Most of us take the perceived world around us as received truth. So when I first read the philosophies of Plato (and Pythagoras) about how there is the perceived world AND a super-sensible world which is invisible to us (as described by non-empirical sciences like math) I immediately called shenanigans. That is, until I consider that everything man-made is customized to our limited range of the EM spectrum. I am aware of no such bias in the natural world. Snakes hunt by perceiving thermal radiation, bats navigate using sound waves, and platypi use electroreception (ie locate their prey in mud partly by detecting electric fields generated by muscular contractions). I have no idea how each of these animal's worldviews compares to that of humans, but it is not fanciful to suppose they would be significantly different. These example species too would initially be of the opinion that their perception of the world is it's true nature. Would they be wrong? Are we wrong to assume it similarly? Of course not. But it would be wrong if we then went on to presume a single perspective can fully describe any system.
Increasing rates of adoption of the philosophy of science among innovators is what has accelerated technological progress in the past century. This suggests a view that objectivity is being socially selected for. Capitalism too can be seen fundamentally to be an outgrowth of democratic principles in that manufacture of a given commodity is upregulated by individual purchasers (subject to thresholds). The will of society is thus demonstrated to be directly linked to the concepts of both objectivism and economy.
If we may assume science is the pursuit of objectivism (universal agreement), and further assume that objectivism is merely the summed synthesis of subjective perspectives (as communication approaches infinity), then many unquestioned opinions held from childhood begin to float to the top: becoming subject to the scrutiny of informed analysis and choice, rather than an incorporation due to a blanket trust of authority. (Note: Behavior need always be subject to authority, while thought on the other hand fully requires rebellion and independence in order to thrive towards originality). Descartes says that ultimately we are able to control our own thoughts and nothing more. With this in mind I further clarify it impossible to change the minds of others. Even if it were accomplished how would we then know it to be so? Only through the lens of behaviors, of which the antecedent motives are impossible to be known except to their author. If we then take Descartes' view as an axiom and combine it with the previous axiom of science as objectivism, we find that it follows that one should increasingly upregulate the objectivity of the self. But how can this be? Wasn't the self previously alluded to as being the very essence of subjectivity? Yes, but upon realizing this, an individual so inclined may then work towards adopting a more universal approach to life. This is the lesson of Game Theory. As an individual increasingly incorporates and adjusts for the desires, preferences, and motivations of others whom they significantly interact with in their life, a subsequent outgrowth of cooperation is realized. Significant interactions here may be defined as sources of competition or perceived prevention of the attainment of personal goals. This expectation follows when rational individuals realize that probability theory demonstrates the product of probability and summed profits is maximized over time by cooperation. Taking cooperation to it's logical extension we see that any economy of pure cooperation is solely driven by positive sum innovation: a profit which benefits all. In such a society the selective pressures of education and creativity would evolve to an increased level of valuation.
Next werk's blog title: The Republic of McGillicuddy (lulz)
