives can be seen in the act of killing itself; one person may kill in self-defence, whereas another person may kill because he or she is truly evil, yet both these people are judged as killers, but in the latter case it is called murder. Our motives can be judged when they are part of an act, in the sense of a motive and an act conducted together, but never as an intention without an act to go with it, and never as an unintentioned, unmotivated act of self-defence. Even though people cannot actually be judged for their own intentions, inclinations, dreams and desires and so on, these aspects of a persons character still represent a huge potential and latent portion of a persons inner nature. Many thinkers claim that the ego (i.e., the "I" or "the self") is unreal or false. The problem with thinking that the ego is unreal or false is the fact that it does not really tell us anything about why we have an ego, or why it is necessary that we should have one at all. I believe that all parts of the psyche manifest different aspects of our being depending on our knowledge and experiences. I view the ego as an adaptable structure that is in flux, yet is real. I think that the ego is similar to the Buddhist concept of emptiness, but with a temporary personality that always changes and adapts due to one's ideals or superego. I view the ego as consisting of two elements: that is "the self" and the "persona (mask)". Some psychologists claim that the self and the ego are two different and separate things, yet this does not make any sense seeing as how ego means the self, in its original Greek meaning. The different mythologies from around the world are a symbolic projection in the form of stories of all the basic needs, desires and inclinations of the human psyche itself that exists within human beings generally. The mythological stories that we can most relate to personally, are in a sense, the ones that tell us the most about our own inner nature in its existential essence, which are feelings that one finds in oneself that one needs in a sense to project and concretize in the world. The unreal aspects of mythology are metaphors for the types of energies that we feel and need to project outwardly. Alexander the Great with his strong identification with Achilles, is a perfect example of what I mean in regard to mythology representing energies that we can identify with in the sense of a wish to emulate it in the world at large in the form of the projection of energies. Alexander also worshiped Dionysus, which came out more in his reckless and rowdy behaviour. Identity is something that we choose because we find that it gives us some meaning and joy in our lives, and we choose one set of identities rather than another for this very same reason, it is merely a set of choices we cannot really avoid because of our inner nature in the sense of who we really are, and it occurs organically once we have made the decision to follow it and identify with it more and more. Some people also choose to be either wishy-washy or indifferent in regard to having any kind of distinct type of identity or character, and this is because they either do not want to be pinned down or have not yet decided what type of person they want to be. Identity is also something that we build up over many years, adding some things and disgarding others. Earlier in this essay I mentioned that the ego is in flux, this does not mean that all aspects of the ego change. Some aspects of the ego change, whereas other aspects remain fixed, yet all is in flux in ragard to how it expresses itself. Many thinkers claim that there is no fixed or distinct "self" or "I" in the ego, yet the characters of most human beings do have certain traits, inclinations and interests that consistently exist in them and which they have and express throughout most of their life, and so when some people claim that the self does not exist, it is an absurd and meaningless claim to make. Our self is who we consistently are. Also who we choose to be is part of the self, even if it happens to be a temporary aspect of our character, it still is an aspect of our character, and in a sense it can be said to be us, temporarily. The type of knowledge that we pursue tells us something about ourselves, it is a type of individuation, and this is so even though a lot of the knowledge that we pursue is objective knowledge. There are four main drives that I have noticed exists in most human beings, which are either connected to their insecurities or to their other drives, depending on whether they are being fulfilled or not, and which seems to motivate most of their desires and behaviour generally: the first, is the need to pursue happiness, joy and the sense of well being that comes from these feelings, the second, is the need to affirm life, which is the same as the need to feel fully alive and fulfilled, the third, is the need to put meaning into the things that they do, this manifests as the need to value things for particular reasons, which are reasons that make sense to them existentially, and gives them a sense of psychological satisfaction, and the fourth, is the need for freedom, liberty and individualism. Many people are far too afraid to behave in a strange and weird manner, in fear that many other people will no accept them, yet, a person is never more themselves than when they are being strange and weird. To be normal means to be conditioned, what is considered normal in one age may be considered backwards, ignorant or stupid in another, or even unhealthy. To be normal means to follow the herd, it represents the herd mentality in humans. Soul, being, selfhood, these are all different words for the same concept, they are all symbols that represent the need to discover our real authentic self, it is similar to the process of individuation, it entails ridding oneself of all that is false that society and the powers that be, has implanted within us through conditioning. Selfhood also consists of a creative element, this creative element, is called becoming. Now becoming is when tendencies and inclinations in the form of potentialities that exist within us, slowly become actual, which then lead to other things in a non-repetitive cycle of growth. I mentioned that one of the most significant and necessary drives within us is the need for meaning, we can also say that purpose comes from meaning. Jung mentions that meaning is largely a symbolic drive, it is different symbolic ways of thinking that gives us meaning, this can manifest as roles, or as symbolic ideals and so on. We can also say that meaning comes from the evaluations that we make, or from a strong sense of identification to things, either instinctually, or through more rational means. Evaluations, identifications, instinctual inclinations, or rational identifications produce a feeling that we value certain things, and in a sense, this is where meaning comes from, meaning comes from these values, which can then take on a symbolic form as purpose. We can have many purposes, in the form of the many drives that exist within us, which are competing for ascendancy within us all of the time, but it is nearly always the most powerful drive (purpose) within us that usually wins out in the end. These drives within us tend to have a hierarchy of their own, which depends on our circumstances and interests at any given time. How well a person understands the outside world is a reflection of how well they understand themselves. People who understand the objective world very well, also understand themselves very well. The essence of a person is not a purely subjective phenomenon; our inner nature depends on the outside world for its formation. In general human beings do not know themselves well enough to know what they really want, they are not completely sure of what they are about. Evolution is a long process, we are still in our infancy. Throughout history human beings have been driven by circumstances that they did not fully understand, they assumed positions, and they pursued aims that seemed to attract them for reasons that they did not fully question. Human beings do not always pursue what makes them feel good, but they do nearly always pursue what attracts them. We must investigate the nature of what does, or does not attract us as human beings! Only then can we fully comprehend human motives. The Bruce Lee saying that: "all knowledge is ultimately self-knowledge" is very interesting, and this is because he suggested that every bit of knowledge that we learn informs us more about whom we really are as people.

