WHAT IS CAPITALISM?

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit from investment, usually in competitive markets. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices, wages and competition are elements of capitalism. The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.

Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including the determination of how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property. However, there may be an abandonment period of time, after which resources return to unowned status.

Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights. Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor, class and emphasize capitalism as a unique historical formation. There is general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies.. An economic system that relies on private property and market relations but also contains a significant degree of government intervention is sometimes called a mixed economy.

DON'T BE STUCK IN A LOWER LEVEL OF THINKING

The evolutionary thought processes of humanity have basically proceeded as follows: (1) MAGIC & SUPERSTITION, (2) MYTHOLOGY & FOLKTALES, (3) RELIGION & FAITH, (4) PHILOSOPHY & LOGIC, (5) SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY.

Although, in the evolutionary cognition of humanity, each one has served its purpose (for better or worse), it is virtual retardation to get stuck in a past progression. It's late, but it's time to get with the modern thinking of science and technology.

Just think of how much modern convenience we wouldn't have if the pioneers of the advancements of Western Civilization hadn't risen above the BLIND FAITH of the religiously dominated "DARK AGES" and carried the ignorant masses into the "AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT."

Now, Asian progressive thinkers are leading their civilizations into the modern age of science and technology. Unfortunately, Africa in general and many people of African descent are too BLINDED BY THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH--as they themselves say: they "...walk by FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT...." They are too ignorant (or foolish) to even know how stupid that sounds. It's like they are walking around unnecessarily wearing blindfolds trying to navigate through a complicated maze of reality being told what to do and where to go every step of the way--most of such religious fanatics are going nowhere fast. But, what can I say to wake them up? It's much like they are content to be high on religious dogma or hypnotized by it rather than to face and deal realistically with reality; however, I think it is because they feel BLESSED (meaning: HAPPY)--MUCH LIKE A DRUG ADDICT FEELS ECSTATIC WHILE HIGH ON DRUGS. And, also much like a drug addict, the RELIGIOUS FANATICS COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT REALITY JUST AS LONG AS THEY ARE FEELING BLESSED. I guess the person who said "IGNORANCE IS BLISS" was correct--at least when it comes to addictions--religious or otherwise.

However, it takes a lot of patience and optimism to keep trying to wake people up who are really enjoying their dream and don't want to be awakened. Thus, trying to tell a religious fanatic that there is a better way, is like trying to reason with someone under hypnosis or under the influence of a mind altering drug.

I BELIEVE IN THREE GODS

One day, when I was very young, a girl that I loved asked me: “Do you believe in God?”

Not knowing any better, I said: “No.”

She then went on to say, “You’ve got to believe in something!”

As you can see, I never forgot her question. But now I have a better answer: I do believe in God. I believe in three gods, all of whom I conceptualize as one God in my own mind.

My three gods are: nature, humanity, and my own mind.

(1)        Nature is god of the universe.

(2)        Humanity is god of the earth.
(3)        My own mind is god of my own body.

These three gods are God to me.

I am no longer in touch with that little girl who, if still alive, is a woman now; but, if I were, I would want her to know that I do now believe in something—in fact, I not only believe in one god, I believe in three gods: nature, humanity, and my own mind. These three together is my God.

So, I guess you can say that I am a naturalist, a humanist, and an individualist. But most of all I am a human being who thinks for himself.

WHAT IS EXISTENTIALISM

European nations (not necessarily all European individuals) have learned how to think accurately both in in science and in philosophy. Science has been taught freely in public schools; philosophy, however, has (for the most part) has only been taught in college and universities. Existentialism, which is the most modern and most comprehensive philosophical movement, is only taught (if at all) in colleges. Below is an introduction by a college professor to the philosophical movement, which is actually a movement of existence philosophies that has been somewhat inaccurately labeled existentialism as though they compose a school or systematic way of thinking. Following are links to this comprehensive introduction. Later, I will post more specific controbutions to modern existence philosophies. Just click on the following links (in order); listen and enjoy learning.

