Dialectic of Postmodernism and its Derivates Part I

By Tuomas Vainio

Dialectic of Enlightenment by Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer is without any undue credit the fundamental basis of the myriad of world-views that define the 20th and 21st century political and ideological left in the Western-cultural hemisphere. Upon reading the Dialectic of Enlightenment it became clear to me that the views of the modern left cannot be correctly understood without first reading Dialectic of Enlightenment, and what I offer you here is the first part of a work that argues against this Dialectic of Enlightenment, and by doing so every manifestation of the 20th and 21st century left-wing ideologies. It is my defence for the Enlightenment, for its values and principles, and my attempt to show that the inherent errors found in the work of Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer are not only grievous but undeniable. The two respective gentlemen have not understood human nature, and therefore, their conclusions in regards of society and power are at best lurid and false.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Tuomas Vainio
• Release date: Feb 13, 2021
• ISBN: 9781005018917

Tuomas Vainio

I write, I read, and the typos are still there. It is the crux of my life. Anyhow, my published works should not be overpriced and in some outlets you might be even able to set your own price!

Book preview

Part I

Tuomas Vainio

Table of Contents

First Preface

Shitpost of Enlightenment…

First Postcript

First Preface

A political commentator known as Sargon of Akkad, or as Carl Benjamin, once stated that he was not yet philosophically mature enough to deal with a work called Dialectic of Enlightenment. A work created by some of the best philosophical minds of the previous century, at least according to the evaluation of Mr. Benjamin himself. Therefore, I grew rather curious about it, and decided to have a look at it myself. After reading first few paragraphs I felt a rather familiar itch at the back of my head as I began to search the pages for a 'quote' button in order to write a reply, in order to argue with a book. Such a button is a feature that often appears on generic internet discussion boards, or forums as they are often called. That in and of itself is what spurred me to attempt at this peculiar task, I wanted to argue with a book, and perhaps that is all it will ever be. Nevertheless, I shall quote sentences or paragraphs from this Dialectic of Enlightenment and present them to you in cursive, and directly below I shall add my own thoughts and arguments. The authors of the Dialectic of the Enlightenment work may have been some of the finest minds of the previous century, but for a rather long time now, I have argued on the internet and done it for my own personal fun. I started writing this book, as a new hobby of mine, on the 31st of ‎March ‎2019, ‏‎10:06:35, +2 GMT. On the 13th of January 2021, 22:52:20, +2 GMT, I finally finished the first part of the Dialectic of Enlightenment. I had worked on it under the moniker of 'Shitpost of the Enlightenment' and that shall be the corresponding tittle to the 'Concept of Enlightenment' and 'Dialectic of Enlightenment' as used by one Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. My work sat at a total of 180.000 words, out of which an estimated 15.000 were those of Horkheimer and Adorno. Quantity is not necessarily a metric of quality, but it is a metric of my ability to write long walls of text. Oh, and some time prior to that I did finish the cover image I plan to use, I think it looks neat. On the ‎13th of ‎February ‎2021, ‏‎10:46:19, +2 GMT, I finished reading through this work of mine and after making some adjustments the word count was roughly at 188,500 words. I suppose I could proceed to add annotations to this work of mine, and also provide utterly pointless annotations for every single time I have used the word 'and' – a single instance of that word could be a direct quote from some random book or an article, and it would tremendously amuse me. However, this is not a work of academia, this is simply nothing more than a forum post given the appearance of a book. It is at its best and its worst a work of philosophy that already far surpasses the standards of philosophy that were set forth by Socrates himself, as far as I know Socrates never wrote anything down, where as I have most certainly written something down. Moreover, I am not sure if a work like this could even be produced within the halls of modern academia, I am not sure if they would even stomach the mere appearance of honest dissent of any form. Thus this work shall remain as it is was originally intended, a forum post. Written down, read once through, and put forth for the whole world to see with its glories and flaws intact.

Oh, and I suppose I should offer my thanks to the Internet Archive, who made it possible for me to access the Dialectic of the Enlightenment as it was edited by one Gunzelin Schmid Noer and translated by one Edmund Jephcott, first published by Stanford University Press, in Stanford California, in 2002. I could not have made my arguments against the Dialectic of Enlightenment with such ease without the ability to copy and paste the words of Adorno and Horkheimer – it would have been a torture of the worst kind were I forced to write down every utterance I have thus far quoted.

I never read the prefaces in any of the books I read, so I am not sure if this preface satisfies the needs of those who do.

Shitpost of Enlightenment...

"The Concept of Enlightenment"

- Is the word 'concept' used here as a noun, or as an adjective? Is the intended focus the general notion of Enlightenment, or are we to understand it as an inspection of a curious and perhaps untested prototype? The meaning of the phrase depends greatly on the intended use.

Anyhow, in the 1944 edition this entire segment was not the concept of Enlightenment, but rather, 'The Dialectic of Enlightenment.' The word dialectic refers to the practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.

The meaning behind these two titles is not the same, so I suppose by reading onwards we will discover which of the two is more appropriate.

"Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters."