ON NATURAL AND POLITICAL TRUTHS

Human beings are basically a species of rational pack animal, it is natural for them to live in communities or to want to live in communities. A town, a village or a state is a natural and legitimate community. In my essay entitled "The Lust For Power" I mentioned that all people are naturally unequal due to the fact that some people are mentally stronger, physically stronger, more ambitious, more domineering, more intelligent, more wiser, more devious, more manipulative, more controlling than someone else, etc. Slavery in the past was a form of political or legal inequality due to scarcity and poverty, and so political inequality is a natural outcome of natural inequality, a fact that Aristotle himself was not too slow to notice. Nowadays there are many laws in place that overcome political inequality, some of these laws even claim that it makes all people equal, but we all know that this is not true. Trying to make all people equal is no different than attempting to rob them of their own individuality as well as their own natural passions. All political laws are artificial but necessary, they are necessary as a means to create stability, fairness, justice and a sense of harmony amongst different peoples. The idealistic desire that some people have that makes them want to make everyone equal goes against the natural tendency for struggle, competition and conflict which are natural and useful drives within organisms. If a group of human beings were placed within a state of nature, there would be some conflict and struggle for power and the scarcity of resources amongst them, yet, seeing as how human beings are essentially rational, a semblance of ethical order would exist, nonetheless there would still be some tension and conflict and even war amongst them, but in the long run they would form productive communities, this is because human beings are naturally constructive and purposive creatures. The concept of having "the consent of the governed" is a very interesting concept in the field of political thought in the sense that it is a very useful ideal and aspect of political realism, it points out that if a governor or a political representative of any community (state) does not govern this state in accordance with the "general will" of these people as a whole who live in it, then the governed do not really owe this governor or representative any allegiance of any kind. The social contract is mostly a myth, except for in Switzerland where the people have actually democratically voted in regard to most if not all the amendments and changes in their own constitution that they wanted. The social contract does not exist in most nations and this is because the governed have never made any official agreements with any writers of laws within these other nations. The state is a whole and we as individuals are merely a part, the state that we are born into or enter into, existed before us. The state is an organized system as well as an abstraction. The state as a system has been maintained by many generations of people. The elite classes are firmly embedded within the structure and system of the state, they have maintained and expanded the state to serve their own interests, they are not easy to separate from the state. The governed (masses) have been largely manipulated and controlled by the elite classes up until now through the state, this will also go on for a while to come. A town, a village or a state and its leaders, governers or representatives only have force and the power to implement executive force because the people in these communities join the police and the army and this is because they want to protect and expand the interests of their own community. That communities have been hoodwinked and misrepresented by those in charge is an obvious fact that has happened many times in the past, so it does not warrant too much space in this current essay. Rights do not exist in nature, they do not originate in nature. Does a lion have the right to kill and eat an antelope? Do antelope's have the right to claim that lions do not have the right to kill and eat them? Rights are something that we struggle for, that we fight for, we enforce our rights onto the world from within us, because we feel them as values that exist within us that we need to objectify and enforce onto our environment and the world generally. We secure our rights politically through activism and artificial laws. Voltaire claimed that the ignorance and the idiocy of the masses prevents them from knowing how to govern one another and themselves properly and effectively, so enforcing their own rights and values through democracy is a waste of time. According to Voltaire, people should just accept enlightened benevolent and despotic rule. The problem with Voltaire's suggestion is that it expects the masses to remain ignorant and stupid forever, his view is essentially fatalistic, this is because a concerted effort should be made by the masses to educate themselves morally as well as through knowledge, they should engender a spirit of struggle and activism among one another and in themselves towards the goal of objectifying their own values and rights in the world. When we are born, we are born helpless and dependant on others for our existence and upbringing, yet, when we reach an age in which we can reason properly for ourselves, we begin to realize that liberty and freedom are gifts from nature itself, not long after this does it take us to figure out that no institution or person has the right to command us or dictate to us how to live. It is reason and desire that gives us the right to govern ourselves and one another. To rebel against so-called authorities that attempt to curb our liberty and rights is a natural survival mechanism in all rational and free human beings. The goal of government should always be to secure freedom, equality and justice for all within the state, regardless of the will of the majority, this is because the will of the majority is not always correct. The will of the majority can only be correct in a climate in which education, knowledge, integrity and the standards of morality are high in the population itself as a whole, and the population is well informed on all the latest issues of importance. The concept of an open society is a very useful one in politics, this is because it produces a political climate that is based on participation and consensus for all the people in a state. An open society is a society in which honesty, sincerity and communication is part of the every day existence of all the citizens and their government and everyone is well informed on all matters of importance to their lives. That living in societies with governments and rules shapes individual people into something which is different to how they would behave if they were in a state of nature is an interesting thing to think about. Societies tend to shape, mould, manipulate, control and alter peoples thinking and behaviour in many ways, so people should think about how they would think or feel if society had not altered them differently from how they think they would be in regard to their natural inclinations and tendencies in a state of nature. The human desire to make their own efforts, work and industry into a sort of right to own land, property and material goods, comes about due to the fact that human beings are naturally ethical, constructive, purposeful and have a propensity towards rationality and communal living generally, as you know I have mentioned and attributed these qualities in regard to people in a state of nature also as being natural inclinations that exist within them. The desire to be constructive and purposeful comes about within people when they fully realize how empty their existence is without these drives that exist within them, these types of drives could even be viewed as a way of distracting themselves away from how things would seem without them. Many great thinkers in the past such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, etc., have written concerning how they thought people in the past must have thought and felt within a state of nature as well as how they must have behaved. These great thinkers that I mention above got some things correct in their assessment as well as other things wrong concerning people within a state of nature. I must also point out that these great thinkers that I have mentioned above, as good as their mental observations have been concerning the way that people within a state of nature might have thought, felt and behaved, I still feel as though there still remains the fact that they did not account for the fact that different individual people and cultures of the past were different one to another, they also did not account for the fact that reality is an ongoing process, they wrote about a state of nature as though it was a fixed condition, that is, that it was a certain way only, etc. When people begin to rule themselves and one another more fully with education, talent, ability, merit, scientific knowledge, reason and morality, then they will no longer need the concepts of "God" or "political force" to legitimize their own authority through government, rulers and heads of state will not even be necessary, all we will need as a system will be a type of deliberative democratic method that exists in a participatory and consensus form with representatives as well as leaders to aid us in our interests, and when intelligent and civilized people disagree on any matter, then all they will need to do to resolve any matter would be to discuss the matter until a compromise and agreement has been met in an ethical and rational manner. The very fabric of political thinking and civil society up until today in all of its institutions and in its general way of thinking has been based upon legitimizing itself, either through God, religion or force, whether military or legal. In fact the concept of God alone has had such a huge stabilizing and civilizing effect on society generally that any political activities and institutions that have allied themselves with the concept of God have had more success than any others, and has led to it being able to legitimize the behaviour of