So, how would I describe my philosophy? It is impossible to sum up in one post, I have spent years studying this old philosophical relationship and the processes in it. Literally everything I say and do is based on this relationship which has been forgotten in this day and age. Never heard of. There is so much intellectual crap and prancing intellectual buggery floating around out there. Even when people hear my philosophy and think to themselves, “That sounds good.” They turn around and do the opposite, because they are using a normative bias, and haven’t learned to detect logical fallacies that they are making.
The only way I can teach this relationship is as a type of guru with an ashram or philosopher with a gymnasium. It has to be shown, it can’t be told, because people are terrible at detecting their own horse shit. This is a type of relationship in which people only relate to others rationally and positively keeping their judgments to themselves. Your resources do your will, you prehend your resources. You have earned them they are yours. I can’t take your resources and use them against your will. Taxation without representation.
Not only does a person focus on creating value for others in the community, they focus on doing so in a rational way. The most rational person gets his way, the most rational argument wins. Everyone in the community is a philosopher king and is working on increasing his understanding. Nobody is above the law of reason, and everybody submits to it. If it can’t be proven it can’t be argued. This prevents the type of intellectual faggotry that adopts a philosophy and then is successful in spite of it, which means that you are dragging the philosophy along, you are not applying the philosophy, you are championing it and proselytizing it. Your success should be directly related to your philosophy, your philosophy is your soul, and your sword and your word. If you discover you are wrong your amend your philosophy and your behavior.
- For other uses of the word Praxis, see Praxis (disambiguation).
|So, I tried to do a kind of semantic clarification in which praxis—if not on the thither side of this divide—was perhaps somehow between the theoretical and the practical as they are generally understood, and particularly as they are understood in modern philosophy. Praxis as the manner in which we are engaged in the world and with others has its own insight or understanding prior to any explicit formulation of that understanding…Of course, it must be understood that praxis, as I understand it, is always entwined with communication.
—Calvin O. Schrag
Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Immanuel Kant, Søren Kierkegaard, Karl Marx, Martin Heidegger, Hannah Arendt, Paulo Freire,Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.
It is also important to note that because of the nature of Moral Authority and its constant habit of usurping Sapiential Authority by making emotional appeals certain guards are created for preventing the passive aggressive take over of this pattern which eventually, universally, creates the degradation of all good systems. Processes and patterns that aren’t logical and can’t be defended logically fly in the face of reason to repeatedly destroy all of the good that was created. Everybody, man or woman must respect the authority of reason and if they can’t defend their position rationally with rational means they are not allowed to speak. You don’t get to argue that one person or group must spend their resources on another person or group, this thwarts meritocracy. If you want to be merciful and charitable you do so with your own resources and your fate and reputation are tied to those that you are helping and you are responsible for their actions. If you want to own slaves, you are responsible for them and you don’t get to use your sentimental arguments to obfuscate or caste doubt or stumble reasonable discourse on its path. In order to be a citizen you have to be equal to the task. There is no freedom while their is ignorance.
Everyone in the society has their personal responsibilities, what would be power if it were extracted from them in the form of a law or structure of authority to serve them. This would then attract psychopaths which would use that authority as power. The point is to have a democracy amongst philosopher kings, Warrior philosophers. Only when you have equality amongst genii can you unleash the highest common good. When you have the false forced equality of making an irresponsible, social climbing, acquisitive, idiot the equal of a philosopher king, you have sabotaged yourself and your way of life. Psychopaths ruin all of the good by refusing to understand and participate. Should a person not accept their responsibilities their power must be given back to them forcefully or they must not be allowed to benefit from the surplus of value created by this type of relationship. The quality of life is created by the philosophy itself, and the immigrants to this philosophy who do not adopt it and apply it are there for no other reason but to benefit themselves without contributing value, more value than they consume.