Owfism

RE-WRITING ALL OF THIS! =Influential Figures=

=Parties and Movements=

= For an Efficient Economy  =

[[File:Cybercom.png]] Efficiency in Production [[File:Cybercom.png]]
First off, to begin this section, lets talk about how poorly production is distributed across the world, and to be honest, that is because of bad economic planning that plagues most of the world countries.

Now, our current system of capitalism, while it likes to hail itself as an efficient and the best system out there, is actually not efficient and is by far not the best, as it is clear that it cannot manage to distribute resources equally, among everyone.

Instead, resources in capitalism only go to a few, at the disadvantage of others, which is why there are things like world hunger, despite the fact that we produce food that can feed 3 billion more people than we even have today.

Now, some may point to state socialism as an alternative, however, that is as inefficient, as it led up to bureaucracy, corruption and infighting, which is by far not an ideal thing to happen.

So, what is the solution to this massive problem that is keeping poverty and world hunger? That is cybersocialism. Digitalization and technology have been proven to make distribution, production and planning more efficient.

As such, this massive increase in efficiency, through computers (in the future, quantum computers) will allow for far better distribution of resources across the world, this will also reduce bureaucracy thus allowing actions to be conducted on time.

Now, how would planning be conducted? As said previously, it would be done through computers and it would not only seek efficient distribution but also equal distribution of goods, which means that there wouldn't be people left disadvantaged or behind, like in state socialism or capitalism.

Now, how would the planning be done? The planning would be done democratically, through democratic means it shall be determined what plan should be implemented out of a series of choices provided by the computers, all of them are to be preferably good.

How this would work is to be summed up in the next section:

[[File:E-Democracy.png]] Democratic Planning [[File:E-Democracy.png]]
As said in the previous section, the planning would be done democratically, however, how would the voting process for example be done for economic plans? Well, this we are gonna answer.

First off, there would be a council of 6 people, all of which are responsible for voting on the economic plans offered by the computers, those plans being offered in response to certain actions or whatever.

This would follow a model of E-Democracy, as the voting is done online, thus it isn't physical democracy like how we know it but rather e-democracy, because it is well, online.

So, now that we got those things out of the way, how would the democratic voting work? Well, the computers will first come up with multiple plans based on the given situation and its condition, and the council members will vote on what they personally believe to be the right solution.

The plan which wins the most votes, even if it is a plurality or majority, will be the plan that will be implemented in response to that said crisis, keep in mind, the plans would range from good to very good, why?

This is because computers have stronger "brain" power and can come up with good ideas more easily, thus making it almost impossible for there to be bad plans from them. However, it is not specified which plan is good or very good,

Because of the fact that the council members will naturally vote on the very good option, so by not specifying which is the best and which is the less good plan, it is merely left up to the council members own personal opinion and will.

= A Fair and Equal Society =

[[File:LuckEgalitarianism.png]] Equality of Luck [[File:LuckEgalitarianism.png]]
Now, this is a form of equality that is often not mentioned in society, that is equality of luck, now because of this, this form of equality is gonna need its own definition.

So what is luck egalitarianism? Luck egalitarianism is a view that the main fundamental aim of equality is to compensate people for undeserved bad luck, such as being born with poor native endowments, having difficult family circumstances or suffering from accidents and illness.

Now, because of Owfist ideological nature, I believe in global luck egalitarianism, seeking to synthesize the principles of compensating people for undeserved bad luck with  cosmopolitan international theories.

As such, Owfism wants to end the notion that there are people who are worse off because of a condition that was not caused directly by the individual, it not being a fault of their own, and instead being a result of their unfortunately bad luck.

He believes that this equality is paramount as a person skills and abilities led to differential distributive justice incomes. This is unfair, why? Because one's own natural circumstances were not determined by themselves, but instead by a "natural lottery". As such, this must be made up for.

[[File:Social-ism.png]] Equality of Opportunity [[File:Social-ism.png]]
I also believe in equality of opportunity, believing that every person in society should have an equal right to have an opportunity and should not be excluded because of their social hierarchy.

As such, I naturally come to oppose oppressive hierarchical systems of Slavery, Apartheid and the Caste System, I believe that black people (or other previously oppressed races) should be brought back in society but not through affirmative action but through having the same equal opportunity, for them to be able to pursue the same jobs as other people do.

Now, this form of equality has come to be typically associated with the Third Way, and that is fair, as it has been used by them, especially by  Blairites in the United Kingdom.

However, I come to reject the Third Way, as I am well, a socialist and do not support  capitalism in its modern form, as it is itself an oppressive hierarchical system that does not even provide equal opportunity, let alone equality of outcome.

I believe that if people do not have equality of opportunity, they may never have  equality of luck, believing that equality of opportunity is a precursor to the eventual, final goal:  Luck egalitarianism.

In economical terms, these are the 2 most important forms of equality, however, there is a third form of equality that needs to happen:

[[File:Polycult.png]] Societal Equality [[File:Polycult.png]]
The third form of equality in my opinion that needs to happen is societal equality. The two forms of equality I mentioned previously, luck equality and  equality of opportunity, are merely economic and only affect people's economic framework.

However, this is not an economic idea of equality, this is a social idea of equality, equality based on social issues, not economic issues. Here's an example of what I envision societal equality to be:

I believe that LGBTQ+ people should have the same rights, freedoms as  heterosexuals and believes that they should be treated as regular members of society and wants to end the stigma around them that has existed.

I also believe that racial inequalities, especially between black people and  white people, believing that race shouldn't be a determining factor in one's ability to get a job, or where he can go to, believing that every person regardless of race should have access to the same things.

