If everyone was politically diverse as statistics say we should be, then there should be many people with combinations of diverse views such as pro-abortion, yet also a believer in intelligent design or someone who is a strong evolutionist that is pro-life. Why is it that everyone adopts a political party's ideals as their own without giving much thought to their own beliefs? Why is it that people adopt religious ideals as their own without processing the information and discerning the facts and the truths and giving a fair survey of all the religions in the world? How can you choose a religion without having taken a class surveying all the religions in the world to understand their differences, their beliefs, their postulates on science and such? If you disbelieve in one certain aspect of a religion, should you hastily decide the entire religion is false? With all these rhetoric questions aside, even science and philosophy adopts and adapts everything we know into some sort of schema that is pre-existing or built upon.
I think social pressure and the ease of letting other people do our critical thinking on subjects that we don't care so much about in our daily lives has led the populous to adopt certain political and religious views on life without giving critical thought to everything that exists or at least all the possibilities. Many people adopt political views and say they are republican or democrat without considering all of their beliefs. People become polarized by their choice alone in the naming of their beliefs under one party or religious ideal. If you believe in a few ideals that are similar to a party such as the GOP, but you don't agree with everything that the GOP resonates, then by using the nomenclature of political parties you begin to brainwash yourself away from your own beliefs. You stray farther from your contrasting ideals much more and more because you vote and support leaders who have different view points on some subjects. Yes we have to choose someone, but why? It's the pigeon hole principle of discrete mathematics where you have a certain finite amount of choices and you must pick one closest to your views. We however cannot be represented equally in society by making a decision to have a leader who stacks up to our beliefs and concerns 100 percent. Yes, our system of government is not perfect, but it works well.
No one has given much thought to the fact that we should reform our system. We have come to the conclusion that the republic is the ultimate form of government. Mankind rises out of the jungles to form tribes and then small cities of trade. We then progress to states of government ruled by kings and feudal strength. We begin to progress to military dictatorships and eventually to the oligarchies and democracies that originate from the population's anger with totalitarian control. Finally, we arrive at a republic where interests are represented for the people in the most ideal situation that we can think of that can sustain stability in the social order. Communism as we know it really is a republic in government forms. It's just a socially centered form of republic control, however, soviet style communism is more susceptible to the evils of tyranny than that of a checks and balances Americanized republic. All economy is capitalistic because that is natural. Communism is against the grain of Darwinian survival and natural selection. What is most interesting to me is that red styled communism such as China includes capitalism as well as communism in a semi-hybrid state of government. It also has a strong tyrannical form of government simultaneously with checks and balances. Maybe China will reveal itself as the ultimate form of government in this 21st century. It will become the superpower of the world because of its economic strength and sheer size. What remains to be seen is if China can realistically stabilize and become an accepted superpower of the world and not fall under its own weight. In any case, the American republic tries to prevent Darwinian laws in the rights of man, but it does not economically. The soviet communistic republic tries to prevent Darwinian laws in economics, but does nothing in the rights of man. The question for the republic is does it work well even if China was to figure out the balance between the two major components of government, that being economics and social control. Will China realize that the republic should be both economically and socially Darwinian and yet not Darwinian at the same time? The American republic works on a certain scale of government, but at some point it breaks down! The populous grows stronger and eventually, there becomes a tyranny of the majority and a tyranny of some sort through lobbyists and capitalistic economic strength. Sheer numbers become forces among our social ideals and representation becomes a system that is worthy of governing itself as a republic. Can there be a form of government that protects mankind from all aspects of Darwinian forces? The USA has become powerful because the Darwinian forces were carefully harnessed by the industrial age, but we didn't try to harness much of the Darwinian forces in social and political control. Our founding fathers attempted to construct a government based upon the intricacies of checks and balances which would attempt to control the tyranny of the majority. It's a mildly complex system, yet elegant in its simplicity, but it still lacks the luster of advancement in political innovation. We don't normally think that technology advances in political control, but it does and it has since the first cave man used force to control another individual. The state of nature described by Thomas Hobbes moves us to understand that we politically and socially progressed from the beginning. Therefore, what is the next progression of society that will represent the diversity of ideals, beliefs, facts, and understanding of each other considering that all mankind are citizens of the great social state of Earth in this new century and millennium? Are we going to progress to more globalized or continent governments such as feeble attempt called the United Nations and the growing European Union? Are we going to continue to place republics as the forefront in social order? Heavy handed communism is rising in the east as a strong force in the world and the 21st century may yield itself to a strong influence in days to come, but what will come of government in the future? We should put our thinking caps on and try to formulate the most ideal situation of a governing body when we now know the facts that everyone wishes to be free, wishes to live, wishes to pursue happiness, and wishes to see beyond the tyranny of the majority.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is simple and elegant, but lacks the prevention of forces of evil among other things. Good and evil is a strong backbone for existence. Since the beginning, there has been a story of good and evil played out so many times, that it almost seems as if the struggle of good and evil are meant to be the ultimate drama of divine entertainment or existence. There are an infinite number of scenarios and an infinite number of combinations and historical possibilities concerning good and evil. This struggle contains the underlying fact that evil can occur even in the most utopian society. A truly utopian society in itself may be evil because in order to keep utopia, individualism is lost and mankind must subscribe to certain beliefs and truths, however inconvenient or however inopportune they might be. We begin to adopt and adapt or force the adoption and adaptation of ideals by forcing people to subscribe to the utopian ideal. Similarly, we currently do this in a semi-similar way by choosing political parties, but this may fall apart in the future. The Electoral College and political system will fall victim to the power of the people. The complex system will need to become more complex and restructure based upon the globalization of the world social order and the needs of every individual. We need a form of government that is in essence, a representation of the minority as an equal majority in the golden mean of political and social order.
