Tag Archives | rationalism

Who is responsible for terrorism?


This picture shows, Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim Policeman defending free speech. He died a hero after being shot in the head by a terrorist. It is strangely hard for some people to understand that the man with the gun is the one responsible for the shooting[1]. Not society. Not some cartoons. Not Fox News. Not The Daily Mail. Not even Tony Blair or George Bush and their war in Iraq. Or a magic book from the middle ages. Or you. Or me. Not anyone else. Him. He’s responsible.

Who is responsible for terrorism? Terrorists.

It’s an obvious trick question. Perhaps I’m being mean, this trick question has stumped media pundits and opinionators for many years, but the correct answer is that simple. It just doesn’t make for as good a debate on Fox News and also happens to be diametrically opposed to the aims of people who want to control you by telling you what to do.Read the rest

Continue Reading

Two Takes On ‘New Age’

New age dolphin rainbow


In 1928 a brilliant philosopher/logician from Vienna, Rudolf Carnap, published Der logische Aufbau der Welt, The Logical Structure of the World. Ten years before, Ludwig Wittgenstein had conceived his highly cryptic Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, “the last philosophical book.” Carnap—and other exponents of the Vienna Circle—elaborated on Wittengstein’s message. Toward the conclusion of his mentioned work (183.Rationalism?) he inserted:

REFERENCES. Wittgenstein has clearly formulated the proud thesis of omnipotence of rational science as well as the humble insight relative to its importance for practical life: “For an answer that cannot be expressed, the question too cannot be expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered… (…)” Wittgenstein summarizes the import of his treatise in the following words: “What can be said at all, can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

That famous aphorism, which concludes the treatise, ought to have been interpreted as a confession of Gnostic humility, not as a “proud thesis of omnipotence of rational science.” All it takes is heeding all the implications of the opus.… Read the rest

Continue Reading