I also come to believe that immigrants are to flow freely from one place to another if they find the place that they currently live problematic for them, restrictions on tourism are also to be completely lifted, this is in part of the proposal of a world federation, which shall create a global, inclusive culture. literally New World Order

I believe that without inequalities in race and gender (main societal inequalities) being solved and with them made equal then we may never see either equality of opportunity, or equality of luck, believing that there can be equal opportunity and equal outcome if everyone has equal access to those 2 things.

As such, I come to the conclusion that societal equality is inevitably a precursor to  equality of opportunity and with equal opportunity there is to be  equal outcome.

= A Fairer Economy =

[[File:MeritCap.png]] Ending of Passive Wealth Accumulation [[File:MeritCap.png]]
I believe that Passive Wealth Accumulation (PWA) serves against the principles of meritocracy and should (mostly) be abolished, believing that it goes against equality of outcome and opportunity.

As such, my solution to this problem is to first abolish inheritance, believing it just gives a person who is the son of a rich person more luck than a regular person, thus goes against luck equality.

Taxation just isn't enough, inheritance should be completely eliminated as it serves to only make some people luckier than others and will continue do so, and the current inheritance state and wealth transfer world will lead to an aristocracy of rich people.

Another thing that must be abolished is interest, and as such loopholes related to it, like the carried interest loophole, which further serves the rich and makes them more lucky and have more opportunity than the rest of society, as such this is to be abolished.

Now debt, well, debt will sadly not be abolished, although it is to be typically kept at a low level, except for obviously in periods for economic crises, where government spending and stimulus will be naturally required.

[[File:UBI.png]] Universal Basic Income [[File:UBI.png]]
Personally, I also support the implementation of a 1,000$ Universal Basic Income, believing it to be a necessary measure in order to allow people to sustain themselves and to pursue equal opportunity and to have equal outcome.

This UBI will apply to the poorer members of society, going only to those earning below 207,000$, as people above that are mostly just  rich people, who have other, easier ways of sustaining themselves and thus keeping their  opportunities.

The Universal Basic Income will also allow people to pursue the opportunities they want, the dream careers they want to have in life, it will only allow them to be able to enjoy life, and to build their own meaning in a way they never could.

A Universal Basic Income shall also serve a good use in the fact that it will allow people to have a stable source of income in which they can spend and pursue their hobbies, especially in a post-work society where current manual labor merely becomes voluntary or just completely automated, thus it is no longer required.

In conclusion, the universal basic income will not only apply in a post-work society, but also in current society, in order to make it easier for middle class people to do the things they want, to have the same opportunities as richer people and to be as lucky as richer people.

[[File:Technocracy.png]] Smart Government and Populace [[File:Technocracy.png]]
I believe that education is a number one priority and without it then there would be no innovation, there would be no technology, we would be as dumb as cave men, we wouldn't be able to find our thoughts, education allows them to find those thoughts.

As such, I believe that jobs, especially good jobs that are very respected are to be filled by the smartest people in the world, who are the most educated, in order to respect the principles of meritocracy.

I especially want this to happen in government, every minister that there is to be experienced in the said field they are minister, nepotism and corruption should be abolished as they cast aside true, experienced people and instead put weak, inefficient people who do not help the country.

The government must also be open and transparent about its actions to the people, wanting there to be very little amounts of classified information, and even that classified information to be declassified only in a couple years, at most 5 years.

Now, how would intelligence be measured? How would we know who is actually smart? Well, I believe that the IQ Test, the one we have today is in desperate need of reform, and this is the reforms I propose for it, in order to end its racist roots and to make it more accurate overall.

Here is what the reforms would entail:

First off, I believe that there should be an international exam for IQ (in the world federation) for people over the age of 23, as that is when they have went Through all periods of education: pre-k, kindergarten, elementary, middle, high school and college.

The exam can only be taken online as in my opinion those would be the best conditions for all of these questions, however, there is still the threat of cheating, as such, there will an installed "IQ tracker" during the 4 hour period of the exam in order to make sure that the taker of the exam is not up to some suspicious activities that intentionally allow him to get 200 IQ easily.

Now, how would the exam itself be? Well, there will be 200 questions, each worth a point, with the maximum time for the exam being 4 hours. The exam would last for 2 weeks, in order to give time for everyone to participate across the world.

The first section, which will be worth 50 points, will be on sequence memory, it assesses the overlap between short-term and working memory.

The second section, also worth 50 points and has 50 questions is on pattern solving, this will be tested to see how good people are at finding patterns and coming to a correct conclusion.

The third section will be on verbal memory and its purpose is to test how good a human is at remembering as many words as possible in short term memory.

The fourth and final section will be on number memory and it like the other sections is worth 50 IQ points, it is a test to see what is the longest number people can remember.

The range of IQ will be from 0 to 200, with people that get 0-50 IQ are in "idiot" tier, people with 50-99 IQ are in "dumb" tier, people with 99-101 IQ are in "average tier", people with 101-150 IQ considered "smart" and people with 150 IQ and above considered "genius".

(This is probably not perfect, but in my opinion I think its a decent improvement.)

[[File:Yang2020.png]] Economic Scorecard [[File:Yang2020.png]]
I believe that figures like GDP (Gross Domestic Product) should be replaced, since it is an outdated form of how good a country is, and thus believe that it should be replaced with I call an economic scorecard.

What will this economic scorecard do? Well, it would be measured using some of the computers that are to be used for economic planning, believing that it can go in tandem with planning, as the planning can be done based on how good the scorecard is.

