Eiuol, since my response to your first question is quite thorough I shall first address your second question.
Regarding the following: “philosophy studies existence; science is the study of the aspects of the universe; existence is an aspect of the universe.”- What is the difference between existence and the universe? Existence is a state and is a “metaphysical-ontological concept”. In other words, that which is in the state of existence is that which presently is. On the other hand, the universe as such is not a state or condition. As Nathanial Branden writes in the Objectivist Newsletter of May 1962, “the universe is the total of that which exists”. The universe then refers to the content, the aspects, the things, where as existence refers to the state of being, i.e., the fact that all those aspects of the universe are, i.e., they exist. So, science as such studies the aspects. Philosophy studies the condition of existence, and thus the treatment of it and meaning of it. So, this is why we say morality is a philosophical branch. Because morality covers how we treat our lives, specificially how we determine our values. Economics is a branch of philosophy because it covers what specifically we shoudl produce and consume. These branches relate to existence as such. Again, the state of existence is a part of the universe in that it is the intellectual basis of conceptualizing, thinking about, and learning about the universe. This is why philosophy is a field of science.
Now, as to your question regarding those people; the postmodern communist, I am referring to: I shall quote two sections from my essay. The idea to keep in mind is that both ideological theories (i.e., frauds claiming to be philosophers) discuss their ideas based on postmodern epistemology, i.e, dangerous, subjective word games; postmodern ideology could also be referred to as Linguistic Analysis.
- THE POSTMODERN COMMUNIST SCAM: PHASE ONE
On April 5th, The New York Times published an online article entitled “Philosophy Is Not a Science”, written by a con-artist named Julian Friedland. Not once in this article does Friedland define “Science” and thus he fails to identify that which he claims philosophy is not. If he is implying that we should assume philosophy is not science, and he does not define science, what is it that he wants us to believe philosophy is, or is not? Science, as I defined earlier, regarded as a whole is the study of the universe, a particular or special science studies a particular aspect of the universe. Thus, Friedland implies that philosophy is not, and has nothing to do with the study of the universe, or any aspect of it. This means that, according to him, philosophy means nothing and that the mind, i.e, consciousness and thought are not aspects of the universe. Again, philosophy is the study existence, which is indeed a particular aspect of the universe. Despite what Friedland implies, he contradicts himself and fabricates a definition of philosophy towards the end of his article. He writes that philosophy “employs the tools of logical analysis and conceptual clarification in lieu of empirical measurement. And this approach, when carefully carried out, can yield knowledge at times more reliable and enduring than science.” What is logical analysis? What is logic? He does not define either. Why not? Because then he can use it as a blank word to mean whatever he attaches it to. (This is comparable to fiat money which claims to have a specific value, but is based on nothing other than the public’s submission to it.) Logic, again, is the art of non-contradictory identification. This means “logical analysis” is the identification and removal of contradictions. Furthermore, what does one “logically analyze”? A particular aspect of the universe. Logical analysis is an element of science. When Friedland says “in lieu of empirical measurement” he evades a fact which philosopher Leonard Piekoff articulates perfectly: “There is no distinction between the ‘logically’ and the ‘empirically’ possible (or impossible). All truths…are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience. This applies as much to the identification of possibilities as of actualities”. (“The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”) What Julian Friedland is implying is worse than the false analytic-synthetic dichotomy. He is implying that the mind is not based on or in any way part of a knowable reality, and that science is unreliable because reality is, according to him, unknowable. He says “so what objective knowledge can philosophy bring that is not already determinable by science?”. Instead of answering the question he sloppily and unsuccessfully condemns the use of science as a means of knowledge, and he claims as his evidence: the fact that a philosopher named S.M. Liao “argued recently in the Atlantic that we begin voluntarily bioengineering ourselves to lower our carbon footprints and become generally more virtuous”. If Friedland honestly thought Liao’s proposal was illogical, it would be logical to assume that he would explain why. He does not explain why we should not bioengineer ourselves. And he does not explain how it furthers his false belief that philosophy is not science. He just utters an indirectly related sentence and evades his article’s theme. Friedland proceeds by condemning professor Colin McGinn for defining science as knowledge because such a definition, he claims, is muddled. How so? Blank out. What then does Friedland claim is the definition of science? Blankout. Instead he writes “for this definition we might as well brand every academic discipline as science.” No, we do not have to brand every academic discipline as science. We can brand some of them as technological. This would address what appears to be one of his deepest concerns, which