FEAR UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT

A thesis on the philosophical and scientific perspective of modern global

indecisive, unethical leadership and an introduction to the paradox of
selective existence.

The Philosophy of Human Individualism is a scientific approach to the philosophy of

unpredictability in a world of risk and uncertainty, pandemic fear, doubt and
indecision. As analysed from the perspective of the emotional individual and the
abnormal thinker. Does indecision create bad practices or do we wantonly choose to
be unethical?

John Arthur CMgr MCMI

13 November 2020

1.0 INTRODUCING UNCERTAINTY

Presenting a critical analysis of individualism with respect to existence, reality, and knowledge.
Including an introduction to the paradoxes of self-contradiction, existence and objectivity. I will be
asking questions such as, is anything certain in this world? Is appearance the same as reality? Is
reality the same as imagination? Decisive leadership is about strong will. An unwavering
commitment to humanity in the face of uncertainty. It takes resolve to make the right decision and
to remain steadfast, whilst others succumb to fear and doubt. It is the individual who makes the
difference in times of need. Business and politics are an integral part of the power spectrum that
runs the world. The modern leader has to be proficient in both or have a unique understanding of
both. A new form of leadership is sweeping the world. It remains to be seen if this international
leadership is for the better. Furthermore it is essential for the development of human understanding
to research the philosophy of the mind with respect to the individual.

To understand and to become decisive at anything, this thesis considers the notion that human
understanding is only achievable by first learning about yourself. Only then will you be informed
enough to apply this knowledge to the understanding of others. That is why I have gone into so
much detail and why I have researched a philosophical and scientific outlook. I have found this
methodology enables me to open up my thoughts, and to make the mind receptive. Once you start to
question how we allow individuals to garner so much power. Once you start to analyse everything
extensively, before passing judgement and apportioning blame. Then you will be able to fit the
pieces together like a jigsaw puzzle. The ultimate goal is to complete the puzzle, although to do so
requires empathy. If this work, at the very least, gets you thinking, then my work will be
worthwhile. Take your time, you have your entire life to research these topics. Make errors of
judgement, because if you don’t, it means you are not trying to break through the web of falseness
and deception we, as humans, construct to mask the truth. It is doubtful that you will ever reach the
whole that we are all subconsciously striving for. The reason is that life is dynamic, it is ever
changing. So, our circumstances and the information change with it. Giving others direction can
also be an unwanted distraction. An irritation that forces one to act out of duty and necessity, rather
than out of concern and justness. It is essential to find out where our weak points are and what we
are hiding from. Everyone has something they prefer to keep hidden away. Many people move
forward, but leave a vacuum in their wake. I am trying to fill that vacuum, the void, by advancing
the techniques I have learnt over the years. Hence, this work should be considered a starting point
for the future direction of a world under control. We never truly know what our calling is in life,
until it is too late. This is because our hectic lifestyles are filled with stress. As we attempt to divide
the limited hours in the day, there is not much left for reflection. Without proper thought it seems as
though we are trying to get through each day as it comes. In fact, the day arrives, overtakes us and
disappears into the shadows. To be replaced by another day, and so it continues. Study, family,
work, friends, leisure, all are of equal importance and all jostle for our attention. Also, we are no
longer as diverse as the academics of old. We are forced to specialise, because of the vast amount of
information there is on any given subject. Therefore, we rely more and more on research and
development, (R&D). In pure academics we may only ever tackle research. The practical
applications may be left for others to manage. Although, I would always recommend a diverse
approach, particularly at first. The need for expertise and specialisation are becoming greater all the
time. Diversity has it merits. In this way, one may find the answers in areas of expertise that we
would never have perhaps considered. Look at the life of Sir Isaac Newton, (see also 1.9.1, on the
conservation of life). Newton was an accomplished natural philosopher, mathematician, physicist,
scientist, astronomer, theologian, economist, alchemist and the author of many works. Archimedes
of Syracuse (287-212 B.C.) was a great inventor, mathematician, physicist, civil engineer,
aeronautical engineer, astronomer and showed unusual artistic talent, particularly in his detailed
drawings. So, what I am saying, is that it is beneficial to explore as many fields of study as possible.
Many fields overlap, some are so closely aligned we have no alternative but to diversify. Are we in
danger of over specialisation to the detriment of common sense? Until recently many people would
not have known the difference between epistemology and epidemiology. That the first applies to
philosophy and the second to medicine. I will explain the meanings later in this work. Although,
epidemiology has been in the limelight so often lately, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, that
most of us will know the meaning by now. Afterall, it is understandable why a specialist may
become despondent with the world when their research is ignored to the detriment of the global
economy and the health and safety of the international community. Whilst a lay-person with no
experience receives more attention, presumably because they are more adept at getting the attention
of the media.

