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.

ON HISTORICISM, METANARRATIVES AND THE OPEN SOCIETY

In the course of this essay I will point out to you a complex set of overlapping concepts in regard to how society thinks and responds to its own evolution and progress as a whole and as individual people comprising it. In my investigation I will cover many aspects of how the mass consciousness of people generally can so easily be manipulated by the false ideas, ideologies and control of philosophers, politicians and psychological experts. I will also point out that even though a society is made up of a multitude of impressionable as well as non-impressionable people, it is still individuals themselsves that make up this mass of people, so it is the job of all individuals within this society to arm themselves with wisdom, truth, knowledge and the active know how of what it takes to shape the world for the better in the real sense. Even though the postmodernists have pointed out the disadvantages of having many metanarratives, especially the erroneous ones, the following metanarrative, for example, is true: that patriarchy has systematically exploited, oppressed and subjugated women throughout history, this is a fact that cannot be denied. The metanarratives that in general were created by religions as well as by historicist philosophers and politicians are in a sense the worst of them all, an example of which are those by: the muslim and christian religions as well as some of the ideas of Plato, Marx and Hitler, etc. Some metanarratives have been a type of false invention made up by its creator or creators and this has caused a lot of uneeded manipulation and suffering in the world by those who have either invented these metanarratives or followed them in some way. Karl Popper in his two-volume work entitled "The Open Society And Its Enemies" contrasts the concept of an "open society" with that of a "closed society". In an open society the government is responsive and tolerant to changes, the political mechanisms are flexible. In an open society the state exists in a condition in which there are no secrets, the public are informed of what is occurring in the state, it is a non-authoritarian society in which all people are trusted with the knowledge of all that is happening. In an open society the people have many political freedoms and the human rights laws are always in existence for the inhabitants or citizens of any state. Any knowledge in the finite sense can be said to be provisional, fallible and limited in its own way and so any society or state must be open to alternative points of view whenever possible. It is said that open societies are associated with cultural and religious pluralism, for example, an open society is in a sense always open to changes and improvements, because knowledge and ideal conditions are never completed, but are always in an ongoing process of improvement and change. In a sense, any type of democracy can be viewed as example of an "open society". Any claims to certain knowledge or absolute or ultimate truths, such as you find in metanarratives and historicism and its theories leads to an attempted imposition of one version of reality onto the possibility of a more harmonious and fair one. A closed society is closed to freedom of thought, speech and behaviour, etc. In contrast to this, for example, in an open society the citizens need to engage in critical thinking, they also need to make a strong commitment to the pursuit of wisdom and truth, this requires good ecucation in knowledge and morals, they also need the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this process. Totalitarian dictatorships, theocracies and autocratic monarchies are all examples of a "closed society". Certain intelligent people in the field of psychology know of many sophisticated and powerful techniques of mass manipulation and deception, some of these techniques have been used in modern advertising and in cognitive science by political operatives. The electorates perception of reality can easily be manipulated and deceived by clever people in positions of power and that this has been done before on many occasions is obvious. It is now time for the masses to wake up from their self-incurred immaturity, this immaturity is self-inflicted and does no exist because of a lack of understanding, it exists from a lack of courage and independence to use their own reasoning abilities, intellect and wisdom, etc. This immaturity to act without the guidance or manipulation of another who happens to be more knowledgeable than ourselves is the main problem with society and the masses today, it is our fear of thinking for ourselves and standing up for ourselves in all matters that is the cause of many of the problems in the world today. Any democratic political discourse cannnot lead to a better understanding of reality unless we commit to standing up for ourselves properly in the ways that I have mentioned. For example, many politicians will manipulate people and abuse their power rather than respect people and reality, this is so unless the public cares about the truth enough and punishes any politicians when it catches them in the act of deliberate manipulation and deception. Historicism in the sense that there is an organic succession of developments to actual events in the world, is a false hypothesis from the standpoint of free will and contingency, we always have the choice to alter events because of wisdom and free will. I have also pointed out that historicism is also false and unnecessary from standpoint of metanarratives. Historicism in the sense that local conditions and peculiarities influence the results of the direction of history in a decisive way, is only true to a certain extent, certain cultures have influenced the direction of history more than others, i.e., the Greeks, the Romans and the British, etc. If historicism is viewed from the perspective of "process philosophy" (i.e., that the essence of reality and nature consist of inevitable and contingent processes) then I think that more fruitful ground can be covered by historicism as a philosophical method. The concept of change (that all is flux) in the universe, is a very real one. The things that make any proper theory of change useful, is the fact that one can find consistencies, patterns and actual processes in these changes that are real and that lead somewhere, these things that I mention that exists in processes can be observed and analyzed by anyone who chooses to notice them. Many of the metanarratives that have been thought up by the people of the past have had a mystical foundation to them, this in a sense is what made a lot of them lack credibility. One of the problems of historicism as a method, is the obvious fact that if a person cannot know the whole of the state of affairs of the world and of mankind at any given point in time, then it follows that they cannot know the future of the world and mankind in its entirety, they cannot account for all the variables involved. Any useful method of historicism should be based on the constants that one finds in evolution, progress, mass psychology, sociology, history, political science and in any particular cases that it applies to as well as in all the processes generally involved in any case to be predicted. Any good theories of historicism should be able to account for any variables that may arise amongst the foundational constants that I have mentioned that are to be found in the universal and particular processes involved. Thinkers should learn to become skilled at accounting for the different types of variables that may arise amongst all the constant things that happen in events for any theories of historicism to be valid. All good historicism is either suggestive or