- Personally I would have gone with the following explanation; Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters of their own fate. I am not satisfied with the unambiguous 'masters' because it leaves the definition open for interpretations that would be, as a matter of fact, contradictory to Enlightenment. Upon reading the original sentence, an ideologically biased reader could walk away with the false idea that the goal of Enlightenment was to create masters to rule over the still fearful masses – when the real goal of the Enlightenment is to turn a man into a master of his own fate. Nothing more, and nothing less.

"Yet the wholly enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity."

- 'Radiant with triumphant calamity' is a rather peculiar choice of words. In other words this sentence could be understood as a simple euphemism for absolute nuclear destruction. Yet here humanity still stands far numerous than ever before, and I write this response on a computer that is in part powered by the energy created by nuclear reactors. Thus I will welcome these triumphant calamities of wholly enlightened earth with open arms, because these potential calamities pale in comparison to the calamities that have burdened all of mankind from the very beginning. People have struggled to quench their thirst and to fill their empty bellies – they have sought shelter from pouring rain, scorching heat, and freezing blizzard – dreading the smallest injury or disease – all while hungry eyes of beasts have stalked our every move. Due to the relative comforts of our modernity it is far too easy to be wilfully oblivious of the constant calamities brought forth by the very nature of our planet itself. If you focus your gaze upon a single fallen tree, you will not see the green forest that still surrounds it.

"Enlightenment's program was the disenchantment of the world. It wanted to dispel myths, to overthrow fantasy with knowledge. Bacon, the father of experimental philosophy, brought these motifs together. He despised the exponents of tradition, who substituted belief for knowledge and were as unwilling to doubt as they were reckless in supplying answers. All this, he said, stood in the way of the happy match between the mind of man and the nature of things, with the result that humanity was unable to use its knowledge for the betterment of its condition."

- Imagine a tribe of primitive humans who have resided within a small valley for at least several centuries. A generation after a generation they have learned which creatures to hunt, which plants to eat, and where and how to procure precious drinking water. Yet this valley does not posses infinite resources. The game to hunt is finite, and the edible plants are only so numerous at a certain of time of the year. Therefore, as the population grows the members of the tribe begin to suffer from the effects of malnourishment in ever greater degree. The obvious solution to this predicament is to climb past the mountains in search of more plants to eat, and for more game to hunt. The members of the tribe know how to survive as taught by generation after a generation, yet they have also been taught that crossing the mountains is forbidden. It is does not really matter if it is due to fears of an imagined or a real beast, or a sin against the wishes of a deity or a spirit. The mountains around the valley might even be seen as no more than a source of bad luck. Thus the tribe will suffer and struggle until someone out of desperation goes against the traditions of his tribe and manages to convince the others to follow him beyond those mountains. Indeed, it is easy to imagine how myths and fantasy could prevent humanity from using its knowledge for the betterment of its condition. This trait of our species is not limited to those of primitive cultures, this kind of behaviour can be observed even among societies that form the so called pinnacle of modernity. As a quick example; I could simply point out towards those who hold curious ideas and notions regarding the shape of our planet, or the effects of decades old vaccines.

"Such inventions as had been made — Bacon cites printing, artillery, and the compass — had been arrived at more by chance than by systematic enquiry into nature. Knowledge obtained through such enquiry would not only be exempt from the influence of wealth and power but would establish man as the master of nature:

Therefore, no doubt, the sovereignty of man lieth hid in knowledge; wherein many things are reserved, which kings with their treasure cannot buy, nor with their force command; their spials and intelligencers can give no news of them, their seamen and discoverers cannot sail where they grow: now we govern nature in opinions, but we are thrall unto her in necessity: but if we would be led by her in invention, we should command her by action."

- Do you know who invented the wheel? Do you know whether its discovery was more due to chance or systematic enquiry into nature? What about fire? Who was the first human being to discover how to create it rather than to just maintain it? Whether by chance or systematic enquiry little steps were taken one after another to acquire ever more knowledge regarding the nature itself, and also of nature of the human spirit. At times the knowledge discovered could be lost in a disaster, but what has been discovered once can be found out again. In the west renaissance brought forth a chain reaction that produced perhaps the fastest advancement of human understanding in the entire existence of our species. Instead of small steps, leaps were being taken and what would have been feats of pure magic mere centuries before became no more than mundane aspects of every day life. The knowledge built upon knowledge has most definitively been used for the betterment of humanity's condition. As for the men and the few women who were initially responsible for these leaps in science and philosophy – they shared a singular common trait amongst themselves – they had a strong tendency towards being be the spawns of nobility or affluence. Thus their lives could be spent to master knowledge already acquired, and they could take the steps to expand that knowledge even further.

The knowledge of man has already grown so broad and wide that not one individual could ever hope to learn all of it, even if given all eternity. Knowledge builds on knowledge. The sovereignty of a man does indeed lie hidden within knowledge, and we have barely touched a single drop of a vast ocean. Yet discovery of new knowledge does not come free, for men have to be trained in what has already been learned and then given the chance to test and discover the next leap in the realm of knowledge. In a way it does require the treasures of a king, the force of their command to allow us to question and speak freely no matter the topic, it requires that new discoveries are spread far and wide so that any mistakes or errors of thought or evidence can be corrected before those cause unwitting harm, and there is no distance on sea or land that cannot be crossed in order to share the fruits and labours of true giants. These true giants possessed a combination of understanding and imagination that cannot be bought with the king's treasure, or manifested through his command. The best a king can do is offer an opportunity and see if something good comes out of it. Thus Bacon is correct, by mostly chance, the right man stood where he is remembered in history.