any of its own causes through the people that represent them, yet the only alternative to the legitimacy of God has been the use of political force in a Machiavellian sense, but the problem with these ways of thinking is that both these methods that I mention above are inherently manipulative, irrational and deceitful in nature, yet they have been used on society by the elite, and this because people generally do not know any better and so therefore have accepted it, people have not advanced and grown up sufficiently enough to have had the good sense to have overgrown this self-ignorance as well as the manipulation of others that has been perpetrated against them, these methods have robbed people of the individual freedom to live and grow in a world with truth and sincerity, both rationally and straightforwardly. Earlier on in this essay I mentioned and implied that the concept of God and religion is used in a false and dishonest way and also in a deluded way to legitimize the authority of whoever wants power over others, yet some people actually believe that religion gives people a hope that cannot be lived without or replaced by anything else, but I believe that the hope that religion gives people can be replaced by the hope that ideals can give them. To use the concept of God, religion or the Bible to legitimize authority over others, is to live a lie, this is so whether you have the authority itself or are having the authority used on you by someone else. The type of equality that is produced by political laws is an equality of living conditions and liberties that exists for certain groups of people in a nation or area, but does not exist for all people of all classes and circumstances across the board around the world or even in one's own country, for instance, if I went to another country that had different laws to that of my own country, then it is clear that I would be politically unequal to the people of that nation when I first arrived there, this would be so unless I went through the long bureaucratic procedures and struggles that are necessary for me to share equal rights with some of them politically. Even in my own country I do not share equal rights with the upper classes or with the members of the institutions of law enforcement, they are legally allowed to do things to me that I am not allowed to do to them, the simple act of enforcing laws onto others already makes some people unequal to others politically, it empowers the law enforcers with power over the people that are having the laws enforced on them. In a politically equal and free society there would be no laws, there would only be mutual agreements and liberty among all the people within it, yet we know that laws must always be enforced, otherwise crimes and injustices would be committed with impunity, so in a sense one finds inequality and power struggles everywhere in nature as well as the necessity to enforce laws as unavoidable. Any legitimate political state in the form of an organized political community needs force to enforce laws and maintain justice. In the past when people moved into city states to live they did this so that they could feel safer away from all of the anarchy and injustices that occurred in the outside world. City states also ensured people with more protection over their own property and belongings. Max Weber's famous definition of what a state is, has more to do with what a state evolves into over time due to some peoples love of power and control, yet if you eliminate most of the coercive institutions and hierarchical power structures from any state, then it becomes a simple organized political community with some means of law enforcement and protection for most of its own citizens. When anarchists claim that there should not be a state, this is like saying that people should not be allowed to live in organized political communities that protect them and their own property. I agree with the anarchists that there should not be any rulers, tyrants or false leaders running our lives within society or government, but I do believe that people in general need a government and a state to enforce laws and maintain order and justice. The members or politicians in government should be either leaders or representatives of the people, they should serve the peoples interests and nothing more, their own desire for power should be used to benefit the people at large, rather than be used to serve their own interests and vanity. It is not possible for the many to rule themselves or one another without representatives or leaders who are more qualified than they are to do this, and this is because the masses are either to busy or too unqualified to rule themselves or one another properly and consistently. Any real authority which anyone in government has over the masses should be based on merit, talent and ability, and not on coercion and manipulation. Anarchists like to mention that we could all live in a society in which all interactions are a cooperative succession of voluntary associations and contractual associations amongst all the different people within the society, yet this assumes that all people of all classes and levels of ambition and dominance will want to cooperate with one another without any problems arising in the long run. The problem with this anarchist system is that it suggests liberty without moral or legal security and stability, whereas a society with at least a minimal government can ensure liberty, security, stability and opportunity for all the people involved in it through its objective use and ability to uphold and enforce laws through a government and a judicial system, it also protects a nation from any outside or foreign attacks. Anarchists also claim that citizens can pay for their own law enforcement and military defence or at least ensure the establishment of these institutions to provide these service for all people. The problem with the anarchist economic system is that it is based upon pure socialism, except for the advocacy of government ownership of the means of production, and exists without a hint of capitalism involved, yet we all know that pure socialism without any capitalism does not work. For a political and economic system to work well it must largely be based upon capitalism with only a minimal amount of socialism involved in it, there should also be competition and a love of power on the part of some of the people within the system to keep a good dynamic going within the system generally, and the system should also ensure an objective sense of liberty, security, stability and opportunity for all the people involved. The system that I mention above can only really be based on a minimal government which provides democratic opportunities for all the people involved. An anarchist system by its very nature fails politically and economically and should be relegated to the category of unrealistic idealism. The reason that I mention that a capitalist system needs some socialism in it, is because socialism tends to counteract all the faults that seems to exist within capitalism, I believe that these two economic systems should be harmonized together, but with capitalism holding the greatest share of the influence and control over the economy at large. Anarchists are always talking about the need to abolish capitalism and the state, yet every year the economy and the different businesses are less able to produce enough jobs for all the many people that are being born and are leaving school who are looking for employment. Anarchists sometimes forget that it is capitalism that produces most of the jobs, labour, capital and the so-called wealth, opportunities and prosperity in the world generally, and that it is also the state in the form of the welfare state that supports all the many people that exist that there is not enough jobs for, because these jobs simply do not exist for them. I know that nowadays from experience that for every job that exists there is at least a hundred people that want this job and are willing to compete for it to some degree. In economics, scarcity will always be a problem, it is a problem that cannot be resolved by anarchism, but it can at least be alleviated if people remain politically organized through governments, etc. The history of the world has shown that the masses have up until now needed strong rulers and leaders to unite them and lead them towards greater things. People have needed strong and clever leaders because the masses have not been able to be strong and clever themselves as individuals. As long as the people remain weakened and uninformed they will need strong and clever leaders to guide them. Blaise Pascal made a good point when he mentioned that political laws would have no power behind them, and would not be able to be carried out without force behind them. He also mentioned that without political laws in our lives then any force that appeared could become tyrannical and oppressive. The use of physical force by individual citizens, even in its retaliatory use is something that cannot be left at the discretion of individuals and independent groups or clans. It is the need of objective laws that all people can agree to, that makes a government and law enforcement necessary, it is necessary as a means to enforce all the laws that have been agreed upon by a community; and this it does by using force. Government can be viewed as an arbiter and standard for honest disagreements among different peoples. Sometimes anarchists forget about these simple principles that certain people like Pascal was in the habit of pointing out from time to time. Force, manipulation and violence are the most effective methods of producing any political changes in the world at large, because simply voting and following the system does not produce any really significant changes in it. One must be willing to use force, manipulation and violence as well as the democratic method of self-government, if one is ever going to produce any real changes in the world politically, yet whether it be towards a good or bad end depends on the will of the people generally. I am a strong believer in democratic meritocracy. Democratic meritocracy is a democratic system of self-government in which it is popular