The Cave Allegory (Preface)

Preface: The Cave Allegory

Update: 22/02/2013

Drawing depicting the cave in Plato's allegory

Plato, one of the many philosophers to which I personally aspire, written a great allegory which is not only prophetically relevant to today’s problematic society, but it also delivers an explanation as to what I aspire to achieving with philosophy. The allegory follows a tale which takes place in a cave, where a woman, or variably a man, is bound by chains and consequently only capable of facing a wall. Behind her a fire emblazons the walls, and before her the silhouette of figures, such as horses as soldiers, are being cast onto the cave’s wall. It is naturally understood in this tale that the silhouettes are being cast by people behind the imprisoned lady, yet her unknowing of this leads us to believe that the men behind her are tricksters, or otherwise called “Sophists”.

After being imprisoned for such a long time, the woman gradually believes that the shadows are not representations of objects, but rather actual beings; the lady begins to interpret the shadows as reality in its entirety. Eventually, after much time in imprisonment, the woman breaks free from her chains, and runs outside of the cave hurriedly. Upon exiting the cave, the external world’s light leaves her incapacitated, but only temporarily. Once her eyes affix to the lighting conditions, her very foundation of so-called reality is shattered as the sight of towering trees, the distant sound of whistling birds, and the heavenly aroma of nearby flowers immediately usurp the throne for her new conception of reality. In this new light of discovery, she returns to the cave to tell her fabled silhouettes of the world beyond the cave’s confine. Yet, upon re-entering the cave, the light dissipates and she is left in darkness, as her eyes are no longer affixed to the cave’s dark atmosphere. Meanwhile, the tricksters, or Sophists, who charmed her into believing a false truth, are quick to control her and bring her under the shackles of a false, synthetic reality once again; however, in re-imprisonment, her eyes remain closed and the memories of the external, legitimate reality flood her eyes, giving her a sense of clarity which no imprisonment could exterminate.

Do we achieve Independent thought?

Do we achieve Independent thought?

From this tale, Plato identifies three significant types of people: The manipulators (or Sophists), the manipulated, and, most importantly, the bearers of truth. This allegory, told in the Republic, bears an almost scary relevance to contemporary politics and social agenda.The Sophists in modern terms are regarded as lying Politicians and, more prominently, social Media. Politicians and social Media are notorious for manipulating the general population into voting, or buying a desirable product, or even marginalising socially acceptable opinions of events. Politicians and the Media are undoubtedly quintessential examples of those depicted as tricksters in Plato’s allegory. A prime example of sophism would be a case of product advertisement; consider an advertising agency promoting anti-perspiration products as being able to attract the opposite sex with unfounded success, when any sense of rationality dictates that this is clearly not the case.

The allegory presents a second type of person who, out of a lack of knowledge, foolishly believes the rhetorical endorsements of sophists. This category of gullible people are considered as the general population of people; those without an education, and those without any interest in intellectual integrity or truth. As the most common of all three categories, these people are the reason as to why sophism is so financially successful. The third type of person in this allegory is the person who understands that spraying deodorant over them clearly does not make the opposite sex racing to have sex with them. Instead, this type of person has enough reason and clarity to only justify buying such a product for its legitimate purpose – anti perspiration.

Plato regards this third, unique class of people as philosophers, or at least those capable of being professional philosophers. Surprisingly, this category is rather small in comparison to the other two. Philosophy, as well as mathematics and logic (both formal and informal), excel in educating people about rationality and resisting the urge to succumb to being manipulated. Unfortunately the Philosopher is more than often prone to being ostracised by general society, as the sophists deliberately demote the mentality of the Philosopher in order to protect their product endorsements and political positions. It’s a rather vicious circle, but anybody with enough intellectual integrity to question the authenticity of their favourite political party or their most favourable news station, philosopher or not, is a man who deserves the clarity which was offered to the woman in Plato’s cave allegory.