is that the “Bachelor of Arts” will be renamed “Bachelor of Science” which would thus undermine the “subjective and qualitative standards” and replace them with “objective and quantitative knowledge.” Art is technological. What is technology? The New Oxford American Dictionary says “machinery and equipment developed from scientific knowledge.” Art is intellectual equipment, and without any scientific knowledge, i.e., retention of the facts of various aspects of the universe, there would be no art, for art, as perfectly defined by Ayn Rand, is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgements. (“The Pyscho-Epistemology of Art”) Although artists may choose to be subjective, they should not be, because that would be irrational, and thus psychologically detrimental, and furthermore art is not fundamentally subjective, for it is based on reality, a concept which Julian Friedman fails to comprehend. Later in his article, he says “We should underscore the fact that various disciplines we treat as science [as related to knowledge of reality], are at least- if not more- philosophical [which according to him is not of reality -a concept he doesn’t believe in- and is beyond definition]. Take for example mathematics, theoretical physics, psychology, and economics. These are predominantly rational conceptual disciplines. That is, they are not chiefly reliant on empirical observation. For unlike science, they may be conducted while sitting in an armchair with eyes closed.” Observe that he does not define “rational” or “conceptual” and that thus, when he describes something as rational or conceptual what he implies is that it is beyond definition, but should be associated with some ambiguous feeling of a discovered, undefined truth. That feeling is called “oblivion”. This oblivion is induced by first telling yourself that if you observe something, you can’t know it, because it’s mere, unreliable science, i.e., an illusion. You then attempt to rationalize this assertion via irrational word games which make you feel that it is futile to attempt understanding something. In essence, it is a premise designed to continually reiterate to your subconscious, by way of those word games, that your reason does not exist. Alas, Friedland fills his article with irrational word games. He does so by giving examples of what he claims “philosophy” and “logical analysis” and “conceptual”/”conceptual clarification” (all of which in his cryptic version of English means “undefined”) can prove. “One such example,” Friedman writes, “is Thrasymachus’ claim that justice is best defined as the advantage of the stronger, namely, that which is in the competitive interest of the powerful. Socrates reduces this view to absurdity by showing that the wise need not compete with anyone”. How does Socrates do this? Blank out. But we are somehow expected to take it as a given, without even the slightest explanation. Now, if you thought that I was merely being figurative and facetious when I accused Friedman of playing word games, you will see, when I relay to you his next point, that I was being quite literal. “Wittgenstein showed that an ordinary word such as ‘game’ is used consistently in myriad contrasting ways without possessing any essential unifying definition. Though this may seem impossible [it doesn’t seem impossible, it is impossible], the meaning of such terms is actually determined by their contextual usage [although neither ‘context’ nor ‘use’ can be be of much value since ‘contextual usage’ can allegedly be used without possessing any essential unifying definition, i.e., they’re meaningless]. For when we look at faces within a nuclear family, we see resemblances from one to the next yet no single trait need be present in every face to recognize them all as members of the family” (italics mine) Family members do not always resemble each other and if they did, the resemblance would be identified and thus would have an “essential unifying definition”. He proceeds: “Similarly, divergent uses of ‘game’ form a family. [How? Blank out] Ultimately as a result of Wittgenstein’s philosophy, [or rather, his demented ideology] we know that natural language cannot be invented in isolation. [How does language come about? Blank out].These are essentially conceptual clarifications. [Remember, he never defines ‘conceptual’, or ‘conceptual clarification’ so what he really means is these are essentially meaningless clarifications beyond comprehension], and as such, they are relatively timeless philosophical truths”. This means philosophy is the art of playing games with words until you’ve confused your mind so intensely that you render it useless. Ladies and gentlemen, this resembles the scene from George Orwell’s novel 1984 when Winston is forced to believe that “2+2=5”. No, we are not being directly forced to believe “divergent uses of the word ‘game’ form a family”, or that divergent beliefs form a reality, and but we are told to believe it, because it is true, even though Friedland never defines truth, and furthermore, note, that this is the product of a man who earned a Ph.D. in philosophy, which is pathetic. I am now convinced that a Ph.D in philosophy as such is meaningless.
Since Friedland refuses to define “concept”, I will. A concept is the mind’s established recognition of a distinct thing existing in reality. A word denotes a specific concept. The word “game” denotes the concept of a competitive activity undertaken exclusively for the sake of amusement. (Monopoly, Hide-and-Seek, Scrabble, Tag, or in Friedland’s case, thought itself, et cetera…and no, the amusement, is not always moral)The word “family” denotes the concept of those who are related, either legally or biologically to a married couple. (Son, second aunt, sister-in-law, a great-great grandfather, etc).
