When I write, because I am not an academic, I write for the masses, or at least that portion of the masses that like myself are largely self-educated. We alone have found an inner strength that outweighs any strength academics might have gained from those few slightly post-pubescent years spent half growing-up and the other half trying to impress everyone else with their gaining a degree, perhaps a masters, or a Ph.D. earned by an acceptance of their work by an awkwardly and disingenuous similarly un-pluralist assemblage no different from the candidates.
Academic professionalism is a cadre of "those who can't, teach" archaisms. When the erudite get together, it is like a Synod, or a College of Cardinals, each giddy about the prospect, and more so the appearance, they have arrived at last, ordained as it were, to spread the gospel of empirical truth. And there is plenty of smoke going up each of their hopeful chimneys, a Nobel Prize?
Monica Lewinski I think typifies the average person with a masters degree. No, I don't just think Monica typifies academia at that level. She does. And everyone above that laughable level must pass through it with the likes of Monica.
As one passes through life, one simply has to draw the line somewhere. As I saw it all coming, I drew that line long before my ever having to stand in line with the likes of Monica.
No doubt Monica sat up front and she smiled in class, was well liked by her professors, and handed in the exceptionally well-written mundane work required of her with a flare and another absurdly interested smile even if she was in fact interested in nothing of the sort.
In this sense Monica the ascendant is not much different from Hillary Clinton or Bill, Nancy Pelosi or even George W. Bush, the descendent. In academia, it is played at another level than it is played in politics, but it is the very same game. These aren't clubs. It is more a fraternity-sorority identified by large gold-painted Greek letters that spell out in the dead language of the Greeks, Help! I'm Helpless! I Can't Really do Anything! Give Me an Award!
Of course there are exceptional academics that really throw themselves at their work. They generally discover minute intricacies in their field right where their professors told them to spend a year or two looking for them. They write literally fantastic papers, receive the praise of their academic peers and even sometimes get a job for a while in industry or government, finance or law, and of course in academia! They still can't change a flat tire, keep a mate happy, or contribute much to society except to hurry it along in the direction it is already heading way too fast.
Academia is the momentum behind our destruction.
Academia is the inertia behind our destruction, for those who are physics buffs.
Aristotle is the initial mentor of the academics. Aristotle is the primitive type of the now dominant order transformed into the greatest religion on earth, while in their hands it lasts anyhow.
The academics may not know it, but Aristotle is the one who invented the idea of all the categoric plagiarism that makes up what all academic knowledge is based upon. Oh, I suppose, it is not really plagiarism when an academic does it better than the previous academics who worked on the same categoric problem. Every academic stands upon the weak shoulders of their predecessors. It is all just adding to the lexicon and the encyclopedic of all false knowledge upon which all academia rests.
Before I lose all the academics here, scoffing as they will, perhaps smiling under their cupped hand, shielding their brow and eyes as they read, hoping not to be discovered here within these words... I ask each of you to recall the older textbooks in your field that you have read. Recall those long pre-dating your own entrance into your field. Remember all the wrong information that was in those books? Remember?
Similar wrong information is in the books you and your contemporaries are creating right now. And were you really knowledgeable, you'd see it is all wrong knowledge. Even self-taught as I am, I read it too. The numbers, graphs and statistics are impressive, the prose is quite fancy, but it is definitely just quite fancy bullshit too.
And, this is what Aristotle should be best known for, not his categories.
Virtually every posit of substance made by Aristotle has since been proven utterly mistaken, and just plain fancy bullshit.
As a philosopher, I can assure everyone here, all posits not categorical truths also will be eventually proven to be the same rubbish and tripe like what Aristotle gave us. It is exactly what the academics endlessly praise themselves for creating. You may think you've knocked the world on its ass today with that latest paper, but you're sorely mistaken if you think I'm in the least bit impressed. I shudder at the ignorance. You and others like you are nothing but witches brewing your stew, chanting your mumbo-jumbo incantations, and, generally amounting to nothing more than leading the world to hell in a hand basket made in Basket-Weaving 101 at the university of your choice, or second choice as the case may be.
And to point to exactly where I am headed here, I want you to know something about what Aristotle helped produce. The Macedonian mass-murderer and gang leader, Alexander the Grrrreat! who ruled Greece after his father left it to him, to claim, by murderous treachery, was tutored extensively by Aristotle.
When Alexander was rapaciously plundering the world and found himself in Persia, and some short time before he decided he was a god, he was told by a Persian seeking small-favors, of a liquid that came from the ground and burned. Alexander summoned some of this liquid, and a boy to be brought to him. He ordered that the boy to be covered with the liquid. And then, Alexander lit him afire.
That is what Aristotle tutored. It is no different from what all academics teach their students today. This is empirical reason at work systematically destroying the world. Some do it with compassion. Others do it with physics and chemistry. No doubt Alexander put what he learned to good use thereafter, even spawning numerous papers by attendant academics seeking small-favors for themselves. You too can be academic satrap.
Aristotle founded a more successful religion than any other on earth when he nominated his categories as truth, truth and godliness as it turned out.