for the people to support and vote for the representatives who deserve positions due to their talents, efforts, abilities and merits. Democratic meritocracy is a system of government that has leaders and representatives, not rulers, monarchs, aristocrats, plutocrats or nepotists. Aristocracy by its very nature is very repetitive, stuffy, insipid and oppressive, and so could never really fulfill the needs of an evolving and expanding culture. In a democratic meritocracy in which political offices and positions are held due to one's merit, it then becomes useful to have a review committee which meets at a specified period of time, whether each year, or every few years, which acts to reassess the validity of the tenure held by the different office and position holders. The review committee would stamp down on corrupt, abusive or incompetent position or office holders. In politics as well as in life generally, it is necessary to question authority, leaders, representatives, and office and position holders regularly, and this is because it is always a dangerous and passive position for the masses to be in when positions of power are not questioned, or challenged. Abuses and corruptions can occur if authority, and power is not questioned. A limited tenure for each office or position, with a regular change of office holders and position holders can be viewed as a good method to control and regulate power structures, it prevents stagnation and corruption and abuses from occurring. Too much political and economic equality, and agreeableness is a danger to all productive societies, and should be avoided, it produces weakness and decadence. Hierarchy and competition are significant features of a dynamic society, it prevents it from becoming stagnant, decadent and weak. Real freedom comes from political laws. When the members of all the classes are equal under the law, then real freedom can be experienced, and this is because freedom cannot come from the dependant symbiotic relationships of slaves to master, or master to slaves, or any other type of relationship based on political inequality. I do not believe in economic equality, it produces the faults that I mentioned earlier. The problem with having a pure meritocracy, is that everyone at the top will end up manipulating everyone in the middle and at the bottom in a sort of unfair manner. Some people claim that the masses as individuals have the authority to demand justice from their government, and that the best government is a government that governs wisely, prudently, and for the benefit of all the people in the society without a democratic system or institutions being part of it. But how can this be so? How can a government benefit all the people of a society, if all the members of the society is not allowed to shape their society through democratic means? If the democratic system is not allowed, then a top down manipulation and oppression of the masses will begin to show itself, and then the demands of the masses will not be met, this then starts to become a problem bit by bit. The masses are not only entitled to justice, they are also entitled to the democratic system, because there is no real justice without it. A republic is a stable form of government because the ultimate source of power lies with a constitution (charter), whereas in a democracy, the power lies with the rule of the majority. Republicanism is a form of statism; power lies in the state, and the citizens have to sacrifice themselves, and are slaves to the state. The power of the state should be weakened, so that the needs of all the citizens can be fulfilled. Statism has nearly always favoured the elite classes when it has existed as republicanism. A political empire is a form of statism, it is an inflated and greedy state, and it takes what others have, while also making them into slaves to this state. A government (state) should serve its citizens, just as much as its citizens serve their government. There should be a balance of forces between the citizens and the government, and it should not be allowed under any circumstances, for there to be an imbalance of forces between the government and its citizens. A government that does not serve its citizens, is an unjust government, and is therefore, an illegitimate government. An ideal government is one in which the head of state is a committee of several persons who deserve to represent and govern the people through merit, and govern the state in aggregate. An office or position should be merited, not only because of effort, talent and ability, but because they, as an office or position holder, is trusted by the people, and duty is the highest form of trust. Individual ideas are more important than whole ideologies. A political or economic system that is based on useful and advantageous ideas and principles, would work better than political and economic systems that are largely based on ideologies. I am a strong believer in mixed systems, composite systems, in synthesis. Many people make the mistake in thinking that specific ideologies should be pure, or simple, without admixture; yet this attitude, is one-sided and anti-dialectical, it reduces possibilities, creates dogmas, stifles progress, and limits potential and growth.

WHAT IS PROGRESS?

In section 4 of his book the Antichrist, the famous philosopher Nietzsche claims that the idea of progress is a false one, and he then goes onto make the erroneous argument that the people in the renaissance period were superior to that of his own time in their essential worth as people, then afterwards he contradicts himself and mentions that progress does exist after all, but only in isolated and individual cases. Putting Nietzsche's confused sophistry aside, let us now tackle what this concept of progress really means for the rest of us, that is for the rest of us who really desire to understand what this concept of progress really means in this world that we all happen to live in, and in how it applies to reality as well as in our lives generally. We cannot say that progress means that in the future there will be less problems in the world because of it, for evolution and complexity produces more problems in the world than we are able to adequately solve due to the sense of progress that we feel that we have made in the world generally, for example, the population increase, nihilism, a lack of jobs relative to the amount of people who need them, outsourcing of jobs for financial reasons, the flawed and corrupt monetary system, new viruses, technology becoming more powerful, and also problems due to the general unreliability of technology itself and the problems it creates, etc., are some of the main problems that may arise in any future scenario. We can say without a doubt that our knowledge and living conditions has progressed and improved since the renaissance period, for example, we can cure more diseases and sicknesses than we were able to cure back then, we definitely know more now about the physical universe than we did back in those days. We must remember that progress means an advancement or development towards a better state or condition, invariably this can only apply to particular things in evolution, and not to all things, this means that progress is a concept that is true for some things, yet is not true for all thing in evolution. I will not repeat here in this essay all that I have already mentioned in my writings concerning the concept of progress, because repetition is a bad vice, that is, and one that I do not care to indulge in myself. The fact that progress is an inevitable force in evolution cannot be denied, its existence is not a matter of whether we really think that it exists or not, it simply does, it is all around us, we cannot escape it. How are we as individuals going to confront progress with an open mind? Are we going to prop up useless metanarratives to condone it? Are we going to attempt to understand it? How do we come to truly understand its nature? Nietzsche was a sophistic charlatan and phoney of the highest order! Nietzsche was in real life, a polite, timid, warm, ethical and soft spoken man, whereas in his philosophical writings, he was cold, arrogant, immoral, harsh, cynical, vain, conceited, mean spirited, deluded, sophistic and a megalomaniac. Now it is exactly this inauthentic Jekyll and Hyde aspect of Nietzsche's character, that makes him a complete fraud and charlatan, and the fact that many people can take him seriously as a whole, even though he had some interesting and good ideas, is a sign of stupidity in the reader. In his book "On The Genealogy Of Morals" Nietzsche claims that the evil that was done by the strong, noble, aristocratic types can be considered good and that the concept of evil is merely an invention of the weak, if this is so, then why did Alexander the Great feel deep remorse after murdering his friend Cleitus the Black, if doing evil is merely a false idea of the weak? Nietzsche also claimed that the concept of justice is merely an agreement between equal powers and does not count if it is between weaker and stronger types, so according to him it should not be pursued by either the weaker or the stronger party. This argument sounds like hypocrisy, it says, that one party who desires justice, deserves it, whereas another party that desires it, does not deserve it, because he says so. Nietzsche also calls the morality that was propounded by priests a "slave morality", he does not call it the "priests morality". Slaves were not able to put their morality into effect. So-called slave morality is nothing more than the morality that the different priests used to civilize the strong and make them less barbaric and evil as well as a means in which to control, manipulate and protect the weak and downtrodden. Nietzsche also claims that there was a great divide and sense of resentment that the priestly class felt towards the strong, noble, aristocratic types, but this is not so, all good historians know that all these different types lived harmoniously with one another, it is even a well known fact that some of the Roman emperors themselves represented the priesthood itself, we must remember that people were highly religious and superstitious back then. Nietzsche also