During times of hesitancy, people need direction. This work intends to guide the reader and
researcher, by encouraging introspection and by learning from others, past and present, to help
shape the future. Throughout this work, I would like to believe that I begin each subject working
logically, in a straight line. However, It does not take long using critical analysis, to change the path
from one of linearity, to that of a circular motion. In this way I will generally end up where I started.
Is this a bad thing? No, I do not think so. I know when I have exhausted all of my observations,
research and thinking. When I end up back at the beginning, only then have I exhausted my options.
You may well take another route, your ideas may make more sense. However, we will all meet back
at the same point sometime in the future. When this happens, start again if you like, take another
route. For inspiration I like to look at the Baobab tree in Africa. It translates as the ‘upside down
tree’ because it looks like the roots are growing above ground. Think differently to others, think
upside down. Explore new concepts and adopt the mindset of a visionary. This is not intended to be
a self help book, but if it encourages you, then I will feel even more accomplished. After
researching the topics extensively and outlining the details herewith, I am able to make my
conclusions available to you, the reader and researcher. Henceforward, it is up to you to make your
own unique judgements and formulate new ideas, theories and hypothesises. Promulgate you’re
findings, as I have done. Whether you are an accomplished researcher, a practical professional or
beginning a new project, there are ideas in this work that will make you think thoroughly, not just
about your subject, but about your own methodology.

REFERENCES (1.0)
Guicciardini, Niccolo (2018): Isaac Newton and Natural Philosophy (Renaissance Lives). Reaktion
Books.
Netz, Reviel (2009): The works of Archimedes: Translation and commentary. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge, England.
British Medical Journal (BMJ), “Epidemiology for the uninitiated”, 4th ed.
Smith, Quentin (2008): Epistemology: New Essays. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Special note: Throughout this book references are made to the Coronavirus, covid19, COVID-19,
pandemic, and should be considered to be related to the same novel coronavirus outbreak that
originated in Wuhan China in December 2019. Further information on the virus may be obtained
from the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine website https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org under
the heading, What is Coronavirus? Reviewed by Lauren M. Sauer, M.S. (available 2020). Copyright
2020.

1.1 WHAT IS UNCERTAINTY?

Uncertainty is unpredictable. It is also palpable. The only way to approach this unknown is to
regard it as physical object. The object I have chosen to draw a parallel with, is a blue cone. The
subject itself, that is to say, the world of uncertainty, is unpredictable. It is unidirectional, there is no
beginning or end. Like an invisible organism, uncertainty has cemented itself into everything. Our
actions and thoughts all contain a degree of uncertainty. It occurs so frequently, we ought to
describe it as a tangible part of our lives. Hidden away in our subconscious this ‘object’ festers. We
drift through life hoping it will somehow dissolve and disappear. This is understandable because we
fear the consequences that uncertainty certainly causes. Afterall, a life without fear must be more
desirable for most of us I hope, than a life filled with apprehension. Hence, our default method of
dealing with this hidden enemy, is to either apply indifference, or to make sense of it. Typically,
scholars over the centuries have turned to religion and philosophy for the answers. The work in this
book disregards apathy. It tackles fear, uncertainty and doubt, head on. What immediately becomes
apparent to me is that we choose rather to ignore the unknown. Paradoxically, for us to understand
or accept realty, we have to embrace uncertainty. Depending on the context and the subject matter,
we must ignore the existence of some elements, in order to accept the reality of others. The sciences
are used as an inspiration for many of the examples in this work. Along with real life situations. My
findings have also helped to formulate and propose a theory on the paradox of selective existence. It
also explores the relevance of time and infinity. The COVID-19 pandemic is a live case study. It is
unprecedented. It gives us all a unique opportunity to see how uncertainty exacerbates the extremes
of humankind. As such, this work tackles the world we all try to ignore. It reinforces our need to be
open and transparent. To be more receptive to multiple interpretations, thus avoiding ambiguity and
the confusion that arises from change. The reference to the extremity of this pandemic is
intentionally used as an insight into global and inter-organisational decision making. Avoidance of
past mistakes is paramount for us to learn and to encourage insightful thought. An analysis of the
underlying factors tells us that risk and stress play a part in the big picture. That no matter how large
the group is, we are still individuals and are therefore biased towards our own unique beliefs.

