Libertarian: The Most Radical Progressive!

 

Libertarian is often seen as either an ally with conservatives (natural law) or a revolutionary like Marxism. However, Libertarian is close to neither of them especially by means of its metaphysical perspective. Let’s evaluate Libertarian and its contrasts.

Libertarian is a fundamentally metaphysical radical located at the edge of the metaphysical spectrum asserting the complete opposition from the Determinist counterpart. Conservatives usually regard of the unchangeable nature of humans and their world unlike Libertarian believing in the ultimate power of individuals free will transforming the world. Therefore, conservatives tend to lean relatively more towards Determinism than Libertarian radically being sceptical about Determinist metaphysics.

Both Marxist materialism and Libertarian are indeed progressives against conservatives. On the other hand, Libertarian instead insists on much more radical progressivism than Marxism notably by means of the metaphysics. Libertarians do not take account of Marxian materialist perspective because the will of individuals is free from the material constraints while their will is more influential over the world shape than the materialist assumption.

Marxism and the other types of materialism assume that material conditions and physical surrounding environment of individuals influence both the fate of human-individuals as well as their will. Therefore, it describes that it is the historical inevitability to provoke a revolutionary movement when a large majority group of individuals is marginalised from the world structure to expect the change. Marxism focuses on the group of individuals sharing the same materialist interest rather than each individual’s own unique imagination with their free will. Thus, Marxist materialism is still relatively more towards Determinism with its emphasis on the fate for individuals awaiting the collectively organised reformation/revolution.

Libertarian does not count on a possibility of the world transformation as the fated historical inevitability like Marxism. It assumes that individuals are always free to change themselves and the world whenever they want. Marxism and the other materialists underestimate the power of each individual for its possibility to transform the world alone. By contrast, Libertarian expects each individual alone has her/his own invincible power of transforming the world.

Libertarian is the resemblance to spiritualism rather than materialism despite its intense secular characteristic defying superstition and moral cohesion. It can be called secular-spiritualism regarding highly of individuality of each unique individual. It is identical to Epicurean of the ancient Greek philosophy stating the world reality is the mirror reflecting individuals’ mindset. It is also close to Buddhism stating various unique universes exist per the number of individuals existing in this world.

There is no such a thing as the determined world because there is an unlimited number of the parallel worlds existing as the interactions of both material beings and the invincible free will of each autonomous individual prevails to exist! The reason why many individuals still feel like being prisoned in the limitation of this terrestrial world is that they are still bound to the authoritarian indoctrination by the ruling class oppressors.

The imagination power of majority individuals is still not strong enough to drastically transform their world environment and their life. Nevertheless, this imagination power strength can be trained to gradually grow enough to be close to the saints having existed in the world spiritual history. Do not surrender to the inevitability mythology indoctrinated by conservatives! Do not underestimate each autonomous individual which is way stronger than the cohesive union of individuals merely stimulated by the material conditions and motivated by the collective political agitation of Marxism!

Daoism well explains how the world is turning up to be. In particular, from now on, the material prosperity represented as 陽 (Yang, the light element) is decaying as the reaction towards its intensity up to recently. Then, 陰 (Ying, the shadow element) representing spirituality and humbleness is being intensified in the entire world from now on.

The influence of Marxism with the heavy emphasis on the perfectionist goodness of the materialistic transformation is characterised by the Yang (Light) element. Instead, the humble attitude based on the tolerance towards material stagnation such as encouraging the humble living condition under the natural harmony, characterised by the Ying element, will be recommended as the virtuous wisdom to live off.

Under such a world with the stronger Ying elemental characteristic and quality, Libertarian spiritualism will help individuals to live off. Both Daoism and Libertarian regard highly of the natural harmony under the free flow of things and lives with their voluntary will not constraint by any hypocritical indoctrination. Instead of the perfectionist intervention like Marxism, they assert reinforcing the power of each autonomous individual’s will and imagination to naturally adopt themselves to the given living environment to thrive there.

At the same time, the ruling class oppressors of the status-quo having exploited the rest will eventually face the punishment by means of the flow of this world transformation. Its Ying characteristic punishes those who cannot neither accept nor be satisfied with the humble lifestyle. The voluntary community cooperation of individuals will be emphasised in the near future so that those who cannot comply with its spontaneous rule will be expelled away. Libertarians can be compatible with this communitarian sense even with its intense individualism: Its communitarian solidarity is based on individuals’ voluntary will instead of Marxian style cohesive enforcement agitating with the hypothetical perfectionism.

