A Prologue to “Media Biases: A Meta-Analysis of Cable Television and the Damage Done To the World”

June 2016 - May 2018

A Prologue to “Media Biases: A Meta-Analysis of Cable Television and the Damage Done To the World”

Introduction

In the short history that a semi intelligent race of conscious life has existed on the face of the planet and has gazed to the heavens and wrote one’s convictions. Thoughts on the inquisitive nature of such  curiosities have been kept as records. Today, humans can look into the past from cave paintings, writings on parliament, hieroglyphics, and papers continue to be written which have tremendous existential and epistemological implications, from a psychological perspective, etc. For this is what sets the human being apart from the ordinary animal. Human beings continue to maintain their curiosity. For volumes have been written on this topic from the lights of: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, and Hume to Newton, Hilbert, Russell, Whitehead, Einstein, and so many more. I embolden the people to wake up from the slumber from which they have been in since the time of Socrates. A preface to a true piece of philosophical work must include some aspect of liberties and freedoms. For instance, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were among many other thinkers who were ahead of their time. This essay shall be critical in order to fully understand the true meaning of “free”. “Media Biases: A Meta-Analysis of Cable Television and the Damage Done To the World” is an essay that is both politically based and politically motivated. Matters of substantial academia might naturally get contested or challenged. Perhaps an individual may glance to the cosmos for higher knowledge, true meaning, and purpose.

If an individual shall protest in the streets within the confines of his country and with their own conscious knowledge that he or she might potentially be threatened, or worse, executed at any moment. This is not a free region nor is it desirable in a progressive society which all humans have strived and have died for. Are there any freedoms worth dying for? As long as this individual is threatening or possibly challenging the very foundations, core principles, and territories upon which the powerful, influential, or rich minority might occupy then naturally the powerful minority will find them to be a potential threat. When this occurs then the power, justice and responsibility to wake the public from a slumber from which they are unaware that they are stuck in exists.      

The very fact to say that one, revolutionary genius cannot change the world is an outright lie. It would be to discredit all those who have shook the foundations of scholastic and academic rigor in such a formidable manner that all the future giants will be unable to stand in the near future.

Those who bear the responsibility to wake the public masses are those few revolutionaries, philosophers, doctors, pioneering mathematicians, scholars, teachers, and enlightened others. Whether one is a militant, pacifist, deist, theist, ordinary citizen or any other sentient being on this planet, the said individual has to be on the correct side. The “correct side” is the side that does not wish to make a quick dollar and sell the truth but simply one who exposes truths because it is (morally) right.  

Abilities Versus Capabilities

Understanding the difference between one’s ability and an individual’s “capabilities” shall be critical in order to understand fundamental libertarian philosophy. As humans, anthropologically, we are all able to think on a much higher level than any other animal on the planet. Why is it that some human beings play the game of chess better than others? The trivial answer is that one may practice more often than others, or one may inherently have a higher aptitude to comprehend the rules of the game of chess. Perhaps one has better spatial intelligence.

The Spectrum of Truth

The reason that some ‘spectrum for truth’ is relevant is not so much because truth is relative but simply because it can help illustrate the technical linguistic differences between “right” and “correct”. Philosophically, there are differences between the definitions of both terms. The two words 'right'  and 'correct' are actually two separate, distinguishable words, respectively. individuals get these two terms mixed up quite often perhaps individuals misuse both terms too often. This would be a mistake Right is a homonym however correct is not. in a sentence, ‘what is the right thing to do’ The word right must carefully be defined. When I asked the question is right thing to do always the correct thing to do?  I think that there is a clear-cut answer to this.

1s, 0s, and the Case Against Luck

The two digits, 1 and 0 are used in computer science to encode classical information. Superficially, in mainstream society, individuals focus on integers in one’s bank account. If one has a net worth of $5,000,000 one is happy. On the other hand-  if one’s odds of winning a competition are 0.001% then this means, mathematically that one’s odds are 11000 (1:1000) (or 1 in 1000). The significances of ones and zeros are to illustrate a simple point. The point was the humorous notion that individuals are very happy when zeros trail some digits, however when zeros precede any integer, individuals tend to be very sad. This is simply because 0.001 is not a whole number and 1000.00 is.

