More political philosophy about solidarity and the meaning of human existence...

[Amine Moulay Ramdane]

Hello..


More political philosophy about solidarity and the meaning of human existence...

Can we, in philosophy, say that the meaning of human existence comes from solidarity ?

When you are smart, you will notice that saying so is not correct, because when you say that it is solidarity, it can become problematic
since solidarity can become perfection that is problematic, so we have
to abstract more correctly than that and say that since human life is not so easy, so the meaning of human existence comes from pleasures of life that make us more happy. This is why i think that i am correct to define it like this, because it "depends" on the conditions of human life, this is why i said the following:

More philosophy about what is the purpose and meaning of human existence..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented
many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

So i will ask a philosophical question of:

What is the purpose and meaning of human existence?

I think i am smart, and i will say that the meaning of human existence
comes from pleasures of life, but you have to understand that so that
to have those pleasures in life you have to know how to "balance" pleasures of life with a level of difficulties of life so that to be perfection, i mean that you have for example to work so that to be perfection that gets you "money" from your work, and you have also to know how to be perfection that creates pleasures in this life that makes
us more happy, this is why i am not in accordance with the philosopher
Albert Camus that said that human life is absurd.

Also you have to know about the purpose of life by reading my following
political philosophy about Morality where i am also explaining that
society and morality have to be progressive:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4


Read the rest of my thoughts to understand:

More political about what is the best spirit..

I think i am a philosopher, and i think that the best spirit is
the spirit that creates pleasures in life that makes us more happy and this makes us more happy gives meaning to human life,
and you can notice that you have to know how to be solidarity and charity because even solidarity and charity can become pleasures in life, since solidarity and charity can make us more "happy" and this this make us more happy gives meaning to human life, and creating products and services that make us more happy is creating pleasures in life that gives meaning to life, so you are understanding my philosophy (read about it below) this is why i am also creating pleasures in life
by writing my poetry and by for example saying the following in my poetry:

--

More explanation of my poem of Love below:

Notice that i am saying in my poem of Love below the following:

"But my beautiful desire for you is "also" always rolling"

The "rolling" in my poem of Love below means:

Happening like in a steady and continuous way.

Read in the following dictionary to notice it:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/rolling

So here is my new poem of Love that i have just written,
read it listening at the same time at this beautiful song:

Cesaria Evora - Mae Velha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhpAbA78IKM

Here is my new poem of Love:

Time is flowing and walking and running

But my beautiful heart is always resisting

Time is flowing and walking and running

But my beautiful love for you is forever staying

Time is flowing and walking and running

But my beautiful desire for you is "also" always rolling

Time is flowing and walking and running

But my love for you is a so beautiful King

Time is flowing and walking and running

Like our love is also forever flowing like a beautiful spring

Time is flowing and walking and running

But my love is a beautiful ring around your beautiful angel wings

Time is flowing and walking and running

But my love is a so beautiful offspring

Time is flowing and walking and running

But our love is like our beautiful God that we are worshiping !

---


More philosophy about how morality is going forward towards more and more perfection..

I have just said the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------

More philosophy about what is the purpose and meaning of human existence..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented
many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

So i will ask a philosophical question of:

What is the purpose and meaning of human existence?

I think i am smart, and i will say that the meaning of human existence
comes from pleasures of life, but you have to understand that so that
to have those pleasures in life you have to know how to "balance" pleasures of life with a level of difficulties of life so that to be perfection, i mean that you have for example to work so that to be perfection that gets you "money" from your work, and you have also to know how to be perfection that creates pleasures in this life that makes
us more happy, this is why i am not in accordance with the philosopher
Albert Camus that said that human life is absurd.

Also you have to know about the purpose of life by reading my following
political philosophy about Morality where i am also explaining that
society and morality have to be progressive:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So as you are noticing we are moving forward towards more and more perfection that also creates pleasures in this life. I give you
an example: look at my following poetry in english and french at how i am creating "pleasures" by perfecting with my smartness so that to bring more happiness:

Here is some of my poetry in english:

https://www.facebook.com/Poetry-about-Love-and-more-113452413628897

And here is some of my poetry in french:

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/0AslKfJS9Nw



Read the rest of my previous thoughts:


More philosophy about what is the purpose and meaning of human existence..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented
many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

So i will ask a philosophical question of:

What is the purpose and meaning of human existence?