In conclusion, Libertarian can be the most sanely deviant political philosophy having existed in history. It can be adaptable to the new age spiritualism defining the world composed of the unlimited parallel worlds with which are popular especially in the internet activities nowadays.

Low-tech firms should rather adopt the public cloud!

Many small and medium companies as well as public institutes of the local authorities tend to be reluctant to adopt an advanced information technological (IT) apparatus such as the public cloud service due to their cost concern as well as their conservative characteristics. They tend to assume that they will not take an advantage of the large scale of economies offered by the public cloud service. However, these firms are actually those which will take a considerably high benefit of using the public cloud service. It is explained with the example of using Amazon Web Service (AWS).

 

The first issue is the version update including the cyber security. The average cost of the version update is heavier for smaller firms so that it is actually more cost efficient to rely on one unified provider. AWS updates their versions of the physical machines as well as the cyber security measures adapted to the latest requirements for the most recent environment for their entire global network. Furthermore, some of the security package, such as AWS Shield, come as the standard package.

 

The second issue is the maintenance of the physical apparatus in their on-premises environment. These small companies and relatively IT illiterate local authorities tend to often neglect properly looking after their on-premises environment and maintaining its durability. Moreover, they tend to be more prone to natural disasters striking their place. All in all, they had rather better locate their electrical data while implementing their cross regional redundancy of the entire database in case of a disaster and a cyber security threat.

 

Regarding their data management, AWS offers various types of database (DB) depending on conditions and usages. Amazon Dynamo DB handles non-structured data with a large volume so that electrifying the information is flexible to query and store. Amazon Aurora is autoscalable across the multi-regions so that the data redundancy is guaranteed in case of various disasters and the access overflow undermining the data-handling capability.

 

If they are worried about moving their data at once, AWS offers the data migration services such as AWS Snowball and AWS Snowmobile (called AWS Snow-family overall). These offer the option of outsourcing the entire data migration from their on-premises to AWS server network. Perhaps, these small and medium companies as well as the local authorities had better migrate the entire data and maybe the entire IT configuration to the public cloud in order to cut their expenditure for their IT staff as well as their physical space and apparatus.

 

There are still many individuals worried about the privacy and the countermeasure against the data leakage. Nevertheless, storing data in their nondurable vulnerable on-premises environment seems to be far riskier than outsourcing the database and the storage to the public cloud vendor. In addition, the scalablity and the redundancy across the regions enable to flexibly link and query the data across various places at any time available. Therefore, it is also expected to improve their administrative efficiency too.

 

My own AWS configuration architectural map

 

Plato vs Aristotle

There is a famous Raphael’s painting showing the contrast between Plato and Aristotle by means of their philosophical differences on the centre in the ancient Athenian academia. Plato pointing out above indicates his idealism whilst Aristotle pointing out below indicates his naturalism (disagreeing to describe his philosophy as realism). This passionate academic arena is indeed the place to visit if there were a time-machine.

The significant distinction between Plato and Aristotle is their focus on the human nature; Plato believed in something more transcendent to the human nature whereas Aristotle puts emphasis on the inevitable unchangeable human nature. Plato manifested the single ideal state model (Stratified guardian/spectator autocracy) meanwhile Aristotle described various unique state models adaptable to each unique nature of geo-politics and ethnicity (Monarchy/Dictatorship, Aristocracy/Oligarchy, and (Direct) Democracy.)

Plato’s Predecessor Socrates was the first remarkable idealist insisting on the moral universalism which all human individuals should aspire to follow to accomplish a unified ideal objective transcending to the human nature forming their living environment. By contrast, Aristotle admitted there is an inevitable but productive human nature underlining to form their characteristics and adaptation to the changing living environment. Plato claimed for the better alternative whereas Aristotle suggested for various unique states for each varying environmental condition.

This conflict model of the philosophical perspectives has been a universally discussed topic all over the world since then. Even in the Eastern Asia, there is a philosophical contract resemblance to this Western counterpart: Confucian is the idealist pursuing for the universal transcendental objective like Plato whilst Daoism describing various unique forms naturally adapted to each situation. In the modern era, even though the philosophical perspectives offer far more complex theory with a bigger picture, the same conflicting concept still remains.