"Although not a mathematician, Bacon well understood the scientific temper which was to come after him. The happy match between human understanding and the nature of things that he envisaged is a patriarchal one: the mind, conquering superstition, is to rule over disenchanted nature."

- And what would be the alternative to the above? Would it be a matriarchal one: the mind, enslaved by superstition, is to suffer beneath the mystified and misunderstood nature? I think I would much prefer to side with Bacon, and not just on the topic of what to put on top of a toast.

"Knowledge, which is power, knows no limits, either in its enslavement of creation or in its deference to worldly masters. Just as it serves all the purposes of the bourgeois economy both in factories and on the battlefield, it is at the disposal of entrepreneurs regardless of their origins. Kings control technology no more directly than do merchants: it is as democratic as the economic system with which it evolved."

- A man that knows how to build a house from the stones gathered from a shore can build his own home. These stones do not weep for their enslavement, nor do they sing praise for their new purpose. The knowledge of how to build a house from stones does not care who possesses it, nor how it is utilised. The reason why this knowledge exists. and how it is used. is defined by human need. The original use of the word 'exploitation' in the 1944 edition was more sensible choice than the current word of 'enslavement.'

Anyhow, let us discuss about the nature of power. Two men of equal strength and skill cannot permanently force the other to submit through the use of force. A test of physical might one day favour one, and on the next the other. Thus struggle as our two equals might, they are stuck at a stalemate without a clear winner. Therefore, if one wishes to posses power beyond that of the other, one must either posses higher degree of skill or strength to remove all doubt in regards of one's superiority. But even if one possess both superior skill and strength, one can still fall sick or be injured, which may be enough to swing the balance of power in favour of the other. The more you think about it, the more obvious it is that the nature of power is strictly speaking relative rather than something absolute. Now, if knowledge is power, then it too must be relative. This relative nature means that while there exists an undeniable correlation, neither strength nor knowledge forms an automatic causation with power. Any individual might possess vast amounts of knowledge or unmatched physical strength without any actual use for one iota of it. Indeed, the power of both depends on their actual use.

Finally, let us focus on the 'economic system' or 'capitalism' as it was described in the earlier 1944 edition. As long as technological advances are not limited by the monopolies of the state or those of the corporations, whatever the advance may be it will become common place if it is a thing of use or interest. A simple example of this is the fact that while morbid obesity used to be a privilege of the 'bourgeois' element of the society, it is simply no longer the case. Capitalism and technological advancement has brought forth such abundance of food that the poor in capitalistic nations can be as fat as the old English kings listed on the pages of history. Moreover, a modern 'smart phone' is an amalgamation of a multitude of products and services into a singular object and to list only a few: a single smart phone is a phone, a library, a radio, a television, it is a shopping mall, a shelf of toys, a recording studio, it can act as your wallet, and it enables communication between two or more people at the opposite ends of the globe. Initially these smart phones were nothing more than a curious and expensive gadgets of the 'bourgeois' element but with technological advancement they have become affordable and widespread throughout the society. Fair economic competition is a great boon to all of humanity because it encourages innovation, which translates to better goods and services. Yet even today, both states and corporations try to create and maintain a monopolistic positions due to the temporary power it generates. At the moment of writing, it is most evident in the censorship of online interactions ranging from basic communication to entrepreneurship. Much of these interactions take place through the services of a handful of online service providers, who therefore possess the power to either allow or deny these interactions. They possess the power to end whatever they deem distasteful or might consider to be a competitor. These old and large services providers do not possess any trade secrets that make competition against them impossible, and their dominance in their fields is largely based on them being the first to discover and capitalize on a particular niche in the realm of human interaction. Now, no one really likes to be censored to any degree when it comes to their own interactions, and the more people become censored, the bigger their desire for an alternative service provider. These old providers have censored and then used their power and influence to prevent the operation and growth of the potential competitors to their dominance, and therefore the current state of affairs is no longer that of a fair economic competition, it is not the same environment that initially gave birth created these service providers. But the ability to destroy competitors does not remove the fundamental reason why a competing product or a service is desired. Thus if someone wishes to compete, if someone wishes to offer people what they desire, then they must come up with something new because the use of available knowledge and tools has been denied of them. Eventually someone always will. The saddest fact in all of this is that there would be no need to censor and crush competition had they not started to censor the interactions of their service users. And the more they abuse their power, the more evident it becomes, until eventually even those who have not been censored and destroyed start to become more than concerned of the current state of affairs,

And yes, capitalism is not perfect, but I am greatly in favour of allowing whoever to use the knowledge available in whatever way they deem possible, but only as long as they do not infringe on the ability of others to do the same. Knowledge is a tool, and tools exist to be used.