claimed that the priestly class in ancient times felt so powerless and resentful towards the noble aristocratic types that it made them devise Christian values and the last judgement as a means to get power over them. Not only do we know that the priestly class was not powerless and resentful relative to the noble aristocratic types, we can also infer that the rise of the priestly class to a state of power has a less cynical motive than simply a powerless resentment that they felt that made them plot to take power away from the noble aristocratic types in order to empower themselves. As I mentioned before in my essay entitled " The Lust For Power" it is what people can do with power that usually motivates people to get power. In regard to Christian priests it must of been a desire of theirs to civilize people with Christian values that made them get power and not simply a need for power itself out of a sense of impotence alone. A good article that one can read concerning all the errors that can be found in Nietzsche's "On The Genealogy Of Morals" text, is called: A philosopher's appreciation for Jean-Pierre Vernant (January 4, 1914—January 9, 2007) By Nickolas Pappas. It is from the Department of Philosophy, CCNY & the Graduate center, CUNY. Progress is a reality that exists objectively in the world around us, it is not just an idea that exists in our mind that we can either dismiss or affirm as Nietzsche would have you believe, in my view this attitude of Nietzsche's and the postmodernists that makes them think that objective reality is merely a subjective opinion and not an objective fact of the world is a major failing in their way of thinking. The cynical view that Nietzsche had that made him think that societal evolution is nothing more than a battle and a struggle among weak and strong people for the acquisition of power is a black and white and childish way of viewing the world. In Nietzsche's view, evolution for people is not about becoming more civilized and making more progress, to him it is merely a battle and a struggle among weak and strong people vying for the acquisition of power to be used for their own ends and nothing more. According to Nietzsche's way of thinking, it was only the small minority of noble, aristocratic types that could be considered to be strong, whereas the rest of the population were merely weak and slavish and wanted the noble aristocratic peoples power for themselves. Nietzsche seems to conflate strength with privilege and weakness with lack of privilege, he also conflates strength with power, it did not seem to occur to him that strength also existed among those who lacked privileges or power, weakness and resentment also existed among the privileged and powerful. Nietzsche does not seem to judge people as individuals, he seems to judge them as simply fitting convenient categories that suit his purposes of argument. One of the main reasons that Nietzsche refused to fully acknowledge progress, both as a reality and as a concept, is the fact that his philosophy is essentially regressive and backwards in nature, this is so, with its desire to recreate the ideals and lifestyles of the ancient Greek and Roman nobles and aristocrats. Nietzsche's philosophy is antithetical to all the philosophers and thinkers who are predominantely progressive visionaries or who count themselves to be forward looking people. I could write many books concerning all the sophistry and charlatanry that exists in Nietzsche's ideas and theories, but I have better things to do with my time and efforts. At the end of the day Nietzsche was just an insecure cynic who could not handle the objective and systematic rigour of science, logic and mathematics, his deep distrust of these subjects, must, I am sure, have come about due to a deep insecurity he felt about the power of his own intellect. One observes that towards the end of the third essay of his "On The Genealogy Of Morals" Nietzsche cynically and distrustfully ridicules and dismisses the wise, objective scientists of his day and what he considered to be their so-called real knowledge of the world. Any theory of progress cannot really be complete without a theory of history, evolution and mass consciousness and their course through time as well as in how they set the stage for progress in its different manifestations. Hegel was correct to think that the desire of people to express and enforce their own sense of freedom was a large and prominent aspect of history, evolution and progress generally, one could also add to this the desire for people to express and enforce their individuality in the world. The desire for insight and knowledge are also two main driving forces in history and evolution as well as the desire for people to express and enforce their own values, this means expressing one's values irrespective of the mainstream values which are largely designed to manipulate and control the masses. Any individuals act of revolt towards rigid customs and traditions or old values and institutions is one of the main ways that people express and enforce their own desires and values as a constructive means towards progress. Customs and traditions are enforcers of values, whereas rebellion is a creator of newer more meaningful and progressive values. Anarchy exists as a form of rebellion, a form of rebellion that soon exhausts itself, this is due to its lack of desire to be constructive, ordered, systematic, progressive and ambitious. A state of anarchy cannot last for very long, this is because people cannot live in a state of unordered rebellion for too long. Anarchists detest hierarchy, yet hierarchy is part of nature. Anarchists think that because they want to govern themselves in a world without rulers, leaders, governments, laws, a state, etc., then this is what everyone else should want also, it does not occur to anarchists that most people in the world do not want what they want themselves, some people are quite happy for competent and trustworthy politicians to represent and govern them politically. In our investigation into the matter of progress so far, we have determined that it is only particular things that have progressed and not all things, this means that the concept of progress can only be applied to some things and not to all things in reality. We have also determined that progress can be curbed and stalled by old customs, traditions, institutions and values and the people that represent and uphold them. To say that progress is a false idea simply because it cannot be observed in all things, is a clever piece of sophistry, so is claiming that science does not give us any truth simply because it cannot give us a complete picture of reality, this is because truth can still be found in a partial view of something, a partial view of a phenomenon is not a false view, it is merely a limited view of the truth of a phenomenon. Postmodernists like to make the false argument that all truth is limited, approximate and is constantly evolving, this is not completely true, it is our knowledge of the truth that is limited and approximate, it is our view that alters and becomes more complete, truth itself is not limited or altered by us or our knowledge of it, the truth exists independently of us and our lives, except for subjective truths, that is, which is a topic that I have already covered elsewhere. Even though simple facts can be demonstrably proven to be true, no elaborate theory can ever be proven to be completely true (we can only show that a theory is partly false). No elaborate theory can ever explain all the things that it professes to describe. Thus an absolute and certain truth that explains all things to us is unobtainable. In our investigation into the matter of progress we have also discovered certain aspects of the human consciousness as well as the human condition that need to be expressed and enforced for real growth and progress to be made by people generally. Progress as a reality and as a concept will always have its detractors, yet our aim in this investigation is to clarify what progress is and what it is not, so that some semblance of coherence can be found in it for all who think of it as an important aspect of their own lives. To simply doubt that one is able to make any progress in any particular thing in one's life, is an absurdity. The intuitive, mental and real knowing that one experiences as one is able to make progress at any particular thing that one makes an effort with, is overwhelming, it is something that we experience when we slowly learn a language, a musical instrument, a sport or any other skill or subject that we choose to learn. It is I am sure in the desire of most people around the world to want to attempt to shape the future in such a way as to avoid the mistakes of the past. People desire to make improvements on the past, to learn from the past, to take what is good and useful from the past as if they were lessons they had learned, this is so even if this occurs indirectly through historical knowledge. It is the people that want to change the world who most understand history, that seem to be the most competent and able to shape the future for the better. Progress in a realistic sense is knowing that we can make the future better in many ways because we have a knowledge of the past and are able to use it to improve matters in the world and also because we know that progress is inevitable and unavoidable because of our current knowledge and conditions. Nietzsche's master and slave morality dichotomy, is based on his claim that all human beings value morality because it is a means to an end; and for Nietzsche, this end which morality aims towards, is the will to power. It does not seem to occur to Nietzsche, due to his biased and subjective way of thinking, that morality is actually something that most people value because it makes them happy, and because it helps them fulfill all their other values as well, and because it gives them a feeling of well-being. Nietzsche always treats the will to power as an end in itself, and other values as a means to this end, when in fact, most humans treat the will to power as a means to an end; the end being their happiness, the fulfillment of their values, and their feelings of well-being.