In the modern era, there are many derivations partially adopting both Platonian and Aristotelian concepts. Thomas Hobbes based his theory on the moral relativism while adopting the Platonian-like stratified autocratic order providing the strong unity of all the individuals. Jeremy Bentham insisted on the moral universalism of pursuing the unified objective although its principle is derived from the conventional human nature instead of the transcendental alternative while supporting a more democratic state.

Kant achieved in providing the far more complex theory of its moral universalism than Plato. Considering Plato only discussed something A and something not-A, Kant clarified something defining and verifying the existence of both A and not-A as a priori which is resemblance to mathematical axiom. Then, instead of the substantial principle such as the guardian autocracy, he claimed for the abstract principle for something human individuals are supposed to obey. Then, regardless of any political form of states existing depending on each unique environmental condition, human individuals are supposed or encouraged at least to obey the universal abstract ethical principle as their maxim for accomplishing their ethically ideal goal little by little with try and error.

Kantian philosophy is rather called Conceptualism distinguished from Platonic idealism due to its flexibility as well as its complexity. Kant admitted some real substantial world obstacles disrupting individuals to establish an ideal state although he suggested they should make their best effort to accomplish their ideal transcendental to their conventional natural quality. Friedrich Hegel modified Kantian philosophy by adopting Platonic idealist concept. Hegel affirmed that human individuals are gradually evolving to establish their heavenly ideal state by referring to their ethical maxim.

David Hume can be seen as the first remarkable philosopher challenging against the aforementioned Socratic successors. Hume took over Hobbesian moral relativist perspectives while defying to manifest one particular form of state like Hobbes. Hume’s philosophy is definitely opposing to Plato by means of being sceptical about both the morality which human individuals can hypothetically define to impose upon themselves and the existence of something transcendental to the human nature without experiencing to explicitly prove their existence in real.

Kant started inventing his philosophy as the counterpart argument against Hume’s Experimentalist philosophical theory. Hume’s theory has influenced Benthamite Utilitarian philosophy by means of its emphasis on the naturalism and by means of its scepticism about the non-natural transcendental moral principle although Hume and Bentham disagreed with each other by means of their moral theory. It has also seemingly influenced the postmodern philosophies which are very similar to Hume’s perspective on the moral principle and the human nature because both support the moral relatives and the human naturalism.

In the postmodern era, there were many postmodernist philosophers introducing their own version of the pre-Socratic concepts detaching philosophies from both the idealism and the moral universalism. They often defied the universal nature of human individuals which Aristotle claimed for. Although they are reactionary to the post-Socratic philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and aforementioned modern philosophers, their reaction took place as the counterarguments against the post-Socratic philosophies so that the influence of Plato and Aristotle cannot be ignored even in their reactionary attitude.

In conclusion, regardless of which perspective, Platonic or Aristotelian, to take and of challenging against both of them, none can escape from the influence of Plato (the legitimate Socrates’s predecessor) and Aristotle (the post-Socratic influencer). Without these two legends, the entire human world history would have been a really different by means of its characteristics as well as its quality. This dichotomic theoretical development has trained human individuals to enable their world view to rationally analyse themselves and their living world to encourage their evolution. 

The AWS IoT architectural plan for manufacturering companies

 

While working for various manufacturing industry, it is often wondering whether their administrative processes can be more efficient. They had better adopt the internet of things (IoT) and the cloud data management. These manufacturers and their retailers should take an advantage of the currently available public cloud technology as the means of the digital transformation (DX) which national governments frequently put emphasis on nowadays.

 

There are still many manually carried out tasks in a manufacturing business. There are too many repetitive input and output processes which can be reduced by sharing the database via the globally connected public cloud network. Furthermore, by applying the artificial intelligence (AI) and the statistical inferences using the shared database, it will instantly optimise balancing the available supply of production and stock and the demand from the purchase order.

 

Let’s examine the possibility of the IoT tool for the manufacturing industrial DX with reference to Amazon Web Service (AWS), the public cloud infrastructure provider accounting for the largest public cloud market share at 33%. The whole company group across regional and even national borders can share the same Amazon Elastic Computer Cloud (EC2) and various types of databases such as Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) for structured data and Amazon Dynamo DB for non-structured data inside the AWS network. In addition, various advanced technologies for gathering streaming data, big data analysis, and the artificial intelligence (AI) based deep learning are available.