I think i am smart, and i will say that the meaning of human existence
comes from pleasures of life, but you have to understand that so that
to have those pleasures in life you have to know how to "balance" pleasures of life with a level of difficulties of life so that to be perfection, i mean that you have for example to work so that to be perfection that gets you "money" from your work, and you have also to know how to be perfection that creates pleasures in this life that makes
us more happy, this is why i am not in accordance with the philosopher
Albert Camus that said that human life is absurd.

Also you have to know about the purpose of life by reading my following
political philosophy about Morality where i am also explaining that
society and morality have to be progressive:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4

More precision about capitalism and about National Vanguard..

I will be more rigorous, so read again:

I have just read the following article from a white supremacist website
called National Vanguard:

Why Capitalism Fails

https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/07/why-capitalism-fails/

And it is saying the following about why capitalism fails:

"Capitalism permits inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner. And therein is the flaw: inherited wealth isn’t earned by its owner, yet it leads to a class segregation of men that has nothing to do with how much wealth they have earned; i.e., nothing to do with how much or how well or how significantly they have worked."

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, and i will answer with my fluid intelligence:
I think the above article is not taking into account the risk factor and
and the smartness factor, so there have to be mechanisms, that are
like engines, that "encourage" to or/and "make" a part of the people work by taking risks or great risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and that "encourage" to or/and "make" the smartest to give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich), so i think capitalism has those mechanisms in form of rewards by allowing to become "rich" and in form of rewards by allowing inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner: Since it "encourages" to or/and "makes" a part of the people work by taking risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and it encourages to or/and makes the smartest give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich).

And notice that i am also defining taking a "risk" as working "hard".

And the above article is saying the following:

"Capitalism constantly looks for ways to reduce labor costs. Automation made human labor less necessary than it had been when capitalism first appeared. When automation did appear, people who had the talent, the skills, and the motivation to make contributions began to find no jobs, or to become uncompetitive with mass-production if they tried to employ themselves."

I think it is not true, because read the following:

https://singularityhub.com/2019/01/01/ai-will-create-millions-more-jobs-than-it-will-destroy-heres-how/

And read the following:

Here is the advantages and disadvantages of automation:

Following are some of the advantages of automation:

1. Automation is the key to the shorter workweek. Automation will allow
the average number of working hours per week to continue to decline,
thereby allowing greater leisure hours and a higher quality life.

2. Automation brings safer working conditions for the worker. Since
there is less direct physical participation by the worker in the
production process, there is less chance of personal injury to the worker.

3. Automated production results in lower prices and better products. It
has been estimated that the cost to machine one unit of product by
conventional general-purpose machine tools requiring human operators may
be 100 times the cost of manufacturing the same unit using automated
mass-production techniques. The electronics industry offers many
examples of improvements in manufacturing technology that have
significantly reduced costs while increasing product value (e.g., colour
TV sets, stereo equipment, calculators, and computers).

4. The growth of the automation industry will itself provide employment
opportunities. This has been especially true in the computer industry,
as the companies in this industry have grown (IBM, Digital Equipment
Corp., Honeywell, etc.), new jobs have been created.
These new jobs include not only workers directly employed by these
companies, but also computer programmers, systems engineers, and other
needed to use and operate the computers.

5. Automation is the only means of increasing standard of living. Only
through productivity increases brought about by new automated methods of
production, it is possible to advance standard of living. Granting wage
increases without a commensurate increase in productivity
will results in inflation. To afford a better society, it is a must to
increase productivity.

Following are some of the disadvantages of automation:

1. Automation will result in the subjugation of the human being by a
machine. Automation tends to transfer the skill required to perform work
from human operators to machines. In so doing, it reduces the need for
skilled labour. The manual work left by automation requires lower skill
levels and tends to involve rather menial tasks (e.g., loading and
unloading workpart, changing tools, removing chips, etc.). In this
sense, automation tends to downgrade factory work.