predictive, whereas bad historicism is usually manipulative and biased as well as being incorrect in a lot of cases. In historicism we are only predicting and dealing in finite and particular situations and events, because when we study a thing, we select certain aspects of it. It is impossible for us to observe, Know and also to describe the whole of the world, so we are only dealing in a piece of the world in our predictions and suggestions. It can also be argued that we cannot even know the smallest whole piece in its entirety, since all our descriptions are necessarily selective and limited. Computer programs that simulate events have become very useful, but they have their limitations also. Some people argue that all events are unique in history and so therefore in historicism potential events cannot be predicted from a study of history, I think that the above argument fails to account for the elements of determinism as well as the necessary and contingent aspects of processes in evolution and progress generally, you cannot separate events from processes by calling them unique, events are unique because of the exact circumstances and processes involved, these processes and their potentialities can be analyzed and understood to a certain degree of accuracy due to the elements of processes that are constant and predictable. Prediction as well as probability is a whole aspect of human reasoning and can be found in mathematics and logic generally, it is not too far of a stretch to find that human beings will be able to become skilled at predicting potential future events and scenarios through higher forms of reasoning. Seeing as though in philosophy we are mostly selective and our analysis of things is usually limited and finite, means that if we are to do justice to our subject, it is required that we be organized, rigorous, systematic, meticulous and thorough, otherwise our endeavours will seem pretty sparse and superficial. An example of a manipulative form of historicism, is Nietzsche's belief that a lot of people might become more nihilistic once the belief in God starts to wane. In point of fact, the only people that really seem to have become more nihilistic since the belief in God has been waning are Nietzsche's followers themselves (i.e., the nazis and others), most postmodernists seem to have become nihilistic also, this is because postmodernists have been largely manipulated by Nietzsche's writings, especially concerning nihilism, morals, subjectivism and perspectivism as well as by his claims that a lot of claims of truth and reason can be associated with institutions of power, such as the church, universities and the government. Nietzsche in his writings always makes the mistake of associating everything with a desire for power, just like the sophists did before him, it never seems to cross his mind that truth, reason, objectivity and morals are necessary for all human beings irrespective of any so-called desire for power that most people are meant to have according to his analysis of the world. I mentioned earlier that all good historicism is either predictive or suggestive. When I mention that good historicism is suggestive, I mean that it represents a sort of "mass wisdom" on the part of most people in the world in the sense that they are able to constructively suggest things to each other as well as being able to make good and serious judgements as a whole that will benefit them and their children. Mass wisdom can only come from a need of most people to want to become more educated, wise, moral and constructive, etc., for them to want to shape the world according to the best ideas, policies and decisions that they are capable of making. Predictive historicism applies more to ambitious philosophers themselves and their ability to predict what paths the events in the world will take or should take to benefit society for the better. Historicism is only useful if it can be used to benefit society generally, that is, if it is progressive and positive in certain ways, because any historicism that is negative, is useless and is anti-progressive as well as anti-evolutionary. An attempt to understand patterns and logical consistencies in the consciousness of organisms and societies and all its events in the sense of how it evolves and progresses through history can be found in the conceptual system of spiral dynamics, which I think is a very interesting and useful system to study. 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.

OF LANGUAGE AND ITS USE

In my view there are three main reasons of why language was created and developed by our human ancestors: The first was so that they could express themselves as individuals and what they felt and thought, i.e., hunger, thirst, fear as well as to describe places, etc. The second was to communicate ideas about the world and themselves. The third was that it had a type of practical utility that was useful in the sense that words have exact meanings that do not alter, unless by consensus, these words represent ideas to be described that are either abstract or tangible about the world (cosmos) and this aided them in their day to day affairs. Words themselves are contingent, particular and temporary and languages are this way also, a defect in a language can hinder more rigorous forms of communication, so we can say that particular languages and words are of less importance than our own ability to describe things in the world and reality generally. Mathematics and logic are more complete than any verbal language, yet these things are also limited in comparison to the universe and the laws of nature, so mathematics and logic are never absolute forms of knowledge, they are always limited (finite) and flawed in their own way. In some ways language can be said to be an extension of physical behaviour, we even make physical gestures to fit the things that we want to express and communicate through language. The more articulate and clear we can be using language, the better, language should serve us well for the communication of ideas as well as our own inner thoughts, feelings and desires. A cynical view of language can be found in the works of thinkers like Nietzsche and Derrida, they attempt to make out that language is largely meaningless and not really a proper representation of the ideas of reality, but this is an absurd and unnecessary view, it is a type of sophistry, if people convince you to think that language is meaningless, then it gives them the opportunity to use more sophistry on you, real philosophers do not accept this conclusion, real philosophers know that language is logical and expressive and represents the ideas of reality adequately. Are ideas, language, grammar, logic, diagrams and mathematics a representation of reality? I am sure it is, for how else are we to represent and understand the truths of the reality that we inhabit. Nietzsche in his writing has attacked the validity of language, mathematics and logic as adequate representations of reality, he viewed these things as subjective fictions that do not represents truths, so if NASA send men to the moon using language, logic, science and mathematics, then according to Nietzsche's opinion it was just a fiction and not a real moon landing. When I mention that language represents reality, I mean to show that language corresponds to reality in the sense that it represents reality objectively and externally aside from our internal subjective conditions, otherwise language and its use would be divorced from events, facts and circumstances and would simply exist only as a subjective type of communication amongst people and would be totally divorced from objective and external events, facts and circumstances altogether. The following quote by Martin Heidegger, that "man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man" aptly leads me to a hypothesis that I have for a long time felt strongly about, in the sense that its truth seems so clear to me in my mind and of which I have no doubt is real. The hypothesis which I choose to impart to the world of which I feel so strongly about, is the fact that language increasingly becomes more efficient, logical and mathematical in nature, because language over time sheds all those vague, redundant and wooly aspects of itself that it no longer needs, language we must remember, is designed to aid communication as well as having a sort of utility to it. Those aspects of language that is most expressive for people, will in a sense be the most difficult for humans to lose control of, but in general human beings will have to adapt to a language that will become more efficient, logical and mathematical generally. There are many aspects to language development, so it is always necessary to do a thorough investigation of all the different ways in which languages are formed, if one wants to understand them. Even though some thinkers of the past have claimed that language does not represent and refer to objects in the world, they were wrong. Language does represent and refer to objects in the world, language has a type of utility in this sense. If the word cup does not refer to an actual cup in the world that we are talking about, then what does it refer to? Our use of language can only refer to the cup that we describe, our description of a particular cup that exists in a certain place can only refer to this cup and to nothing else. It is only when we are lying or when we are mistaken do our words not refer to an object, phenomenon or event, language has a dual aspect to it in the sense in which when people use it, is either true or false in its assertions, it also has elements to it that are neutral in this regard. In the philosophy of language we speak about the words that get their meaning because they represent and refer to things in the world, this aspect of language produce pictures and visualization in our minds when we think about how specific words relate to actual things in the world, we also discuss which words this applies to, this is because it cannot apply to all words in a language, they do not all produce specific or distinct pictures. Some words in a language can be considered to be more abstract and difficult to define in its usage and in how it refers to any particular thing in the world. Apart from the meaning of words and how they apply to things in the world, we also speak about the "use" or "usage" of words generally, words have a type of utility or usage in that they express many things in language as well as in how it applies to the world and ourselves generally. Words that do not have a physical or abstract counterpart in the tangible world, such as: God, hello, difficult, and, etc., can seem to be more difficult to define and concretize than other words that apply to specific things, for example, what is difficult for one person, may not be very difficult for someone else, a greeting such as hello may be genuine or it may be just a meaningless pleasantry. It is a well known fact that language shapes our minds as well as our understanding of the world generally, language shapes our whole conceptual framework of the world, yet any individual who can think for themselves (i.e., to think for oneself means to think in one's own way unaided by conventional standards of thinking, in the sense that no one is able to do your own thinking for you) can be largely shaped by their own concepts and developments in thinking, these people are able to transcend the limitations of their own language and culture in certain ways, not being able to conceptualize yourself limits you to conventional thinking, imagination is an important feature of being able to conceptualize reality in one's own way. I explained that language gets most of its meaning from representing things in the world, I also mentioned that some words in language are harder to pin down in this way, they exist more in their usage than in their exact distinctness to represent things in the world, language it is true, has many pitfalls, redundancies and ambiguities that need to be overcome, yet when language is used properly in a logical way, then most of its pitfalls can be overcome, the most useful way to overcome the flaws in it is in the ability of its users to become more articulate, clear, distinct and exact, they should endeavour to eliminate all the pitfalls that are to be found within language generally. Language also becomes effective when "context" and "description" become important features of how language is used, we should learn to make language apply to different contexts in the world and we should also use language to be highly descriptive about these contexts and situations in the world that we want to understand and explain. Language in its usage in general can never really be said to be pinned down to anything in particular, this is why language sometimes has a type of freedom to it that seems like an unending process of expression and application. When we use language in such a way that it becomes formal and contextual in the sense that we apply it this way to most situations, then this enables us to overcome this excessive freedom aspect of language. We know that language has rules. All languages are universal in the sense that they are based on reason and objectivity in that they are based on things in the world, this is why you cannot have a subjective language of your own invention that applies to anything that transcends the universal aspects of languages and how they apply to things in the world. Any proper study of language shows that in general if you can describe reality contextually and in depth, then this is a far superior tool than many complicated abstract concepts and theories concerning it, concepts and theories concerning the world should be simple and contextual, this is because reason, explanation and description are able to do so much more than conceptual generalities, philosophers in the past have confused many people with their vague concepts and generalities of the world, this in some ways has caused more problems in the world than these concepts and notions have deserved due to the true worth or merit that these concepts and notions actually have. All languages are particular and need the context, time, place and culture that they exist in to have any type of utility, for example, each language relies upon certain sounds or words that exist as a signifier to represent signified things in the world, like an object, thing, situation, event, etc., this is so even though the thing may be abstract or tangible or simply exists in the language as a word of usage only and is not that specific as relating to any particular thing in the world. A language in some ways can be said to exist separately from the world, any language that seems separate from the world, still has a type of universality to it that applies to the real world, so its separation from the world is only particular and circumstantial. Earlier in this essay I mentioned that mathematics and logic are more complete languages than verbal languages, I have reached this conclusion because any analysis of languages generally is going to be relative, seeing as though there are no absolutely complete languages in existence. I also mentioned that mathematics and logic are not absolute or absolutely complete in themselves. Mathematics and logic are more complete languages than verbal languages because verbal languages change and alter due to the semantic meaning of words and terms, whereas mathematics always retains its consistency and expansive nature, the same can be said of logic also. Mathematics