Friedland continues: “Though philosophy does sometimes employ thought experiments, these aren’t actually scientific [they have nothing to do with any aspect of the universe, only with undefined word games] for they’re conducted entirely in the imagination. [They’re entirely irrational]. For example, judges have imagined what might happen if, say, insider trading were made legal. And they have concluded that while it would…promote a degree of investor freedom [fraudulent insider trading does not promote investor freedom, it violates investor freedom, and thus Friedland plays word games here in such a way that he attempts to equate market freedom with fraud, and thus prompt the weak minded to think of ‘fraud‘ whenever they hear the term ‘free market- such is the practice of those who think without defining the word ‘conceptual’], legalization would imperil the free market itself by undermining honest security markets and eroding investor confidence. While this might appear to be an empirical question it cannot be settled empirically without conducting the experiment, which is naturally beyond the reach of jurisprudence”. This means, according to Friedland, that thought is ultimately supernatural, although he will not say it explicitly. Furthermore, he claims that considering the question of whether or not insider trading should be legal as based on reality, i.e., as an aspect of the universe, is “outside the reach of jurisprudence”, and yet if jurisprudence is not an aspect of the universe, but only of someone’s “supernatural” imagination, what do you suspect would be the nature of the laws such a person would deem proper? They would be irrational and if such a person ever was in a position of political power, we would be subjected to those irrational laws.
Friedland does not stop there. He then attacks ethics by saying “science cannot necessarily tell us what to value” and that value is fundamentally subjective. What is his argument? That the study of human nature provides no information about what is good or bad [thus, according to Friedland, murder must be neither good or bad] because “evidence of how most people happen to be does not necessarily tell us about how we should aspire to be. How we should aspire to be is a conceptual question.” Ladies and gentlemen, he still fails to define “conceptual”, which implies that the question of how we should aspire to be is beyond definition. Also, he does not hint at a thought on how we should aspire to be (other than to evade the concepts “reality”, and “definition” and their derivatives) which implies that he does not think people should have substantial aspirations. What a perfect way to convince weak-minded people to judge nothing- to think only about irrational hypotheticals and treat their lives as meaningless- and live immorally. Phase one of the postmodern communist mind-trap complete, for in the words of Karl Marx “communism abolishes all religion, and all morality”. (“The Communist Manifesto”)
- THE POSTMODERN COMMUNIST SCAM PHASE 2
The hard part-the complex word game- designed to tangle up your mind with undefined concepts, and have them subconsciously automated, and lead you to believe you some how grasp the oblivious nature of truth, is now complete. The second phase of the postmodern communist mind trap is revealed by Newsweek magazine (April 23, & 30, 2012) in a book review entitled “Everyone’s Got a Price” and subtitled “Hardvard’s rock-star moralist says capitalism is ruining America”. It is written by Michael Fitzgerald. It is a book review of What Money Can’t Buy by Michael Sandel. Fitzgerald claims that Michael Sandel is “probably the most relevant living philosopher”. (Fortunately, and interestingly I might add, he did not say the most “brilliant” or “profound” living philosopher) Michael Sandel says of American culture that “we are in the grip of a way of looking at the world and social life and even personal relations that is dominated by economic ways of thinking. That’s an impoverished way of looking at the world”. Considering the fact that the United States is in over $16 trillion of debt, and that even proposing we cut federal spending is considered controversial as opposed to logical and necessary, we, as a culture, are far from even a hint of an economic thought. Now, since Fitzgerald does not define any terms, [do you notice the trend?] let us do so here. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “economic” as “of or relating to economics or the economy” and defines “economy” as “the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of production and consumption of goods and services”. So Michael Sandel accuses us of thinking too much about wealth and resources (which we, as a culture, unfortunately do not) and then condemns us for it. Why should anyone be condemned for thinking about “wealth and resources”? Because they are ambitious? Because they might make money? More money than those who do not think about wealth and resources? Because they might achieve something important- more important than something someone else might achieve? Because they want to lead their own, individual lives and thrive? Because they still have aspiration, which Michael Sandel’s partner Julian Friedland failed to steal from them? But here’s “the icing on the cake” so to speak: the notion that thinking about wealth and resources is “an impoverished way of looking at the world”. There are only two implications here: either Michael Sandel is an idiot, and so is the Harvard University administration, for allowing him to be their “rock-star moralist’, or Sandel is a postmodern communist who words things ever so carefully- perhaps with Friedland’s guidance-, in order to prevent himself from ever being explicitly and directly linked to terms such as “communist” or “Marxists”. But most importantly, ladies and gentlemen, Sandel and Friedland refer to themselves as “philosophers”, treat philosophy as the domain of the undefined, and use it for the purpose of advocating communist ideas.
