fundamental difference between the liberal and the illiberal outlook
is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and
all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while
the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely
unquestionable, and that no arguement against them must be allowed
to be heard What is curious about this position is the belief that
if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the
wrong conclusion, and that ignorance, therefore the only safeguard
against error. This point of view is one which cannot be accepted
by any man who wishes reason, rather than prejudice to govern human
(Why I am not a Christian, Bertrand William
Russell, Freedom and the Colleges, #2, pg. 182)
I can only say, I am so proud to live my life open to scrutiny;
prestige, and integrity at the upper levels.
Nothing contrived by the other can penetrate an agnostic position;
open to suggestion, open to learning.
Believe in fear, or be ambitious in question.
Shed a tear, or objectify intention.
Dictate before you evaluate, or open to inquiry.
Annihilate before you create, or listen clearly.
Ad-hoc personalities believe, and judge by prejudice in subjectivity.
No conclusion can be made, except by contractual agreement.
No objective rational reasoning is possible,
only hermeneutic exegesis, of dogmatic medievel mob control.
Solipsism and contract,
the universe is your selfish endeavor, or
Humanism and the visible,
the universe is observable, and repeating.
Solipsism and the state, with the power of nuclear destruction;
drop the toaster in the tub, of our collective collaboration.
True democratism, with a distinct voice from the people,
and world wide participation, need not be a utopian fable.
It seems we have the power, mathematically.
It seems we actually can have world peace.
Those of us with open minds naturally tend that way,
We move closer to that posteriori universality, day by day.