2. There will be a reduction in the labour force, with resulting
unemployment. It is logical to argue that the immediate effect of
automation will be to reduce the need for human labour, thus displacing
workers.

3. Automation will reduce purchasing power. As machines replace workers
and these workers join the unemployment ranks, they will not receive the
wages necessary to buy the products brought by automation. Markets will
become saturated with products that people cannot afford to purchase.
Inventories will grow. Production will stop. Unemployment will reach
epidemic proportions and the result will be a massive economic depression.

And to know more about economy and capitalism, please read my following thoughts:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/wlJu5j1xhPk


And more political philosophy about the good taste..

So let us look in the dictionary at what is the taste, it says the following:

"The taste is the sense by which the qualities and flavour of a substance are distinguished by the taste buds."

Read here in the dictionary to notice it:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/taste

But when you are smart you will also notice that there is also
the intellectual taste from culture or genetics, i mean that
when you are genetically more rational and more smart you will notice that this more rational and more smart is also intellectual taste since with it you are able to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality, and this is also the same for culture, i mean when you enhance more your culture it enhances your intellectual taste and it permits you to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality.

So as you are noticing that the intellectual taste is so important..

And you have to also know that i am also doing political philosophy by
efficiently finding the patterns with my smartness, i give you an example, look at the following pattern that i am finding with my smartness:

--

More explanation about the rule of "work smart and not hard"..

I will be more logically rigorous and explain more, so read my logical proof:

I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it:

People who say "work smart not hard" pretty much always fail | James Gosling and Lex Fridman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaho2mbaVGM&t=99s

Here is James Gosling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling

And here is Lex Fridman:

https://lexfridman.com/#:~:text=Lex%20Fridman%3A%20I'm%20an,Teaching%3A%20deeplearning.mit.edu


I think i am a white arab that is smart since i have invented many
scalable algorithms and i say that Lex Fridman and James Gosling in the above video are not smart by saying that "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail, and notice that Lex Fridman says that
the "not hard" in the rule means lazy, but this is not logically correct, since if the statistical distribution of the strenght and force of the work is normal in the real world , so i have to discern with my fluid intelligence that it is a system that means "work smart and not hard" and it can mean: "work smart and using an average force or strenght", so then it means that this system or rule doesn't pretty much always fail, also we can generalize and say: since the truth of "work smart and not hard pretty much always fail" depends on the statistical distribution(of the strenght and force of the work) in the real world, so we can not generalize and say that the rule of "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail.

--

I give you another example, look at the following patterns that
i am finding with my smartness:

---

What is it to be smart ?

Read my following thoughts, since i have just corrected a typo:

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius ,
since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is
it to be "smart"..

So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice:

Why are humans smarter than other animals?

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021

So as you are noticing he is saying the following:

--
"The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene.
Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder.
It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good."
--

So i am smart like a genius and i say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following:

"Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy"


This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive

So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above.

The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following:

Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following:

"Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast."

So i think that the above webpage is not right.

So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above
smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with
our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can
be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct.

So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is
that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same
as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? ,
here it is , read it carefully:

I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage:

Look at the following webpage from BBC:

The myth of universal beauty

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty

So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about
beauty:

"Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive"

So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart,
i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal,
so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage:

"Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive"

So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and
understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural.


About more philosophy about smartness..

You will think that smartness is much more genetical, but this is
a big mistake, since i think i am smart and i will explain:

If you want to climb a big mountain, there is two ways:

You can climb the big mountain or you can make the big mountain small in height so that to climb it, so when you are smart you will take a look at the constraints that make smartness much less expressive, and those constraints that make smartness much less expressive is like making the mountain small in height so that to climb it.

More philosophy about composability..

When you are smart you will realize that you have to know how to
"compose" so that to become smart, but before you know how to compose so that to be smart, you have to efficiently being "selective" of and you have to see clearly what you compose so that to be smart, and here again you will notice that being smartly inventive is also a so important thing. This is why i am thinking it smartly, so read about my following spirit so that to understand more:

I am a white arab and i think i am smart, but i am also becoming much more smart and much more powerful by using "efficiently" Swarm intelligence, read about it here(and my thoughts below about it):

How Swarm Intelligence Is Making Simple Tech Much Smarter

https://singularityhub.com/2018/02/08/how-swarm-intelligence-is-making-simple-tech-much-smarter/


More political philosophy about Swarm Intelligence..