As entities of life, we should be given the following rights:
1. Life - The ability to live, the essence of choice, the essence of nurture and nature.
2. Liberty - Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of action.
3. Pursuit of happiness - To be interpreted on what happiness might be.
4. The protection against evil - Such as tyranny of any sort including natural selection and survival.
5. The protection of individualism - The marvel of nurture and nature.
7. Equal opportunity - In the ability to learn, think, and believe in our philosophy.
Oversimplification is a critical fallacy of logic that is widespread in choosing a political party or in choosing a philosophy such as a religion. When you subscribe to a choice of a certain ideal, you are in essence surrendering your individualism and differences for stability between you and society. However, your individualism is your only separation from everyone else because nothing truly exists except your mind and your philosophy. Therefore, your physical being isn't even separate from the world. You are made of dust and will become dust, but your inner thoughts are sacred from anyone else. At least until a form of mind control beyond outside influence becomes available such as restructuring your brain, if that is truly where your mind exists. I have always been a proponent of the brain being the mind, but new science has led us to believe that sub-quantum structures may exist in our neural networks that are beyond organizational essence of a biological type. This is news to the scientific community who will now have to battle the philosophies of religion and the soul, scientifically!
Anyway, nature and nurture actually are quintessentially the fallacy of our existence and yet our existence at the same time! Our individuality, like a snowflake, stems from our genetic code that was influences by all of nature like how a snowflake forms into a distinct and statistically improbable to be identical to any other snowflake within the realm of realistic thought. Infinite thought leaves us to believe that the individuality could be duplicated eventually, but the unlikely events of reality and the position of all the molecules and unfolding individualism and complexity expressed in our world if viewed as an unfolding fractal of mathematically intricacy says that it is impossible to duplicate. So, our nature stems individuality impressed upon us as a force and action of the preceding events. Nurture is the social pressure and knowledge that is impressed upon us as a child of a mother and father or society; that we are to become individual, yet similar to those who breathe life into us for existence in this world. We adopt and adapt their beliefs into our own as we progress in life. We become syncretically divine in our nature and our nurture. Our society thus also becomes more complex and individual in its "poeme mysique" as the violin sonata plays on. The harmony of adoption and adaptation on the grand scale of evolution and natural selection plays through. The physical world, the chemical world, the biological world, the political world, the economic world, the social world, the emotional and intellectual world continue to persist and that harmonic overtone that resonates is the mystical note that many have described in so many ways. All aspects become syncretically divine. We all merge and melt our ideals together and adopt and adapt our ideals in a continuous stream of consciousness that I would like to call our supreme entity of life breathing in our governments and our ways of controlling mankind and its growth. We are not man anymore, we are mankind. We made that evident the day that Neil Armstrong stepped upon the moon. We are now divine, we created our society. We created our beliefs, we created our Gods, and we created our cultures. We have now become divine amongst the heavens. We are the truly syncretic divine being in this world that can be tangibly touched, yet we were forged out of it in much the same process. Evolution is apparent, natural selection and survival are inherent, divine creation is not errant, but parent. We are truly merging our mind and transforming into divinity. We progress through the struggle of good and evil as we define what good and evil are, as we define and name the universe. As we define and name our creation, we are creating our own creation by uncovering the mysteries that actually created us. We don't know for certain anything except our own beliefs and ideals. Our existence is like an isolated prison where we continue to think and experience our world. Our mind is our computational circuit that is bent on understanding the somatosensory input and output that we put forth and receive. We try our hardest to make some sense out of the chaos. We say there was a big bang, that there might have been many big bangs and that we have freedom of will and yet there are those who say we don't have freedom of will, that the big bang was God's only touch into the world, that eternity doesn't exist because time doesn't exist. There is only one philosophy that should be held as true. That is that philosophy exists. If philosophy didn't exist, then you couldn't say that statement nor could you say that philosophy doesn't exist. Therefore, philosophy is the only certainty in everything. We are our only proof that we have a philosophy that we as a sentient being can perceive and believe and make true to conscious and possibly unconscious self.
Elegance is everything we consider to be, we try to find the most elegant philosophy that we can find, we try to adopt and adapt it to our nurtured and natured individuality and yet as our syncretic divine mankind bleeds on through existence, we are still searching for the elegant philosophy that our society as a whole can believe in. We adopt our governing structures like how our mind as Nietzsche said is a governing body that is made up of many individuals in a society that eventually believes that it is in control, yet the final device in control is the philosophy of whether you think you are in control or not. This applies to our society as a whole as well, mankind is really just as in control as our philosophy tells us that we are. We should try to create a philosophy that uses governing structures that can access the elegance of what we strive to seek and we should implement the scale and immensity of the universe, the grandiose, into our philosophy.
The scale is immense, and with the recent discoveries that the amazing possibility of the soul scientifically existing. What can prevent us from anything? We are in a world where philosophy is the only force that truly exists. It is the underlying force behind nature and the elegance. Why is the universe so elegant? Why do we all hastily make assumptions on things which we know not of? Life exists because of philosophy. Without philosophy there would be no existence to question, there would be no elegance, there would be no force behind nature. Philosophy is the ends to all means and quintessentially the means to all ends.
Who would have thought? That pun WAS intended!