Mind Over Matter? Or Matter Over Mind?

Evolution is something that’s ripe for a greater public understanding. This is likely a daunting task because it’s a large enough area of science for there to be a great deal of misunderstanding even among its experts. Evolution is a topic that should be presented with a level of humility and depth so that the general public doesn’t become overconfident with misunderstandings about biology. Solving the problems in this domain are likely to yield some broader solutions for both philosophical and scientific understanding generally and we will all be better for it.

Socialism has been topical in the modern era with interest in it waxing and waning from year to year, decade to decade throughout the last two hundred years or so. Throughout the period, its meaning and understanding have been as fleeting among its proponents as among its detractors. The hope with this is to momentarily escape this problem and shed some light on it.

The famous sociologist Max Weber somewhat disagreed with Marx’s model and decided that the category of class that a person fell into was instead determined by the amount of wealth that they happen to obtain. So for him, there were more than just two classes. There were three main classes (upper, middle and lower) but with subcategories for people whose wealth was in between the upper and middle or lower and middle classes.

Notice that inherent to all of this is the task of understanding categories. This is what ontology is about. There’s a further question that may puzzle people who have already done a fair amount of thinking about this: What is it that we’re describing? Are we describing something that is more like a law of physics or more like a plan that people are carefully conducting? Any doubts about the fact that people do tend to think differently about this question, while just as often assuming that they share the correct answer, can consistently be assuaged.

Although anarchism has its roots in a revolution, there isn’t anything about the idea which suggests a call for violence or war. Rather, it calls for a radical growth in the use of reason and political participation. It calls for a sense of personal responsibility and the cultivation of improved self-direction and cooperation. For anyone who might be concerned about the corruption of authority and recognizes that society must be organized in one form or another, anarchism should seem reasonable, if not practical.