The stigma concerning workers in the trades has predominantly been part of class warfare since the beginning of slavery. Construction workers are often seen as dirty, sweaty, raggedly clothed, alcoholic, angry, and foul mouthed. Some might even stretch the stigma to the point of calling them "uncivilized brutes". Parents discourage their children from entering the trades to avoid the life of the animals of society, and that they can do "better". PArents who are in trades invite their children for a summer of work, but only in an attempt to frighten them to the point of reconsidering the furthering of a higher education towards a secure desk job. Part of the white-collar and every other collar dynamic, this social division, and stigma has reached a new problematic state. There are now more people in the trades that are retiring than there are new laborers entering the trades. While it would be nice to have a cozy desk job in a nice office building, in the city, this option is only possible thanks to things like road paving, constructing buildings, the establishment of an electricity grid, and plumbing systems. It is the construction worker that makes North America eligible to be a "civilization" rather than a primitive society.

Pharmaceutical companies mass marketed all the drugs on the list of "war on drugs", before they were deemed illegal, and continue to do so to this day. These companies shape the future of illegal drugs on the black market, but since these drugs only become illegal later down the road, and work under the cloak of psychology/medicine, they remain free and out of jail.

1: Cocaine. Cocaine is a powerfully addictive drug of abuse. - In 1885 the U.S. manufacturer Parke-Davis sold cocaine in various forms, including cigarettes, powder, and even a cocaine mixture that could be injected directly into the user's veins with the included needle.

2: Crack Cocaine. As boarder control tightened, drug dealers cut cocaine into crack in the 1970s to boost profit sales.

3: Date Rape Drugs – GHB. Rohypnol (Roofies) - GHB was synthesized and introduced into medicine in 1960.

4: Ecstasy.  - MDMA was developed in Germany in the early 1900s as a parent compound to be used to synthesize other pharmaceuticals. During the 1970s, in the United States, some psychiatrists began using MDMA as a psychotherapeutic tool, despite the fact that the drug had never undergone formal clinical trials

5: Heroin. From the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s the reputable drug companies of the day began manufacturing over-the-counter drug kits. These kits contained a glass barreled hypodermic needle and vials of opiates (morphine or heroin) and/or cocaine packaged neatly in attractive engraved tin cases.

6: Ketamine Hydrochloride. - 1962 when it was first synthesized by American scientist Calvin Stevens at the Parke Davis Laboratories. As the history of Ketamine began, it was initially named CI-581 and developed as a derivative of PCP, synthesized in 1926, as an anesthetic drug which acts, primarily, as an NMDA receptor antagonist.

7: LSD.- Albert Hofmann, a chemist working for Sandoz Pharmaceutical, synthesized1 LSD for the first time in 1938, in Basel, Switzerland, while looking for a blood stimulant. However, its hallucinogenic effects were unknown until 1943 when Hofmann accidentally consumed some LSD.

Know your facts.

The television news takes its formula straight out of storytelling rather than by an anthropological/historical approach worthy of academic sourcing. News anchors call the work "news stories" which have antagonists and protagonists in conflict. Just like reading a story with no drama/tension makes for a boring read, so would the news if it were all "good news." The news produces compelling tales of boogymen and endless tragedies, narrated by the trusting voices of the so-called "good guys." The ratio of conflict/peace time in a story is the same as the news, 7:1. Just like a movie takes true events, and bends what really happened to fit a film script formula, the news does the same with current events. They look for drama rather than the facts. When a film is shot, a rough cut is produced. It undergoes a cutting process in editing which puts much of the work in the garbage. If that garbage is funny, it's a blooper. The news undergoes a similar process, producing bloopers, and when it's live news, it becomes theater/improvisation. There is no such thing in academics. Professors are not doing theater, nor will a blooper exist when a professor rephrases a sentence. The news is ultimately the most compelling reality-tv show because people believe it is authentically accurate. The news is a work of entertainment, rather than a work of academic value.

Philosophy is the opposite of poetry.

1: Philosophy seeks the truth, while poetry hides the truth.

2: Philosophy is analytically clear, while poetry is metaphoric.

3: Philosophy is guided by reason, while poetry is guided by emotions.

4: Philosophy provides insight, while poetry provides entertainment. 

5: Philosophy is investigative, while poetry is creative.

While most Westerners believe democracy is the greatest of all political systems, few have read Aristotle who categorized democracy in the negative sense. When a society is ruled by one, it is called, "monarchy," but its negative sense is "tyranny." When a society is ruled by a few, it is called,"aristocracy," but its negative sense is "oligarchy." When a society is ruled by many, it is called, "polity," but its negative sense is "democracy."

The way democracy works: the majority rule, but the majority is guided by an elite class that knows "better" like a child/parent relationship. Guidance entails the fact that the majority is ignorant, and must remain ignorant for the system to work. Democracy breaks down when the majority gains the ability to question the elite class that guide society. The parent/child relationship analogy is a bit misleading. Think of this relationship as a really unintelligent boss that says yes to anything persuasive. Such a boss can be fooled by the simplest magic trick/rhetoric.

The role of the majority or this imaginary boss does not contribute to the political circle, but merely votes "yes" or "no." Yes or no both contribute next to nothing in any conversation, let alone in political life. Complex questions that revolve around the best possible way to produce the "best" society cannot be answered by a yes or no answer. Politics revolves around a conversation between politicians and the majority, and a yes/no conversation can hardly be called a conversation.

What we see in 2017 is the slow breakdown of democracy and the child/parent relationship the elite have with the majority. The child is becoming an adult and is noticing that they have terrible parents. For our imaginary boss, the boss is finally starting to realize they are being cheated, and their business is sinking.

