In recent days, Obama and the Russians signed an agreement which seeks to limit the use of nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia. In one news report of the story, this move by the Obama administration was hailed as a step toward making the world safer against the "nuclear threat." How exactly does this make the world safer from the "nuclear threat?" I didn't realize that America threatened the world with nuclear weapons. I was under the mistaken belief that it was Iran that was the "nuclear threat." A semi-free, moral country renouncing the use of nuclear weapons somehow prevents a backward, theocratic dictatorship from using such weapons?
Absurdities such as this leave most people scratching there heads, wondering how it is that well educated people can arrive at such stupidity. The answer lies in the basic philosophical ideas which our "educated" receive in the universities. They are taught that reality is not an absolute, to which thinking must conform, but rather the other way around: whatever chain of (sloppy) thinking they can concoct, reality must conform to it. Therefore, if one wants to decrease or eliminate the potential of nuclear attack from a theocratic dictatorship by renouncing the use of his own weapons, why let reality stand in the way? If it is our wish that this should somehow work, why shouldn't it work?
As ridiculous as this sounds, this is at root the mindset operant behind our elite's most bewildering schemes today. They substitute fantasy for thinking; they evade facts lest they conflict with their wishes.
We don't merely need to replace the particular holders of public office with new ones. We need more fundamentally to replace an almost century long philosophical corruption with a philosophy of reason.