and logic are not absolutely complete as languages in the fullest sense of representing reality, this is because reality in all its manifestations cannot be contained by any languages that are essentially linear, piecemeal and selective. I must point out that language is nearly always communicated in a linear fashion, a word follows a word, a few chosen words make a clause or a sentence, a sentence leads into another sentence. Language is always selective and limited in its linearity, this is why its is necessary to be careful and consistent in our use of language, otherwise our sentences can so easily be misunderstood or taken out of context. Noam Chomsky's concept of a type of universal grammar of language, exists I am sure, because only a certain number of sentences that make any logical sense can exist for any particular thing that is said that has an exact meaning as such, all other combinations of words or sentences that attempt to express this particular meaning fails to make any logical sense. All logical patterns that have meaning and express meanings in languages are finite and become a type of universal grammar. The meaning of a word is objective and contextual in the sense that the objective meaning of a word is a type of standard that everyone who uses it is able to understand and agree on, yet the meaning of a word also has a contextual element to it which depends on how the standard objective element is altered to fit the context and situation in which the word is used for any particular setting in which it gets used. I have spoken many times of the ambiguities, vagaries as well as the inaccurate expressions that exist as part of language, which I mention because of the necessity I feel that requires that we overcome the flaws inherent in the different forms that language takes on in its usage. Language needs to be improved so that we can be clear and accurate when we communicate with one other seeing as how language is inherently descriptive, logical and most useful within the context of discussions and arguments. Flaws in language tend to occur in its forms and expressions and how they are passed on and perpetuated due to laziness in language usage. As long as language adapts to fit the meaning and content of spoken ideas then language has a better chance of improving.

OF EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE GENERALLY

Epistemology can generally be considered to be any theory that we have about what real knowledge of truths are in regard to how they correspond to reality itself, and how this knowledge is acquired, what is it that we really know? How is it that we know what we know? What can we really know for sure? I mention this because there are two main types of knowledge: knowledge of truths and knowledge of things that are not truths; epistemology proper refers to a knowledge of actual truths. A proper accurate epistemology of truths should be objective and impartial, this is so, in the sense that it should describe what knowledge of truths really are in reality, it should not involve our subjective feelings concerning knowledge, seeing as how these can be biased. Radical empiricism as most of us philosophers all know, is a type of epistemology as well as an ideological theory and method that we find in philosophy that puts an emphasis on the individual empirical experiences that any observer has of the world and the objects that he or she encounters in life. Radical empiricism is very singular in its desire to exclude the use of any so-called transempirical entities (which is a fancy use of jargon, that means, any truths, facts or anything at all that is beyond the range of immediate experiential knowledge). Radical empiricism has its drawbacks for thinkers who require a more thorough and complete epistemology and this is because radical empiricism puts all limited personal empirical experiences above all the other methods of attaining to the knowledge of truths. Even though there is nothing wrong with empiricism as part of an epistemological method, the strictness of radical empiricism as an epistemology that is solely empirical and sense-data orientated seems limiting. Radical empiricism excludes all forms of universal objectivity as well as all other unobvious abstract truths, it also tends to put subjective meaning and values above pure objectivity, this is because it views all philosophy from only a practical and value orientated position, not as knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Philosophers can pursue knowledge only for the sake of knowledge itself or they can concern themselves only with the knowledge that is useful and practical to them personally in their everyday life or they can choose to do both. Apart from having a proper epistemology which all philosophers should have anyway, one should also develop theories of knowledge in regard to its value, use and purpose in everyday life for ourselves and for others, this knowledge should be a combination of the truths that we have learned as a type of knowledge for the sake of knowledge as well as the knowledge that is useful and practical. We should always ask the following questions to ourselves to find out whether any particular piece of knowledge is to be worth pursuing in the way that I just mentioned above: How much is a piece of knowledge going to benefit us? What does it resolve? Is it a solution? Can I use it? Is it practical? Do I value it? Does it tell me something new? Since the advent of materialism and pragmatism on the philosophical scene it has become necessary for all philosophers and thinkers to clarify the value and purpose of knowledge generally. How we use this knowledge depends on many factors, we are either able to use certain kinds of knowledge or we are not able to use other kinds of knowledge and the knowledge that we do use is either harmful, useful or neutral and depends on how it is used. Ideas have a lot of impact on the lives of people around the world even though a lot of them do not know it themselves. Ideas, knowledge and philosophy and how it influences politics, ethics, sociology, economics, etc., is much more significant in the lives of people than they generally think it is. Most of the people around the world chooses not to think, but thinking and developing ideas is necessary for the human race, for its progress and for its evolution, so it is important that some of us does it. For knowledge to be worth pursuing, it should ultimately have a purpose, meaning and value to us, it should also enlighten us, make us happy as well as enrich our lives in certain ways, otherwise it becomes an empty exercise in knowledge accumulation. Human knowledge when it is once acquired by any individual person exists in a latent form, yet it is used without any conscious strain at all. Sometimes the results and the use of knowledge does not always seem evident or actual, yet it is always there in some form or another, in our behaviour, actions and in our works. Even though knowledge exists objectively in books and computers and in the world generally, its use can also be viewed as personal and subjective and this is because we all value different types of knowledge. A physicist values mathematics, a politician values politics, history and sociology, explorers value knowledge of survival techniques, etc. A knowledge of history, for example, is not as useful as a knowledge of current events. In matters of knowledge, we prioritize knowledge due to the levels of usefulness that it has for us. Historicism and the philosophy of history as well as some knowledge of history is good to have, yet it is not necessary that we have a lot of it, this is because there are many types of knowledge that we can make room for, such as psychology, sociology, politics, science, etc. Epistemology