First of all, if you apologize for having a discussion with me again, I will not be pleased. ; )

Most organisms are hardly sentient. What is not moral is to claim the ignorant are entitled to the service of the competent. That is simply not a compromise.

We either let the will of the competent serve the ignorant (which they naturally will out of human empathy) in addition to letting the ignorant stumble upon knowledge as man has always done.

So, in conclusion, claiming any part of a man is considered violence if the claim can be backed by force. Claiming a part through reason is absolutely voluntary and not violent.

Feel free to address any holes.

Thank you for being patient. I appreciate your time discussing this with me. I apologize for my anger and disrespect.

'Philosophy' as a mass noun is concerned with the understanding, taken from the Oxford Dictionary, as 'the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline'. There have been many attempts to characterise, classify, file and define what such terms mean by a selection of eminent minds. The perplexity is ever apparent by the fact that 'what does something mean' is itself loaded with countless pre-suppositions. The basis of those are what morals, or if one prefers, values an individual holds; they are in themselves characterised by the environment and genetics (the nature/nurture debate). We have in effect in contemporary times been able to amass a plethora of information from cultures throughout the world, from Christianity and Western Enlightenment Rationalist science to Ancient Hindu, Sanskrit and Buddhist teachings. This is not to mention colloquial aboriginal religion, beliefs and prophecies from Mayans in South America to Pagans in pre-Christendom Europe. Our technological capabilities today have given us the tools to not only discover things of our past, but through the telescope and beyond too.

On a little sidetrack, I wish to direct your attentions to the writings of a little known Roman philosopher Boethius who strikes a particular chord during the present and is relevant reading for an antique take on events we face today. Roman late-antiquity was after all marked with a pallor of 'knowing it all' and ideas such as relativism abounded as cultures clashed. They were like us, in a post-modern condition: refer to 'Consolation of Philosophy' a short text which offers great insight on contemporary issues. The One truth is that we will never know it all, for as J.S. Mill points out we are all infallible. Whatever position you hold on truth that is an undeniable fact; alas do not be disheartened, stop here and ponder the pointlessness of it all. For there is hope: what many would call 'enlightenment'.

Consider for a moment, physicists zooming in on particles. If we had the technology, it is feasible that we could zoom and zoom and zoom through structures previously unbeknownst. Were those structures present before the mind which created the know-how to get to this level of understanding? Furthermore, this example shares undeniable parallels with fractal mathematics and what one would do if one continued a mathematical formula on and on and on. Even consider a human being like yourself thinking introspectively further and further and further: one starts to realise that there are no boundaries. Such ever increasing complexity is a problem Darwinists fail to solve. What was wrong, after all, with an Earth of singular celled organisms all living in harmony, splitting when need be? Thus, with this taken into account the Darwinist model is broken. This is not to say that it does not contain a portion of the truth, for animals undeniably adapt to changing circumstance. But the issue of increasing complexity is a trait of the universe that has led even ardent atheist philosophers such as the late A.J. Ayer to declare the universe as a system working in harmony. In modern times Lovelock's Gaia theory has further perplexed the problem with the idea of homeostatis: is the Earth really self-regulating? Ultimately such questions still need to be researched, but evidence is starting to demonstrate the holistic nature of the universe. Is that the nature of reality: limitlessness?

Those who deny a holistic understanding of the world tend to believe in absolute free will and will as a result, inevitably experience a tunnel reality characterised by free will. If such an attitude is taken to its logical extremity however, such an endeavour would end in tears! When one believes one's actions are entirely sovereign, they often fail to take into account external stimuli that would otherwise help them. Poor youths in deprived cities to irresponsible drug addicts both develop a hostile individualistic stance towards the world; both are perfect examples of people fighting against the system: ultimately believing in the power of themselves and themselves alone. That is why older generations see many young people as obnoxious and rude (as indvidualism continues to run its course); that is why families are disintegrated by people who take drugs with no regard for their consequences (again, rampant indvidualism). Think about your own actions, are they really free? You probably think you're free, but any time you take into account the feelings or actions of others, you are simply demonstrative of a holistic system at work.
With regards the current situation of the world in 2011, on the macro level global finance capitalism has ravaged the third world through the exploitation of cheap labour. People in the first world do nothing about this because they do not see it: to lambast someone who cannot see a danger is however an equally vacuous action. The first world is more subtly controlled precisely because the status quo is a 'dog-eat-dog' business culture and an individualistic, humanistic consumer culture. These values, morals, whatever one wishes to call them filter through society: generation gaps are so apparent because each generation grows up in their formative years in tunnel realities with different logos, messages, fashions and so on. These culture gaps therefore grow ever graver as increasing complexity continues. A quote by Rousseau probably holds even more wisdom for today: 'everywhere man is free, yet he is bound in chains'. Our mentality is narrow minded and will ultimately lead to the destruction of our species; through history we have seen the collapse of empires but today we live in a global empire controlled by no single organisation. Conspiracy theories, New World Order fanatics and 9/11 'truthers' may be right in their various claims but the bigger picture must be placed in proper perspective. At this point one would think I am against capitalism; and would propose socialist solutions. However both are underpinned by ideological constraints that ultimately limit human consciousness. Free-market capitalism in its truest sense, without the interference of governments is the only system possible in a post-modern world; Bitcoins are the way forward in this regard.

You've already guessed that my ideas take into the account the interconnectedness of everything. I however propose one very different and significant axiom which most 'straight' philosophers freely discard, probably without even considering. Take a deep breath guys, this is deep. If we are all part of an interconnected system, but at the same time what is 'real' for one individual is not for another does it not suggest that we all exist in different realities? Reality is itself is holistic: and because of this the system is able to adapt so that we can all live in different realities but share the same physical realm. The physical realm is itself changing, but most are not attuned to these occurrences on a day-to-day basis because of our sobriety, or base-level. Added to this dullness most people experience are the false flags raised by contemporary Western society; what was originally a noble idea has created a globe of sheeple. That is why drug-users, mad-men, priests and those who meditate all alter their general frequency and experience different levels of consciousness and seem out of touch with the 'real world'. The grandest irony of all of course, is it is these individuals who are the the most perceptive of our One True Being. Furthermore, I propose that we all reside in the same physical realm for when altered via synchronicities (as discovered by Jung) we all experience them, albeit in different ways. Further more, if there can be alterations to the physical realm, a model can be created and this is what gives credence to McKenna's Timewave Zero theory. In conclusion, I urge those reading this who are sitting on the fence to accept that your thoughts alter reality: if you do not accept it with a completely open mind then you will not attune to a higher consciousness. There is a reason why the phrase 'positivity breeds positivity' was coined by some wise soul; and ultimately what is the harm in trying to be positive for a week and see if energy and reality just gets better for you. For those who remained unconvinced; who picture my lonesome self in a cabin in the woods chain-smoking pot, then I am afraid the ravages of consumer propaganda (advertising) and societal morals (socialisation) still bond you too tightly. If you got this far, thank you for reading, and have a wonderful reality! :')

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a human experience!