Plato, pointing up in the sky; indicating his cosmological beliefs

    Plato, pointing up in the sky; indicating his cosmological beliefs

In this respect, I (hopefully with some modesty) regard myself as the third class of person. My profession is Philosophy, and I am often in the situation in which I am being ridiculed by society. Yet, I find it noble that I have not succumbed to buying a can of Coca Cola entirely for the sake of altering my identity to what was depicted on their Television advertisement, or applauding a political party because of my parents adamant worship of the party in question. With this being said, I hope that I retain my modesty in saying that I don’t regard myself as some self-proclaimed Doomsday prophet who claims to have ‘seen the light’, or that I excel everybody else in terms of intelligence.

The Common Misconception of Bias


The Common Misconception of Bias
Sexism and Racism


Particularly in the past few decades, the surge in tolerance and legality of ethnicity, gender and homosexuality has lead to a rather huge shift in moral standpoints. It is generally accepted that discrimination, including ethnic bias (racism) and gender bias (sexism), is largely immoral, and the explanation as to why it is immoral is almost universally understood; because distinction in skin colour, or sexual physiology, are not valid justifications of peoples’ intrinsic value. Unfortunately, this moral standpoint has caused a huge confusion in identifying bias situations – leaving people to be ostracized when they do not deserve it.

A Lady's False Accusation of Racism on Facebook

A Lady’s False Accusation of Racism on Facebook

I had just recently saw an image (portrayed above) of a woman complaining about a certain image’s racist remarks on Facebook, despite the fact that no racism nor negative stereotype was even remotely conveyed in the image. She gave a further explanation as to why she considered it racist, suggesting that the descriptive words used (slackass etc.) were inherently targeted towards black people, but her justification was nonetheless refutable, and simply misunderstood. Although some people agreed with her, I felt compelled to send the lady, whose anonymity remains, a message explaining in detail as to why the image in question was not biased at all. While the message* (below) was directed at her comment specifically, it still relates to any situation in which people’s comments are inaccurately accused of having biased undertones – something which I see far too often. Hopefully, the following message will give some clarity in identifying discrimination.

Original Image, Accused of Racist Pretense

Original Image, Accused of Racist Pretense

Facebook Message

I saw an image which showed you accusing an image of having racist pretense, and I’m going to tell you why that post isn’t racist:

     Firstly, the post wasn’t relative to black people at all.There were no suggestions that black people are lazy/slack etc. and the adjectives were attributed to the person in the picture, who was wearing ridiculously baggy pants. The mockery was targeted towards the clothing style. Just because you associated baggy clothing and laziness to black people, it doesn’t mean that the post associates its comments to black people.

     In fact, if you claim that those adjectives were typical of a black person, then you’re not only falsely interpreting the original post, but you’re the one perpetuating the negative stereotype on black people.
Secondly, even if it did claim that black people wear ridiculously out-of-proportion clothing, it still doesn’t constitute as racism, or any bias for that matter. See the definition of racism below;

racism: Noun
Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.” – Google result, definition

Just because the concept of black people wearing baggy clothing is considered stereotypical, it doesn’t mean that black people are marginalised or discriminated against; a stereotype can have truth to it, and that exempts it from racism. If somebody said that black people predominantly live in the housing Projects, which is true, then it would be a stereotype – not racism, because the comment is based on statistical evidence and it’s not suggesting that black people live in the projects BECAUSE they’re black. It didn’t claim that people vary in intelligence/character according to their skin-colour – it didn’t even remotely portray a stereotype about anybody.

If you’re ever confronted by anything which people deem as racist, then remember the fallacy: correlation does not imply causation.

If black people are statistically more likely to live in poverty, then it’s suggesting that black people correlate with poverty. It doesn’t, however, suggest that black people are the cause of poverty. In this case, if somebody ever suggested that black people wear baggy clothing, then they’re giving a correlation between baggy clothing and black people – not a causation.


East to West: Part 1

East to West:
Part 1

Islamic Architecture values Aesthetic

Islamic Architecture values Aesthetic


In Australia, my country of residence, a less-than-popular Television channel called ABC broadcasts constructive documentaries, foreign films and educational series, particularly during prime-time. Recently – that is to say last week – ABC began broadcasting a Television series called East to West. The documentary series, which begins at 7.30pm every Wednesday, Details the Eastern cultures during Middle-ages and post-Ancient times and their influence on the Western world. Unfortunately, the general concencus of the Eastern world in Western culture is very uninformed. With the increasing negative stereotypes around Islam and Asian society (i.e. Al Qeada being associated with Muslims), the program could not have come at a more appropriate time. Hopefully, people will change their channels from The Big Bang Theory to ABC in the effort of watching East to West, as it serves as quite an informative, yet visually stimulating series.