By now, it is talking points in the United States to say not luck indeed is created. However there are individuals who would disagree. GH Hardy wrote a beautiful piece of literature titled The Mathematician's Apology. Paradoxically much like Plato's work Hardee's work to was ironically not an apology. An individual’s primary source of income comes from one's occupation and one chooses an occupation based on his or her aptitudes.

If individuals never stuck with their passions one truly would lacking purpose in an inherently meaningless universe Sartre and Camus the word to individuals alone multiple others who more known end part for their philosophical works on existentialism.

There's something which is much more blatant it is lucid and that is the fact that there are tasks which require an individual to consistently perform at a top quality.

One term that bothers a lot of the social philosophers is the word “deserves”. Must an individual deserve the noble gas oxygen (O2) to breath in each day?          

Freedoms and Rights

The two terms “freedom” and “rights” are, in many ways similar to the two words, “correct” and “right”, respectively. The above terms all hold significant semantic meanings. Rightfully, the founders of this nation likely had the most naïve intentions of it (creating a sovereign nation) becoming the most free nation on the planet even hundreds of years after their mortal demise. In response to the sacred text of The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America  

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect…” (Jefferson).

Since the conception of the sovereign nation these words have resounded through institutions as well as the minds of sovereign individuals in the republic of the USA decade after decade. Progress has no doubt been made in time.

Ironically, human beings intuitively learn the natural laws of the universe quite easily.  As human beings, we are bound only by the mathematical degrees of freedom which makes life a possibility in this universe. No one shall be told how to live and by which standards or when he or she may act on any desire that one might be convinced of the persistent illusion that he or she has as his or her own.     

As a Marxist, I have a dilemma. I am also an anarchist. Usually, labels tend to not be helpful. However, in order to get a point across, they shall be necessary. In the realm of politics there are clear cut answers too often individuals do not want to recognize this and hence many arguments come  from a lack of understanding communication is key. Too often individuals engage their own emotions into the most trivial matters philosophers have shown us that the trivial matters are actually very significant.

The dilemma that is faced with being both a Marxist an anarchist is actually quite simple. understanding for the layman of an anarchist is that there should be chaos. Chaos and anarchy are too often associated with each other and also tend to be synonymous with one other.  For professional philosophers to make this mistake it might cost him or her their career. One must distinguish between a freedom and a right there, in fact are profound differences between the two. Much like when distinguishing between the difference both liberty and a freedom the same logic is true when applied to the concepts of anarchy and chaos. The differences are subtle but they are significant.

The truth is that it is the belief an individual should be able to do whatever they want and not only in theory. In an ideal world, it is intuitive that it would be in the best interest of everyone if everyone were to live with a heavy conscience. Sadly that is not the case, for this is the real world and not an ideal world.

In practical reality, should an individual not be able to do whatever they please to do as long as it does not affect another individual or unless Perhaps it is done in the privacy what did individuals own home Should not be a problem if individual were concerned truly concerned with repercussions 1 would do everything that one is able to do to prevent negative consequences from  occurring.

This notion is actually very counterintuitive however there is some sort of aspect of Marxism that is not only beautiful and fair but also economically sound and logical.

Thousands of years ago, before colonialism, it is extremely likely that the amount of individuals who were greedy, or who were criminals, thieves, or scam artists was a minority. This is much more speculation than fact however it goes to some bigger point to be made. With the current (incorrect) model of Capitalism that exists today, a strand of greed has been extracted and accentuated from the population of the world. Just as Feudalism is now a thing of the past, so too shall the be the model of had Capitalism. If ever the world truly desires change- those who partake in the affairs that we are all given the opportunity to partake in shall inevitably realise that human beings can be free when we set ourselves free from the bondage that holds us captive. We hold ourselves as prisoners each day that we wake up and in our slumber.

Humans shall be free in time. Through generations, it is essential that human beings become more educated to see scams for what they are and to not allow for misinformation to regularly be spread. What type of world would this be without vast set backs? Through the study of history, it is the volumes which must be studies, collectively. Gothic architecture, Baroque music, Transcendentalism, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the Crusades, the Middle Ages, Postmodernism, as well as many other periods of time all hold respective significance. It is unimportant to dissect details but to take lessons from history.