Swarm intelligence can make a person much smarter, or it can make us collectively much smarter, so the best way is to know how to use it
efficiently, so that also to enhance much more productivity and to enhance much more quality, this is why i am very positive, since we have to be proactive so that to make people much smarter with Swarm intelligence.

More political philosophy about: Are humans smart ?

So are humans smart ?

I am very positive about humans, and i think that humans are smart,
since we are also advancing by the following process of Swarm Intelligence that is so efficient, read about it here:

How Swarm Intelligence Is Making Simple Tech Much Smarter

https://singularityhub.com/2018/02/08/how-swarm-intelligence-is-making-simple-tech-much-smarter/


So i think that "collectively", we humans, we are smart, and i think that you will soon notice it by following the exponential progress of our humanity.

More political philosophy about do we have to be pessimistic..

I think it is a beautiful day in history, and how can you understand it ?

First you will notice that the exponential progress of our humanity is going "very" fast, look at the following video to understand it:

Exponential Progress: Can We Expect Mind-Blowing Changes In The Near Future

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfM5HXpfnJQ&t=144s

So as you are noticing that you have to take this exponential progress
of our humanity into account and be much more optimistic.

And you have to know that this exponential progress of our humanity also comes from the following process:

How Swarm Intelligence Is Making Simple Tech Much Smarter

https://singularityhub.com/2018/02/08/how-swarm-intelligence-is-making-simple-tech-much-smarter/

And here is my new poem called: "This beautiful exponential progress is not a distress"

--

This beautiful exponential progress is not a distress

Because it is a beautiful maturity but not the adolescence

This beautiful exponential progress is not a distress

And we have to beautifully tune it with the beautiful consensus

This beautiful exponential progress is not a distress

So let us not be just guesses but technicality and science

This beautiful exponential progress is not a distress

So let us be a beautiful expressiveness that is not helpless

This beautiful exponential progress is not a distress

So let us take together this beautiful breakfast

This beautiful exponential progress is not a distress

Since you are also like my so beautiful Princess

This beautiful exponential progress is not a distress

So let us be a beautiful presence for present and future acceptance

--

Also you have to read my following thoughts to understand more:

More political philosophy about solidarity..

I think i am a philosopher, and you have to read below my
thoughts about the problem of absurdity, and you will notice that
that i am "abstracting" so that you understand, and i am for example saying: "this smartness of humans gives "hope" and this pleasures of human life gives an interesting purpose and an interesting value to human life", so as you are noticing that solidarity can also be classified as a pleasure of human life among other pleasures of human life that is important and that gives an interesting purpose and an interesting value to human life, so i think that the abstraction is correct. And you have to read my following political philosophy about Morality:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4

And notice that i am saying in the the above web link about Morality the following about solidarity:

More about compassion in political philosophy..

And what about compassion and love in political philosophy ?

"Independently" of Democracy, we can say that my Rule of: "More
perfection brings satisfaction" comes with a difficulty or with an
effort of being more perfection that brings satisfaction, and you have
noticed that i said the following so that to abstract it:

"When you are preparing and cooking a beautiful Moroccan couscous and
eating it, you will feel doubly satisfied by being satisfaction of being
this more perfection of preparing and cooking the beautiful Moroccan
couscous and you will also be satisfaction of eating it even if it comes
with the "difficulty" of preparing and cooking and of learning how to
prepare and to cook a beautiful Moroccan couscous. That's an efficient
philosophy. And it is also my spirit."

So then compassion and love is also "mechanical" that comes from my Rule
of: "More perfection brings satisfaction", since perfection of my
abstraction of morality above, is also helping others, so then a more
appropriate morality is to not neglect helping others and to know how to
help others.