The current things we have are GDP, which in USA, it's going up, the US's life expectancy is going down, the stock market prices, which only show the fortunes of the top 10%, and the unemployment rate, which is misleading.

This is why we need an Economic Scorecard. The Economic Scorecard will measure environmental quality, mental health, childhood success rates, quality of infrastructure, access to high quality education, infant mortality and consumer debt. If these are prioritized, we can see better progresses in those fields, through economic computers.

The era where we must only pursue infinite GDP growth must come to an end, we must come to an era where we prioritize human needs and not the needs of a gross domestic product.

= Means of Production =

[[File:Cooperative_Socialism.png]] Worker Self-Management [[File:Cooperative_Socialism.png]]
Personally, I support the idea that workers should have their own self-management over business, and believe that they should engage in democratic voting, with them having full rights over electing a CEO.

Now, all businesses are to have worker co-operatives, however, I wouldn't make these mandatory, so there will naturally still be some businesses which are not "co-oped" or whatever.

But, how will businesses become worker businesses? How will the co-ops work? Well, it would be up to the initiative of the workers not the Chief executive of that company to allow for the means of production and management to be  worker owned.

Typically, worker-owned business through worker co-operatives as they will have greater pay and safety standards along with more  human rights in the workplace, thus making it the obvious choice of workers to be in a co-operative.

As such, most businesses if not even all businesses will be worker-owned businesses, that run on worker co-operatives, with there being ownership of the means of production, and in my opinion, market socialism is the only way workers can own the means of production without it ending up in soviet-style central planning.

[[File:Cooperative_Capitalism.png]] Business Competition [[File:Cooperative_Capitalism.png]]
Now, how would businesses be like, Well, I am a fierce hater of big business, who thwart out competition, have complete ignorance of privacy and have basically created a digital surveillance state all by themselves, with the government turning a blind eye to.

We are currently in the second Gilded Age, where there are massive corporations and monopolies which dominate industries, not just in technology but also in things like agriculture and glasses.

Now, how can this problem be solved? Well, we need massive trust busting, which will be incorporated in an  economic constitution like how it is done in Germany. Businesses are to be broken up based on their market share, with it having to exceed 30% of the market share in a said sector in order to be eligible to being broken up, like this (keep in mind, previous chief executives cannot own shares of stock in the new companies): This will make sure there is actual business competition and as such thwarts big business through anti-trust laws and truly brings back the main principle of what is  capitalism itself (even if I oppose it): competition.
 * 30-40% Market Share: Broken up into 5 companies
 * 40-50% Market Share: Broken up into 10 companies
 * 50-60% Market Share: Broken up into 15 companies
 * 60-70% Market Share: Broken up into 20 companies
 * 70-80% Market Share: Broken up into 25 companies
 * 80-90% Market Share: Broken up into 30 companies
 * >90% Market Share: Broken up into 35 companies

[[File:Socdem.png]] Maximum Wage [[File:Socdem.png]]
I believe that the way chief executives are payed compared to their workers is unfair and outrageous. For example, in the United States of America, your average chief executive gets paid x350 more than the average worker who works for him.

Now, to solve this, I personally implement the implementation of a maximum wage, where the CEO can only get paid x10 more than his own worker, thus allowing for there to be more  equal opportunity and most profoundly  equal outcome.

So, the ratio between the pay of a worker and the pay of a CEO will thus naturally be at 1:10, believing that this ratio is the fairest ratio, as I still believe that CEOs are more special in the work place, as they own the worker co-operative, they shouldn't be paid way more than the worker.

= '''Solving Societal Problems =

[[File:Antwork.png]] The End of Work as we know it [[File:Antwork.png]]
= Technological Revival =

[[File:Ectrans.png]] Saving the Environment Through Technology [[File:Ectrans.png]]
= Liberty and Well-Being =

[[File:Humanismpix.png]] Humane Justice [[File:Humanismpix.png]]
= End of Religion =

[[File:MathTheo.png]] Secular Education [[File:MathTheo.png]]
= A United World =

[[File:World_Federalism2.png]] The Case for a World Federation [[File:World_Federalism2.png]]
Now, this is probably gonna be the most interesting section of my ideology, and that being my case on why we need a world federation. Let's first begin with some examples.

Let's look at the environmental crisis that faces us today, that being  climate change. Now, how would this be solved easier if we were a world federation. Let's first take a look at other less international stuff, but still international.

Let's look at the Montreal Protocol, with its goal being limiting the use of CFCs in the ozone. The only reason this protocol got signed was because of international co-operation, if we were not globalized and still continued to adopt isolationist policies, we may still deal with the CFC problem and the Ozone Hole problem.

Now, imagine how much easier and quicker it would had been solved had the world been just one country, a united, democratic world federation, and it would only require 'one country to do action, not almost 200, all with different regimes and ideologies, with it being a mess.

International institutions like WHO, UNESCO, FAO and others will finally get the power they need to exercise the law over beings or companies breaking said laws, US companies for example will stop exporting child labor to other countries as it would be completely banned.

With a united world federation we can finally begin to think of space, and improve our laws regarding space to make it easier for us to explore and settle on other planets, without being hindered by the seemingly regressive  Outer Space Treaty.

I could go on about the benefits of an united world, but in short, it will make it easier for us to handle pandemics and epidemics,  climate change and other important things in the world that will be easier to accomplish and solve through a united world.