"Technology is the essence of this knowledge. It aims to produce neither concepts nor images, nor the joy of understanding, but method, exploitation of the labor of others, capital."

- I suppose the word technology could be used to describe the essence of knowledge. Just as there is technology to create specific things, there also exists technology to understand things. It could be said that technology is the method of achieving a specific goal. One cannot master these methods without concepts and images that aid the joy of understanding. Thus let us consider the creation of a stone arrow head; it is an impossible task without first having a concept or an image of the desired shape. But this concept of a desired shape does not translate into an arrowhead on its own, it requires the correct type of stone that can be worked on, and endless amount of repetition to master the very creation of this desired shape. Can you imagine the spending hours and days hitting rocks against each other, again and again, until you can finally feel the rush of joy as you hold the perfect arrow head upon your palm? Yet as fine as the arrow head is, alone it is no more than a sharp piece of rock. The arrow needs a shaft, it needs feathers to form the fins, and without a bow an arrow is just a decorated twig with a sharp end. A bow in turn requires a high tensile string that connects the two ends of a rigid but elastic arc of some material or another. Yet still the bow and arrow are useless toys by themselves without a skilled hunter to track down the game, and then you still need a skilled archer to land the arrow on the intended target. Thus let us assume that each step was done by a single individual. Can you tell me whose labour was exploited in the above example? What is the worth of the labour done by each of these individuals? Take your time and consider the ease and difficulties associated with each step, and how the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. The knowledge behind the creation and the use of bow and arrow is something that can be passed on, it can be taught to others, who in turn can teach it ever onwards. Thus the next generation does not have to invent and master the art of creation and the use of bow and arrow from scratch. The next generation has a chance to perhaps improve upon the bow, or perhaps focus on solving other issues of their society. Our quoted author calls the exploitation of the labour of others the basis of humanity's technological advancement, but is it really exploitation? In the example of the stone arrow head, the archer requires the labour of others to be able to practise his own set of skills. He could acquire their assistance through the use of physical force, but when people are forced to do something against their own free will they also have a tendency towards doing only the bare minimum, if even that. The other and far better alternative is that he promises the others a share of the game as a compensation for their labour, and this way they can all go to sleep with their bellies full. But as the generations pass and the society grows ever more complex, one man might have the required set of skills, but he might not be content with just a share of the game. He might long to have something else, something entirely different instead, which means that his best chance of acquiring it is by trading his share of the game into something else. And if necessary he can make trades until he finally acquires his desire. But the longer this chain of trades becomes, the more likely it is that other people have to make their own trades to meet their earlier promises. Therefore, such chains of trade can become very complicated, and sometimes difficult or impossible to follow through. Thus even without much of society to speak of, there arises a need for a shared medium for completing these trades, and regardless of whether it is goods or services being traded. Perhaps this medium could be sea shells, or pretty rocks, or whatever object of relative rarity that is easily storable and persistent. Perhaps this curious medium of trade could be considered to be capital. The invention of capital is indeed a wonderful thing, a fascinating piece of technology, as it allows individuals with specific knowledge or abilities to acquire things beyond their realm of knowledge or abilities.

Technology exists because it can be used for either your benefit or that of others. Thus let us return to that arrow; you have a concept of what it is supposed to do, you have an image of what it is supposed to look like, and finally the joy of understanding when the concept and imagine are joined together to form something that works. What you have is a method to create more arrows, perhaps even better arrows, and those who are unable or unwilling to make their own can request you to make arrows for them. If you choose you can hand arrows as gifts, or ask for something else in turn as a fair compensation for your efforts. The benefit of this kind of thing might be greater for some than it is for others, but at the end of the day all benefit from it.

"The many things which, according to Bacon, knowledge still held in store are themselves mere instruments: the radio as a sublimated printing press, the dive bomber as a more effective form of artillery, remote control as a more reliable compass. What human beings seek to learn from nature is how to use it to dominate wholly both it and human beings. Nothing else counts."

- A simple example of the operation of a printing press is a small child pressing his hand against wet sand. A surface is pressed with something that brands it with a mark. Thus one could argue that the basic idea is not fundamentally very different between that hand print upon a shore, and a page of text churned out of a printing machine. But such a claim does injustice for the printing press because you have the surface in the form of paper, you have the lettering that leaves the desired mark, but the lettering does not work as intended without the ink. But if you just pour ink on a piece of paper, well, all you have is a piece of paper covered in ink regardless of whether or not you attempt to press it with the desired lettering. Therefore, the cleverness of the printing press lies in how only the desired amount of ink gets applied onto the piece of paper. Thus you cover the lettering with ink, place the paper on top, and then press down the paper for the ink to leave its mark. That said, a simple example of the radio requires some understanding of electromagnetic radiation. It first requires the construction of a transmitter that can encode sound into electromagnetic radiation and then a receiver that can decode the sent electronic radiation back into sound. The creation of a radio requires understanding of natural phenomena beyond what is easily discernible by the human senses, and it would be next to impossible without the creation of specific instruments that proved the existence of electromagnetic radiation in the first place. Now, it is important to understand that we humans share innate interests that we long to have fulfilled. Therefore, the spread and use of any new technology in a capitalistic society depends on how well it meets one of these innate interests of our species. A printing press could for example create a book that can be passed from hand to hand, and its contents can be explored freely at the reader's leisure. A radio broadcast on the other hand only knows pause and break when determined by its broadcaster, and any missed broadcasts will remain so. While it is possible to read an entire book on a radio broadcast, it is not the most convenient solution on an individual level. That said, a radio broadcast presents a marvellous opportunity to spread news far and wide, because news of any event only require a brief explanation that could be easily repeated or updated on with another broadcast. Thus the radio has only partially 'sublimated' the printing press in some limited aspects, and enabled other things like music to spread far wider and faster than what was previously possible. With every new technological advancement, one must always ask of what else could it be used for, and this is a question that can only be answered after trying out absolutely everything.