Fitzgerald proceeds: “[sandel] argues that the spread of market philosophy [what kind of ‘market philosophy’? Is Newsweek afraid to use the term ‘free market’ because it might sound too appealing to thoughtful readers?] has created what he calls ‘a consumerist idea of freedom’ as opposed to moral judgement.” What is a “consumerist idea of freedom’? Ever so consistently, it is not defined anywhere in the book review. Freedom is self determination. Consumerist freedom means the individual determining what he or she wants to consume, i.e., purchase. Sandel says that having the freedom to determine what you purchase is a value “opposed to moral judgement”. Who does he think should choose what you purchase? He does not say, and “moral judgement” is never defined. Moral judgement is the act of valuation, which is actually part of the process of determining what you want to purchase. So, Michael Sandel claims that the freedom to valuate, for the sake of determining what you will purchase somehow is not the act of valuation, i.e., moral judgement. That’s a major contradiction. And what is its consequence? The idea that somebody other than the individual, should valuate for that individual. Again, I ask, who is that somebody? And by what standards does that somebody valuate for the individual? And, why those standards? Although he will not explicitly say, we know that since it is freedom he is opposed to, it is thus government force he advocates, which means he advocates either communism, or fascism, or some integration of both. With all that being said in relation to his opposition to consumerist freedom, what are his thoughts on production? Fitzgerald says that Sandel thinks the production of skyboxes is a “metaphor for what’s wrong with our democracy [America is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy] which ‘[now quoting Sandel] ‘requires that we share enough of a common life to think of ourselves as engaged in a common purpose. [And what is that common purpose?] I think that men and women from all walks of life, including those now inhabiting the skyboxes, can be attracted and drawn out of their skyboxes into the shared public space of the democratic life.’”. So Sandel’s thoughts on production are limited to skyboxes at university stadiums. Does he have any thoughts on invention? If he does, Fitzgerald fails to point it out. And regarding common life, and common purpose, the only “common purpose” he mentions is “our democracy”. Here is the climax of his word game. Sandel is so discontent with our Democratic Republic that he evades it and thinks only of a pure democracy, which is the unlimited rule of the majority. Unlimited majority rule is his only explicit standard. No, he will not say “the collective”, he will not say “the state”, he will not say “the commune”. This way you do not think he is a communist. But if you recall, Sandel believes in government run consumerism, as implied by the fact that he is opposed to a “consumerist idea of freedom”. If the production of “skyboxes” is a “metaphor for what’s wrong with our democracy”, if that is what is in the way of establishing unlimited majority rule, but “those now inhabiting the skyboxes [those who reject majority rule], can be attracted and drawn out of their skyboxes”, if they can be manipulated into accepting unlimited majority rule and submit to it, they will then achieve government run consumerism, and a pure Democracy, which is their common purpose. In the words of Karl Marx: “the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy” (“The Communist Manifesto”)
How do you attract, and draw in those with strong, firm minds? You do whatever you can to weaken their minds, and there is no better way to do it than to pollute the culture with as much irrationality as possible, so much, that it seems chaotic and confusing, and you are then tempted to accept it. This, we are told, is the product of philosophy, however, ladies and gentlemen, we have exposed a scam. We have exposed an industry that is far more corrupt than the government, or oil, which Ayn Rand pointed out consistently: the universities.
Michael Sandel is not a philosopher and neither is Julian Friedland. They are immoral theoreticians who tie together a bundle of contradictory theories and beliefs which when bound, become immoral ideologies which they call “philosophies”. They cling to the anti-concept “postmodernism”, and deceptively foreword the cause of communism.
I said “just about.” The point is you would have to make such HUGE and numerous changes the task would be monumental. You’d end up with about as much difference between current English and that new English as there is between Old English and current English. Not only creating that language change, but then having everybody speaking current English learn the new English would also be a staggering feet to pull off. Overall, I think the cost of implementing that is greater than the value gained. I think there are other, smaller things that can be done to try to help keep the language clear and clean. I could give an example I had in mind if need be. 