1.  http://youtu.be/CSOImo5Xi-Y

2.  http://youtu.be/6lVChwmaX5o

3.  http://youtu.be/kkSkPW7kVYE

4.  http://youtu.be/HtJsY2yxPQs

I AIM NEITHER TO CONDEMN NOR ABOLISH RELIGION

     Many people today are accustomed to “being done to or done for” in their daily lives. The television entertains them, their churches organize their social lives and leisure activities, and their teachers (or ministers) “spoon-feed” them knowledge (or tell them what to think and what to do). All that is usually required of them is to show up, believe and obey.

It is my intention to reinstate in such people a desire to realistically solve problems, to realistically overcome obstacles, and to realistically achieve self-fulfillment. However, in order to reach these goals it is necessary to help people acquire a more realistic mindset.

     By the time many people reach physical maturity, they have already formed certain opinions. The mindsets that need to be changed are exemplified by comments like these: “I hate math!” or “I don’t need to know why; just tell me what to do!” or “All that I need to know is in the Bible!” or “I walk by faith, not by sight!” or “God said it, I believe it, and that’s all there is to it!” All of these statements suggest either a closed mind or believing without really thinking.

     I am not trying to end religion; religion is good for some people (especially those who haven’t learned how to successfully think for themselves). I’m just trying to help people to learn how to successfully think for themselves. Unfortunately, many who could benefit by learning to think more scientifically have minds that have been so filled with nonsense that that they have no room for sensible thoughts to get in—especially if those sensible thoughts contradict any of the dogma that they have been spoon-fed and have unwittingly accepted with blind-faith.

     So, even though I myself have benefitted tremendously from my past religious indoctrinations and even though I still benefit from my own religious orientation, I realize that many others could benefit as I have by opening their minds and cleaning out some of the dogmatic notions that have mentally enslaved their thinking so that they can successfully learn how to accurately think for themselves. Therefore, my aim is neither to condemn nor to abolish religion; my aim is to help people to free their minds and to accurately think for themselves.

TYCHO BRAHE & JOHANNES KEPLER

When Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." some of those giants were Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Rene Descartes.

Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) made crucial contributions to our understanding of the universe: Tycho’s observations were accurate enough for Kepler to discover that the planets moved in elliptic orbits, and his other laws, which gave Newton the clues he needed to establish universal inverse-square gravitation.

Tycho Brahe, from a rich Danish noble family, was fascinated by astronomy, but disappointed with the accuracy of tables of planetary motion at the time. He decided to dedicate his life and considerable resources to recording planetary positions ten times more accurately than the best previous work. After some early successes, and in gratitude for having his life saved by Tycho’s uncle, the king of Denmark gave Tycho tremendous resources: an island with many families on it, and money to build an observatory. (One estimate is that this was 10% of the gross national product at the time!) Tycho built vast instruments to set accurate sights on the stars, and used multiple clocks and timekeepers.

He achieved his goal of measuring to one minute of arc. This was a tremendous feat before the invention of the telescope. His aim was to confirm his own picture of the universe, which was that the earth was at rest, the sun went around the earth and the planets all went around the sun - an intermediate picture between Ptolemy and Copernicus.

Johannes Kepler believed in Copernicus’ picture. Having been raised in the Greek geometric tradition, he believed God must have had some geometric reason for placing the six planets at the particular distances from the sun that they occupied. He thought of their orbits as being on spheres, one inside the other. One day, he suddenly remembered that there were just five perfect Platonic solids, and this gave a reason for there being six planets - the orbit spheres were maybe just such that between two successive ones a perfect solid would just fit. He convinced himself that, given the uncertainties of observation at the time, this picture might be the right one. However, that was before Tycho’s results were used. Kepler realized that Tycho’s work could settle the question one way or the other, so he went to work with Tycho in 1600. Tycho died the next year; Kepler stole the data, and worked with it for nine years.