As for the matter of a dive bomber and artillery, the word dive bomber springs to my mind the Japanese suicide bombers – kamikaze pilots – of the second world war. Basically, an aeroplane has been turned into a human guided suicide missile. A missile that is able to course correct in mid flight, a missile that is able react to the flaws in the enemy's defence. This is terrifying accuracy if you compare it against the predetermined flight arc of a traditional artillery shell. Yet, I would never consider this as a truly effective way of waging a war. With each attempt you are required to throw away the life of a single human being to pilot that plane. Human lives are expensive because for much of our youth we cannot survive on our own, we must spend time acquiring skills that our societies require to function, and then we must care for the next generation so that they too can carry the torch of the civilization onwards. Therefore, suicide attacks are usually no more than the last ditch efforts of a side that faces absolute destruction. But let us return to the dive bombers without that tint that disregards the value of human life. The basic concept behind a dive bomber is as follows; an aeroplane carries a load of explosives that are delivered through a high altitude dive to increase the accuracy of the type of attack. Thus in theory a single dive bomber has a better chance to hit a moving target than the shot of a single artillery gun miles away. But that said, which one is easier to spot from a distance, an aeroplane or an artillery shell falling down? Or perhaps far more importantly; which one moves faster, our aeroplane or our artillery shell? The aeroplane needs to reach the enemy, and then return back to home base to reload. The artillery gun can keep firing, and firing, until it either runs out of ammo or the gun barrel gets ruined by overheating. The dive bomber is not an end all, win all invention, it merely serves some aspects of warfare better than some others options.

Finally, let us have look at the claim that remote control is a more reliable compass. Remote control only really works within a line of sight. Once a controlled object goes beyond the relative horizon, there is no guarantee that the controller will remain in anyway in control of the object. Now, human technological advancement has broadened our horizons even beyond our stratosphere, and that has certainly increased the possibilities of remote control. Yet when all else fails, humanity can still rely on a compass to point towards the magnetic north, at least, if we keep our compass away from strong magnets.

When humans seek to learn from nature, what we seek is solutions to problems, and through solutions and better understanding humanity can improve its very condition. Thus today, when I turn on the radio I can hear music that I would not hear in any other way, I can board an aeroplane and fly to the other side of the world in less than a day, and who knows if in near future I can order a meal that is delivered to me by a remote controlled drone. Both big and small improvements are created by our better understanding of nature, and this is why we need to study and wholly understand it. Should humanity ever lose this understanding, then we will not have the skills required to maintain that what we already have, which in turn creates a cruel world where the only thing that matters is survival by any means necessary. Thus, I would argue that whoever considers the results of technological advancements as mere instruments, reveals nothing more than callous and dangerous ignorance on their part.

"Ruthless toward itself the Enlightenment has eradicated the last remnant of its own self-awareness. Only thought which does violence to itself is hard enough to shatter myths. Faced by the present triumph of the factual mentality. Bacon's nominalist credo would have smacked of metaphysics and would have been convicted of the same vanity for which he criticized scholasticism."

- Only a man willing to consider the possibility that he himself is wrong, is able to notice his own error, and change his views in return. This is not an easy feat to pull off, in fact it is very difficult thing to do. But whenever a world-view comes in conflict with reality, it will result in a literal headache that can be resolved in one of two ways:

A) The human mind creates increasingly complex explanations, often marred in fallacies, in an attempt to explain away the reality and maintain the pre-existing world-view. This is a state of mind that can be maintained as long as one is able to deny their own self-awareness.

– or –

B) The human mind gives up on the parts that are in direct conflict with reality itself, and accepts reality as a part of a more accurate world view. This is how facts and logic can form a basis of thought that allows it to shatter myths, or more accurately separate the truth from the falsehood.