The first broadcast of the documentary, presented last week, centered around the early Islamic movements and their influence on the Western culture of the Renaissance as well as post-modern times. The show turned out to be quite informative to me, as it kept me captivated with great facts of history which are rarely ever spoken about. As it turns out, the Muslims and Arabians were imperative for flaying our society into shape and the current stereotype of their culture is in blind sight of their influence. Important texts of the Ancient Greeks, such as the writings of Plato and Pre-Socratic philosophers, were translated into an almost Universal language by the Middle-Eastern Muslims. In fact, some of the precious gems supposedly destroyed from the Dark Ages were gracefully saved by the Eastern societies. If it were not for Islam’s great value of religious and historical texts, the Western world today would presumably be entirely different – with valuable texts like Republic lost to the wind.

I will be evaluating the upcoming episodes of East to West and supplying the Blog with the Eastern influences pronounced by the Documentary. The next episode will give an explanation of Buddhism and the struggle for leadership of Rome and China.

Memorable Fragments by Heraclitus

Heraclitus and the Fragments:


Statue Resembling Heraclitus

Statue Resembling Heraclitus



Heraclitus is one of the most renowned Greek Philosophers during the Pre-Socratic times. Although not much is known about his upbringing and general biography, he was – and still is – considered a “pioneer of wisdom”, especially throughout his own era. In Plato’s Theaetetus, Chapter I. Heraclitus is mentioned and his famous quote, “No man ever steps in the same river twice”, was employed by Socrates in an effort to understand the nature of knowledge. Yet, Heraclitus is also quite memorable for his fragments: brief sentiments about Philosophy and life in general which were written by him in Greek. The list of known fragments which Heraclitus wrote are listed below in English translations. The translated texts were extracted from , and the site’s bibliography is referred respectively underneath the listed Fragments.

Painting of Heraclitus

Painting of Heraclitus



Fragment from Heraclitus

Fragment from Heraclitus


Below are some memorable Fragments written by Heraclitus, translated from Greek to English by G.T.W Patrick.


     “Into the same river you could not step twice,  for other waters are flowing.”

              – Heraclitus, Alleg. Hom. 24.

War is the father and king of all, and has produced some as gods and some as men, and has made some slaves and some free.

– Hippolytus, Ref. haer. ix. 9.

Recognizing oneself and being of a sound mind are for all men.

              – Fragment B116

Although the Law of Reason is common, the majority of people live as though they had an understanding of their own.

– Sextus Emp. adv. Math. vii. 133.

It is hard to contend against passion, for whatever it craves it buys with its life.

– Iamblichus, Protrept. p. 140, Arcer.

Dogs, also, bark at what they do not know.”

– Plutarch, An seni sit ger. resp. vii. p. 787.

Of all whose words I have heard, no one attains to this, to know that wisdom is apart from all.

-Stobaeus Floril. iii. 81.



From The Fragments of the Work of Heraclitus of Ephesus on Nature, translated from the Greek text of Bywater by G.T.W. Patrick, Baltimore: N. Murray, 1889. This was originally Patrick’s doctoral thesis at Johns Hopkins University, 1888. A note states that this 1889 edition was reprinted from the American Journal of Psychology, 1888.

Personal Analysis of “All Along the Watchtower”


[1]     “There must be some way out of here” said the joker to the thief
     “There’s too much confusion”, I can’t get no relief
     Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
     None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.

[5]     “No reason to get excited”, the thief he kindly spoke
     “There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
     But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
     So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”.

     All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
[10]     While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too.

     Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
     Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.

Bob Dylan Portrait

Bob Dylan Portrait

Personal Analysis of All Along the Watchtower
Bob Dylan

During the surge of music proceeding the Beatles, Bob Dylan stood out as a profoundly influential musician of his time, and perhaps for future generations as well. Bob Dylan was considered the pioneer of lyrical writing, as he integrated riveting story-telling into musical passion. Songs such as Like a Rolling Stone and Hurricane were prime examples of Dylan’s story-telling genius, and other songs such as Mr Tambourine Man and All Along the Watch Tower were a testament to his avant-garde, poetic side.

