129 lines
7.2 KiB
Plaintext
129 lines
7.2 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
### #### ### ### ### ####
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
### ### ### ### ###
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
########## ### ### ##########
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
|
|
Underground eXperts United
|
|
|
|
Presents...
|
|
|
|
####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### ####
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ## ##
|
|
#### ## ## #### # # #### ####### ##
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ## ##
|
|
## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ####### ######
|
|
|
|
[ The Greatest Madness ] [ By The GNN ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE GREATEST MADNESS
|
|
by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metaphor: Two men are sitting by a table. They are thirsty as hell. On the
|
|
table in front of them, there is a glass of water. They believe that if they
|
|
drink this water, their thirst will be relieved. But just as they are about
|
|
to drink, one of the men says: "One moment. How do we know this is a glass of
|
|
water? And how do we know we ought to drink it?"
|
|
The other man finds these two questions interesting. So, instead of
|
|
gulping down the water they begin to debate the questions. Several other
|
|
thirsty men join them, discussing the questions, but not drinking the water.
|
|
Years pass. The two men who sat by the table from the beginning are since
|
|
long dead - from dehydration. No one has yet consumed the water. More and
|
|
more people join the crowd, and more and more people die.
|
|
In the end, one of the men comes up with a knockdown argument, based upon
|
|
the pros and cons from the long-lasting discussion, a logical and
|
|
pragmatically verified truth: the water is water, and ought to be consumed
|
|
for the sake of thirst. This conclusion entails the addition that discussing
|
|
the very questions are highly damaging, since thirsty men must drink the
|
|
water if they want to survive. Case closed.
|
|
|
|
Call the above described men 'philosophers' (but please do not interpret this
|
|
term too broadly). Arguments against philosophy as a discipline are often
|
|
based upon a kind of argument that claims that philosophy is 'meaningless'
|
|
since 'it does not take us anywhere'. The little story above, the critics
|
|
would say, clearly shows that the men discussed something without value;
|
|
after all, they came up with the conclusion that they should have consumed
|
|
the water at once instead of discussing its ontological and ethical status.
|
|
Let us imagine that beside the table with the two philosophers, there was
|
|
another table with two other men. They never considered any questions about
|
|
the be-or-not-to-be concerning the water, they just drank the water and
|
|
relieved their thirst. Call these two men 'realists' (but, once again, do not
|
|
interpret the term too broadly).
|
|
Critics of philosophy do not hesitate to bring forward the common sense
|
|
and superiority of the realists. The philosophers died - the realists
|
|
survived. The conclusions the philosophers came to after several years of
|
|
complex discussions were already put into simple practice by the realists.
|
|
Therefore, the realists did something 'meaningful' while the philosophers did
|
|
something 'meaningless', the critics say.
|
|
The philosophers and the realists have one thing in common: they both
|
|
concluded that the water ought to be consumed. The difference is that the
|
|
realists 'just did it' (as the philosophers concluded that it ought to be
|
|
done) while the philosophers first had to verify this fact.
|
|
Now then, let us ask ourselves the following question: when the realists
|
|
indirectly claimed 'the water ought to be consumed', on which knowledge did
|
|
they base this belief? The answer is simple: none whatsoever. When the
|
|
philosophers directly claimed the same thing, did they base this conclusion
|
|
on knowledge? Indeed they did. So, we must grant that the realists 'just did
|
|
it' and 'it' just _happened_ to be right in this particular case.
|
|
Following from this, when the last philosopher drank the water, he did not
|
|
do something that he 'merely thought' was right - he did something he _knew_
|
|
(or 'had very good reasons to believe') was right.
|
|
Now, how can anyone claim that the realists were superior to the
|
|
philosophers? After all, they knew nothing. They just did what they felt for.
|
|
Their mere survival is not a good argument for their 'superiority'. To see
|
|
this, imagine the following case: Two men are in a locked room. On the wall,
|
|
there are two levers. The men know that the room will explode if they pull
|
|
the wrong lever. If they pull the right lever, however, the door will swing
|
|
open and let them out. To know which lever they should pull to get out, they
|
|
need to read a book that is in their possession. But the two men are too lazy
|
|
to read; instead, they pull a random handle. The door opens and they step
|
|
out.
|
|
Did these two men do the right thing? In the sense that managed to get out
|
|
of the room, they sure did. But would you like to be in the same room as
|
|
those two people? I guess not. You would prefer to have important decisions
|
|
made based upon knowledge, not simple guesses or 'feelings what is right'.
|
|
Even if the book actually said 'feel in your heart which lever is right, and
|
|
you will find it', you would prefer that this book was actually read before
|
|
the feelings started to play a role.
|
|
|
|
Therefore, philosophy cannot be regarded as 'meaningless'. It tries to find
|
|
answers, contrary to the 'realists' whom just does things without second
|
|
thought. If we believe that the world ought to be ruled by the 'superior
|
|
realists' we are on the wrong track. Because in such a world, dogmatism,
|
|
narrow-mindedness and oppression of higher thinking, will be regarded as
|
|
superior to knowledge and the search for truth. In such a world, no one will
|
|
drink water when they are thirsty, because they will be too busy killing each
|
|
other for the sake of the glass of water. No one will _know_, or try to find
|
|
out, what is Right or Wrong; no one will even know what the very words imply
|
|
- instead, everybody will just have, and put into practice, their own
|
|
personal unfounded _opinions_ (which certainly is not the same thing as
|
|
knowledge) about 'right' and 'wrong'.
|
|
A short glance upon how the world look today shows that it is ruled by the
|
|
opinion that the opinions of the realists are superior. But the greatest
|
|
madness of all - and this is due to a vicious interrelation - is that the
|
|
world is increasingly made as to make such opinions correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
errare humanum est, sed in errore
|
|
perseverare turpe est
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
uXu #381 Underground eXperts United 1997 uXu #381
|
|
Call ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT -> +31-77-3547477
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|