Rationalism
is a manner of considering the analysis of the world without pitfall
for the reason, without obstruction resulting from the person who
analyzes the world.
A
rationalist is somebody who does not block his future reasoning by an
unspecified personal reasoning nor by any other, and coming from any
person, reasoning which could lead it in an intellectual dead end,
him, but especially of other younger, or less armed people
intellectually.
Reason,
is to doubt, a rationalist doubts, that been part of the reasoning.
But it is not really doubt, it is handing-over in rationalized
question, since he knows that the brain, its brain, is not a perfect
and reliable mechanism which would have all knowledge and would give
a judgement absolutely true.
When
a word is said, it is in the context of the brain and the thought of
the transmitter, and when this word is heard, it is in the context of
the brain and the thought of the receiver. The
contexts being differents, why and how and by which miracle would the
words have the same meanings?
There
are not various currents of rationalism, there is only one. The
(real) rationalists never enter into war against the others.
Logic
and rationalism should be like mother tongues, they should not be
learned later like second languages. A mother tongue is practiced by
the meanings. A second language is practiced by synonyms of words and
sentences, it's a way of talking differed, difficult to master.
The
reason, or rather the reasoning is apprenticeship, if this learning
is not made meticulously by educators, the irraison always ends up
slipping into a hole.
The
rationalist must describe "thought" first, then the
universe, the matter, the Life, the society, the human beeing, the
person, as accurately as possible.
While
this work is done, because he cannot expect the result of this
titanic job, the humanistic rationalist (a true rationalist may only
be humanist) should tell all that he knows, everything he understood
to everyone, because he can not remain insensitive to the suffering
of others.
The
Rationalist must propose his solution to move progressively from the
current social state of the world to the utopian form which he
considers, for the society and each human being.
During
my study I learned at least this: the thought is based on memory,
there is nothing but memory, the feelings are memories, consciousness
is memory, all the knowledge and mental functions are memories.
This
memory is material, a structural system consisting essentially of
neural networks. The thought is thus material.
Free
will does not exist, it is impossible, this does not prevent me to
understand and write this kind of sentence.
We
can build machines, functioning much better than humans, much more
efficient, much freer, quasi immortal and without limits of size.
Their production is inevitable, as inevitable as a super-weapon, a
super-tool, a super-help for humanity.
The
animal is a limited machine, the man is an animal that is doomed to
disappear by itself by understanding or his ineptitude. He will
choose his voluntary arrest if he understands that “freedom to
impose” the existence of another person is a paradox in
contradiction with the rights and the freedom that he claims for
himself.
In
what relates to me, me the author, I advise you to depopulate
drastically this Earth (the cradle of humankind) of your people, by
the simple means of not adding one as long as the planet is not
cleaned, that would be moral (then your descendants will see).
And
as long as you will not have done it, do not leave great words on
morality and humanism, because you would lie. All religions, that
want overpopulation and moral at once, are lying shamelessly.
There
are as many manners to analyze the world than there are human beings,
but there are only three general. These last employ the human ways of
thinking, which we all have more or less, that are the reason and
imagination, combined with the certainty and uncertainty.
These
three ways of analyzing the world are the belief, agnosticism, and
rationalism.
Agnosticism
is intermediate between belief and rationalism. The agnostic says
that all inventions, the myriad of inventions that come out of the
human imagination, that are proposed to him, "possibly exist or
not". He does not know anything about that and affirms that he
does not take position.
An
agnostic is a person who understands the explanations of rationalism
with regard to the impossibility of gods and the absurdity of
religions, but who household a way out for several reasons, whose
essential one is that he wants to impose somebody to exist, but has
not yet become aware of the paradox of the Human rights.
This
paradox is "freedom to impose" the existence to others,
which the animal and the idiot make without any reflection. Like the
believer, he seeks to rationalize, in a very vague subconscious, the
existence and the reasons to impose the existence to others.
Normality
is what does, what lives, the majority of humans. Morality is a
concept invented by the majority of humans, this concept made to
manage social conduct.
When
morality contradicts the normality, the habit, it is the normality
that takes precedence over morality, to the point that the subject
which contradicts morality is ignored, even when it is the most
important of the human actions, procreation...
Procreation
is immoral, it contradicts the concepts of freedom, it is endangering
the lives of others, it is the servitude of others, and it is a crime
on others. In procreation one makes another to serve. This is a huge
problem in itself, but we add the non-mastery of procreation.
The
other is regarded as a servant who will not have any word to say on
the body, the intellect, the tutors (parents), the environment, the
society, the culture, and the laws. In any case, one will do all to
fool it, since one was fooled oneself, and that all will be done so
that this submission with the general culture is ignored. What is
called the “belief”.