Possibly the most revealing sentiment about the lyrics of All Along the Watchtower is extracted from the final verse;

[11]   ” Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
          Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

The lines paint an introductory scene for the listener, suggesting that the song’s chronology is reversed. This revelation was established by English Literature professor Christopher Ricks, saying that “at the conclusion of the last verse, it is as if the song bizarrely begins at last, and as if the myth began again.

From Christopher’s finding, the lyrics tell quite an interesting, almost Biblical, tale of both a Thief and a Joker (1). Throughout the first lines, the Joker talks of a matter of freedom to his companion, the Thief. The Joker’s tone seems rather stressful as he claims that “there must be some way out of here.” Obviously, the two are both retained in some form of imprisonment. Unlike the fellow prisoner, the Thief’s tone is particularly firm as he says;

[6]     “There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
           But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
           So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.”

The thief’s comment gives value to the scene as it suggests that the two strangers have apparently known each other for quite some time, almost as though they’re inseparable friends. The response also gives clarity to the two protagonists’ philosophical perspective: that life is contrarily a divine experience. A traditional middle-aged castle with Princes, sprawling crowds of women and “Foot servants, too” is presented in the lines preceding the final verse (9, 10). The picture of the Castle, or more specifically a Watchtower, in the relevant lines gives the perspective of seeing the forest for the trees. While the expansive Castle is visualised as being magnificent, the community within its gates is very hierarchical in social status. The Princes who “kept the view” (9) are established first as the wealthy class, following with the women, who are the middle-class, and poverty-stricken foot servants being presented last. The social Hierarchy is a blatant reference to Western culture’s burden of wealth distinction.

watchtower_quoteYet, with both the characters’ Philosophical values, imprisonment and the social Hierarchy are evident, how do the three correlate? When evaluated from its reversed structure, it becomes clear that the two characters were, in fact, the riders approaching the watch tower. Their subsequent imprisonment is not necessarily justified, however the assumption is made that the two were wanted thieves, or bandits, judging from the mysterious aura shrouded around their identity; it certainly explains why the protagonist is referred to as the Thief.

Naturally, the Joker’s pseudonym implies that the character is comedic and light-hearted, as though life is “but a joke” (6). However, the identity of the Joker is unmasked when the Thief expresses their Philosophical belief that life is quite serious, and divine in nature. It seems that, in light of being in abandonment, the two characters express their genuine identity, as opposed to what the titles convey.

Along the Watchtower, however, the general population goes about their day free from imprisonment. Their identities (i.e. the Princes, the women & the foot servants) are never expressed differently throughout the entire lyrics. Instead, their pseudonym remains the same – the Princes are wealthy, the women are maids, and the foot servants are poor. As such, lines 9 & 10 are directly communicating the political dilemma of class distinction and the negative impact of a mass society which judges people based on their social status and popularity. In this sense, the Joker and the Thief are positioned as people who are direct victims of demanding social expectations. This is further emphasized in the following lines, “Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
     None of them along the line know what any of it is worth” (3), as it suggests that monetary value of objects, particularly retail prices, don’t testify to their intrinsic value. The mentioning of Businessmen validates the concept of class distinction, and it gives a more accurate detail as to what privileges the wealthy have lost to the poor. According to the song; the poor, as William Blake said, “see a world in a grain of sand”, while the businessmen find 5 dollars in a bag of sand.

Perhaps their imprisonment is metaphorical in the sense that it shows the consequences of revealing one’s independent identity. The Joker is sentenced to abandonment from the populace as the song reveals that his beliefs contradict his pseudonym. The Thief serves as a close companion to the Joker, being the only one who has remained in the cell of confinement with his friend. In this sense, a genuine friendship goes beyond the confines of social abandonment, and the masks of everyday life are not  just worn over the face, but rather the soul.