So you are noticing that i am saying: "since perfection is also helping
others"

But i have to logically explain the big picture, here is how:

Since we can for example say: Perfection is perfection of not helping
the weakest members of our society and it is also perfection of helping
the weakest members of the society, and we can notice that each side has
a weight of importance, since we can not say that helping the weakest
members of the society has no importance, because it is also a
perfection that has a weight of importance, and logically we have not to
neglect it, and as you have noticed that i also said that:
"Independently" of Democracy, we can say that my Rule of: "More
perfection brings satisfaction" comes with a difficulty or with an
effort of being more perfection that brings satisfaction.


Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand:

More political philosophy about Albert Camus and the problem of absurdity..

I am a white arab, and i think i am a philosopher, and
now i will talk about an important subject in political philosophy:

So read the following article about Albert Camus:

Albert Camus and the problem of absurdity

https://blog.oup.com/2019/05/albert-camus-problem-absurdity/

So notice that it says:

"The philosopher Albert Camus asserts that we should embrace the absurdity of human existence and take on the purpose of creating value and meaning. Efforts and resilience – not suicide and despair – are the appropriate responses."

So i think i am smart, and i am noticing that Albert Camus has
made a big mistake by saying that human existence was or is absurd, because human existence is inherently not absurd, i can prove it easily by saying the following:

Human existence inherently has an interesting purpose and
it inherently comes with an interesting value that has a great weight of importance, i mean that human life inherently comes with human smartness
that has a great weight of importance and human life comes with pleasures of life, and human life is both "pleasures" of life and a level of suffering, this smartness of humans gives "hope" and this pleasures of human life gives an interesting purpose and an interesting value to human life, so this is why i say that Albert Camus was not right by saying that human existence is absurd.

Read my following political philosophy about Morality to know more
about my thoughts:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4

More political philosophy about Democracy and Morality..

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented
many scalable algorithms and algorithms and i think i am also a philosopher, and now i will start by asking a philosophical question:

Is Democracy morality ?

I will say that Morality is about exactness and how to be the exact perfection, note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting", read here to notice it:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection

And Democracy is a mechanism that permits to avoid corruption of morality and corruption of morality is also lack of efficiency and it is extremism that hurts Democracy, and Democracy doesn't mean that people have to govern, because it is absurdity, but Democracy is the "tool" of Morality, since morality wants to be the exact perfection , this is why it needs Democracy, and Morality or society have to be "progressive", read my following writing of my political philosophy about morality to know that they have to be progressive:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4

And we can say the following:

The classical notion of decentralization does not necessarily imply democracy, and an organization may be decentralized without being based on democratic principles.

But i ask a smart question of:

Can we say that an organization based on democratic principles may be centralized ?

Here is my answer:

But we can notice that even though decentralization doesn't
necessarily imply Democracy, Democracy is a "kind" of decentralization,
and this kind of decentralization brings efficiency because we can
notice that Democracy needs requirements such as competitive elections and free press, and i think that Democracy is more efficient than
Dictatorship at fighting corruption(and corruption can mean lack of efficiency), read my following thoughts about Democracy and more to understand:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Nudyb_4QCRU

More political philosophy about Democracy and parliamentary Democracy..

Wich is better, Democracy or parliamentary Democracy ?

When you are smart you will notice that parliamentary Democracy
is better since Democracy means that the people "govern", but this
way of doing brings desorder, since people doesn't mean that it is Elites that govern, so this is why i think that it is inherent to parliamentary democracy that it is the Elites that govern and guide people, since also we can logically prove it by saying the following:

From where people get a correct judgment in Democracy ?

So you are noticing that to be able to be good judgment in Democracy,
you have to be correct "Elitism" that guides people, and you have to be
Meritocracy to be able to be the necessary quality or perfection, but
then you are noticing that to be able to be Meritocracy there must be
a reward for the merit, by for example rewarding by giving more
money.

But since i am smart i will ask another important philosophical question, and it is the following:

Does parliamentary democracy has requirements, and wich requirements
it has:

From my above logical proof we can say that the first requirement
of parliamentary democracy is: it is the Elites that must govern and guide people, and from the first requirement we can logically infer that the Elites must be competent, so we can logically infer the since they have to be competent so then we can say the the second requirement of parliamentary democracy that it must be meritocratic, and the third
requirement of parliamentary democracy is also an important requirement
and it is that we have to have a constitution that says that parliamentary democracy has to have law enforcement agencies like the USA FBI and military as necessary basic requirements for a country, and a country can become a more global world like European union or such.