He reluctantly concluded that his geometric scheme was wrong. In its place, he found his three laws of planetary motion:

1.      The planets move in elliptical orbits with the sun at a focus.

2.      In their orbits around the sun, the planets sweep out equal areas in equal times.

3.      The squares of the times to complete one orbit are proportional to the cubes of the average distances from the sun.

Kepler's laws are strictly only valid for a lone (not affected by the gravity of other planets) zero-mass object orbiting the Sun; a physical impossibility. Nevertheless, Kepler's laws form a useful starting point to calculating the orbits of planets that do not deviate too much from these restrictions. Kepler also discovered that the tides were caused by the moon’s gravity.

THE CARTESIAN REVOLUTION--THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS

While Galileo confined himself to the study of mathematical and astronomical phenomena, his contemporary, René Descartes (1596-1650), a French philosopher and mathematician, began to describe in clear-cut terms the full outline of the new universe discovered by the rationalists. When still a young man, Descartes became deeply dissatisfied with the scholasticism that still survived in the teachings of the Jesuits from whom he received his early training. A Catholic who never quarreled with the official custodians of religious tradition, he was determined to gain knowledge only from himself and from nature and the observation of man.

René Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy. He initiated the movement generally termed rationalism, and his book, "Discourse on Method and Meditations," defined the basic problems of philosophy for at least a century.

To appreciate the novelty of the thought of René Descartes, one must understand what modern philosophy, or rationalism, means in contrast to medieval, or scholastic, philosophy. The great European thinkers of the 9th to 14th century were not incapable of logical reasoning, but they differed in philosophic interests and aims from the rationalists. The moderns, from Descartes on, usually identified philosophy with the natural and pure sciences; the medievals, however, made little distinction between philosophical and theological concerns.

The medieval doctors, like St. Thomas Aquinas, wanted to demonstrate that the revelations of faith and the dictates of reason were not incompatible. Their universe was that outlined by Aristotle in his Physics - a universe in which everything was ordered and classified according to the end that it served. During the Renaissance, however, men began exploring scientific alternatives to Aristotle's hierarchical universe. Further, new instruments, especially Galileo's telescope, added precision to scientific generalizations.

By the beginning of the 17th century the medieval tradition had lost its creative impetus. But the schoolmen, so called because they dominated the European universities, continued to adhere dogmatically to the traditional philosophy because of its association with Catholic theology. The rationalists, however, persistently refused professorships in order to preserve their intellectual integrity or to avoid persecution. They rejected the medieval practice of composing commentaries on standard works in favor of writing original, usually anonymous, treatises on topics suggested by their own scientific or speculative interests. Thus the contrast is between a declining tradition of professorial disputes over trivialities and a new philosophy inspired by original, scientific research.

Descartes participated in this conflict between the scholastic and rationalist approaches. He established a new, clear way of thinking about philosophy and science by rejecting all ideas based on assumptions or emotional beliefs and accepting only those ideas which could be proved by or systematically deduced from direct observation. Descartes made major contributions to modern mathematics, especially in developing the Cartesian coordinate system and advancing the theory of equations.

In recognizing that mathematics constituted the fundamental basis of physical science, Descartes laid the groundwork for that exactness of observation and calculation that was to become the outstanding characteristic of modern science. His work is considered of such importance that it is generally recognized by the term, the Cartesian Revolution. The old Aristotelian idea that nature consists of a variety of unrelated objects, each seeking to fulfill its aim in its own way, was now superseded by the Cartesian principle that nothing in nature is accidental or arbitrary, but that everything is governed by universal mathematical laws. Cartesianism became the official beacon of the new science, even if its explanations were as yet a little too simple and not always proved by experimentation. Most important of all, it effectively prepared the way for the great synthesis of Newton, who has been called the greatest of the Cartesians.