The lyrics pose an unusual stance, making it rather difficult to interpret the meaning for some. Like many pieces of literature, however, the texts are entirely open to a myriad of different interpretations. Nobody quite knew what Shakespeare was expressing in his sonnets, and Chaucer never did leave behind cliff notes for his writings. In some respects this is the beauty of literature – one text may have no meaning to one person, yet it may offer profound relevance to the human condition for another person. All Along the Watchtower is considered the latter for me. It expresses a great political and social turmoils in youth culture with typical Dylan song-writing, and it serves as a quintessential example of how literature is endlessly open to interpretation.

Forbes’ List of the World’s Billionaires

Forbes’ List of the World’s Billionaires

Carlos Slim

Forbes’ lists has just recently released a controversial document listing the wealthy men throughout the world who have the sole value of over a Billion dollars. The whole list is rather insightful, especially when seen in comparison to previous lists. There are more Billionaires now than ever before, and it’s not entirely because of inflation. As well as that, the Billionaires listed both previously and now are gradually becoming more valuable – as the expression goes, Nothing makes money faster than money.

This is certainly true when looking at the value of some of the richest men on the planet, with the man coming first, Carlos Slim, having a Net Worth of $73 billion. Not only does this list give startling evidence of democratic society’s opportunities for material success, but it also shows the increase in the Billionaires’ philanthropy particularly for the less fortunate. Warren Buffett, ranked as the 4th Wealthiest man, has exceeded the expectations of many by donating an astounding amount of nearly $41 Billion in his life-time. The Forbes’ list certainly shows a future of generous wealth.

Rationalising the Ethics of Justice: Theft and Murder

Justice is Blind

Justice is Blind

A common question which is asked by the general public when it comes to Ethics is; “How do our Laws really determine what’s right and wrong?”

Such a question is the quintessential starting point for most Ethical debates, and it’s quite alarming as to how many people do not understand why the most essential ethical codes are in place today. Two of the most essential ethical codes which are governed in laws are theft and murder. While being accepted as insidious acts of immorality, most people during their youth years question as to why they are so unjust. The points made here will hopefully establish why these two common acts of injustice are implemented in the laws today. The distinction between morality and Ethics is established below as well in a concise, informative manner.

While the words “Moral” and Ethics” both derive from the Greek word “Mos”, meaning custom, the two are different in terms of Philosophy. Ethics, in terms of Philosophy, are the codes of what we personally believe in right and wrong. Ethics are the thoughts. Morality, however, is that which is objectively right, and it determines that which is objectively wrong. Morality is the ACT of right, while Ethics are the thoughts of right. That’s why the laws which the Government implements are considered ethical codes, because they’re laws which the people of the government think govern justice.

If one were to take candy from a baby, then they’re using force to retrieve something which was originally in rightful ownership of the baby. The baby earned the candy through non authoritarian methods, and it was unlawfully taken by somebody who exploited the governing system in exchange for nothing. In the movie, “The Gods must be Crazy”, the narrator suggests that ownership is something which is determined by the Governing system of justice in order to maintain a sense of equality and freedom for people. For example, to “own” a mars bar legally you have to exchange something for it. This trading of ownership is a fundamental part of western society, as it tries to equalize the privileges among society. If you take a candy from the baby, then the baby has lost ownership of an object and gained nothing else in ownership. The only case in which this is ethical is if the baby warranted for you to have the candy in exchange for nothing, otherwise the baby has essentially lost something and the scales of equality are skewed.

The case of murder being immoral can be rationally justified as well, similarly to theft. If you murder somebody with a gun, for example, then you’re using certain mechanics to propel a certain object into the victim’s body, with the intention of killing them. When the trajectory hits the brain, in this case, and the victim has been killed, then you have essentially exploited the laws of physics in order to make somebody lose their right of life without their consent. When somebody loses their life, they lose every possible freedom that they originally had: they lose the freedom of buying an object, like a croissant, and eating the croissant. Once the victim loses consciousness, they have lost the capability of doing, or even experiencing, anything. Upon murdering somebody, you have essentially destroyed every freedom of the victim in order for your own purpose (whether it’s for monetary gain or just pleasure). Unlike theft, where you take away the freedom of a baby to enjoy a candy, you literally take away every possible freedom, and every memory, from that person. That’s why murder is widely considered as the most immoral, revolting act against equality and freedom that anybody can commit.