More political philosophy about the mechanisms of Democracy..

I think that we have to be smart, since i have just written
the following about China and Russia of year 2010 and 2012:

----

More about China and Russia and other such countries education system..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, read the following:

“Corruption is pervasive in every part of Chinese society, and education is no exception,” Mr. Li said.

A Chinese Education, for a Price

Read more here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/asia/in-china-schools-a-culture-of-bribery-spreads.html


I think we can not be confident with the Chinese education system,
and i don't think it is meritocratic !


It is the same problem in Russia, read the following to notice it:

Mark Levin, a professor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow who has studied the issue, said corruption in universities took place not only during the entrance examinations but also those at the end of semesters. Levin said some students preferred to pay money to pass examinations and obtain a diploma.

RUSSIA: Rising corruption threatens universities

Read more here:

https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20100514205552600#:~:text=According%20to%20necessarily%20rough%20estimates,in%202009%20totalled%20%241%20billion.&text=But%2C%20despite%20the%20country's%20increased,much%20the%20salaries%20actually%20are.

----


And also i have just posted about the today China after the anti-corruption compaign in China, read the following:

---

I invite you to read the following interesting article:

China’s Anti-Corruption Campaign and the Challenges of Political Meritocracy

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/chinas-anti-corruption-campaign-and-the-challenges-of-political-meritocracy/

---


So as you are noticing from my above writing that corruption can corrupt
the education system and when education system is corrupt then the Meritocratic system is corrupt and this is dangerous. So even after the anti-corruption compaign in China , i think that Dictatorship of China is not so efficient at fighting corruption, because Democracy is much better at fighting corruption by competitive elections and free press, read my following thoughts to understand more:

From where people get a correct judgment in Democracy ?

So you are noticing that to be able to be good judgment in Democracy,
you have to be correct "Elitism" that guides people, and you have to be
Meritocracy to be able to be the necessary quality or perfection, but
then you are noticing that to be able to be Meritocracy there must be
a reward for the merit, by for example rewarding by giving more
money.

Now why to be Democracy ?

I think that we have to be more smart and notice that
Democracy is also smart, the big benefits of democracy that it is also
like a morality that is a diversity that prioritize by giving weights to
some important things and processes to be able to succeed, for example
if i ask a question of how to be less corruption ? i think
that Democracy is an enhanced system that fights corruption
more efficiently than dictatorship, i think this is
understandable because to be able to "escape" a local maximum
towards a global maximum(like in artificial intelligence) on efficiency
of fighting corruption (and corruption also means lack of efficiency),
we have to be able to vote for another political party that is more apt
and more efficient at fighting corruption, this is why i think that
democracy is better at fighting corruption, also i think that in
democracy the governance must be a "competent" governance
this is how we will enhance democracy to be the best.


More political philosophy about what is the goal of philosophy..

What is the goal of philosophy ?

I think there is a difference between doing philosophy like i am doing and the goal of philosophy, and doing philosophy is getting more efficiently into the "details" by being inventive and by more efficiently understanding, but the goal of philosophy is also, first, to know how to be an efficient higher level "abstraction" that abstract complexity so that people do understand efficiently your philosophy, so that people be efficient in this life, and, second, the goal of philosophy is also the following:

I have just read the following article:

How to Live Better, According to Nietzsche

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/nietzsches-guide-to-better-living/568375/

And it says the following:

"More recently, in his Philosophical Investigations (1953), Ludwig Wittgenstein suggested that the aim of philosophy is not to seek the truth but rather to provide relief—“to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle.” "

I think i am smart and i think i am a philosopher and i am not in accordance with the above saying of Ludwig Wittgenstein, because i think
that it is by logical analogy like knowing the difference between boolean logic and fuzzy logic, i mean the goal of philosophy is to seek the truth, but philosophy is like Democracy that gives you a certain level of liberty under the "laws" of the society that permits you to think and write your philosophy and it can be philosophy that is the truth or that is a certain level of truth, so it is like fuzzy logic, since we want to let people in democracy diversify there thinking on philosophy(but they have to respect the laws), and the goal of philosophy is that from this philosophical diversity we have to choose what is the best philosophy.

