Academia and Philosophy

                                              

Written by: Allah's Strongest Warrior

Edited by: Meeeee :3 

Editor's notes

This annoying Simpsons clip which people think is so funny: 

I've heard people say that it's actually a really good song. Probably because it's an off-key parody of an 80s pop song: Rock Me Amadeus by deceased Austrian singer Falco.

The whole point of that character in the original Planet of the Apes film was to represent this official of a theocratic society who's best interest is the suppression of theories relating to humans which prove to be problematic for the science favored by Ape society. The great line which is repeated throughout the film is that "there is no contradiction between faith and science, true science". The joke is that truth, more often than not tends to be fluid when it comes to the interests of those in control, and all you're left with in the end throughout history is power. Although, sometimes disenfranchized geniuses slip through the cracks, usually after they're gone. 

Their works are available for review on obscure parts of the internet at least. The only thing between them and proper recognition, besides having been systematically crushed, is the equally systematic variable of popular interest. For the most part you can rely on Millennials to the recognize the Simpsons gag over the 80s pop song.

_________________________________________________________________________

In the past, organized religion thrived; to some extent, it still does, but not nearly to the same degree. Churches ruled over everyone; popes had more authority than kings. Those who challenged their doctrines were seen as "heretics" and were punished for their crimes against theology—such crimes as believing in a heliocentric solar system—things that, in retrospect, are seen as foolish to disagree with now. But, of course, hindsight is 20/20. Most of these "heretics" are philosophers. Philosophers were never really respected; in fact, they were penniless most of the time, and seen as no different than vagrants. Not until years down the line would their thoughts and ideas be appreciated, as people would trust the ones with more "credit”—which is funny to me; these men devoted their lives to finding some meaning in nothing, trying to dissect humanity, thought, and the divine. Their ideas are put in books, and their images are deified to an extent. But they get nothing out of it. People would question their ideas, as they only believed what was in the scriptures when it came to the truth. But for the thinkers? There were no scriptures or definitive pieces of evidence, and nothing distinguished a philosopher from the common man except their wisdom. Wisdom is gained through experience; it's gained through thinking. Sometimes wisdom can hit you; there can be a spark; thoughts can appear in your head. But philosophy is still seen as a problem, because a new religion has claimed the throne: "Science." "College" is the new church, and these "free thinkers" are heretics who go against the "scripture." Sure, you won't be forced to drink the poison hemlock, but you could get fired from your job for holding such beliefs. You've committed the blasphemy of "misinformation." The PHD gives more authority to clergymen, giving them the right to sneer at fools who challenge their ideals—which is ironic because a PHD dignifies a "Doctor of Philosophy." Because of this paper, it simply means they can think better than you; because of this paper, it means they have better opinions than you. Your ideas, your thoughts—they only matter if you have a piece of paper to back them up. Philosophy is not science; it is not concrete, and it is subject to change. It is only through collaboration and debate that these philosophical thoughts can be given meaning, but nobody wants to discuss things anymore. Nobody wants to have their ideals challenged; they want to dismiss the conversation as soon as possible. They will ask for a "verified source" on where your ideas came from; they will use terms such as "strawman" or "misinformed," because they never even wanted to know what you meant in the first place. The modern person can't seem to understand that sometimes you can have a thought that's not peer-reviewed. If someone has an idea or thought that goes against the norm, something that questions things that are currently thought of as facts, they will be seen as a heretic. They will be mocked for their blasphemy against science. This will make no one want to express themselves. "Why should I share my beliefs or ideas when no one will listen?" they will reason. Science was always meant to be challenged, just as ideas were meant to be challenged, and there is no scientific theory that will always be 100% correct forever, yet nobody tries to challenge ideas because they don't think they are smart enough to have any input.

This brings up the topic of ignorance and education. You see, it benefits all of the people at the top for you to stay ignorant, to not care, and to believe everything said by someone with the credentials to be "correct." You challenging their thoughts will only make them look bad; they don't believe in wisdom, only peer-reviewed articles. This corresponds to the concept of IQ, which is an archaic device designed to limit the growth of the common person. Through this arbitrary number, you can filter the problematic people out and choose to prop up the ones who are more naive. Even if you ignore the malicious design aspects, you can argue that as a measurement system, it has done more harm than good. Intelligence can change with experience; there are two types of IQ tests: one that tests you through questions and formulas (Quality) and one that quantifies the number based on your accomplishments. (Quantity) This number brings up a sort of inferiority complex, as you believe that with a low number, your thoughts and inputs are of less value than if you had a higher number. Because of this, you don't even bother trying to think. You don't even bother trying to share your beliefs because you have been branded with a label saying "this person is less valuable."Yet this number is only relevant when it comes to the measurements imposed through systematic intelligence. This does not evaluate something like wisdom but only your reaction time and "problem-solving skills." The sad truth is that there is a modern Plato and a modern Socrates somewhere out there, but we will never know about them; perhaps they, too, will die penniless, and others will use their ideas to advance their own careers years later. Unfortunately, due to the modern era's information overload, their ideas—if they were ever preserved—will vanish along with the average drivel.

The point of philosophy is that anybody can do it. Socrates never attended college, and Gallileo was not a "scientist." A bum on the side of the road could wax philosophical just as well as a well-respected professor. This is the beauty of philosophy. This is the beauty of thinking.