God and Morality

God is Great

There is a question proposed by a lot of people in regards to God’s morality, and it is often left unanswered by some. Often as a result of a personal or national tragedy occurs, people are left asking the notorious question; “How could God let this happen?”

For the sake of argument the existence of God is unquestionable  and assuming that the God is naturally supposed to radiate justice, then the question is begged by yet another question; how is it the God’s responsibility for tragic events which are a result of human (or perhaps natural) manipulation and alteration?

The God merely created the Universe, its components and laws of nature, and it shouldn’t be his responsibility when you exploit the laws of nature and the Universe’s components in order to injure somebody. For example, if I shoot somebody, then I am using certain mechanics with a device with my own intention of sending an object at rapid speeds to penetrate somebody else; why should it be the God’s fault if I were the one who solely committed the act?

Just because God created an environment in which beings die it doesn’t mean that he is at fault, as the Universe’s components and laws, particularly our manipulation of them, are what result in injuries and deaths (two of the most atrocious acts of immorality). Besides, you’re suggesting that divine beings have the capability of seeing human morality. Perhaps they can understand ethical codes, but the objective sense of morality which humans, not animals, possess is basically synthetic.

Is God Responsible for the World's Turmoil?

Is God Responsible for the World’s Turmoil?

A proportionally popular response to the question of God’s morality is particularly expressed by theists and faithful, and that is; “God works in mysterious ways.”
Such a response is usually expressed in good spirit, and, in some respects, it does have some validity. Mankind’s grasp or morality, a supposedly objective and external truth, goes only as far as our ethical perspective, and our ethical standpoint is often subjected to cultural/individual relativism. For example, somebody in Western society may have strong beliefs against physical assault – so much so that any form of physical assault is subhuman and never justified unless used as a form of defense. However, in country’s riddled with religious extremism and political madness, people may find that physical assault is perfectly justifiable in seemingly unjustifiable situations. Perhaps God only knows that which is truly moral, as opposed to ethical, and the failure to grasp this leads us to beg that notorious question.

Or, contrary to trying to rationalise the madness that God apparently allows in this world, perhaps God is immoral. After all, God in essence is defined as the creator of the Universe, and to create something does not necessarily mean that one respects their moral obligation to keep their creation intact. Maybe the gift of life itself is a privilege so profound that God’s lack of moral sense of forgivable.

In a Nutshell: Descartes


Descartes; In a Nutshell

Firstly, I’m going to say that what Descartes wrote in “Meditations of Philosophy”, the documents from which the famous quote is extracted, does not govern his beliefs. The statements provided in these documents are resources regarding solipsism and scepticism, but he does not believe in solipsism, instead he merely believes that it’s a possibility considering that external truths can not be proven to the extent that they are infallible (for example; my senses are always playing up on me, how do I know that my senses are manipulating and I’m simply misinterpreting them?)
The conclusion which Descartes brought in his writings was very conclusive, and it basically rationalised both realism and extremist philosophies such as solipsism by integrating the two. Essentially, what Descartes was trying to say is that; even if people do not exist, or if the external world is the legitimate reality, it does not matter. It does not matter because we can still observe the external world, even if it isn’t real, and we can still obtain knowledge which is compatible with pieces of knowledge.
In a sense, the resolution which Descartes founded is much like semantics: It doesn’t particularly matter if a word may not mean what I believe it to be, so long as I can identify with it and use it as though it is a legitimate, fully functional word. Descartes, in some respects, refuted solipsism and radical sceptical beliefs with these meditations. As well as that, he helped carve the future for science and modernist philosophy in western culture, and that’s why a lot of people hold such realist beliefs. Whether or not this reality is “real”, or if we cannot absolutely prove the truth of things, it is still aside from the fact that we can still perceive something and, from that “something”, gather truths which don’t conflict with other truths and consider them as knowledge.
Reality is only real inasmuch as our definition of “reality”; generally people’s definition of reality is true existence, or true life – Descartes would say that reality is no more than what we can perceive and evaluate.

