Is English Ethical?


I had a discussion about this before with a few friends who are involved in the humanities which is that I not only think that it is logically inconsistent to grade people on their thoughts, it may also be unethical, a hindrance to true creativity and spontaneity and an enormous detriment to society.

It really makes no sense to say you want to encourage thinking, but then look over the person’s work to make sure they are doing this correctly.

I think it’s more fair to mark on grammar, spelling and general readability of one’s writing.  However, I think marking on content is nonsensical because it hinders genuine freedom of thought.  Giving contradictory messages that there is a correct way to be original is extremely damaging to the human psyche, in my opinion.

That’s why you don’t get many true philosophers or artists coming out of formal academia within the humanities, in my opinion.

The Daily Servant of Power


Today’s servant of power is:

N. Bohr

Niels Bohr

Bohr’s hatred for breadth, intuition, and understanding alongside his mentality that only that which makes him look skilled and enabled is practical and important makes men like Bohr perfect servants of power.

This is because men like this – who solely worship reason, logic, and the intellect – can contribute to the creation of advanced weaponry with zero understanding of what the technology is actually going to be used for.

Men like Bohr do not care as long as it looks like they are doing something useful, in my opinion.

His need to stamp out higher realms of thought in order to maintain his own glow of expertism and enablement makes him a fitting choice for today’s servant of power.

Also see:  10 Misconceptions That Need to Die

The Illegitimacy of Academia


Another reason to guarantee a basic social income is because a formal institution for the humanities is not only no longer required, but likely detrimental for human thought and progress. It’s obvious that greater truth, honesty and insight within the “humanities” is better accomplished outside of formal academia. However, this only holds true if people are free to speak their mind rather than being scared of homelessness as a result of a refusal to pander to any type of employer (whether that be employment coming from the private or the public sector.)

A better system would be for those currently on academic tenure to live off a monetary redistribution system alongside others who contribute to art, philosophy, sociology etc. who are not currently apart of formal academia.

The only departments within the current scholastic structure I feel are worth formally maintaining are basic history (possibly including aspects of anthropology and sociology) while all else within the humanities is better done away with and left to anybody within the unfettered public sector that wants to become involved in that (as will inevitably be the case over time anyways.)

Thus, without guaranteed basic income or a guarantee of basic needs those who would have been a part of scholasticism within the humanities will either be poor or will have to change their views drastically to appease wage-keepers {neologism: any gatekeeper to income.}