So i will give a good example so that you efficiently understand me, here is the example:

Please read my following thoughts about Turing completeness and parallel programming:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/ju0xEyq36Rc

So notice in the above link of my thoughts how i am explaining by
using the efficient way of learning by "abstraction", so as you will
notice that i am efficiently highering the level abstraction by efficiently wanting you to understand the important things that permits you to be efficient, and this way of doing is also like the goal of philosophy that i explained above.

More political philosophy about civilization..

So now i will talk about an important subject and it is related to the following article, i invite you to read it:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190218-are-we-on-the-road-to-civilisation-collapse

So i think i am smart and i say that the "main" problem of our today world comes from "complexity", what i mean by this is that we have to know how to manage "complexity", and as you are noticing that we are also managing complexity by using "abstraction", but this abstraction causes problems if it is not managed correctly, i mean that too much abstraction is not good for the system, because we have to be the right level of abstraction to be a good reliability and safety. So we can
ask if specialization that is limiting study to a particular area is also abstraction? i think it is abstraction and it can cause problems if it is not managed correctly, this is why we have also to be an "efficient" philosophy that knows how to abstract complexity.

More about learning by the way of abstraction and about specialization..

Here is the definition of the word "specialization" in the dictionary:

Specialization is: limiting study or work to one particular area.

So as you are noticing i am saying in my thoughts below that learning
by the way of abstraction is a specialization, and i think i am correct
since we can say that learning by the way of abstraction or learning greatly by the way of abstraction make us "specialized" in the area of studying and learning by the way of abstraction.

So read my following thoughts to understand:

More philosophy about smartness and abstraction and complexity..

So i will start by asking a question:

Is the way of learning by abstraction an efficient way ?

So when you are smart you will quickly notice that we have
to take into account the "context" of the way of learning by abstraction, and when you are smart you will notice that the way of learning by abstraction is also to reduce complexity, but when you take into account the context you will notice that learning by abstraction is a also a "specialization" and it is also an efficient way of learning when we measure it inside the "context" of abstraction that is the reality, so then we have not to be pessimistic about learning by the efficient way of abstraction since, first, it reduces the complexity and, second, even if we are not understanding the complexity behind the abstraction, learning by abstraction is also an efficient specialization that is efficient for adaptability, so we have to know how to balance between those that are required to understand the complexity behind the abstraction and those that are required to learn by the way of abstraction that is a specialization.

More philosophy about the way of learning by abstraction..

I will give you an example so that you understand,
so if you ask what is the way of learning by abstraction,
look at my following tutorial where i am presenting
my methodology that, first, permits to model the synchronization primitives of parallel programs with logic primitives with If-then-OR-AND so that to make it easy to translate to petri nets so that to detect deadlocks in parallel programs, please take a look at it because this tutorial of mine is the way of learning by abstraction:

How to analyse parallel applications with Petri Nets

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/how-to-analyse-parallel-applications-with-petri-nets

I think i am smart and i will explain more what is smartness..

So that you understand me more, let us say that you are measuring a human IQ, so if it is high human IQ , this value is a measure that is relative to the other human IQs, so you will say that this high IQ is much better at adaptability than the other humans, but it is not correct measure, because even science and technology have constraints that constrain(or limit greatly) the expressiveness of human IQs, so then we can not say that a high human IQ is better at adaptability than the other humans..

More philosophy about how to measure human IQ or human smartness..

I think i am smart, and i will talk about how to measure human IQs or human smartness, first you have to know that you can measure relatively or absolutely, so if you measure the IQ of a human, you will give a value of IQ that is "relative" to the distribution of IQs of humans, so can we ask if it is the right way to measure human IQs? i think it is not, because there is a "very" important thing that is missing, and it is that you have to also measure IQ or smartness relatively to the "constraints" in our reality that constrain(or limit) human IQ or human smartness, and i think this will give a much more realistic measure of human IQs or human smartness, so if you are really smart you will start by searching what are those constraints in the reality that constrain human IQs or human smartness, because this way you will become really smart.