[[File:Pac.png]] Doctrine of Peace [[File:Pac.png]]
= Praxis =

[[File:Mutalist.png]] Dual Power [[File:Mutalist.png]]
Personally, I believe that dual power as proposed by Proudhon is a good form of praxis and achievement of political change, as the  workers create their own political institutions, and that is through the method of:

Worker co-operatives, the status quo institutions are to be weakened and eventually the new worker, mutualist institutions are to be put into power, creating a what I would call a sort of minarcho-mutualist society, where workers have most of the power, however, government, now a more  quasi-mutualist government, will still have some power.

[[File:Pragmat.png]] Political Pragmatism [[File:Pragmat.png]]
Another tool of praxis that can be used for Owfism is the idea of political realism, where I, with my political ideas are elected and chosen, however, instead of immediately beginning a new mutualist government through dual power, it is instead using the previous institutions in order to march towards a minarcho-mutualist society.

I believe that if dual power doesn't work we may have to compromise some of our better goals with inferior but better than nothing goals with our opposition, as that may easily get us to the eventual final goal that is sought.

=Philosophy= RE-WRITING ALL OF THIS!!!

[[File:Skepticism2.png]] Metaphysical Nominalism [[File:Skepticism2.png]]
The main problem of metaphysics, which precedes the essence of objects is the problem of universals and particulars. This has been a philosophical problem that has been a thing since the Ancient Greeks.

Now, there have been many proposed solutions by Plato and  Aristotle by example, both supporting different forms of Realism, with them both believing that there are both universals and particulars.

The thing with universals is that we can imagine, we cannot sense them for example, we cannot know if they truly exist or not, unlike the particulars.

There is a view however, that asserts that universals don't exist, that being nominalism.

Now, believers in realism believe that if we imagine the form of an object to be a "cat" for example, that means that the form exists. However, just because we can imagine a form that does not mean it exists in it of itself. And even if there was a form, what would the perfect form of "cat" be?

Realism only brings forth more questions than it seeks to answer in the problem of universals and particulars.

In conclusion, I believe that the only thing that actually exists are merely material particulars, aka the actual object itself, and the form does not exist in it of itself and is merely the construct of the human brain.

[[File:Existentialism.png]] Meaning of Life [[File:Existentialism.png]]
Now, let's first ask an important question: What is life? What does it mean? Life is merely the thing that specifies the difference between a creature that is dead or alive. Life basically means you, in a form that can move, that can talk etc. It is your alive matter.

However, the more important question is, what does it mean? What is the meaning of it? Well, the short answer to this is: There isn't a meaning. In my opinion, the meaning of life is basically made up by the individual and according to the needs and conditions of that said individual.

But, doesn't God exist? Doesn't he give us meaning? Well, how does he exist? For example, there is no difference between an unsmellable, intracable, invisible gardener and no gardener at all.

Now, since people, (theists, especially) point to the existence of God as reason as to why we have meaning, but, does he really exist? Well, people just report to faith, however, this is philosophy, and faith just cannot work, as it does not involve reason.

However, that is not to say that there haven't been philosophical arguments to prove the existence and god, and, this is gonna take a while, but God has quite the connection to the meaning of life, and I don't want to keep this short.

First, let's talk about Anselm's ontological argument, it states that if God is the greatest thing that we can imagine, and if it is better for him to exist, that means he exists. However, this can be debunked, like the following: "If this lost mythical island is the greatest thing that I can imagine, then that means that the lost mythical island exists." (debunking of fellow contemporary of Anselm, Gaunilo) Which is obviously, wrong.

Then, let's talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which states that whatever exists has to have a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had a cause. Is this even an argument for god? It just states that the universe was caused by something, it doesn't even try to say that it was caused by "god", the thing that could have caused it could had been a big pile of rock, a window or a Ferris wheel. It just does not specify.

Then there are all of Aquinas's cosmological arguments, which, are pretty similar but with different words like movement, cause, contingency and degrees. The thing is, with the first two arguments, there can't be an unmoved mover or first causer because it is proven wrong by quantum theory. His arguments (the 4 ones) are also self-defeating. Also,

I am just gonna stop here, not because I cannot debunk other arguments but I am already moving away from the meaning of life, so in conclusion, I believe that the meaning of life is up to the individual itself, and is not bound up by a higher authority or being.

This thus brings us to the next section, that being the section about our existence:

[[File:Absurd.png]] The Absurd [[File:Absurd.png]]
As I said previously, we are moving to the question of our own existence: How did we come into existence? Was it a normal thing? What was it?

Well, It is proven that scientifically, the chance of us existing are 1 in 400 million, those odds are staggering, and could easily mean that we are a fluke, or rather, that our own existence is absurd.

This is the conclusion reached by French philosopher Albert Camus, who asserts that, through his philosophy of  Absurdism, that there are 3 solutions after the realization that the mere existence of ourselves is absurd, with those being:

1. Suicide. This seems like the easy way out, just immediately escape it, realizing that there is no meaning and purpose to your own life, so what's the point in still being in it, now, on the surface this seems pretty simple. However, according to Albert Camus, rejecting life and giving up living in the Absurd is a bigger absurdity than the Absurd itself.

The second solution offered by Albert Camus is the idea of:

2. The leap of faith. The leap of faith entails a person should just have a leap of faith and try to find meaning, with that person still believing despite this realization, that there still is meaning to our life given to us by something, and that we just have to look deeper.

The third and final solution is:

3. Embracing the absurd. This out of all options is actually the best one, and according to Albert Camus, the real solution to the eventual realization that life is indeed absurd but it just doesn't matter. We still have our own free will to chart our own meaning to life, to enjoy our own life, without having to worry about an universal meaning of life.

Albert Camus defines the 2 solutions stated above as philosophical suicide, as according to him they abandon the realm of rationality and are thus not to be considered.