To find the answers, I have had to dig down deep into the nature of our very existence. I have gone
back to the basics of the philosophical schools of thought. As, it is necessary to think with a clear
mind, to eliminate the technological distractions of modern life. As we emerge, from possibly, the
worst crisis since World War II, the way forward is through resolute leadership, global cohesion and
the realisation that uncertainty is quantifiable and therefore addressable. That, and applied wisdom,
philosophy, and ethics is what makes a rational thinker. I call this the ‘clear head approach’. I find it
equally necessary to explore the world as an interwoven pattern of opposites, cause and effect, life
and death, reality and imagination. Picture our world as though the universe is permanently out of
balance. Trying to find equilibrium or sense for our fundamental need to exist. The instinct for self-
preservation is creating this imbalance. It is responsible for the increase in materialism and the need
for more wealth or power. Our uncertainty drives this individualism. We are rapidly using up the
worlds resources, to the detriment of nature, which, if unchecked will one day lead to our
extinction. The world needed resolute, decisive leaders in the past, we need them right now and we
will need them in the future. It is the responsibility of the academics and forward thinkers, not to
allow the unethical to expunge upon our freedom of expression and the protection of the planet.

1.1.1 A JOURNEY INTO CONTEMPLATION

For the sake of conformity in the world, we allocate words to describe appearances. Take for
example a colour, let’s use the colour blue. Does the colour blue appear the same to everybody in
the world? Or is it just a sensation. Can we trust that the sensation that we ‘see’ is real? Now I ask
you to look at an object. The object in question is the shape of a cone. How do we know it is a
cone? Well, the answer is simple, we know the shape to be a cone from a past experience. “This
shape is a cone”, we say. Look underneath the object and tell me what you see. “The shape is a
circle”, we say. Does this mean that the shape is no longer a cone? No, you reply, and this simple
observation is the start of a journey of exploration into the world of uncertainty. The economist
Frank Knight (1921), summarised this world of examination in a simple statement, “You cannot be
certain about uncertainty”. By analysing the answer to my question, “is the shape no longer a cone?
I have immediately deduced that reality is derived from knowledge. Additionally, I will also have to
say that for anyone in the world to be aware of the blue cone, requires the same knowledge. Also, I
will explain that this knowledge is derived from our senses. We are certain that the cone exists
because we see it and nothing else is taking up the same space as the cone. However, because we
use our mind to convert our senses into thought, is thought the same as reality? The cone takes up
its space and remains in place even if we are not consciously thinking about it. There is no question
about this. The question I raise for the reader and researcher is to what extent can we trust our mind
to differentiate between what is reality and what is imaginary?

REFERENCES (1.1.1)
Knight, Frank (1921): Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Hart, Schaffner. and Marx. (Retrieved from
project Gutenberg 22 May 2020).

1.2 ON THE EXISTENCE OF NOTHING

If one accepts that the cone is real, because we have identified its shape and colour, what can we say
about hallucinations. Aren’t these supposed to be imaginary? How can you be certain that if I see
something you do not, that this something does not exist. Now, if this something is also an object,
let’s call it a person and the person speaks to me. My sense of sight and hearing convince my mind
that the person exists. In fact I have no doubt in my mind that the person exists. To deny this is to
question my knowledge. To question knowledge is to question reality. My reality says that the
object is a person and the person is communicating with me. I can assure you that the appearance is
real to me, even though you are unable to sense it yourself. So how do we prove who is
experiencing reality? Even if we agree with the observation that reality consists of two elements,
matter or non-matter, it seems that the only thing we can be certain of at the moment, is that reality
is not always what it seems to be. To describe the complexity of reality, I will have to use some
clever examples.