 

Sharing EC2 enables all the members across the borders to access applications and data installed into the shared platform inside the public cloud infrastructure. This prevents the repetitive processes of forwarding data between the departments by logging in from each location. Vendors outside the company group can also directly access the platform within the restriction by the information privacy. Moreover, the risk of causing the security hole of the entire network can be mitigated under the unified cyber security tool and various firewalls already prepared by the AWS instead of expecting all the departments to look after under their own responsibility.

 

Please kindly refer to this architectural map to read the following parts.

 

Amazon Kinesis can collect the real time streaming data from a factory to send this data to the IoT device set. This IoT devices prepared in the public cloud enable to control and monitor the production line and the storage conditions by simultaneously referring to both the external and the internal data timely delivered to the production site. There is also the correlational data-analysis estimating the potential influence over the storage volume and the quality control in advance. Thus, this is expected to prevent some critical supply management errors such as mismatching the recorded data and the actual data.

 

The information related to the product supply is then forwarded to the database. The database also simultaneously collects the purchase order data processed the retail management side. Then, AWS Lambda analyses these simultaneously collected data to send to the AI module called Amazon SageMaker offering the deep-learning analysis of various factors. Instead of allocating the costly human resources for bridging between the production site and the customer side, this automated data-link is expected to instantly match the supply requirements with the timely demand requirements without the conventional time-consuming negotiation.

 

Amazon SageMaker, the AI module, connected with the big data of the business is expected to enable this manufacturing business to optimise both demand and supply simultaneously at an instant pace. The production supply and its logistics can be optimised by referring to the customer demand trends and the exogenous factors influencing the supply quantity and quality.

 

These simultaneous data analyses can instantly offer the timely business management reports by using the database specialising in the graph presentation with some analytic footnotes such as Amazon Neptune and Amazon Redshift. This automated process can eliminate the conventional repetitive manual workloads. Moreover, it helps their management decision process with a fast objective report purely based on the mechanical data analysis because this new reporting system prevents the human bias and errors.

 

Regarding the customer relation, the manufacturer may directly contact to and deal with their customers via their own retailing website which can be directly connected to the entire supply management system equipped with the IoT devices and the big data analytics. They may no longer need their retail specialist agents negotiating between the manufacturer and their customers. All the conventional middle-men jobs are automatically carried out within the entire public cloud architectural mechanism with little humans’ help.

 

This autoscaling mechanism of the public cloud can instantly adjust the customer service costs depending on the real time demand volume. The conventional way relying on the contracted retailers requires to keep paying the agent fee regardless of the sales shortage. Furthermore, this conventional way cannot catch up with the suddenly but temporarily increasing sales volume. The human retailers are unable to be scaled up/down instantly like machines. By contrast, this new system is literally the machine base with the excellent scalability! Therefore, there is neither excess nor shortage of the product supply volume regardless of any demand level on spot.

 

Overall, this public cloud provision is efficient by means of not only time-wise but also cost-wise. It reduces the reliance on humans’ intuition requiring the long-term experience as well as the complex human relationship easily causing some corruption issues.

Book Recommendation: Natural Law Liberalism

 First of all, before introducing the book, it is important to know the brief introduction of the disputed types of Liberalism. The brief birth story of Liberalism in the modern era is needed. The two mainstreams of Liberalism are roughly explained as follows.

Liberalism is a political philosophy claiming for liberty of autonomous individuals emancipated from authoritarian oppression with their naturally endowed right and equality of obtaining it. It distinguishes liberty from a simple freedom as it claims for some degree of restriction on one’s freedom of doing whatever s/he wants on a temporary basis. It insists providing individuals with a broader meaning of freedom in a permanent basis as well as the social public environment and its minimum required rule securing all the individuals to accomplish it.

Although it is often believed that Liberalism emerged in the early modern age, the base concept was already emphasised by Aristotle (The ancient Greek) and Thomas Aquinas (The medieval European) at the pre-modern time period. Both Aristotle and Aquinas expressed humans as autonomous individuals who should be free to act and think with their own freewill. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke claimed for Liberty as the universal naturally endowed to complete the overall picture of the characteristics of Liberalism in the beginning of the modernity

The first mainstream of Liberalism in the modern world politics formed its characteristic identity by adopting the utilitarianism asserting to maximise the sum of pleasures while minimising the sum of pains by letting individuals to act freely with their constitutional right under the mutual social agreement. This is also related to economic freedom encouraging the market competition guaranteeing the equality of opportunity for individuals to join to be rewarded by means of their contribution merit. This is the Liberalism encouraging the overall liberty in a comprehensive meaning so that it is introduced as Comprehensive Liberalism.