An example of embracing the absurd is mentioned by  Camus himself, through the Greek myth of Sisyphus, where, because he tried to cheat death, got subject to forever lifting up a rock, with him never succeeding. Now, naturally, this would seem absurd, to do an impossible task forever and ever, however, Sisyphus would end up embracing it, he would thus, embrace the absurd.

Now, we move on to the idea of morals, what kind of moral code should we follow? That is to be answered.

[[File:Subj.png]] Subjective Morals [[File:Subj.png]]
Personally, my moral framework comes to down to moral subjectivism, I believe that  morals are not universal, and is, like the meaning of life merely subjective.

Yes, I personally believe in virtue ethics, however, I do not want this enforced upon others, believing that morals are just based on socio-economic conditions and just the habits they been taught to by their parents or teachers or other people.

As such, it is merely an absurdity to believe that people must follow universal morals, and thus believe that while I may despise the morals of others, it is merely a personal despise and do not wish to see them being forced to not have those morals, as I believe it is their own free will to have those morals.

I believe that this moral subjectivism can easily be connected to  existentialist philosophy, because I believe that morals and what morals should be are decided by the individual itself, just like the meaning of life itself.

As such, I believe that it is absurd to seek out a universal moral code that applies to everyone, believing that moral codes in it of themselves only apply to individuals and how they choose to help people and to just do things in life.

[[File:Rene_Descartes_.png]] Reason and Sensing [[File:Clib.png]]
Now, in epistemology, there is an important debate that has been going on for hundreds of years and that is the debate between rationalism and empiricism. With the main rationalist being Cartes, and the main empiricist being Locke.

Let's first begin with the definitions of both ideas, first off, rationalism is the practice of basing actions and opinions on reason and knowledge. Then, empiricism is the opposite, with it being the practice of basing actions and opinions on experience and sensing.

Now, a main term used by empiricists, more specifically by John Locke, is the idea that our mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa), with it saying that individuals are born without built-in mental content, and that all knowledge comes from experience and perception.

While yes, at first, it may seem like this is accurate, for example if we can touch, smell, taste, see and hear a thing then it must be real, the tabula rasa must be the correct way we gather knowledge, right? However, there are conditions in which our typical senses (touching, tasting, seeing, hearing and smelling) are to fail us. There are many examples of this type of thing happening, whether it would be water being hot even if we set it at a mid-temperature because we were out in the cold etc.

However, we are going to use our own analogy. Let's say it's spring and you are outside. Your senses notice that, despite it being 20 degrees Celsius, that it feels mild or sometimes even sort of cold. However, if you go outside during the summer and outside is that exact same temperature, your senses notice that it is hot.

Your own senses are also subject to placebo effects, for example, people who believe in homeopathy (medicine from natural stuff like plants and water) say that they felt better after taking it, but that is merely the senses tricking you through the placebo effect, by believing that thing makes you better, it made you feel better, even when it shouldn't have had you otherwise not believed it.

Meanwhile, when those same homeopathy dudes, who assume regular medicine does not cure them and they were given regular medicine, they did not feel better, even though it should have. Yet again, thanks to the placebo effect.

Now, what is the alternative to these faults of empiricism? The solution is thus a very simple one.

Now, what is it? That solution is Rationalism, rationalism seeks to account for the faults that typical sensing has by applying the mind into the mix, and not just the 5 main senses of the body.

Through sensing, you would conclude for example that it was colder on the spring day and hotter on the summer day however through reason and knowledge you would come to conclude that it was equally as hot (in weather) on those days.

Owfism believes that people should disbelieve everything they heard or perceived, believing it to be untrustworthy or purposefully said as a lie in order to trick the person, with tricks like these not being realized that were wrong in years.

As such, Owfism believes that we should disbelieve local things, believing that local doubts should exist.

However, I am not a solipsist, why? Well, solipsism affirms that everyone else doesn't exist, and only you exist. However, you will believe that you think therefore you are the only person that exists, however, another person, who holds this same belief believes that only they exist, and you don't exist. Yet through Solipsism only you exists. So who only exists? You or the other person?

I believe that the human is actually just the mind, and if you use that mind to think (through reason and knowledge) then you exist, but if you only rely on senses, you actually just don't exist as an independent person, as you're bound to by the feelings of other people or objects.

[[File:Kant.png]] World Understanding [[File:Kant-icon.png]]
So, what can we conclude from empiricism and  rationalism? Well, the things that we can conclude as that while our senses on the surface may seem good, in reality they have some flaws, that can be accounted for through reason and knowledge.

So, through this we can say that there are 3 main ways we can thus understand the world around us, those 3 things are Intuition, Reason and Understanding. Now, what are all of these three things and how are they useful?

First off, let's mention intuition. Immanuel Kant states that intuition is the sensory impressions given to us by the objects around us, for example, us touching a flower would activate the sense of touch, while bringing it to your nose would activate your smell.

So basically, intuition is the sensory part of our understanding, or rather, the empiricist part of our understanding of the world around us. That is the conclusion that we can draw from intuition.

Now, let's move on to reason. As said by Kant, reason is the logical destinations we are to get to from these sensory impressions, for example, your senses will feel something, however, it is only through reason you can conclude that it is a for example white flower.

And finally, Understanding allows us to comprehend things without having to infer them from intuition (or the sensory impressions that were given off).

Intuition (sensing) is useful as it allows us to know how an object smells/tastes and looks like. Reason is useful because it allows to know what that object is and finally Understanding is useful because it shows we have improved, because

As such, I come to believe that all of these 3 elements are equally important, however, one shouldn't be used more than the other.