also concerns eliminating the differences between certainty and truth. Certainty and truth does exist together in correct inferences, yet many people can be certain about things that are not true. For something to be true requires that it can be proven to exist concretely and can be validated as really existing by more than one person. Any knowledge that we think and know exists that is true and that we are also certain about as really existing is what is useful to us in any epistemology and without this solid confirmation of the knowledge of truths, then knowledge becomes a battle between incorrect certainties and the certainties of real truths. A strong desire and ability to avoid mistakes as well as to rectify them once they have been made, is a necessary aspect of building any kind of epistemology or theory generally. The following Bruce Lee maxim captures the essence of epistemology and how we apply it in our everyday lives as well as in regard to how we use knowledge generally: "absorb what is useful; disregard that which is useless". The fact that certain kinds of knowledge can be used in some way or another to improve our life is proof in itself that it is real and useful, this also applies to abstract knowledge that makes us wiser and not just to practical tangible (concrete) knowledge. In general an epistemology is formed after one has already understood reality in a simpler way (that is, observed it physically and metaphysically) and not before it. If you pick an epistemology before you analyze reality fully and thoroughly, you are more likely to delude yourself, this is why there are so many deluded people who are religious or spiritual as well as people who follow strange beliefs and ways of thinking. All useful knowledge is contextual and can be applied to a particular context in the world and can be explained using examples that relate to any thing in the world in an objective description, definitions of things in the world is also contextual in nature. In epistemology and philosophy new ground is covered when we know how to ask the right questions, when we are able to find the right questions through rigorous searching and then are able make the effort to answer these questions. It is not only new ground that we should be attempting to cover with the right questions, but new solutions also, it is in finding questions, which when resolved will lead to solutions. All legitimate questions that can be framed and put into words can also be answered and even demonstrated. Even though unanswered questions can produce doubts, it is in the nature of human beings to overcome doubts and seek certainties and results. Asking the right question means overcoming general uncertainties about the nature of things. Human beings need certainties, it gives them purpose and power, a knowledge of epistemology and its development furnishes them with confidence in their own certainty of knowledge generally. "Episteme" is a science of knowledge that enables one "to know" the truth of facts, it is equivalent to all systematic philosophy and science. A philosophy without an "episteme" is an inconsistent and unscientific body of knowledge, episteme allows all errors and falsehoods to be banished from the structure of a philosophy. A science of knowledge (i.e., episteme) in the sense of a systematic philosophy that enables us "to know" the truth of facts must be built on the foundation of the "logos", i.e., the knowledge of the fundamental order of the cosmos (macrocosm) and also on its microcosm equivalent (i.e., rational discourse and reason). A thorough knowledge of epistemology teaches us that a philosophy as a whole that is not systematic in the sense that it has an "episteme" based on the "logos" of the world combined with objectivity and the impartial empirical method, is flawed, chaotic and produces only crude, negative and contradictory forces when applied to the world, Nietzsche's philosophy is an example of this, his philosophy as a whole, is vague, flawed, false, contradictory, chaotic and illogical, it is an attempt at manipulation on its readers based on sophisms, in reality it is a failure, only some individual parts of his philosophy have any worth or merit. A lack of system in philosophy is the passive, rather than the active way, reason (logos) and all systematic and logical methods are the active way. Reason in itself is active and forceful, it is intellectual strength and is the sure path to all truth and wisdom. Skepticism should be a part of any epistemological method, but skepticism as an unending process should be frowned upon. Certainty in knowledge should always be the aim of any theories concerning objective reality and truth, otherwise skepticism becomes an unending process in which even the self-evidence of one's own existence is put into doubt, this its seems is a symptom of much of the thought today because of Nietzschean perspectivism and subjectivity and the influence it has had on postmodernism generally. Mysticism and prophesy is also the passive way, whereas magic (i.e., the science and art of causing changes in the world in conformity with one's own will and knowledge) as well as shaping the world actively is the active way. Magic occurs and causes changes in our own consciousness as well as in the consciousness of other people as well as throughout society and the world generally, it is the intention and effort of making the world a certain way, preferably better. Even though Nietzsche was profound at times, he was only correct about some things, he was also incorrect about many other things too. Most of the time Nietzsche behaved more like a so-called prophet (mystic) than a proper rigorous philosopher with an adequate epistemology. The active, certain, systematic, logical and truthful path of knowledge, is best summed up by the words of the famous mathematician Leonhard Euler in the following statement: "logic is the foundation of the certainty of all the knowledge we acquire". A certainty and progress in knowledge acquisition is produced by being firm and confident about the truths one already possesses, yet at the same time having a free and playful attitude towards the knowledge one is still unsure about. The concept of "episteme" is a natural outcome that appears once one has established a proper epistemology, it is a natural extension of it. An epistemology that is able to establish truths within their proper context and order them, is in a sense a prerequisite for having a proper episteme. Seeing as how we are able to establish a theory of the knowledge of truths in epistemology, we then proceed to create a systematic science of truths as a body of knowledge that exists as an episteme. To have an epistemology and an episteme as living concepts and methods means that their "essence" is established on the foundation of the order and reality of the cosmos or "logos", this gives them an objectivity and life of their own that transcends subjective opinions. Even though the word episteme is an old word, just like philosophy is, it does not mean that it represents an old paradigm or method, as a concept it is merely a type of universal form, it is up to us to put our own content within this form. The episteme that we create through our own effort is a "science of the knowledge of the real" that exists exclusively within the context of the new science of modern times. In epistemology we also concern ourselves with matters of whether an accurate theory of the knowledge of truths involves a correspondence theory of truths or a coherence theory of truths. Without any hesitation, I conclude that a proper epistemology must deal in a correspondence theory of truths, one that is highly objective in nature, yet it must also account for the fact that some truths are subjective also.