OF MONEY AND ITS USE

Money is a type of universal tool of exchange amongst any group of people as well as a representation of the basic efforts, needs and wants of these people and the things that they value generally as well as their material possessions, it also represents their ability to accumulate and expand their interests in the ways that I have just mentioned above through this universal tool of utility. In the past the monetary system was created to replace the clumsy barter system of trade, this barter system of trade that existed before the monetary system was useful if a person A had something they wanted to trade or barter that people wanted, but it was useless if this same person A had things that a person B did not want or need, yet person B had something that person A wanted or needed. Even though needs and wants overlap, they are not exactly the same in entirety, for example, we can want food and need it to survive, but we can want jewellery, yet not necessarily need it to survive, some items, such as books are wants, but they are also needed for the knowledge contained in them. If one was stranded on a desert island, then food and water would be a need and a want, whereas more jewellery would be a want and not a need. The artificial value that is placed on objects like gold and silver exists because these substances are relatively permanent and pliable, they can be melted, cut, weighed and exchanged with ease. The type of value that objects like gold and silver have for us, I call artificial values, this is because not all people and animals value gold and silver, it is not a natural value, such as, food, water or morality. The desire for Morality is a natural value, because if someone harms someone we love, then we naturally feel the pain of this act, so it is likewise natural for us to create morals as well as a code of ethics and a set of laws to counteract this natural pain that we would feel if our loved ones were to be harmed or cheated in some way. We naturally need food and water to survive so we think of these things as natural values. Money, when it was first created as a concept and as a tool of exchange, began as a representation of one's efforts, property and belonging's in a fair and straightforward way, then over a period of time money lost its value as a real representation of what I have just mentioned above and slowly became more illusionary and divorced from its original purpose, it can even be said that money became an illusion due to usury and the concept of fiat money. Only about 3% of the money in circulation today represents the things it is supposed to represent, the other 97% mostly exists as numbers in computers. There is never enough money in circulation to represent all the things that it is meant to represent. Many of the interesting modern philosophical discussions occurring today concerns the merits as well as the disadvantages of the monetary system itself. The Austrian school of economics and its followers display a lot of optimism in the potential of a gold backed monetary system, whereas you also get the futurist idealists who prefer any kind of paradigm shift that enables us to discard the flawed monetary system altogether, with its long history of corruption and differential advantage. It seems that the need to use tangible money will become an outmoded thing of the past, seeing as how technology is finding ways to overcome this aspect of its use. I think that electronic money when it becomes introduced into the system will over time become something else, money will eventually become a type of universal number credit system, it will be either in negative numbers, if you are in debt or positive, if you are in positive credit, etc. Money now has become mostly a tool of manipulation and control that the elite classes of bankers, financiers, business people and upper classes use to serve their own interests at everyone else's expense. Money has become and is now a complete illusion as a fair representation of the endeavours of the masses and their own interests. The world is like a confusing playground in which people are slowly beginning to realize is becoming an uncontrollable situation of meaningless behaviour due to a scarcity of jobs and opportunities, a manipulation of the masses by the power hungry elite classes, a rapid and constant population increase, many people competing against technology for opportunities, people competing against other people and their greed for money and profit due to the outsourcing of jobs and opportunities, many people are also losing their sense of religious and mystical beliefs in any higher powers or universal objective meanings, etc., all these things and more add to the confusion and uncertainty of the world we currently live in. It is science, philosophy, reason and morality and some fair democratic and egalitarian politics for all people in the world generally that will be the saving graces of humanity in the long run.

THE LUST FOR POWER

The people in this world who lust after power, in most cases, become the manipulaters and controllers of the people within society, and they also manipulate and control the course of events in the world generally. These people who lust after power that like to control and manipulate the masses as well as the course of worldly events, do it because they enjoy it, it is a type of aphrodisiac to them. In most cases the security one gets from monetary power ensures one's own survival and that of one's own progeny or those one loves that inherit this wealth. A lust for power in many cases tends to corrupt the people involved. Money is a symbolic type of power, it has an ability to change the course of events in the world generally. Those who lust after power, force the people underneath them into a real and actual sense of conflict with them, this behaviour produces a type of competition for economic survival, and this occurs even though power is not the primary aim or motive in the lives of some of these people who are not interested in power that are more peaceful and harmonious, this behaviour produces stratification as well as class divisions within society. The best democratic representatives of the people (masses) are those who use power as a tool to benefit the people, rather than as a power that these representatives lust after for their own benefit. Most corrupt politicians nowadays who lie and manipulate, etc., are a continuation of the schools of sophistry, Freemasonry, secret societies as well as of all the other black and occult arts and techniques that have been used to attain worldly power. I must add, that the so-called occult arts and magic is a form of symbolic and ritual psychology that utilizes natural laws and principles. The corruption that occurs in the world due to the desire for absolute power can only really come about from a concerted effort on the part of certain people that pursue this goal, i.e., Hitler and the Nazis and the British empire and its bankers, etc. Power in some of its manifestations is all about control and manipulation, if one can control and manipulate something, then one has power over it. A desire for power can be connected to the "divine" or higher self in humankind, it is that feeling of wanting to overcome the petty, limited, finite and weak aspects of ourselves. When our ancestors invented the symbolic archetypal gods of their own consciousness, they transposed these archetypes onto the world in an objective manner as representations of the different phenomenon in the world that occurred around them, they then began to think that these gods really did exist objectively in the universe, they confused subjective desires for the objective reality of things. The symbolic archetypes that human beings have created as the many gods, is a subjective outpouring of all of their inner desires and aspirations that exist as the "higher self" they feel within themselves, this somehow corresponds to the objective, worldy, mathematical, astrological, symbolic and aesthetic qualities and principles that we find exists in the world as natural laws as well as organic psychological laws of the human psyche. Even today we still have monarchs that rule in different parts of the world, we seem to have maintained an undending reign of monarchs since antiquity when kings and pharaohs actually did think that they were gods, we also have the elite classes as well that exist because of class divisions. The different occult practices, such as magic and Freemasonry with its different rituals and so on, is an attempt to enforce and express the sense of power that some people feel within themselves, this is a feeling as well as an intentionality that they feel they need to enforce onto people and the world in certain ways. A strong belief in magic itself in the sense that it works, is a belief that certain techniques of manipulation as well wilful influence based on natural laws and principles have a marked effect on people, society, nature and the world generally. Many of the techniques and laws of magic seem to exist and are very logical when understood properly, yet the mistake that many deluded occultists make, is that they actually believe and think that gods, demons, angels and external intangible forces exist, yet this type of self-induced delusional aspect of magic seems to help