Let me give an example about how to measure IQs or smartness..

So if you are really smart you will give a smart example so that
people can understand, so here it is:

If i say: 2 + 2 = 4


So you will notice that this equality is also constrained by constraints of reality, since for example you are noticing that it is not so mathematically expressive, so this not mathematically expressive is also
constraining human IQ or human smartness, since if you understand and learn this mathematical equality, another person will quickly do the same, so the other person will adapt quickly to this level
of smartness, so now you are noticing the smart idea, it is that even science and technology are constrained the same way, and this constraints on science and technology constrain or limit the expressiveness of high human IQs or high level of smartness so that other lower level human IQs or smartness can attain the level of adaptability of high human IQs, this is what is happening in our today world, and if you are smart you will notice that there is something else that is happening and it is that abstraction of complexity that reduce the complexity is making others not understanding the complexity behind
the abstraction and this is not so efficient.


Here is more about the constraints on science and technology:

Is Science Going To End?

Read more here:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/68/Is_Science_Going_To_End


And read also the following

The Industrial Era Ended, and So Will the Digital Era

Read more here:

https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-industrial-era-ended-and-so-will-the-digital-era


More political philosophy about what is smartness..

I give you an example so that you understand:

If i give the following three words:

I, love, you.

It is not the same as if i give the following five words:

I, love, you, very, much

So you are noticing that the five words permit a more sophisticated
expressiveness, and notice that i am saying more sophisticated, since
the five words bring more efficiency, and this bringing more efficiency
is also what we call smartness, but notice that this smartness is brought by using the "tool" that is composed of the five words, so the tool that is our english language brings smartness, so then we have to be convinced by the fact that the tool like internet brings a much more efficiency and this much more efficiency brings much more smartness, so now you are noticing that smartness is not only genetical or cultural, but it is also the smartness of using the tool, and this is a very important thing, since the tool can be powerful and it can advance very much a human and can make a human really smart. So you have to understand that we are also in an Era of powerful tools such as internet that can advance very much a human and that can make a human really smart.

Read my previous following thoughts to understand better:

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have
also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

Here is my other wisdom:

With more knowledge, the beautiful of the physical reality becomes less beautiful, since we become more aware of the realities of life, but with more knowledge, it is smartness that becomes more beautiful, and then smartness becomes the beautiful that attracts more, since also with
more knowledge we become a more sophisticated intellectual taste, so more knowledge is an engine that pushes us towards more and more smartness, and smartness is also a good thing that can bring more happiness, and then if happiness is brought more by this more smartness, the beautiful of the physical reality becomes again more beautiful. So i predict that in the near future of 2030 we will become much much more smart and this much much more smartness can bring more happiness, since you have also to take into account the exponential progress of our humanity and the abundance of knowledge such as in internet.


And here is my new proverb..


I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms, and here is my new proverb:

Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting"

Read here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection


This is the definition of perfection above that I use below in my explanation of my new proverb.

Here is all my explanation of my new proverb below:

My new proverb comes to me from the essence of morality that I explained to you in my political philosophy that I wrote in English, since in morality we are pushed towards the pretty tomorrow because we are aware of this pretty perfume that is the perfection that pushes us or encourages us to be or allows us to become perfect or greatly perfect.

Read about it here on my thoughts of my political philosophy about morality:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4


So here is my new proverb:


"Life is like the pretty perfume that calls us to be a pretty tomorrow!"


So notice carefully my smart play on words in my new proverb, i think it's smart, and you have to know that the future perfection depends on the present perfection, so when today we are responsibility to be the pretty perfection so that to build the pretty tomorrow, then the pretty perfection of today is part of the pretty tomorrow, and the "pretty perfume" in my new proverb is also the today pretty perfection, but you have to understand the symbolic which allows us to say that being this part of the pretty tomorrow is also like being the pretty tomorrow. It is what makes it a smart proverb.


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.