On the other hand, there is the second mainstream of Liberalism challenging the aforementioned Liberalism where liberty is limited to the constitutional and metaphysical level. This new branch of Liberalism attempt to modify the older version of Liberalism to the newer alternative more applicable to the political intention of accomplishing the liberalist ideal ethics.

This second mainstream of Liberalism insisting on providing individuals with their right of the comprehensive freedom but also an impartial spectator intervening resource distribution, social justice mediation, and rehabilitating the handicapped minorities. The most notable figure is John Rawls having introduced the political theory called Political Liberalism claiming for more proactive interventions rather than the conventional laissez-faire (little or no intervention policy).

The provision of liberty requires the daily political level intervention to individuals more than guaranteeing their right under the constitution or the customary agreement. There is the veil of ignorance penalising some individuals lacking the necessary information before acting freely. In order to accomplish the equality of opportunity under a fair competition, it requires a certain degree of the redistribution of resources to enable all the individuals to become competent and able. The minority individuals are often marginalised under the laissez-faire majority rules so that it requires the culturally and religiously intermediate pluralist intervention into it. It thus requires the proactive intervention by this impartial spectator is thus necessary to mitigate these obstacles causing unfairness.

Nevertheless, there is a counterargument being sceptical about these modern types of Liberalism whose political methods are controversial enough to judge whether or not they can encourage individuals’ liberty. The book introduced here indicates one of the counterarguments. 

This book “Natural Law Liberalism” is highly recommended to read to understand the characteristics and their transformation of various derivations of Liberalism in the modern world. The author of this book manifestos his own version of Liberalism challenging against the two mainstream versions of the modern Liberalism.

His own manifesting political philosophy is explained in the last one third of this book whilst the first two thirds of this book is about introducing what versions of Liberalism exist. It mostly covers the historical evolution of Liberalism having produced various derivations from the pre-modern periods including the ancient Greece and the medieval Europe to the modern time period. Therefore, this book is actually useful as a textbook of understanding the evolution of Liberalism.

This book puts strong emphasis on the sceptic perspective on the modern types of Liberalism by criticising them with reference to his manifesting alternative. However, even though its main intention is criticising it, it well-summarises the characteristics of both Utilitarian Comprehensive Liberalism and Rawlsian Political Liberalism while explaining how either of them has become popular in the political arena nowadays. Thus, this book is recommended to study it at a fast pace because of its objectively well-summarised description.

The counterargument against Rawlsian Political Liberalism is based on the scepticism about the impartial spectator as a mediator of social justice and also about its moral neutrality. This public institute as an impartial spectator promoting the pluralism of cultural, ethnic, and moral diversity is still prone to the bias manipulated by the powerful influential cohort of this political arena. The objectivity and plurality can therefore also be under the threat of political lobbying.

This book highlights the criticism on both Comprehensive Liberalism neglecting to install the core moral principle and Rawlsian Political Liberalism overestimating the neutrality of the secular (believed to be morally neutral) interventionist social reform. Instead, it suggests Liberalism to focus on the inevitable influence by the majority mainstream and the longevitive tradition to policy making and societal environments. For example, the history of religious influence over social norms and values is significantly longer than the history of the modern secular politics.

The author of this book is a stronger supporter of the metaphysical and ethical philosophy of Natural Law most notably defined by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Both Aristotle and Aquinas expected for human individuals as naturally social so that their spontaneously formed social order is sufficient enough to encourage both stability and fairness.

The Natural Law theory by Aristotle and Aquinas describes the error correction mechanism called an unmovable mover which indicates the unchangeable virtue even in necessary multiple drastic social transformations. All in all, while individuals and their society may constantly change to adapt individuals and their society to each new environment with new challenges within the minimum necessary restriction imposed by the unchangeable virtuous guideline.

The seemingly most essential point of this book is underlining the importance of a strong sense of morality of all the individuals and their community functionally cohabiting together in a society. An authoritarian state does not require a strong morality of its individual citizens under a cohesive stability. By contrast, a state with less or no authoritarianism requires individuals being moral enough to enable them to voluntarily comply with the spontaneous order stabilising their state.