The "ideal" political parent, or guide does not exist. There is nothing in reality that we can observe that can help us understand what the ideal guide ought to look like. Politics does not rest on scientific knowledge, or logical rule. Politics is not much different from religion, epistemically (priest and follower). Both politics and religion are concerned with the actions of human beings, or their will. What one "ought to do" or what society "ought to" be like. Such subjects do not revolve around facts or logic, and such ought-to statements are incapable of being justified by facts or logical rule. Ought-to is not a state of reality. It's what we wish reality to be like. It is a great concern that politics, and ethics has no objective foundation. 

Politics/ethics is like a highly advanced piece of technology to which we have no idea how it works, or what it really is. We might very well be hammering nails with the bottom end of a screwdriver. 

The private contents of the mind and the universal content of thought separate in the process of clothing the content in language for reflection or expression.

All private content of the mind begin with, I, I am, my, and myself when expressed. This is the first-person content of the inner experience that inform others with content they cannot access in third person.

All content of universal thought are reflected upon and expressed in third-person. The content cannot be expressed in first-person. It would be odd to say this is "my 1+1=2." The contents of thought cannot be created, owned, or felt, but rather, discovered and are identical to everyone who have the thought content in front of their consciousness.

Consciousness is the moderator between the universal realm of thought, the private realm of the first-person experience, and the universal-physical world embodied in a brain-body. Our body are the suits that give us the ability to engage together physically to share and discuss the inner-based realms. The physical world is what connects us instantly/simultaneously whereas communication is impossible in the realm of thought and mind. 

Think of us as primitively dunking our heads in murky waters with illusions (contents of mind) tricking us in our blind search of the same earthy bottom (thought content). We can find thought concepts and study the laws separately. We can also take the thought-concepts we find and pull them out of the murky waters by clothing it in language so we can share the content/and its laws for all to grasp.

Philosophy is thought-diving

The difference between a truth and an idea is its independence from its bearer. An idea is private while a truth is public. An artist creates ideas and can own the final product. That product is the artists rendition of the world as they see it. A comedian, on the other hand, points to truths and contradictions that make us laugh but it is impossible to own the truth of the joke because it is independent of the comic and the way it is delivered. A comedian is as much of a philosopher as they are an artist. The only ownership that comes from a joke is the way it is delivered, which gives it a unique signature. If two comics delivered the same truth differently, whoever said it second is accused of stealing it. If the ownership is in the signature of the joke, it's not stealing a joke if the second comic had a different delivery. They just discovered the same truth/contradiction at different times, independently of each other. If the delivery was the same, and the second knew about the joke, then it was forgery. There are few ways of writing the premise of a truth, analytically, but there are many ways of writing a premise of a joke artistically.  

If a mental disorder is pinned down to be a physical abnormality in the brain, how is it possible that a mental disorder is eliminated from textbooks? The most famous mental disorder to drop from the list was homosexuality. In 2010, narcissism was dropped from the books as well. What happened to the human brain in 2010, and the 1970's with homosexuality? Was it cured? Did the abnormality in the brain vanish from existence one sunny morning? The truth is, mental disorders are vices a culture considers disgusting or repulsive. Homosexuality became accepted as a normal phenomenon in society, and this is why it's no longer a mental disorder. What about narcissism? That was decided by a psychiatric committee while you were having dinner with you family. If narcissism is considered abnormal, and western society is addicted to getting facebook/twitter followers, taking selfies, praising celerities, love of beauty, youth, success and fame, instagram, and the like, narcissism cannot be abnormal because everyone is practicing narcissism on a daily basis. Is it a virtue or a vice? That depends on how you "feel" about it. In no way is it a brain abnormality. We do no justify racism by using a biological argument, nor should we on homosexuality or any other characteristic humans may have. True mental illness are those who belong in mental asylums, and need special care on a daily basis (serious cases). It's not someone who has a hard time getting through a divorce, or a child that's bored in a dull classroom. The term is being used to control the way society ought to behave. The "right" way to behave is an ethical question, not a psychological/pseudo-scientific one.

The moment an idea becomes an object or a work, it begins to erode. Take a freshly cut 4x4 from the mill. The wood is straight until the environment starts eating away at its surface, and the moisture in the air, rainfalls, and the change of the seasons bends the wood's straightness. A straight line is a mental concept. It is perfect and can never bend unless "the definition of a straight line" bent towards some other definition. The IPK is the standard 1kg, to which "weighing" is the idea. The idea needs a point of reference in order to measure all other things. The 1kg was internationally agreed to weight the mass given to it. The worry with the IPK is that the object that represents 1kg cannot change, so the IPK is set under 2 glass jars, protecting the object from the elements of nature. A solution is creating another IPK to keep the original IPK in check, but a regression begins when the second IPK would then need a third IPK to keep the second in check.

Say that we wrote a book by traditional pen, ink , and paper, and then consider how long that book will survive the test of time. Like the IPK, we might want to shelter the book from the elements, but once that protective layer is destroyed, so will the book. Not only is our book under attack, but so is the idea of sheltering it, and most likely the next idea we'd have to protect the book further. Plato was the only ancient Greek philosopher that we have the complete works. The reason for its survival is the copying of the works. In order to maintain ideas in reality, they must constantly be recreated to the specs of the idea. Contrary to the physical aspect of ancient books, something else happens to the works. The social context of the works and the social context of today has changed dramatically. Our "points of references" or better yet, "the definition of the straight line" has changed. The meaning of the work has become alien, and we are forced to understand the meaning in today's social context. The works also bends in meaning when it is translated from its original language to another. Like the copying of the book, scholars must update editions by reinterpreting the original text.