NOTES ON POSTMODERNISM

In recent historical times there has arisen a new philosophical, artistic and cultural movement that goes by the name of postmodernism. In some ways this phenomenon of postmodernism has made important contributions to human thinking as well as making most people realize the pitfalls of an excessive use of reason, progress and scientific ingenuity to attain meaning in our lives. Any definition of postmodernism cannot be adequately defined without mentioning that it is a cultural rebellion against another movement called modernism or it can also be said to come after modernism; this I mention even though the postmodernists dislike postmodernism being defined. It is true that a world that is far too scientific and rational is a sterile and unfeeling one, so values, feelings, inner meanings and socially agreed upon external purposes are just as significant for our general needs and wants than is to be found in a scientific and rational progress as a goal in itself can be in our lives. In postmodern architecture we find a return to ornamentation as opposed to the very cold formal and simple buildings of the modernist movement. Also in architecture postmodernism reintroduces traditional and classical styles as a reaction against modernist principles, but postmodern thought and philosophy itself rejects all the traditional knowledge of philosophy, religion and science that have come before it, especially the knowledge that has led to the modernist movement. It is this extreme complexity, contradiction and ambiguity that I am mentioning that makes postmodernism a puzzling cultural movement; it does seem to create a lot of fertile ground for so much confusion and disagreements between people about what exactly it is that defines postmodernism as a unified whole. The ideals of postmodernism as a whole does not seem to fully resolve itself completely into a specific form than can be fully understood. Because of their dislike of modernism and progress it seems that postmodern thinkers have rejected traditional methods of philosophy and science to such a degree that they have discarded logic and objective truths completely from their epistemological thoughts of what real knowledge consists of. Most postmodernists give you the impression that they are a bunch of confused, deluded, affectless, illogical, relativists and perspectivists as well as subjectivists who will argue with you all day long on the matter of what exactly it is that truth is. This intense skepticism against any kind of objective or absolute truth claims is one of the defining aspects of postmodernism which I find to be an unjustified stance against the truths of reason and science that we have greatly benefited from, such as the curing of diseases, medicine, improved living conditions as well as all the other improvements to our lives that the knowledge of the truth has given us generally. Postmodernists are also suspicious of truth claims because they equate them with authority types and the manipulation of the masses by instituitions and authorities generally; I must add, that this way of thinking was made popular by Nietzsche himself. A lot of postmodern thinkers admired Nietzsche and were influenced by his example. Nietzsche was one of those thinkers of a dual nature who used equal amounts of sophistry as well as philosophy in his writings so that it would have a sort of dynamic and poetical affect on his readers, one especially finds this in his aphorisms, he was also known to have admired the sophists for their more direct, realistic and forceful methods. Postmodernism is also characterized by an incredulity or skepticism towards all "grand narratives" i.e., all grand narratives are grand or large-scale theories and philosophies that exist of the world about the world, examples of this, can be found in such theories as that their is a progress of history, the knowability of everything by science as well as the possibility of absolute freedom or free will. It is a good thing in a way that in postmodernist thinking absolute grand narratives have been rejected; this is because they seem like such a clumsy thing. In general people will cease to believe and accept that such narratives of this kind are adequate and sufficient to represent and contain any proper definitions of certain truths. We as human beings have become alert to the differences in opinion as well as the diversity and the interconnectedness of phenomena. Also the incompatibility of different peoples aspirations becomes more apparent over time. Peoples beliefs and desires change as society progresses. I must stress that progress is an inevitable thing throughout history as well as in civilizations forward movement and so the postmodernists are fighting a losing battle in their opposition against progress in this particular regard. I do not think that nihilism will take as much hold as Nietzsche claims in his most cynical moments of so-called prophecy and this is because most people are inherently ethical and constructive in nature. Somebody once described postmodernisn as being like a bastard child or offspring of modernism that is constantly trying to kill its own parent; which is a good analogy I am sure for this cultural movement. A battle against a traditional, progressive and objectivist way of thinking by a postmodernist way of thinking can clearly be found in the the novel that is a direct attack on all kinds of communist totalitarian regimes by the writer George Orwell in his novel called nineteen eighty-four. The character named O'Brien distinctly displays a postmodernist, subjectivist and collectivist type sophistry and denial of Winston's objective, empirical and rational truths as a means to manipulate Winston into submission and compliance with his own orders and that of the party. I have often thought that postmodernist writers are like a breed of neo-sophists of some kind; using whatever forceful but fallacious methods of thinking work for them at the time as they are formulating their ideas, but not really thinking about any thing in any real depth whatsoever. Modernism is supposed to represent a cultural condition that is characterized by a constant change in the pursuit of reason and progress; postmodernism on the other hand is meant to represent a constant change that has the notion of progress taken out of it altogether. Postmodernism also rejects all forms of universality in favour of relativism. Universality or universalism as we all know is a doctrine or school of thought (Plato and Aristotle, etc.,) that claims that universal facts are a part of reality and can be discovered and understood by philosophers. At times one gets the feeling that there are cynical, negative, destructive and subversive elements in postmodernist thinking, especially when it is attacking the positive ideals of the enlightenment, science, philosophy and tradition generally. Postmodernists have