1.2.1 THE DOUGHNUT ANALOGY

Now, let’s say I propose that, ‘The World of Uncertainty’ is like a doughnut, it is round and
it has a hole in the middle. If I ask, “what is in the middle of the doughnut?” Most people will reply,
that there is nothing in the middle of a doughnut. This is because most people do not expand their
mind, preferring to accept matters of the first instance, without question. Yet it only takes a minute
of reflection and the philosopher in us will disagree vehemently. I will explain. To claim there is a
hole, is to agree on the existence of the hole. But how can nothing exist? The hole therefore has a
presence and as such one may argue that the hole is an object. “It’s not a hole” the physicist will
argue, “it’s a part of spacetime. I will prove it to you”, remarks the physicist. “Move the doughnut
and the hole moves with it. The hole does not remain behind. Therefore, if this hole takes up space,
how can it be described as nothing?”

Chemists will also be able to tell us that the hole contains the same air that we breathe. The air we
need to stay alive. Using sophisticated gas analysis they will prove that the air in the atmosphere is
made up mainly of three elements. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon. So, we are now told that the hole
doesn’t actually move, it is replaced by other gas molecules as it travels through space. Evidently
my initial statement, “there is a hole in the middle of the doughnut”, is highly questionable. Notice
how the use of extreme critique has caused me to re-evaluate my own thinking. How then can I
justify stating that there is ‘nothing’ certain in this world, if I claim that nothing actually exists? I
have already placed myself in a predicament.

Henceforth, I will need to make better assumptions. It is necessary for me to be more accurate and
to be sure of myself, before passing judgements. Acting on this newly acquired realisation, maybe I
should rephrase my initial statement as follows. ‘There is a state of nothingness in the world of
uncertainty, because I am unable to confirm with certainty, that non-existence, does actually exist.’
Notice how things in the World of Uncertainty start to get complicated very quickly. Conversely, if I
accept that the state of nothingness or ‘non-being’, essentially exists, then why should I believe that
you or I exist? Just because you tell me that hallucinations do not exist, is this a valid reason for me
to accept that you are correct? Or do you only exist because theologians throughout history believe
and have preached that the world was created from nothing. Alternatively, do we only exist because
scientists insist we are made of molecules or atoms or little bits. Or that Stephen Hawking (1988),
was in agreement with other physicists, on the theory that the universe was created by the Big Bang
about five billion years ago. Although these observations are theoretical. If we accept them as true,
there is no reason not to believe that you and I, and the universe were created from the hole that
takes up the space in the centre of a doughnut!

REFERENCES (1.2.1)
Hawking, Stephen (1988): A brief history of time. Bantam Dell.

1.3 ON EXPERIENCING DOUBT

Let us imagine that I am now in consultation with a psychiatrist. By introducing doubt into my
mind, as to the true existence of hallucinations, the psychiatrist has created a dilemma. To cure the
patient requires the elimination of unacceptable thoughts and this requires removing the ability of
the mind to perform subjective criticism. However, to eliminate thoughts of reality, (no matter how
absurd they may seem), is to introduce doubt as to the existence of the patient, albeit in their own
mind. The reader and researcher may easily counter my claim with the following statement. “OK
then, take a photograph and show me, or better still, record a video of the appearance and you will
see and hear nothing”. To this I reply, “yes you are correct”. All this proves is that to you the person
does not exist. Yet I can tell you with certainty that the person does exist. I can also tell you, with
certainty, that there is no person in the photograph, but you are not able to tell me with certainty that
the person does not exist. Because, I have seen and heard the person, therefore it exists to me. In the
same way, your acquired knowledge has taught you to doubt what is not regarded as normal. I have
learnt to regard anything that appears to me as reality. Now, if I pick up the cone and place it in my
cupboard, it is safe to assume that the object, although hidden from view, still exists. This does
justify the knowledge of the psychiatrist. Although, I find it difficult to explain that the psychiatrist
will be adamant that, if they cannot see what I see, it does not exist. Is it possible that the
psychiatrist and many of the readers and researchers of this work lack a specific type of knowledge?
The ability to associate the hallucinations with any previous experience. Therefore, is it possible
that the mind of some people is unable to translate certain, as yet, undefined sensations. In other
words some people may lack the ability to hear or see objects that others can. To further reinforce
my argument, people who have reported hearing voices others cannot, either describe the
experience as distressing or maybe a vivid form of enlightenment. It seems that thoughts are a
power unto themselves. Are you able to make things go away just by saying that such and such,
(whatever it is), does not exist? Try as I might, I am not able to do this to the blue cone in my
cupboard.