these people feel that there is more meaning in what they are doing than what actually exists and is occurring in what they are doing. Ritual itself is an aspect of magic that induces conviction, affirmation and self confidence in the magician, yet they are not wielding mysterious forces that exist outside of themselves, they are in tune with energy and are working with natural laws that actually exist and can be explained logically. Magicians use symbols, archetypes and the concept of correspondence as well as astronomical patterns in their rituals, workings and manipulations, they also use oratory and phonology to influence, control and manipulate the minds of people, they also use every possible form of guile and deception, whether political or sociological to make situations and events go the way that they want them to go. Hitler was, I am sure, one of the greatest magicians to have ever lived, and this is because he believed in and utilized magic and the occult to manipulate and change the course of worldly events to conform with his own will, he also knew and was able to make things in the world go in the way that he wanted them to go in generally, this is, in a sense what real magical power is, it is a sort of effective manipulation of the world to conform with one's own will by using natural laws and energies. Magic and the occult for those who use it and truly believe in it, is a type of self possesion by symbols, beliefs, principles and natural laws that have been passed down through time as well as tradition and has been used in certain ways to cause changes, these things have been used by people on society, it is this way of thinking and behaving that gives these people power over the masses or the uninformed within that society. There are many ignorant people in society today who do not think that the people in positions of power are manipulating them in many and very specific ways, yet it is this ignorance and indifference by the masses generally that actually enables the enlightened elite classes to create this ability to manipulate the masses in the many ways that they do. Knowledge is power, in the sense that knowledge enables us to control and master the different situations that happen in our lives, we need knowledge so that we do not feel powerless in the situations that we find ourselves in. When it comes to power, people are more interested in what they can do with the power, rather than with the power itself, the power itself for its own sake can only give a person a buzz that seems somewhat empty and devoid of meaning without something specific that can be done with this power. If people were interested only in power then they would relinquish it or give it to someone else that they cared about once they had got it. The desire for power is really all about control, manipulation as well as the ability to change the course of events in the sense of what can be done with this power once it has been attained. Most of the biological organisms that exist within nature are designed by nature to manipulate other organisms as well as some of the other tangible things in its environment in some shape or form, this behaviour is very natural and spontaneous, this behaviour is conducted by organisms in order to make the things in its environment somehow conform with its desires, its will or its natural growth generally. Examples of the desire of an organism to manipulate another in nature can be seen in the way a child cries for its parents to give it milk or in the way a dog barks at a person or another animal in order to protect its own territory by scaring them off, etc. The desire to manipulate, control and change our environment as well as the other organisms within it in certain ways, are some of the main reasons why people lust after power and its attainment. Aggression in the form of retaliation is also a very basic form of manipulation and is one of the main reasons why men nearly always fought with weapons to protect the territory that they lived in from any outside invasions. A passive creature that does not know how to manipulate situations or other organisms in nature would not last very long, this is why manipulation and control as well as the desire to wield power became desirable survival qualities in evolution. The most intelligent people within any environment was usually better able to manipulate the stupider ones and the stupider, more ignorant ones were usually less able to manipulate the more intelligent ones, this can be mostly seen in the many ways in which the elite classes were able to manipulate the masses with their knowledge, religion, money, customs, laws and so on. The will to power in the Nietzschean usage of the term, was in the past a survival mechanism, because any manipulator and controller of people, resources and the environment generally had a greater chance of survival for his or herself as well as their own progeny within a scarcity based environment, this scenario that I mention was an evolutionary form of survival of the fittest. Yet in a modern world where there is no need for scarcity and where people are less ignorant generally, especially of actual hierarchy and power structures, then power itself loses most of its appeal as a goal worth pursuing. The will to power is not the essence of reality itself as Nietzsche always liked to claim, it is merely part of a process within a scarcity based context where the strongest compete for limited resources and opportunities as a means to survive and control others. It is clear to see that when this limited paradigm of a will to power as a means of survival within an environment of ignorance and scarcity has been overcome, then the people who are strong willed and healthy will be able to direct themselves in many other avenues according to any new values and paradigm shifts they choose to pursue. Nietzsche claimed that "the will to power" is the most life affirming drive for all people. Nietzsche's way of thinking implies that a desire for power, manipulation, control, etc., is more life affirming than being an explorer, adventurer, scientist, mountain climber and deep sea diver and so on, which are in their own way very life affirming pursuits that do not really involve a desire for power as such. It is the different things that we most value in life that makes us feel that we are affirming our own life, it is this as well as our desire to really understand and comprehend reality and our place in it that are most life affirming for us. The people who are most interested in power are like the blind leading the blind, this is because a lust for power breeds an ignorant satisfaction from its own desires. Most of the people of the past that lusted after immense power, like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin, etc., were all deluded charlatans. It is the most intelligent and the most wise of a species that know how to lead the masses properly, it is they that enable growth and progress to occur. The power hungry politicians as well as all those who desire power, cannot be said to be the ones that solve the problems of the world, they create problems as well as add to them, this is because they are not qualified to solve problems or create growth through knowledge, only technicians, scientists, thinkers, intellectuals and philosophers solve the problems of the world, it is they who increase and produce all the real growth and power in the world. The desire to "grow" as well as "unconceal" what we do not yet know about the cosmos due to our ignorance of it, is in a sense a more useful drive than the desire for power itself. Power concerns itself more with the desire to control and manipulate the ignorance of others through deception in order to satisfy one's own whims, vanity and pleasure. Apart from the desires for procreation, pleasure and happiness that exist to a lesser or greater degree within us, we mostly live in a world where "intentionality" and "struggle" are the main existential purposes of biological existence, some struggle for power, others struggle to enforce their values and personal choices onto a mostly indifferent world. All that we do is a choice, there are no rules or meanings written in stone, only the intentionality of our choices and values. To find meaning from what exists, is up to us alone. Those who are not interested in power are just as important as those that are, the one group balances out the other, if everyone was interested in power then there would be a state of endless conflict and mayhem in the world. The belief that "the will to power" is the essence of reality for all organisms, is just another useless metanarrative that attempts to rob people of their own individuality and uniqueness. The desire to rebel against those who are stupider and more ignorant than oneself is the natural instinct of all free peoples, especially if this rebellion, and defiance is aimed against the power hungry manipulators of the world, it is only the dumb and the passive that get manipulated and fooled or who fail to find a way out. Making our lives interesting and fulfilling by the use of knowledge, culture, constructive endeavours, sympathy, and humanity is far more valuable than the pursuit of power for its own sake, power in fact is only useful in regard to improving our lives. Strength is a more useful