had the nerve to claim; Rorty in particular, that philosophy mistakenly imitates scientific methods and that it should not do this. It does not even seem to occur to Rorty and other postmodernists that it was philosophy that developed the scientific method in the first place and that it does not need to imitate something that is already part of its own doctrine. Anti-foundationalism is just another one of the mental diseases that has been spread by postmodernists and their crowd. Postmodernists embrace subjectivity because it cannot be made into a science; according them the human subject precludes objective truth claims and so they do not think that science is capable of discovering objective truth. Postmodernists even go so far as to claim that objectivity is an illusion and this is something that they believe in, even though people have actually been to the moon by using scienctific knowledge from objective truths; so according to the postmodernists everything that happens in the real world that is external from their own petty subjective states, is an illusion! If postmodernists really knew how stupid they sounded, they would actually make an effort to change their ways. The disapppearance of a sense of history and a lack of desire to retain the lessons from the past are also characteristics of postmodernism, this also brings about an erosion of class and culture distinctions between high and low culture, the latter of these two things I must add, is a good thing. The traditions of class distinctions will not be missed, but the traditions of knowledge, useful culture, reason and science, etc., should be retained and pursued by all people. The postmodernists like to think that the nature of reality is contingent, absurd, unordered, ambiguous, contradictory and diverse, rather than rational, ordered, universal, necessary, determined and comprehensible, etc.; one could even claim that this is one of the reasons why they are not to fond of Hegel so much and this is because he advocated the latter qualities, the existentialists were not too fond of Hegel either because he was considered by them to be too idealisic and unrealistic unlike they, who were realistic and experiential concerning existence and its struggles, apparant meaninglessness and sense of angst. Postmodernists claim to combine the best aspects of the modern world with the best elements of the traditions of the past, but I think that this is a false claim on the part of postmodernism; to my mind they seem to do this only in architecture, but in all other branches of though they reject the traditions and lessons of the past altogether. All the genuine philosophers of this modern era that we live in today, know how so very deluded and boring these postmodernist killjoys are, with their incessant affectless sophistry and their inability to find proper answers and solutions to things; at least proper philosophers of the traditonal kind actually have answers and solutions and don't simply just use methods of dissimulation to cover up their lack of knowledge which is exactly what postmodernists do when they find themselves unable to answer fundamental questions. When postmodernists claim that the nature of reality is largely contingent, they seem to leave out the fact that many things are in fact determined, necessary and inevitable and so is therefore capable of being understood rationally. Postmodernists are also known for their technical, vague, wishy washy jargon and play on words which they use to cover up the sheer emptiness of their rhetoric. In postmodernisms desire to rebel against all enlightenment ideals which the postmodernists deem to be far too optimistic and confident is a sort of extreme response against an imaginary extreme claim that was supposedly made by the enlightenment thinkers (i.e., postmodernists claim that enlightenment thinkers thought they could resolve all problems and figure out all things, which is not the case). Englightenment thinkers were simply confident in their own abilities to improve the world as well as to learn more about it, they did not claim that they could figure out all things and resolve all problems. In postmodernism any relativist, subjectivist and persepectivist opinion can be uttered and is expected by them to be accepted by others as a truth, but in reality this cannot be accepted as a truth, because black will never be white, salt will never be sugar and two plus two will never make five, it will always make four. Postmodernists have to accept that reason and objectivity works and that there is nothing that they can do to change it. It was natural for the modernists to find traditional themes and ways of thinking to be outmoded and outdated; therefore wanting to move on from all that was holding back progress was a very natural response and this is because change and progress enables one to overcome stagnation and repetition of the same old values over and over again. William Morris and the arts and crafts movement generally was a sort of anticipated rebellion against a climate that was increasingly becoming more industrialist and modernist. Industrialization and mass production of goods does seem to have lowered the quality and value of goods generally and this is because the time, effort and care that one expects to find in a product is not put into every individual product as it was in the past. William Morris and the arts and crafts movement basically taught us to appreciate all that was good in the past and its ideals and accomplishments. One ideally should have a foot in the past and another foot in science, progress and reason and this is because they are all aspects of the same desire to make sense of a world that is constantly changing and building on what was good from the past, postmodernism is simply a sort of negative overreaction to progress, the inevitable and the real. The problem with labels is that they always seem to be one-sided and incomplete. The integration and resolving of opposing concepts or things (Hegel's dialectic) is always the best way to find a harmonious balance in things generally and so the act of doing this always transcends labels and incomplete assessments of phenomena. Where exactly it is that postmodernism leads as a movement itself, no one can know! I myself think that postmodernism is simply a moral and reactionary movement that is aimed against the causes and results of an overuse of the negative aspects of reason to jusify one cause against another or one error against another. We philosophers know that reason is only a tool in the service of truth, reality and progress and that it is useless or negative when used in an absolute sense to justify any cause or purpose in the name of reason alone. Postmodernism likes to create uncertainty and doubt by its use of relativism and perspectivism as well as in its emphasis on subjectivity. But real philosophy consists of certainty, objectivity, clarity