In
the belief, there are various contents on planet and according to the
epochs, and there is especially this mental function (belief) which
is used to restrain its own rationality, and especially that of the
others by the submission, the force, the extermination, when they
pretend to deny the fairy tales maintained at the highest
governmental level.
Is
it moral, is it ethical to force somebody to exist, and to force to
exist under conditions which you do not control absolutely?
No,
it is not moral nor ethical, it is normal, it is completely absurd
and thus completely silly for a presumedly intelligent being to
manufacture a sensible existence, intelligent, conscious, and mortal,
completely stupid and immoral, criminal to manufacture this being
without any control, totally in blindness, such Doctor Frankenstein,
or a Mengele experimenter.
The
idiot or the animals do what their bodies request them, order them,
without regard to the other. The idiot creates an existence, starts
an existence, and to exonerate himself from the person he
rationalizes his actions by inventing twaddles. These twaddles are
called religions.
The
existence of anything is not subjected to a belief. The existence of
something is a fact or not, it is not by a personal decision that the
thing exists.
Anyone
can accept the existence of anything, but should not in no case be
able to impose the belief in this existence and all that follows to
anyone. It is not a question of secularity, it is a question of
rationality and mental health.
The
conscious principle of rationalist is "I know I'm fallible in
all areas", unlike the unconscious principle of the believer who
is "I am infallible regarding my gods and my sacred book."
For the rest, the believer knows how to reason according to its
possibilities like the rationalist and the agnostic.
The
problem with majority of human is that they have understood that they
were except animality, but that they had not understood that they had
left there, therefore that they came from there. They rationalized
their animal behavior while denying this membership.
If
the rationalists are linked by their system of comprehension, it is
all the opposite with the beliefs which depend on comprehensions of
each one, there are probably as many interpretations and
comprehensions of the religions, as there are humans!
The
true rationalist thinks that everything enters the field of the
rational one, anything does not escape the reason since all is
material therefore subject to experimentation. The imaginary one,
also called the spiritual one by the believers, is located in the
material field of the thought; it is thus a correct subject of
analysis.
If
I were pessimistic, I would not speak, I would keep silent myself,
and I would watch the inevitable. But I make the description of the
world of which the man belongs, optimism or pessimism is not
rationalist, and I try to be a correct one.
Since
I was implied in an action, the action of living, without my
agreement, I have obviously the right to request accounts from those
which implied me and with their associates, the world society in what
relates to me, the world laws allow me there. I mention it by
goodness of heart, for those which never thought of making this
approach, however so obvious.
This
is not luring ourselves that we will change the world. I look at my
TV every day. The human ones are in war the ones against the others
since always. Why? We could be 7 millions, or better 7 thousands, and
live at least correctly though without reason. No, we are over 7
billions and some think to put as many on Mars.
Why,
since the life is not useful for nothing? Why create an existence?
Why take oneself for god, creator of existences? Why did we invent
creative gods? It is simple, to get rid of our culpabilities of
creation of existences without reason, on him. After death, all will
be regulated! And those who go to hell then?
Because
these nice believers have even invented for us a hell to send to it
if we contradict them. Why create our existences, if is to threaten
us from hell? No life, no risk. Thanks moms, thanks dads, thanks
societies and thank you the countless gods invented to stupidly
justify the generation of the Life and each life, in particular the
human one!
For
a rationalist a church is the equivalent of a unicorn stable. Imagine
his astonishment. Always, forever, the people brought into the world
without their agreement will have a right of inspection on the
culture that is poured into their brain.
Is
not humanistic (rationalist, agnostic, believing) the one which
creates an existence without thinking of the consequences of the
creation of this existence, on this existence itself.
Any
sentient existence has the right to be born healthy in body and mind.
A true humanist, therefore honest humanist, can it ensure that it
will create an existence without physical or mental defect? No
father, no mother are thus humanists, they only do profess that.
A
true rationalist who has not yet asked the question of the obligation
to exist has a big gap in his reasoning system, since this question
is the first question, concerning the action, and not any action,
the
most important action of any human being, that he must ask himself
imperatively and even more seriously it involves other, this innocent
of which you wish throw the manufacturing without controlling it.
When
that implies the mental health and physical of a person, the future
being, which does not have its word to say in its existence, a
rationalist can he say “I must, for the society (or some other
reasons), despite everything, initiate the manufacturing of an
existence even if she may suffer all her life.”
Analyze
the universe, the world, the human one, the human society,
mechanically, technically, logically, rationally, then try to
understand how the human being and the society can be integrated
appreciably, emotionally, with this description, leads to an aporia.
The
reason and the life do not go together, and yet the life invented the
reason.
The
Human rights come from the human sensitivity and a reason which did
not go at the end of its reasoning. “The creation of an existence
serves only those which already exist. However nobody controls this
manufacturing made blind.”
If
there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a
new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:
"Now
that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "
Dead
end
E.
Berlherm (May 2016)