drive than the will to power, strength enables us to shape events and circumstances in any direction that we choose, regardless of power, the will to power is merely a vain indulgence. The problem with most of humanity is that it tends to bow to the inevitable, people are lazy in regard to rebelling against custom. People need to learn to rebel against the mediocrity that exists in modern culture, they need to rebel using strength, effort, courage and intelligence. We shape reality according to our vision, some people envisage doing evil, others envisage more positive and constructive endeavours. A mistake that many philosophers and people make generally is that they expect others to follow them and conform to their own way of thinking and living. People should be encouraged to be different, it is what we represent as individuals that most counts about us. A society full of highly individual people that are unique is more dynamic than a herd of people who are forced to conform to each other or to particular standards and customs. The will to power can be cruel and wicked, much evil is done in the name of power and systems of hierarchy, this way of thinking in general tends to advance the masses towards a state of repression and oppression. People are becoming increasingly more rational and ethical as time goes on, and what counts is that all systems of government enable and encourage people to become great in their own way, rather than allowing them to follow the ideal of an immoral "overman" or "superman" who is beyond good and evil, this is merely a fantasy for all the irrational, egocentric people of the world. In Nietzsche's hypothetical theory of "the will to power" as the so-called essence of reality, he also proposes the classical Greek concept of "agon" as an alternative to democracy. Nietzsche disliked democracy because in his view it creates oppositions and divisions amongst people, whereas in the concept of agon, which represents a sort of conflict, competition and struggle towards similar power based goals he thought he had found a good alternative to democracy. Nietzsche always harked on about individualism, yet he expected everyone to follow the same sort of power based goals through the concept of agon. When people are allowed to express their individuality through political freedom, then oppositions and divisions occur naturally among different types. Democracy endows all people with the ability to enforce their own individuality and sovereignty through the conflict, competition and struggle of agon, this is because the concept of agon cannot replace that of democracy, these concepts must be used together to get any realistic results and solutions in the world. Nietzsche also claimed that the will to power produces a sense of freedom, he also mentioned that this type of freedom produces happiness. I must point out that Nietzsche was incorrect in assuming that the will to power produces freedom, it does not, it produces manipulation and control. Manipulation, and control is not freedom, a sense of freedom can only be produced through democracy, agon, fairness, the need for an open society as well as a desire to implement equal opportunities and privileges for all citizens politically, it is this type of freedom that I mention that produces real happiness. Political equality always works better in theory than it does in practice, in practice different people are always naturally unequal on many levels. The concept of agon as a reality is only useful in regard to conflict, competition and struggle in the sense of expressing and enforcing one's individuality, values and sense of freedom towards others and the world generally. Those who use agon in the sense of a will to power, will do this anyway, yet this is not the only purpose of agon for all people. I mentioned that "the will to power" or "the lust for power" is a sort of survival mechanism in people through which a use of manipulation and control through domination of others and the environment seems to insure their own survival and that of their progeny as well as being a guarantee of them living well and pleasurably. Sometimes this survival mechanism is taken to an extreme by some individuals because of their vanity; Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon and Hitler were all vain people, it was what they were able to do with their power that flattered their own sense of vanity at everyone else's cost. A lot of the conflict and unhappiness that exists in the world today among different people are caused by some of the following reasons: (1) We think that we are separate individuals, which we are to a certain extent, also we put our ego's, vanity, uniqueness and our sense of separation above connection, similarities, congeniality and friendship with others. (2) We act out of self-interest without ever questioning our real motives for our actions or the pursuit of self-interest beyond the obvious reasons of self-value and the need for self-belief for reasons of confidence, etc. (3) We follow ideals that in their very essence maybe flawed or questionable or even deluded, such as spiritual or mystical beliefs. An atmosphere that is allowed to become too good, kind and peaceful does not necessarily make societies prosper, in fact history has shown that an atmosphere of freedom, conflict, tension, struggle and competition are what makes societies prosper well. What counts in my arguments so far is the fact of knowing how to distinguish the different motives, reasons and elements of a dynamic and prosperous society as well as knowing the mechanics, truths, illusions, delusions and realities of it also. A sense of happiness, and unhappiness is mostly a state of mind rather being solely a matter of conditions, so as long as people have some food and water and freedom they can be happy in a state of conflict, struggle and competition. Some people make the mistake of thinking that societies can improve and prosper if there is a significant amount of peace and kindness in the world, but this is not so. When we speak about power as a quality that exists in the world, and in organisms generally, we say that it can exist as power over oneself, or as power over others, or as power over the environment. Natural power is an unmotivated power, it is not a deliberate willing of power, it exists as a natural product from the natural abilities of the mind and body of the user, whereas will to power is a deliberate type of power, it is consciously willed, it is usually desired out of a sense of insecurity. Secure people do not want power over others, only the insecure do; Julius Caesar's strong desire for power mostly came from an insecure feeling that he had when he compared his accomplishments to that of Alexander the Great when he had reached a certain age. In the struggle for existence, defending your village or state is an act that has been done out of the desire for security, so once your village is safe from outside attack, you rest secure, but if one is constantly afraid of an outside attack, one then becomes insecure, which forces one to subdue outside invaders, which leads to the desire for even more power, all stemming from a basic insecurity, which then becomes a vicious cycle. We can say that power is a measure of the ability of an organism to control the environment around itself, and this includes control of the behavior of other organisms also, which I mentioned earlier. Now, if most people wanted power, they would all be trying to become politicians or rulers, which as we know, is the most effective way to attain and wield power. We do not see a great desire on the part of most human beings to attain power, we do not see the majority of people in the world trying to become politicians, rulers or controllers of others, this is a myth that Nietzsche invented, because he desperately wanted to outdo the theories of Schopenhauer and Darwin. Politicians and rulers exist because somebody has to do this job of governing other people and the environment; politicians and rulers are assuming a position that needs to be taken by someone who wants the power to govern and control others for survival purposes. Ascetics mostly want power over themselves, in the form of control over themselves. Nietzsche was such a miserable human being, that he deluded himself into believing that most of humankind is motivated more by a desire for power, than it is for a desire for happiness and a sense of well-being. For most people, the desire for power is a means to an end; people want whatever power is needed or required to fulfill their own values. Nietzsche's ideas concerning the "Will To Power", and how they are connected to the "Ubermensch" concept; seem to me, to be highly contradictory and inconsistent in nature. He claims that the "Ubermensch" type, is a master morality type, whom also desires power over others, and is also represented by a need for "The Will To Power". Yet, Nietzsche also claims that "The Will To Power" does not concern power over others, but only means self mastery. Now, how can this be correct? How can you have both these opposing things connected towards the same conceptual drive, without seeing the obvious contradiction? But still many Nietzsche scholars seem to go along with his ideas without even bothering to question this error that I have mentioned.