1.3.1 DOUBTING REALITY

Furthermore, let’s say I agree to doubt the reality of my imagination, even though most of us
believe a dream is real. Supposedly because we can remember it after we wake up. This belief has
no relevance on how strange the dream may be. Hence, it follows that we regard dreams as normal.
Thus, by the process of deduction you must believe they are real, and anything that is real must
therefore exist. Someone may have described dreams as a different type of consciousness, for
example, the state of mindfulness whilst asleep and this helps you to understand the difference. It
therefore seems prudent to regard dreams as a reality of the subconscious, if this is the case then
maybe you should also consider your mantra to be, “I sleep therefore, I am not”. In which case you
would believe that sleeping is the unreality of the subconscious. Notice how easily a statement or
belief can be countered by using opposites or extremes. Which is the same as looking at a problem
from a different angle. Alternatively, some of you will know the philosophical reasoning behind
thinking outside of the box. Rene Descartes, was a philosopher and mathematician who used this
style of creative or lateral thinking throughout his books. Descartes (1637), proposed doubt in most
of his work, including the statement, “how can you be certain your whole life is not a dream?” (See
1.3.3 Descartes on doubt and certainty). The viewpoint that Descartes proposed was one whereby
the mind has full control over the body, or the spiritual over the physical. Damasio, (1994), it should
be noted, disputed the notion of the omnipotent, or the ‘I’. Instead, Damasio is of the opinion that
the brain is only one of a number of organs of the body. This may be true physiologically, in fact
one will find it difficult to argue the proposition that the mind cannot exist without the body, but
within the context of this book, it is in our best interests to concentrate only on the operations of the
mind relative to uncertainty and choice.

REFERENCES (1.3.1)
Descartes, Rene (1644): Principles of Philosophy. Latin translation. (Retrieved from project
Gutenberg 24 May 2020).
Damasio AR, 1994: Descartes error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. Putnam: NewYork.

1.3.2 IS DOUBT THE SAME AS UNCERTAINTY?

By now you may be beginning to wonder, what is the use of philosophy, if all I have been
able to achieve so far is to become more uncertain about the world. Apart from the desire of the
philosopher to promote virtuous ideas, (See also 1.4.2 Voltaire), the answer is straightforward. To
arrive at a valid conclusion, it is necessary for me to experiment using thought processing and
academics. By definition, academia is used as a tool to explore and research topics. Whilst
philosophy is the fundamental study of existence, reality and knowledge. This is how I propose to
arrive at a justified conclusion. Or, if it warrants, I may possibly decide to admit that the outcome is
inconclusive. This is what makes philosophical reasoning exciting. It is up to you, the reader and
researcher to decide, not for me to tell you what is correct or incorrect. Voltaire (1764), the
outspoken Eighteenth century French philosopher, famous for his humour, speculated that“doubt is
not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” From this simple statement I presume Voltaire
was of the opinion that, it is troubling to experience the very real effect of doubt and foolish to
believe in the unreality of anything certain. We may never know if Voltaire was being witty, but the
statement is worthy of consideration. If doubt is so clearly defined from certainty, evidently there is
also a distinction between doubt and uncertainty. Although the two are synonymous, it is the
philosophical distinction that I am concerned with. Therefore, I propose that the context of
uncertainty is that pertaining to a future event, and doubt is best used in relation to the present tense.
For example, I doubt if I will fall asleep tonight and am uncertain if I will be awake in time to go to
work tomorrow. Therefore, uncertainty should hold some relevance to something quantifiable, i.e. I
may be planning to wake up at seven o’clock in the morning. If I were to say to you, “I doubt if I
will wake up at seven o’clock tomorrow”. In reality, I am basically already saying, that I would
prefer not to get up at that time and in all probability I will not. If I say to you instead, “I am
uncertain if I will wake up at seven o’clock tomorrow”, you should take this to mean that I do want
to get up, but there may be future circumstances outside of my control which will prevent me from
doing so. From the differentiation I have just explained, I would strongly advise you to avoid using
the word doubt, that is, if you want to project the demeanour of a decisive leader. It is vague and
meaningless in most contexts and it is not usually correctly defined outside the field of philosophy.

