Fountain: Charles W.L. Hill International Business

Some sociologists have argued that of the two main branches of Christianity--Catholicism and Protestantism--the latter has the most important economic implications. In 1904, a German sociologist, Max Weber, made a connection between Protestant ethics and "the spirit of capitalism" that has since become famous. Weber noted that capitalism emerged in Western Europe. He also noted that in Western Europe:

"Business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labor, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, are overwhelmingly Protestant.¹⁸

According to Weber, there was a relationship between Protestantism and the emergence of modern capitalism. Weber argued that Protestant ethics emphasize the importance of hard work and wealth creation (for the glory of God) and frugality (abstinence from worldly pleasures). According to Weber, this was the kind of value system needed to facilitate the development of capitalism. Protestants worked hard and systematically to accumulate wealth. However, their ascetic beliefs suggested that rather than consuming this wealth by indulging in worldly pleasures, they should invest it in the expansion of capitalist enterprises. Thus, the combination of hard work and the accumulation of capital, which could be used to finance investment and expansion, paved the way for the development of capitalism in Western Europe and subsequently in the United States. In contrast, Weber argued that the Catholic promise of salvation in the next world, rather than this world, did not foster the same kind of work ethic among members of the Catholic religion."

Let's start the year with a beautiful peace message.


http://december18th.org/

Easy... I’ll explain! I’m for the frontiers breaking, all of them, the ones among countries, among people, among different groups of people. I believe that’s the world trend, and internet is an expression of it. Being loyal is being faithful to something, to a country, to a group, to an idea, to a person. But, what if that person, to whom you are loyal, makes something wrong? And what if the group to which you are loyal commits a crime? Would you delate them? And doing it, wouldn’t it be against loyalty? And if an idea, which you’ve always believed as truth, suddenly, reveals to be a lie? Being loyal to your ideas, to your values is really a virtue or is it being stubborn? Wouldn’t it be worthier to be an open-minded person, ready to change whenever it’s necessary? Loyalty is the mother of injustice. People tend to judge differently the same act, whether perpetrated by some one from their own group or by some one from another group. If Human Kind realized we’re all from the same immense group, loyalty would lose it’s meaning. The only person you should be loyal to is yourself, to your essence, but then it’s no longer a matter of loyalty, but of sanity.

No. It’s not a typing mistake. A few time ago I found out that FED is not public. Instead, it’s a private banks cartel. That’s been quite a surprise for me, because here in Brazil, our Central Bank, the responsible for making our paper-coin is entirely public. It's a government bank. And people who work in it are public servers.

So, I could never imagine a “private” central bank.

But in the USA it is a private company! Someone owns it! The bank that makes the dollar BELONGS to someone! It is not a public bank!!!

It is the greatest juridical distortion ever! It is too much power to deliver in private hands. It's against the country's sovereignty!


Plato's allegory can be applied to almost every aspects of our perception. And when it comes to money, it's no different, once only a few can really see beyond the shadows...

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."

(Mayer Amschel Rothschild, Banker)

Text written 360 B.C.E, where the blog's name came from. Any likeness with the movie Matrix is not mere coincidence...

Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision,--what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them,--will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.

Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.

He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said.

The Republic
By Plato

Why does a pen exist for?

For writing.

And how about us? Why do we exist for?

Let's see: a pen's purpose is not in the pen itself. But somewhere out of it. In it's function. A pen which is no good for writing has no value at all.

But that way of thinking works only for utilitarian objects.

The thing is that it's mostly applied to everything. As if all there is were products.

My teacher, the same one who didn't know to each side the Earth spins, used to say that a cow exists to provide us with meat, leather and milk; and a hen, with feathers, meat and eggs; and a tree's purpose is to provide us with its shadow.

"But teacher, if that's the trees' purpose, why are they on the planet millions of years before us?"

A tree's purpose is within itself. It's not in something out of it. Not in an eventual function which might be attributed to it.

And so it is about the cow, the hen, the human beings, the Universe, the artwork (though some people think its purpose is decoration).

Feeling the owners of the planet, and reducing the other beings into slaves for our own benefit doesn't turn them into utilitarian objects. Though we treat them like that.

Or we would have to consider that black people, at the time of slavery, were, indeed, objects. But slavery did not have and could never have the power of denying them the condition of human beings.

However, Cartesian, occidental, capitalist, rational, utilitarian thought, the "left side of the brain", the mind (to Buddhism), whatever, insists in trying to reduce all into functional objects.

It actually convinces us that we are not people, but lawyers, physicians, dentists, teachers, parents, husbands, wives, sons, daughters. It forgets those are only roles we play in the society. It's not us. We are human beings. That's what we are.

Would you worth less than the others if you don't work or study? Of course not!! But for the utilitarian thought, it's not that obvious. For that, each one of us is "just another brick in the wall".

Never forget that your purpose, the meaning of your existence, as well as the tree's and the cow's, is within yourself, and not in an eventual function that might be attributed to you. Your purpose is to exist, simply.

Screw the utilitarian thought.

It only works in some very restrict fields, as a tool, to split the whole into pieces and to analyze those pieces.

It applies perfectly to a pen, but not to a human being.

Not to the world.

I’ve always been curious.

Once I asked to the teacher towards each side the Earth spins. I was eleven yo. Everybody laughed. She didn’t answer. Guess she didn’t know too…

Later, in high school, I wanted to know how an ameba knows where the food particle is, once it has no eyes to see it, nor radar, nor paranormal powers (as far as I know, at least…)

This time, the teacher answered. He said it’s by the trial and error system. But that was not enough for me. Wanted to know how it knows when it “touches” the particle, once it has no skin or neural system. I had to find out on my own that it’s by chemical reactions on its cell membrane. Then I wanted to know how those reactions happen, and so on…

I used to have other questions too:

What do we exist for? Why am I me and not you? Why is there poverty in the world? What happens to our consciousness when we die?

If I told you I know the answers to those questions, you'd probably stop reading right now. So, let's just say I've found out some peculiar things I'd like to share with you.

For instance, one of the things I've found out is that the answers to all those questions are all connected. What does the question of existence has to do with poverty? Poverty is a matter of politics, while existence is a philosophy issue, right? Not quite...

I’ve also found out that, for those questions, we’ve got to think on a different way. Maybe the questions themselves should be asked in another way. For some subjects, we cannot apply a linear, functional, instrumental, partial, Cartesian way of thinking.

In fact, for most subjects we can't.





Another point that gets in our way on find out those answers is that we’re too sure about everything.

We’re sure, for example, that grass is green.

But grass is not green. It only reflects light on a frequency/wavelength that our brains “reads” as green.

But my father’s brain reads it as red. Is daltonic.

Everything we see is just a “reading” of what is perceived by our senses.

This blog is a trial of getting out of the Matrix, of trying to see beyond the obvious.

Because, as in Plato’s Myth, as we look to the world, all we can see are shadows in the cave…