As for Bacon's nominalist credo, I have never encountered it, and so I cannot comment on it. But even with a shallow wade into the realm of philosophy one thing stands absolutely clear and obvious: knowledge builds on knowledge. The ideas of the Enlightenment did not just appear from thin air, they are based on ideas that existed before, big or small practices that proved to be beneficial. Sometimes there have been steps forward, sometimes steps backwards. Thus let us imagine a conflict between two tribes of nomadic hunter-gatherers, the two tribes wage war, and the winning side will slaughter the losing side on the spot. If you think about it; once the other side is annihilated the conflict is over, but at the same time the losing side has no choice but to fight until its last breath, which will inflict great casualties on your side. But what if someone has a bright idea, what if instead of slaughtering the other tribe you take them in as captives, as salves? It is not difficult to imagine how a life of slavery could be more appealing choice than death, you get live, your friends and family might too, and perhaps there is a way to acquire freedom one day. The winning side might lose its own members in the fight, but the lost labour could be replaced with that of slaves. Not to mention that with knowledge of a way out, people are often less inclined to fight until their last breath. Thus slavery was something that was accepted for thousands of years until the values of Enlightenment brought it to an end in every corner of the world where the light Enlightenment was allowed to shine. It is very easy to judge the decisions and practises of our ancestors, but I am not sure if the better ideas of Enlightenment would have ever come to pass without someone coming up with the idea that you do not have to slaughter your enemy. Humanity's technological advancement is not just a simple matter of physical things, because we also have to consider the advancements in our sense of morals and ethics. Look upon the great empires of history, look upon the great civilizations of the past, and it will be ever easy to regard them as nothing more than cruel barbarians – but it is only possible because we today happen to posses a better set of ideas, better principles. Therefore, it is only sensible to celebrate what our ancestors got right, and not waste our own time by endlessly condemning whatever they might have gotten wrong simply because our condemnation does not change a single moment of the past.

Moreover, because knowledge builds on knowledge, a duplicate of Bacon raised in our modernity would not be bound to reproduce or agree with the works of our earlier Bacon. This duplicate would have lived an entirely different life, filled with different possibilities in addition to all the knowledge that has been acquired in the past. Bacon was a product of his own time, just as we all are of our own time. The set of values that form the very core of the Enlightenment forms a system that will self-correct its own errors and flaws over time. Facts and logic will form a solid foundation against the turbulent emotions that may take hold of us in the present, and once ruled over us in the past. Today there exists a method that allows us to understand and identify thoughts of vanity for what they are, which in turn allows us to leave those thoughts behind. It allows us to free our selves from unnecessary burdens. Thus we ought to value what people got right, instead of focusing on what they got wrong.

"Power and knowledge are synonymous. For Bacon as for Luther, knowledge that tendeth but to satisfaction, is but as a courtesan, which is for pleasure, and not for fruit or generation. Its concern is not satisfaction, which men call truth, but operation, the effective procedure. The true end, scope or office of knowledge does not consist in any plausible, delectable, reverend or admired discourse, or any satisfactory arguments, but in effecting and working, and in discovery of particulars not revealed before, for the better endowment and help of man's life. There shall be neither mystery nor any desire to reveal mystery."

- Once again, the correlation between power and knowledge does not mean an automatic causation. Power will always be relative.

But should there ever be a day when everything is understood, it will naturally mean that there shall be neither mystery not any desire to reveal mystery. It is the only logical conclusion to a successful inquiry into the nature of absolutely everything. It is an inquiry that will result in omniscience upon completion. But this is something that will not be reached within the next year, or a hundred years, or even after a thousand millennia. Our author presents a concern without any foreseeable relevance of any kind. In similar vein, based upon the currently available knowledge the Sun will threaten all life on Earth in about a billion years, and at the moment there are far more pressing matters at hand. Nevertheless, it does not require much to imagine how it could one day cause a crisis in a human society that is solely driven by the inquiry that results in omniscience. Therefore we should not forget that this pursuit is not done just for the sake of the inquiry itself. The reason why it is done is for the betterment of the human condition. For example, imagine that there is a massive boulder blocking a necessary pathway. Its removal could be discussed and theorized to no end, but the boulder itself will not shift an inch until it there is a method that allows it to be moved aside. Once this method has been discovered, it can be utilised to move other boulders of varying size and shape, and this same method could even have additional uses beyond merely shifting boulders away from pathways. Not to mention that through technological advancement there could be improved, or brand new, ways to shift boulders that are in the way.

Were mankind able to reach this hypothetical omniscience, it will be armed with answers to all questions, and the best methods to solve all problems. Thus with all of nature's mysteries solved, as a mere side effect, it will most likely create a world that could only be described as a utopia by all of us alive right here and now. But at the same time, if the life of our modernity were to be described to anyone who lived a mere thousand years prior, they would no doubt call it a utopia. You are naturally free to disagree with me on this, but human beings are imperfect and as a result all human creations are in turn imperfect, and thus even with omniscience the far flung utopia will have its imperfections and problems.

"The disenchantment of the world means the extirpation of animism."

- And what of it? What purpose does it serve to worship a chair you might happen to sit upon? What purpose does it serve to base all your decisions upon sightings of various animals and their associated characters? What purpose does it serve to believe unquestioningly that an immaterial force animates the universe? Has the worship of a chair ever manifested into something other than the chair functioning exactly like it would have with, or without, worship? How does decision making based on animal sightings actually differ from one based on nothing but a coin flip? And finally, can you claim that no one would never, ever consider using the unquestioning blind belief of another to their own personal advantage and benefit?

