Because Franklin decided to call Jefferson's idea of natural rights 'self evident,' many people believe they understand them perfectly. However, Jefferson based his conclusions about natural rights on empirical theory, not intuition, as this topic describes. Its implementation of positive law provides definitive and immutable answers to many issues that have been politicized in the USA, which this article describes.
There’s been much discussion about ‘fake news’ recently, leading to renewed arguments on the nature of truth. In fact, most people are totally disinterested in understanding the nature of truth, but instead only wish to prove their own view irrefutable, which is actually impossible. This topic explains why, via examination of the formal definition of the meaningfulness of 'post truth,' within the context of the truth theories of modern philosophy.
To answer questions of politics properly, one must understand the theories which produced the questions. Otherwise it is no more than blind stabs into an unknown dark. Most people alive today think that requires no more than some relatively trivial Google searches on political science. But POLITICAL SCIENCE, ultimately, can only describe that which IS or IS NOT, because it is a science rather than art. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY takes a step beyond, to describe that which MIGHT BE.
Amid escalating doubt of his credibility, Trump reportedly emailed this binary-choice questionnaire to his base today. If this is true, Trump has now formally declared war on truth. The academic community will name it the fascism it is, and if it continues, Trump will start a civil war.
President Trump should be removed from office because he had no proof whatsoever at the time he stated that President Obama had committed a felonious offense. It's irrelevant whether evidence is found after the fact. He deliberately misled the public into thinking he had secret proof for two weeks, before finally admitting that he had heard it on Fox News. That was after three separate public investigations had started, all of which had already concluded there was no evidence, despite Trump's attempts to widen, distort, and even embroil other countries in his increasingly outlandish fantasies. By refusing to inform the committees of the truth, that is all by itself felony obstruction. Moreover, this is only one of many similar cases where he did not execute his office faithfully, thus violating his Presidential oath, and so he should be impeached for perjury.
Last week, Facebook added a ‘disputed news’ metadata tag, the first in a series of expected social media tools to filter out 'fake news' . The appearance of more such tools will be a last-ditch effort to save factual truth on the Internet. But will they work? Although fake news filtering is a great idea, I feel rather obligated to point out, no, it won't work, because they do not address the real problem. First I need to say, I am a retired Oxford scholar of philosophy and prior digital architect for Intel, Apple, AT&T and Comcast products. I have been following this trend for the last ten years, first in 2nd-Amendment social media groups. When I first predicted that Tea Party ethics would take over the government, academics scoffed at me. Last year they were no longer scoffing. So I will explain what I have observed.
This article is not an endorsement of 'either side.' It simply summarizes how radical Islamic terrorism picks up on Augustinian ideas of divine law's precedence over human law (as restated in the Qu'ran), with results exactly the same as from Augustinian doctrine in early Christian history. Then after summarizing how the division between church and state came about in the West, it discusses what's best to do about it. By way of preface, there is a very good explanation why you never heard this before, and it is not because the facts are unsound. A truly neutral analysis is beset not merely by criticism, but rather outright condemnation, from all sides. Immediately after sharing this on Facebook, I was banned from three groups, without even an attempt to open the link. Most others said I was wrong for reasons countermanded in the next paragraph. Also I am obligated to state first, I am an American citizen, a Satipatṭhāna Buddhist, a retired Oxford scholar, and have no affiliations with any religious or political organization.
With an extra $54 billion for military in Trump's proposed budget, the White House is now scoping out people who must be killed, starting with Kim Jong-Un in North Korea. In the past, I've started by replying that that war can only be justified, and is never necessary. Hundreds of people have written me how obviously wrong I am, but are rarely able to think beyond the need to kill Hitler as an explanation. So I wrote this starting all the way from the very beginning again. First, I am required to state, I am an Oxford scholar, an American citizen, and have no affiliations with any political parties or special-interest groups at all.
Trump just called for peace and unity in his first address to joint congress. Fox News anchor Hannity is saying, "what an impressive speech! How could any disagree?"...So I drafted most of this in 20 minutes right then. Within 8 hours of Trump's speech, my comment received more attention on Facebook than any I have ever written before. So I share it here. But I have to start with the answer to all criticisms so far: I am an Oxford scholar, American citizen, and neither liberal nor a democrat.
An ancient myth describes how Vulcan knew Mars was seducing his wife Venus. Part One discussed how this implies the White House is likely inventing fake stories to find spies, which should hardly be surprising, considering how old the method is. Here I consider the rest of the myth, when Vulcan catches Mars in bed with his wife Venus; and what this could mean we should really do about White House counter-espionage conspiracies.
Truths, Lies, Actions, and Consequences, Part 1: Since 16th March 2016, there has been continuous discussion of leaks, without any regard of how counter espionage catches spies, simply calling for it to happen instead of thinking how. This article explains some basic principles of counter espionage; cites indications it is occurring right now; spells out the actual implications that have been totally unconsidered for almost a year now; and considers how we should respond to the circumstance.
From best available data, the direct cost of firearm casualties to taxpayers in 2017 is 16 billion dollars. This equates to ~$136 in annual tax per household, or $407 per gun owner (as projected from 2010 data, which is the most recent available).