and accuracy. Postmodernists like to point out that a lot of the suffering in the world is due to the negative aspects of absolute reason, but this is not a case against reason, it is a case against how reason can be used, reason in itself is neutral, it can be used in a positive or in a negative way depending upon the intentions of the user. Postmodernists use the concept of the "other" (i.e., anything that is different or opposite to one's own cause) as a means to explain the destructive and negative aspects of how reason can be used, reason can be used as a means to be hostile towards the other. It is people who choose to be hostile towards the other by the use of an absolute type of reason, but reason can be used in many ways depending upon how it is used, this does not mean that reason itself is bad or should be blamed for the acts of individual people. Postmodernists do not hide the fact that they hold an anti-enlightenment position, they consider reason, rationalism, science and wisdom to be elitist pursuits, they think that these things are non-multicultural, so are therefore oppressive. Because postmodernists are contemptuous of traditional morality, this gives them an almost nihilistic outlook, they are always in the habit of stripping away whatever it is that is morally traditional and culturally rational in things from its innate meaning or qualities. Postmodernists are also known for being anti-capitalist and anti-individualism, they also dislike the traditions of artistic genius that comes from the renaissance and classical periods, they are in favour of radical egalitarianism and the rise of Political Correctness, so in this sense and in a few others the message of postmodernism is not a complete error. Postmodernists enjoy intentional discontinuity within the elements of a work, they also like ironic self-consciousness as well as anything that is fragmentary, random and arbitrary, they also dislike systematic science and continuity as well as all rational progress. Postmodernists think that they have opened themselves up to the exploration of past models, paradigms and ways of thinking because they have chosen to reject modernism, progress, rationalism, scientism and objectivity and its truths, but this is not so, in fact, postmodernists simply perpetuate the ignorance, blindness and narrowness of past models and paradigms. Progress should be viewed as an inevitable process, the ideals of modernism should be used as a tool to understand, appreciate and transcend older models by analyzing them as a natural process and progression and then learning to go beyond them. Postmodernism should be viewed as a failed experiment, one that panicked by being cynical and irrational in the face of modernism and its ideals. Just because modernism failed to produce new meanings to replace the older ones and initially failed to understand fully the meanings of the older forms and paradigms does not mean that modernism itself and its ideals lack any value or meaning. The postmodernists claim that the modernists are only interested in what is modern, that they behave in such a way that if something is not new, if it is not the latest thing, then it is reactionary, retrograde and an obstacle to progress, I think that the postmodernists use this excuse to cover up the fact that modernism is able to understand the nature of reality and the past very well, yet is also able to transcend it. The science of archaeology was created by the use of modernist ideals, which is the study that appreciates and understands the history of the past by studying ancient cultures, peoples and periods by scientific analysis of physical remains. Modernist thinkers like Einstein, Marx and Freud also appreciated the lessons of the past through science and reason, yet they also valued progress. Postmodernism by its very nature rejects all the ideals and values of modernism that enables us to understand and appreciate reality and the past and its path towards progress, and postmodernism rejects all the ideals of modernism for the superficial belief that it can understand reality and history because it is able to synthesize elements from all phases of human history without truly understanding them, seeing as though you can only really understand them using the methods and ideals of modernism. Postmodernism seems to care mostly about what is modern in the sense that you can synthesize it with older forms, for it makes a mockery of the past in its pastiches and mutations, by combining older and newer things together, seeing that it does not truly appreciate the past, otherwise it would not create these pastiches and mutations and present them as latest fashions, such as a Mona Lisa with a moustache, etc. Postmodernists do not actually understand or appreciate the past through archaeology, anthropology or a study of history that is done in a rational and objective manner, and this is because postmodernism rejects all science, objectivity, objective truths, reason, logic, progress, evolution, universality and rational processes, etc. One of the main reasons that postmodernism fails as a proper ideology is because it was a reactionary and impulsive movement rather than a properly thought out ideology. Postmodernism is full of flaws and contradictions of all kinds, it does not make much sense, not even in a rudimentary sense beyond just being a type of knee jerk reaction against progress itself and its inevitable course through time, with all of its optimism and hopes of a better future for all. Postmodernism is a form of decadence, it is an easy escape for those who fail to hope, dream and wonder on matters concerning the course of progress and evolution generally, it represents a resignation and a failure to be optimistic about how knowledge is understood and used to improve our lives. The in-depth analysis of many labels and their content, has brought me to the conclusion that labels like modernism and postmodernism are either too general, inconsistent or contradictory to have any real, distinct meaning or value for all the things that they are attached to, because they simply represent a sort of general attitude or direction that the general public accepts that they have, and on closer investigation and analysis become something entirely different and problematical. For example, postmodernism itself, is an academic intellectual movement that is anti-philosophical and intellectually bankrupt in nature, and only has any real value in architecture and the arts. Whereas labels like modern and modernism that have been made fashionable by historians, are in fact abused immensely. It is strange to consider, when one thinks about it, that something that happened a few hundred years ago, can be considered modern, yet this is how historians sometimes use the label modern. Will historians in a few hundred years time still be calling Descartes, and his philosophy modern?