However, Kant would affirm that there are 2 worlds, the phenomena and numina, that's where his transcendental idealism comes from, however, as a  monist, I believe that we live and can only live in one universe  (even if I believe there are other universes), (that is unless we somehow become an inter-universe civilization, although that would be very unlikely as we would have to resort to building things that somehow match the laws of physics of another universe.)

[[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]] Hegelian Dialectics [[File:IdealismPhil.png]]
Now, what are my beliefs when it comes to system of logic, or rather systems of dialectic? Well, personally, I believe in the idea of Hegelian Dialectics. Now, how does it work?

Now, like other dialectic methods it relies on contradictory processes between two opposing sides, sides which do not like each other.

Hegelian Dialectics utilizes a formula of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. However, while these are the most common terms used to describe his formula, it actually was abstract-negative-concrete. However, we are going to use thesis-antithesis-synthesis formula, we are to describe the formula then each one of them first.

The first thing that comes is the thesis, followed by a reaction, that being the antithesis and finally by the synthesis, which is, as the definition of synthesis says, the compromise emerged from the thesis and antithesis, agreed to by the people who made the thesis and antithesis.

Now what are the definitions of each one of them? Let's start with thesis. A thesis is a statement put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved (from Google), an antithesis is a statement put forward against the thesis (the statement put forward as a premise) and the synthesis, which is the combination of both statements in order to form a connected whole.

Now, does this dialectic apply to any examples? Well, yes, and it actually has connections to Hegelianism.

Let's look at Capitalism-Marxism-Fascism. Capitalism is the first of the three to have emerged, thus, is it to be considered the thesis. Then, Marxism came in, as a reaction to the emergence of capitalism, thus it is considered the antithesis. Then, Fascism emerged.

How is fascism the synthesis in this dialectical case? Well, Benito Mussolini himself was a socialist before creating Fascism, however, when he was head of Fascist Italy, he opposed communism. However, he also opposed capitalism. Essentially, Fascism acts as a synthesis between the ideas of Capitalism and Marxism.

There are many more examples that can be used to justify the notion of Hegelian dialectics, however, we are just gonna stop here for now and go on to the next section, that being sociology.

[[File:Indlibsoc.png]] Wildeian Individualism [[File:Indiv.png]]
Now, we move on to sociology, and on sociological matters, I personally believe in individualism, it is being independent or self-reliant in life. We all know what that means. Opposite to it is Collectivism, that being giving a group of people priority rather than an individual.

Naturally, most would assume that capitalism is  individualistic and that  socialism is  collectivist, heck even some Socialists say that they're collectivists, even  socialist anarchists  call themselves that.

So, how the hell can Socialism be considered individualistic? Well, to do that, we can look at the philosophy of Oscar Wilde. Now, Oscar Wilde was an Irish socialist poet (who sadly died very young and who may have had a potential).

Oscar Wilde says that progress in thought is the assertion of individualism against authority, who only supports the status quo and does not want new change unless it is forced to or convinced to implement that change.

Wilde also acknowledges that being art itself is the most intense mode of individualism the world has ever known, thus acknowledging that art is the best way of expressing yourself's individuality and individualism in the world.

However, to being an artist doesn't mean to just paint, an artist is one who believes in himself and absolutely in himself, because he is absolutely himself.

However, Capitalism has proven to not be a system where men can prove that they are themselves, as it does not allow them to express themselves through the best form of being yourself, that being art.

Why? It is because people to work, work inevitably steals time from humans to pursue what they want best. As such, work must be made voluntary and only done by those who seek it, if they believe that it is what makes them be themselves.

As such, I believe in a socialist society where  work is voluntary and is not forced upon by the system. Why should mandatorily do the work, us an imperfect, feelingful being do the work that a perfect, feelingless machine can do quicker and better than we can ever do?

Aesthetics
Aesthetics is the set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty. (- Google)

[[File:Ectrans.png]] Solarpunk [[File:Aneco.png]]
Now, we have established what is aesthetics in it of itself, however, what are my beliefs when it comes to aesthetics? What is actually beautiful? Well, that one thing that summarizes the aesthetical beliefs is Solarpunk.

Now, naturally as a human being, you are to lay the question, what is Solarpunk? Now, this will be explained in this section.

Solarpunk is a science fiction (sci-fi), literary subgenre and art movement that paints a vision of how a futuristic society might look like if humanity succeeds in solving major contemporary challenges that face us.

Now, what are those challenges? Those challenges are the challenges of inequality, climate change, poverty and many others that currently face us in this world. Solarpunk seeks to create a society in which all of these issues are solved.

How? Well it emphasizes positive psychology, thus rejecting the notion of pessimism. Solarpunk technically uses some more low-tech ways of living like gardening, permaculture, regenerative design, open-source technology and so on.

However, I reject its eco-anarchist form, as I am not really an anarchist but rather support a Solarpunk which synthesizes  Eudaimonia,  Libertarian Market Socialism and also  Eco-Socialism into main aesthetic.

And, Solarpunk can also utilize even some high-tech stuff, like, in a personal way, I would support nuclear fusion to be the main source of energy in an eco-friendly solarpunk society, however, I would also support a 100% renewable-based energy grid.

I would also support a negative-emissions economy, and that will obviously require carbon capture technology, not just natural carbon offsets but also man-made carbon offsets, believing that through investment this technology can become more efficient and also cheaper.

