All things must be accepted by the general public—not just through implied consent, but explicitly through polls and plebiscite.
Property rights and academic titles were enforced on the majority by a minority and are not real/official.
I think the public, through direct democracy, can grant such rights and titles to make society run more smoothly, but it still needs to be the public that consents to such things. Anything else is the enforcement of tyranny.
One idea is for all academic titles to be stricken and then for the public to vote for who they actually think are intelligent to be part of academia (and perhaps for this to be a process that is repeated every few years.) This ensures people do not enter academia solely through parroting elitist ideologies and can actually defend their reasoning/logic to the people. If you can’t explain your reasoning to the common man, you probably don’t understand it well enough, in my opinion.
Another idea is to not even have formal academia. People who would be academics can do the same work, but just on their own time and living off community handouts. People who are good at science/technology can gather/work together and if they know what they are doing, their inventions will be notable successes. If they do not, their creations will flounder. It’s as simple as that.
One doesn’t even have to read Ayn Rand’s work—only get a synopsis of what it’s about—to know it doesn’t make any sense.
Why did Ayn Rand write what she wrote? She would probably say because she is advocating for ethical conduct, leading to what she regards as the best functioning society. Her basic assumption is that people are selfish and that’s the way it should be, but with the implication that she is a well-intentioned individual who just so happens to have society’s best interests at heart.
Would Ayn Rand ever admit to being a purely self-serving human being? I, personally, think she is. Technically, she should be okay with me viewing her in this light. Yet, it’s pretty obvious she would be upset if confronted with the notion that she is someone who pathologically supports the ideology of the oppressor to move up the ranks of the social ladder at the expense of others.
Her entire career is pure self-contradiction, in my opinion.
Don’t waste your time trying to sort out the incomprehensible language academics consciously and subconsciously try to employ to exhaust and exclude the common person. If academics can’t make themselves intelligible to the common man, they can be ignored. It’s as simple as that.
If they can’t make themselves intelligible to the common man, they probably don’t understand what they are saying well enough themselves.
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.