Within this religion founded by Aristotle based upon categories, there are monasteries, great cathedrals, seminaries and sabbaticals, and, even communes. There are priests, bishops, cardinals, popes and, alter boys and alter girls now too. I suppose one becomes a pope or the Grand Wizard in this religion of Aristotle when they receive the Nobel Prize in the category of their choice, or second choice as the case may be.
The man who founded this Nobel popery was a real beaut. His name was Alfred Nobel, and he made explosives. He got very rich killing people too, hence the reward money given to each of the new popes in the Church of Aristotle. If you are awarded a Nobel Prize, the choice to teach in whatever church of Aristotle's religion is yours to make, for you have been anointed a pope, in the religion founded by Aristotle. Yours, it is contended, are the actual words of God. You are infallible.
The Church of Aristotle has seized the throne of truth. It has usurped truth from common humanity that has not the strength of legions of pious laity behind us. This Church is on a constant and vigilant inquisition to stamp out all other truths that do not measure up to the dogma of Truth in Categories. The dogma of Truth in Categories now extends into every facet of human endeavor. The ongoing inquisition performs a sort of eugenics, a sort of ethnic cleansing, a sort of genocide of truths that do not accord with the Truth in Categories doctrine set forth by the popes and high priests of the Church of Aristotle.
The Church of Aristotle is actually the same church that burned Copernicus at the stake in 1600. The Church of Aristotle also spawned many other variant churches that each claimed the intellect of the Greeks. Many have since fallen into less favor with the reigning Aristotelian popes. A great schism occurred within the Church of Aristotle when those in his church who followed the words of the Bible were relegated to second class by the dominant clerics in the Church of Aristotle.
The problem with all this academic truth espoused by the believers in the dogma of Truth in Categories of the Church of Aristotle, it turns out, is that none of it is true. It is all very hypothetical, and none of it is categorical truth. For even if it is made of categories, if the categories are false, and they are, it cannot be truth, which, again, it is not.
There is very little known to humanity that is categorically true, true in every instance. But it is there. Categorical truth is possible, if we can spend the time to seek it out. This is not the same as what goes on inside academia. Almost nothing taught or sought in academia is truth except as it is constructed to fit within a schema of Truth in Categories proposed by Aristotle as truth.
Knowledge built upon schema is mutable knowledge that is just as wrong as what, if they look, academics find in dated textbooks within their own field. Their current textbooks too will become dated over time in exactly the same way. The intrinsic falsity creeps up upon the assertions made according to Truth in Categories dogma, and, overtakes each such assertion, one at a time, no less surely than it crept up upon the assertions of Aristotle and authors of dated textbooks.
This is where Aristotle misled the world. The problem with schema built upon categories is twofold. They aren't truth, and they exclude truth.
All Aristotle's arguments about categories as well as schema are sophistry.
We are used to hearing of a disproof of knowledge as being termed, sophistry. But the assertion of knowledge too can be shown to be mere sophistry. All the categories and all the schema built upon categories is sophistry built up since the philosophy of Aristotle. None of it is categorically true. Here's why.
Because none of our definitions are categorically true (a proof for which can be laid individually at the feet of virtually every definition) the categories built upon these definitions cannot true, let alone categorically true (and again, a proof for the falsity of every individual category can be given). Thus every schema built upon these hypothetical categories of false definitions is a crockery. Academic truths are but a grand tapestry of sophistry.
Faux-Philosophers from Aristotle to the present have been willing to overlook this fact in the hope of developing some knowledge. But their philosophic indiscretion has come back to haunt all of us, as well, all the academies in which the academics work. They never once suspected the obvious problem of such an approach. Academics still believe today that they teach truth even as the world around them is crumbling back into a dust more poisonous than that from which they came.
It is a known problem that we have no categorically true definitions. It is also known that the categories and schema built upon these fuzzy definitions must therefore also be non-categorical knowledge. The degree to which all our non-categorical knowledge is untruth, while being accepted by our minds as true, has been extensively inspected by the Existentialists and others. Still however, philosophy has failed since Aristotle to point out the greatest detraction from faith in this faux-knowledge of the Church of Aristotle.
It is all a religion. Our academics teach piety to the faithful. This is true because of the nature of the choice we make to ascribe to definitions, categories and schema.
Out of an infinite number of ways we can choose to define anything in the world, there are also an infinite number of hypothetical ways to categorize these definitions, as well as an infinite number of wholly hypothetical schema for which we could develop about these hypothetical categories which have thus been chosen. The problem is in the choice. The choice made against an infinity of choices.
Thus, the Church of Aristotle, academia, when it invites us into their religion, they ask all of us, through their asserted intellect, to blind ourselves to truth and subscribe to a single absurd choice made out of infinite possibilities so that their own hypothetical categories and schema can be built and maintained as cherished relics of the by-gone popes of the Church of Aristotle.
And then, a consensus arises, out of yet another infinite, hypothetical choice.
The processes of empirical thought and conscription are absurd.
It is no difficult matter to look around at the world the Church of Aristotle has given us, and discern, it was a wrong choice to join this religion. We all have become like so many Alexanders. And like all these many Alexanders we see around us everywhere in the world today, we are all alighting the boy we all covered with the liquid that burns.
The boy is ourselves.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
--------------------------------------------------------