Good video (I recommend): What is Solarpunk? by Saint Andrew

=Personality=

MBTI
INTP (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving)

Enneagram
5w6

=Relations (Self-Inserts)=

Friends
Yoda8soup Thought (//) - Surprisingly, we are actually pretty similar, on economics, we both support market socialism and georgism. De-central computer planning is an interesting concept, socially, we are pretty much the same, however, you should be more libertarian. Civically, we are the same, except for defensive democracy, I don't like that. Although, you should be more internationalist. TLDR: Pretty similar, with some minor differences. (//) - Not bad! Especially on economics and a bit on social policy, we are actually in agreement, however you need to be more progressive and more internationalist, otherwise, not bad, as said before. Mattism (//) - Not a bad ideology, we are pretty similar, the only difference we have is that you're too protectionist for me and are also in favor of defensive democracy, you are also more economically moderate but other than that, you are a good ideology.

Celfloskyism (//) - Pretty nice ideology, and it clearly seems you want not just equality but also freedom for the Chinese people, although I don't really like the ideas of Irredentism, your cycle democracy is not really something I like. You support virtue ethics and existentialism, although I am not that utilitarian though. Otherwise, pretty good!

AshleyHereism (//) - Yo, this is actually based for an anarchist, existentialism and absurdism are very based! Oscar Wilde is also based! I don't agree with Diogenes, but he was savage and independent, and I like that. It's nice how you support some Stoicism. Overall, you're mostly an anarchist version of me, which is pretty interesting.

Uzarashvilism (//) - Economics wise, you are pretty similar to me, as we both believe in a socialist market economy, and the fact that we both believe that the Nordics are just (for now) the countries with the best economic model (or rather, least evil) in the world. Not bad, however, our difference comes in social and international issues, first off, you are too conservative, you can at least be more progressive by supporting SJW-Lite. Also on international issues, you can still be a globalist and oppose "economic globalization" (like me). So yea, too isolationist. But yea, pretty good overall.

Glencoeism (//) - Wow, you are pretty based! I agree with you on PWA, we both stride for a sort of Co-operative, meritocratic society, if only you were more global... BE MORE GLOBAL!

Inexistent Ideology (//) - Not bad, just be less nationalist, more progressive and also more pro-market. Oh and more democratic. In rest pretty good.

Rocksism (// - Not bad, and yes, Camus is based. You may be too communalist and marxist for my liking, but overall, pretty good!

Frenemies
Post-Councilism (//) - I hate vanguard centralism, and I am just generally not really into Communism in general, nor do I agree with Zizek, although you're quite literate in political/philosophical theory, which I admire. I wish to have said more but sadly I am not that literate in the beliefs you have so...

HelloThere314ism (//) - Your beliefs are not really beliefs that I tend to agree with, and also, on some parts, your page is unfinished so I don't really know how to rate you, but it is clear you know theory, so that's nice.

Ultroneism (//) - You are the most literate user on here on basically anything, now that's something, however, my opinions on your ideolo- I mean philosophy. In rest, my ideology disagrees with your ideologies on many things or I am just too illiterate on some things to give a proper opinion.

BasedManism (//) - I am just gonna beyond the ideas of based and cringe and just put you in frenemies tier definitely not because of the fact I am too lazy to read your page right now although I don't know, your page doesn't seem to mention ethics for example, only seems like it mentions metaphysics and logic. So, I can't completely judge your philosophical beliefs, so yea, you go here. Also come on at least I have some influence from Kant in epistemology

Neo-Kiraism (//) - Oh god what is this, this just feels like an SJW Commie in the flesh that right-wingers keep talking about, bruh why do you even sympathize with Juche, they're not even Marxist or progressive. Although, Absurdism and existentialism do bump you up into here though.

Enemies
Implianium - Its nice how you hate religion, but bruh why state atheism? And come on, why do you support genocide, ultranationalism and anti-urbanism!?! And god dang it you want psychopaths to be their own class, what is this? I really hope this is LARP.

=Figures=

S
Mikhail Gorbachev - You are the best Soviet leader ever, you tried to not just fix your stagnating economic situation caused by low oil prices and the war in Afghanistan (the soviet  Vietnam) but also increase political freedoms. Hot take, but you are probably the most socialist Soviet leader out there, even if you were the most pro-market since Lenin himself. I hate how hardliners, who helped orchestrate the fall of the USSR themselves even under your rule put the blame on you for doing it. R.I.P

Oscar Wilde - Your form of individualism is generally pretty influential to my sociology and good job on proving that socialism is not inherently collectivist, like how some other ideologies try to put it. You balance the best aspects of Socialism and Individualism, and for that, I am proud.

Elizabeth II - I know, I am a republican and do not support the system of monarchism, but there is no denying that Elizabeth II was a brilliant Queen, who set the idea of what constitutional monarchy actually is meant to be. Things are just different without the Queen. Yes, you tend to be apolitical, but that doesn't put you away from S tier. R.I.P

Marcus Aurelius - The stoic virtues are pretty good virtues that people are ought to have, also pretty based on the fact that you managed to dedicate to philosophy while still being Emperor. You also resembled stability during Rome, which is good, especially since the Antonine Plague brought so many deaths.

Stephen Hawking - The multiverse theory is a pretty good theory about the universe although it's pretty dumb how you said philosophy was dead when that is literally a philosophical belief and thus the existence of other universes, and yes, we need to go to space otherwise we may become extinct because of climate change, disease or overcrowding.

B
Joe Biden - B for Biden! Jokes aside, at first, it really seemed like a C tier President who barely got anything done and could barely form comprehensive sentences but now you are rolling man, Take down those MAGA Republicans! Save democracy! Still, you ain't getting more than B tier.