I am fully aware that the petals plucked from a Bellis perennis, a daisy, will not determine the affections someone else might feel towards me. I am fully aware that a person might become more affectionate towards me if I were to gift them with that daisy with all of its petals intact. Yet I must admit to have plucked those petals out of a moment of whimsicalness. The supposed disenchantment of the world does not mark the destruction of animism, it merely transforms it into a harmless whimsy. A gesture of intent, a chance to show affection upon the desired result, or lament the cruelty of the flower to receive a show of affection in turn. There will always be an element of animism in human communication, because the human mind is capable of associating a thing with far more meaning and importance than what it would otherwise have. A daisy is just a flower, some might even consider it a weed, but give one to your beloved and it will be something precious.

"Xenophanes mocked the multiplicity of gods because they resembled their creators, men, in all their idiosyncrasies and faults, and the latest logic denounces the words of language, which bear the stamp of impressions, as counterfeit coin that would be better replaced by neutral counters."

- And I in turn would mock any deity of singularity, because even the singular divine has an uncanny tendency to match the will and wishes of its creator, men, with all their idiosyncrasies and faults. In fact, I find that religious texts tell us a great deal about the people who wrote them, and what problems their societies faced at their time.

Anyhow, the meaning of a word is usually bound to a specific sound in a certain context of other sounds. For example take the word 'fish' in the English language and compare it with its counterparts in all other spoken, or written, languages, and you will witness that there exists a multitude of different sounds that denote the word 'fish.' I can find no reason to consider any of these sounds in any way superior or inferior to each other, these sounds are merely what the speakers of a language have unconsciously agreed to use to in order to distinguish the meaning of the word 'fish' from all other words. This agreement is not set in stone, and therefore all words will change over time. But as long as the speakers of a language understand each other, the language serves a purpose as a medium of communication and information exchange.

Yet what I witness taking place today is the spread of impressions in order to advance ideological goals regardless of consequences. For example, the word 'racist' is a word that denotes an individual that believes that a particular race is superior to all other races. A race in this context is a group of humans with a specific set of shared traits in their appearance such as; skin colour, eye, colour, hair colour, etc. The word 'racist' is a label that is not a positive one, it is quite literally a serious insult and accusation. Yet the believers of a particular political ideology have decided to use this word and give it another meaning entirely: an individual with power plus privilege. They are fully aware how majority of the contemporary English speakers are not aware of their definition of the word, and this allows them to use the word 'racist' to both sensor and tarnish the reputations of their opposition with impunity. The weight of this word is so great that those falsely labelled by it will face tremendous difficulty in simply having someone hear their evidence of the contrary. Moreover, the definition of; power plus privilege, is so vague that it could be applied to absolutely anyone, since power, as discussed earlier, is something relative. Therefore, I am very much against these stamps of impressions because those are nothing more than detractions to understanding and honest interaction. There exists a clear benefit upon insistence on the correct use of the words. Yet, the absolute insistence of definitions set in stone will only result a creation of an entirely new language. One that is written, and not spoken. It was the fate of Latin. It is a process that can already be seen in the English language if you look at the word 'knight' and consider how the written form no longer matches with its current pronunciation. Thus, it appears there are two choices, either we insist on specific definitions and create a written language set in stone, or the continued misuse of the word 'racist' will eventually rob the word of its original meaning. It is entirely possible that the definition of 'power plus privilege' might one day entirely overthrow the old definition. Therefore, what was once a negative term will be transformed into something that could be understood as a compliment. I am sure you can you image the difficulty and headache it would create for any future historian that attempts to make sense of our contemporary written records. But whatever is the outcome, the following fact remains; the precise and accurate use of words simplifies human communication, and since words exist to facilitate communication, it is preferable to use words with clear meaning rather than ones tainted by a multitude of false impressions.

"The world becomes chaos, and synthesis salvation."

- The world is that of chaos, and it is our pattern recognition ability that allows us to make sense of small parts of it, and by combining these parts we can form a degree of far greater understanding. The world is chaos, and synthesis appears to be our salvation. For example, without the invention of farming there would be no human civilization to speak of; all of humanity would be nothing more than small tribes of hunter-gatherers walking on foot from one place to another. It only takes a single bad year and whatever knowledge these tribes possessed would vanish along with the entire tribe. The knowledge of multiple tribes will not be combined, and each tribe will continue to struggle and die alone. Even if one tribe knew of a salvation, it would not aid any other tribe beset by a crisis. But let us imagine that one of these tribes finds a fertile and prosperous land. A place where this tribe can stay for a slightly longer time, perhaps even for a several years. A member of this tribe takes note of how the seasons pass and starts to record the passage of time in an attempt to predict the future, and when the local river floods. Another member discovers that one of the local grasses produces edible grains. They talk to each other and from there arises a curious idea that perhaps they could have more of those edible grains. The life is relatively good for the tribe and the others do not mind that two tribe members hoard these grains only to throw them around or push them into the soil at a later date. As the year passes, they will learn where the seeds took hold, they can compare plots of land in order to reason out the differences between them. Come next year, they will probably be able to distinguish their preferred plant from all others, and proceed to weed out that which they do not like. It is an effort that will result in a field of grain, year after a year. A field of grain produces far more of the desired grain, and it is also much faster to collect than the sporadic plant here and there. This abundance means that the grains are no longer something that has to be eaten as is and a third member of the tribe decides to grind some of these grains between two rocks and manages to create first flour as the result, and off he runs and forgets some of the grain into a clay pot that fills with rain water. In short, these little ideas or accidents result in ever increasing amount of knowledge, and little by little there are new tools that improve the life of the tribe. These grains form a reliable source of food and suddenly the tribe does not have to leave the fertile land only after a few years. This is the first village, this is the first city, and the combined knowledge of it allows the creation of another village, and another city. This knowledge can be taught to a miserable and starving tribe of hunter-gatherers, and they too can prosper. In other words, there are more and more people interacting with each other, and clever ideas spread like wildfire. Humans begin to live in a societies, and it brings forth great benefits and a fair share of new problems, but it is also the beginning that allows us to maintain and acquire far more knowledge than ever before.