The Roots of Philosophy and their Importance

The Roots of Philosophy

The creation, and eventual expansion, of Christianity throughout Western culture was gradual as not only was it a radical, more dogmatic, change from Paganism and Pre-Socratic philosophy, but because it was considered as an insult to the identity of God.  Early Christianity spoke of the Trinity of God – in divine, in spirit, and in flesh. The latter, that is – God in flesh, is deeply offensive to the traditional Philosophies which were eventually usurped by Christianity itself; even in recent years, the Holy trinity, while not as radical today, poses as an insult to Islamists and other Religious people.

But what was the purpose of Christianity, or any philosophy for that matter? Its goal was that of science is today – to discover truth, knowledge and wisdom. Christianity served as no substitute for empirical devices of searching for truth, instead it served as the device for discovering truth in itself. With this, people developed the theory of Creationism; such a theory was partially produced from the classic story of Adam and Eve.

Although many would agree that, with the predisposed knowledge available today, the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphorical tale of redemption, origin and identity; however, the ancients had little knowledge at their disposal, and creationism not only seemed  plausible – but infallible. This is not to say that, despite its inherent popularity, Creationism is impossible; instead, Creationism, like any Philosophy which is not entirely dismissed, remains as a possibility of truth. But in comparison to Evolution, its prime competitor, Creationism would seem as an unlikely choice even to radical sceptics, as the former has exponentially more empirical evidence (such as the comparison between Apes and humans, and fossilised evidence), and subsequently it seems more rational to resume that Creationism is unlikely at the very least.

Creationism, like its fellow ancient philosophies, was founded on the structure of little predisposed knowledge – like a house with sticks for supports. However, evolution, a theory not only scientific but philosophical, was founded on the seemingly intuitive knowledge which science and  empiricism promoted. In this case, the structure of evolution was supported by sturdy pillars.

Creationism, in some sense, is a quintessential example of the philosophical journey which the ancients, and their descendants, traveled.

With little understanding of the Universe, and no structural system for discovering external or historical truths, our predecessors were left to build their society with their bare hands. While this details the shortcomings of our ascendants and their philosophies, such as Creationism, it also gives unseen value to their self-reliant ingenuity. Without these metaphysical, outworn creeds, Evolution would not have been, nor would science and post-modern philosophy be as developed as it is today. From the desolate boiling pot of uncertainty and speculation grows the tree of unforeseen knowledge – a blessing which grew from one seed, a tiny speck in the ground.
While most radical philosophy delivered by the ancients and enlightened, are considered  to be creeds outworn, the philosophies in question still have intrinsic value to it – more so than what we consider grateful. For a seed, however small and insignificant to the naked eye, is still the hallmark, the blueprints, for a greater being to come – and, in this case, evolution grew.

Surge of Feminism; Humanitarian, or Biased?

Feminism: is it Humanitarian?

Feminism: is it Humanitarian?


Recently there has been a huge surge of feminism in western society, primarily as a result of the relative surge in communications technology and social media, such as Facebook. However, this surge of feminism has brought in a lot of women who misunderstand the essence of what feminism ideally sought after, and instead only using its philosophy as a means of self interest. Recently, I have been wondering if feminism is necessary at all in today’s society, as the approach of gender equality, a result which has respectfully paid off from ideal feminism, suggests that people have to start focusing on balancing individuals and not stereotypes.

Perhaps it would be wise for the self-proclaimed feminists, who seek rights only in the interest of their fellow gender, to put down their pitchforks and consider an approach in which we, as an entirety, take a humanitarian interest and pursue the welfare of every individual . We should not be condoning the equality among different genders and ethnicity, but we should aim to bring equality among every individual. Categorising genders and ethnicity does nothing to help equality, as it’s not in the interest of the individual; instead, these categories which feminists and likewise philosophical movements promote are doing no less than ruin what we really must be focusing on – man as one, and man is an entirety. If we can focus on equality for everybody, while still maintaining a sense of freedom which doesn’t breach moral and lawful ethical code, then we can stamp out the people who are victims to being abused merely for the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation and their gender. Those who choose to go down the road of focusing on stereotypes, such as the feminists who only seek the aid of women, then they damage society by commercialising these stereotypes of marginalised women and so-called abusive, over privileged males.