Rene Descartes - Your epistemology is so based, you figured out that we really cannot trust our senses and that we must thus use reason to know whether things are true or false. Outside of that, not too good, your politics are terrible, your ethics are good but very undeveloped, mind-body dualism is terrible, so yea, you're in B tier, although quite close to C tier.

Immanuel Kant - Yes, that is indeed how we understand the world, through intuition, reason and understanding. Without them, we are nothing. Reason is the most important. However, your racism is bad and also your metaphysics and ethics are not really ideas I agree with.

C
Barack Obama - I don't know, it seems like your presidency could had been better, but this is based on your actions not words, so... First off, It's nice how you rescued the American economy and set in regulations (albeit too few) against Wall Street through the Dodd-Frank Act, I hate how you handled the Snowden leaks and also you kept the PATRIOT Act... You also bailed out big banks which I don't like. The Cuban thaw was also a pretty good idea. Your withdrawal from Iraq was nice and your administration saw the death of Bin Laden, although, you should had left  Gaddafi alone. ACA could had been better though, well, it was better than nothing.

D
Nikita Khrushchev - It's nice how you tried sort of liberalizing the USSR after the death of him and all but that's mostly where your accomplishments stop, as under your administration you re-instituted  State Atheism, crack-downed on  worker co-operatives and toppled  Imre Nagy. D tier is your tier.

F
Klaus Schwab - I really wish you die, although, it is funny how people think the Great Reset is just some new corporate shit that seeks to oppress us, yes, it is very much oppressive, but the thing is this is just combining California and  Hong Kong and then sprinkling it some  eco-capitalism and bugs. Still, this doesn't make your Great Reset shit better. I hope the WEF and the Great Reset die along with you.

Leonid Brezhnev - First off, your intervention in the Prague Uprising and your declaration of war against  Afghanistan not only are pure examples of  soviet imperialism but the Afghanistan war literally ended up being a failure and literally caused economic stagnation, the collapse of the USSR itself and the rise of jihad terrorism because of US funding to fight Soviet forces. You know you belong in F tier.

Joseph Stalin - You are not a socialist but simply put just a totalitarian, who put literally anyone who opposed him to jail, you are also a pure, self-declared machiavellian, in a bad way. I could go on but finally... The only good thing you ever did was beat Hitler, although it is to be noted it wouldn't have been done with Western support and vice versa.

George W. Bush - I would just like to say, fuck you. The PATRIOT Act, absolutely fucking terrible. Standardized testing, absolutely fucking terrible. Afghanistan War: Eh, probably a right idea to take revenge on those who caused 9/11 but the US just overstayed 10 years and also the whole nation building crap was stupid. Iraq War: An absolute fucking mess. And to top of it all off, the Great Recession. You truly are a scum. You took away American freedoms and privacy and also wasted money on silly wars and tax cuts on the rich which ballooned the national debt.

Test results
Closest match : Democratic Socialism

Closest match : INTP

Closest match : Libertarian Socialism

Closest match : Liberal Socialism

Closest match : Left-Libertarianism

Announcement

 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I need an ideology image (you know, like this: [[File:OwfBall.png]]) but one which actually encompasses my ideological beliefs. The ideologies that would be part of it are to be Geolibertarianism and Libertarian Market Socialism. (Can include 2 other ideologies in the combination, of your personal preference, must be ideologies Owf adheres to)
 * - [[File:Owff.png]]
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Thank you!

Comment
Owfism - Deleted old comments

Rocksism - Add please (also is that the Limberwisk flag?).

Owfism - Yes it is, I thought it was cool since I couldn't think of another thing other than that (and I will add you soon, kinda busy rn)
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - It is cool (if it existed I'd move there too).

Implianium - Add me

- Add me? :)

- Hi, I re-added you. Would you mind adding my ideology again?

- Readd me please.

- Btw, the geolibertarian market socialism page was my very old self insert, idc about it anymore so you can revamp it if you want, kinda like what Aaron did with Bleeding Heart Geolibertarian Market Socialism.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Wow, I actually didn't know that, I just saw the page and just saw how accurate it was to my ideology, so I just adopted that. Yea, I could maybe revamp it.
 * - Also, could you please add me?


 * - Add me?


 * - Add Please.


 * [[File:BasedMan.png]]BasedManism - add me?


 * [[File:Uzarashvilism.png]]Uzarashvilism - Yo there, add me?


 * - Re-add me fellow Wilde enjoyer.


 * - Monism isn't the principle that mind and body are united in each "individual" human. It is the principle that all of reality is one thing, that there is no body or mind but rather these are modes or aspects of the one thing, as such you and I and every other human are actually one "object" or thing and thus we do not have bodies, but rather each seemingly individual body is actually just a "limb" or part of the whole.


 * - Could I use text of your ideology to my policies?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Yes you very much can.


 * - "Let's first begin with the definitions of both ideas, first off, rationalism is the practice of basing actions and opinions on reason and knowledge. Then, empiricism is the opposite, with it being the practice of basing actions and opinions on belief or emotional response." WHAT? - Rationalism is the principle that knowledge derives from reasoning, as such logical reasoning. While Empiricism is the epistemological belief that sensory experience such as scientific observation is the source of knowledge - it has nothing to do with belief, emotion, or opinions. What utter dribble, as if Descartes didn't also utilise empirical arguments and Locke didn't use rationalist principles.

- Yo! You're a cybersocialist now too that's based as hell! :D
 * - Gorbachev is based [[File:Gigachad.png]]
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Indeed [[File:Gigachad.png]]
 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Neo-Kiraism - add me lol

- Add me plz

Glencoe- add me Plz