The world is chaos, even today, but only a fool would not recognise how synthesis of knowledge has been, is, and will be mankind's salvation. Oh, and synthesis in its philosophical context is the combination of knowledge to form a greater understanding. In the realm of technology, experts from different fields can come together and pool in their skills and knowledge to achieve something none of them could achieve alone. At the moment of writing, I read news of how humanity acquired something that resembles the first real picture of a black hole, and it was the result of a team effort, a combination of various talents and skills .

"No difference is said to exist between the totemic animal, the dreams of the spirit-seer, and the absolute Idea."

- If there exists such a fundamental difference, why not simply state it? I cannot speak with much expertise here, but the myths of various totemic animals usually usually have a role that explains the surrounding universe, just as the fever and drug induced hallucinations of the spirit-seer, and philosophers in turn attempt to explain and understand the surrounding universe with the concept of an absolute Idea. Therefore, what I witness here is the same desire to understand and make sense of the world. There are certainly many different paths and means to make sense of existence itself, but the actual merit carried forth by each path and explanation is something debatable.

"On their way toward modern science human beings have discarded meaning."

- A bolt of lightning strikes in the distance, what is the meaning of that relatively sporadic natural phenomenon? Is it a sign from a deity, is it an omen from your ancestral spirits, does it mark a location of great fortunes, or does it simply promise endless peril? Personally, a bolt of lightning is just a bolt of lightning, it is a natural event that can be easily explained. The thunder is a result of the sudden increase in pressure and temperature, and it is caused by the lightning as it expands the surrounding air molecules and results in a shock wave of sound. Lightning itself is just a sudden electrostatic discharge between two electrically charged regions, and these regions could be within the same cloud, separate clouds, or even between the ground and a cloud. I suppose it is fair to say that a bolt of lightning no longer bears the same societal significance it once might have.

While individual preferences and interests will always vary, it is generally speaking in the human nature to form families and to secure the future of our offspring. In other words; humanity finds significance in its own continued existence. Therefore, it is not difficult to consider how an individual might find meaning in the skills and knowledge they have acquired, the choices they have made and the consequences that have followed. Moreover, every individual will face their periods of self-discovery and doubt, but it is part of the human nature to find meaning and joy in the very things we do. This then begs an interesting question, does the life of a philosopher hold any meaning at all?

The word 'meaning' is a curious one, with many possible meanings, and yet still it merely holds a single meaning.

"The concept is replaced by the formula, the cause by rules and probability. Causality was only the last philosophical concept on which scientific criticism tested its strength, because it alone of the old ideas still stood in the way of such criticism, the latest secular form of the creative principle. To define substance and quality, activity and suffering, being and existence in terms appropriate to the time has been a concern of philosophy since Bacon; but science could manage without such categories. They were left behind as idola theatri of the old metaphysics and even in their time were monuments to entities and powers from prehistory. In that distant time life and death had been interpreted and interwoven in myths."

- A man slips and breaks his leg in half. A part of the bone is sticking out of the skin. My god, there is blood everywhere. Should this man consult his local spirit-seer for an ancestral healing dance, or perhaps seek the knowledge and expertise of a practitioner of modern medicine? We will come back to this question.

In layman's terms and as is evident to us on the surface of the planet Earth; the concept of gravity is that things fall towards the ground. The formula of gravity tells us how, and this in turn allows us to use it to our advantage or even how to overcome it. The concept is merely an idea of something, while the formula provides the method of achieving it. The concept of the wheel could have arisen from watching a log roll down a hill, while the formula of a wheel tells us how to actually manufacture a wheel, and a wheel is of far greater use than a heavy and oddly shaped log. Humanity has sent a man to the moon, which in turn would allow us to send a man to witness if there is any life on Mars, and we could do it for no other reason than to spit on the eyes of fools.

A cause has an effect, which produces a result, and it will bear some consequences. For example, a coin was flipped and it produced tails as the result. The toss of a coin is considered to produce either head or tails at roughly even odds. It is a common saying that a coin flip has a 50-50 probability to land on either side, heads or tails. But let us consider the rules of a coin flip, the strength and angle of the flip itself, the geometry of the coin alongside with its density, the angle where it lands, and all materials from solids to gasses that make contact during a coin flip. Thus in theory, we could build a machine that always produces heads as the one and only result. Yet, the interaction between different materials