Overall, regardless of political opinions and perspectives, this book is highly recommendable to understand characteristics and challenges of the various versions of Liberalism in history. Also, it explains that Natural Law, the metaphysical and ethical philosophy, is compatible with Liberalism in practice for the current daily politics. This attempts to explain that Aristotle and Aquinas are ones of the remarkable Liberalist political thinkers. Even though it is not agreeable, it is thought provoking enough to get interested in Liberalism and its historical footprints.

Worrying Pure Logics and the Prisoner’s Dilemma

 

Pure logics lacks the core principle enabling it to self-evaluate its validity such as mathematical axiom. Therefore, there are multiple possible answers not unified under an axiomatic rule. In philosophy, philosophers define their theoretical criterion as the core foundation basing their logical consistency prior to configuring their theoretical architecture of logics. Natural science refers to the empirical evidence shown in the substantial world experiment basing their logical arguments.

By contrast, economics and the other social scientific subjects nowadays tend to ignore this fundamental argument on their theoretical validity. Since the 20th century, people have tended to treat economics and the other social scientific subjects such as sociology, political science, and psychology as the pure physical science by detaching them from a metaphysical foundation. Prior to that time period, those social scientific subjects were strongly tied up with philosophy taking account of metaphysics defining the fundamental principle of their arguments.

Unlike natural science, social science including economics seldom presents an empirical experience instantly proven with the substantial experiment. This is why they used to be more tied up with a philosophical perspective providing the guidance of their direction of experiment. For example, economic and social policies as well as psychological therapy must be related to ethics with its metaphysical background and its guiding base principle. Moreover, epistemology weighs on convincing people with these social scientific theories needing to convince people to trust in what these theories insist on. This is because their theoretical validity is hardly proven by the empirical experiment like natural science.

Despite this factor, people nowadays tend to be obsessed with the narrow-minded short-term objectives such as money making gaming and labelling individuals according to their conformance to the mainstream society. This tendency is notorious in financial economics and psychology related to sociology. Economists nowadays tend to focus on the market speculation and pedantically modifying the already existing theories. Social psychologists impose the cohesively unified theory authorised by the academic elite peer group to people with little empirical experimental evidence and little discussion among various perspectives. This is in fact a worrying phenomenon for individual people and their world environment.

The prisoner’s dilemma theory is the clear example indicating this worrying matter when individuals are motivated by following the pure logics without the philosophical principle while pursuing the narrow-minded short-term goal. The prisoner’s dilemma explains that the spontaneously equilibrium point is not always good; Its outcome can be actually bad! The original theory explains that each one of these two prisoners betrays each other to eventually induce themselves to the worst overall outcome in consequence although their cooperation would bring the best outcome. This is not due to their stupidity at all. Their rational attitude towards their pure logical thought process induces their action leading to the worst outcome. This analysis of the prisoner’s dilemma can be used as the analogy of the market speculation in economics.

In this case scenario, private economic agents seldom voluntarily cooperate together to divert their economy from the worst outcome. Instead, they often induce the worst outcome called the bad equilibrium without any forcible countermeasure against it. During the deflationary recession, their action perpetuates the deflation by saving more while investing less to the market although they had better cooperate to invest more to divert the deflation to overcome the recession. At the time of the economic overheat causing the surging price inflation, their action accelerates the inflation by investing more than the prudential level instead of suppressing it by being prudent.

This is why the authoritarian paternalistic government intervention is often desired to forcibly divert these worst outcomes. However, this officious government intervention often antagonises individual citizens thinking of their government as rather impertinent than compassionate. Furthermore, the government also often fail to achieve such an intervention due to their long complicated bureaucratic processes slowing the process down as well as corruption and incompetence discouraging it.

This market dysfunction is caused by the rational but over-speculative attitude of these economic agents. It is considered to be derived from their narrow-minded mentality without any philosophical principle. It reminds of the proverb “Reality is but a mirror reflecting your inner world.” which both Epicurus and Schopenhauer inferred in their philosophy at each contemporary time period. The world turns to be a chaotic game of speculation without any noble ethical principle.

Sum up, the reliance on pure logics without any guiding principle is unproductive as well as worrying. This can be the reason why the current world situation is in a chaotic state. Whilst the intelligence and the technology of applying more complex logics than the past, it still struggles to reach a productive and virtuous state. Hence, it must be the time to revise to evaluate the core principle basing logics foundation and enabling it to self-evaluate to verify its validity itself.