1.3.3 DESCARTES ON DOUBT AND CERTAINTY

Now, let’s revisit some wisdom from the past and consider the doctrine proposed by the
French philosopher Descartes (1596-1650). He decided that he would not believe anything to be
real unless he could see it clearly and distinctly for himself. By doubting everything, Descartes
eventually reached a final conclusion. He decided that, the only existence he could be absolutely
certain of, was his own existence. I have previously mentioned how Damasio (1994) disputed
Descartes doctrine in favour of his own based mainly on neurological reasoning. My first thought
when I read Descartes argument was, his observation closely resembles the description of a
narcissist. I had presumed Descartes concluded that each person thinks the world revolves around
themselves. (See 1.3.4 Solipsism). Apart from this observation, is Descartes inferring that if I doubt
the existence of my own imagination, that I will have to doubt my own existence? As I have already
suggested, for me to introduce doubt, I will have to ignore my senses and the thought processes
within my mind. To achieve this I will have to refrain from thinking. Cogito ergo sum, “I think
therefore I am”, is how Descartes describes his analogy. As far as I am able to ascertain, Rene
Descartes was the first to use doubt, in an attempt to discover certainty. He wrote, “my whole
intention was to arrive at a certainty, to dig away at the drift and sand until I reach the rock or clay
beneath.” This is a testament to the tenacity and determination he believed would eventually lead
him to the truth. By his own admission he was prepared to delve as far into the unknown to reach a
solid unwavering answer, (the bedrock might be considered a metaphor for the foundation of life).
Descartes also explains that although we know something is impossible, this does not stop us from
regarding it as a moral certainty, in order to regulate our behaviour. In this way, the visionary and
creative leader using the same philosophical principle will be at ease ignoring the unworkable. For
the sake of achieving an equitable result, it is acceptable to turn a blind eye to something. That is of
course, provided the result of the decision does not include morally reprehensible behaviour. This is
when and where ethics begins to become influential in our quest for decisiveness.
REFERENCES (1.3.3)
Descartes, Rene (1637): Discourse on the method. Latin translation . (Retrieved project Gutenberg
25 May 2020).
Descartes, Rene (1644): Principles of Philosophy. Latin translation. (Retrieved project Gutenberg
25 May 2020).

1.3.4 SOLIPSISM AND LEADERSHIP

I have previously remarked on the selfishness of humans. Wittgenstein (1969), referred to
this lack of consideration in his published notes, on certainty as ‘solipsism’. The definition of
solipsism is the quality of being self-centred, (derivation from the Oxford English Dictionary,
retrieved 26 May 2020). The theory Wittgenstein attached to this behaviour is that someone who
indulges in solipsism believes only the known can exist. Hence, someone who believes this
statement above all else is guilty of acting with selfishness. As we have already learnt, the ‘known’
Descartes proposed is the self. Anything else is considered to be unknown and not worthy of
inclusion in our own individual world. Wittgenstein suggests that our use of language, (presumably
this includes sign language), is only a medium that we use to restrict our life within the boundary of
our own world. The boundary suggests a limitation, because we cannot speak or write about
something we are unable to think about. For me, this infers that the reality of our life is contained,
albeit only by what we think. By proposing this, Wittgenstein is reiterating what I have mentioned
before. That most humans are inherently selfish and spend most of the time engaging in activities
that reward themselves. However, this viewpoint may be easily countered if one considers the
natural instinct a mother has over her siblings. Therefore, I am inclined to suggest that males are
more inclined to solipsism. It is also accepted knowledge that men outnumber women in roles of
seniority and it is in this theatre of power where I have found extremes of selfishness. If we choose
to impose restrictions on our individual actions and the result is that by so doing we restrict our very
own thoughts. You may have observed a person who wants to ignore something by saying, “I don’t
even bother to think about it”. By saying this they are inadvertently referring to the self. It shows a
disregard for anything outside the boundary. So, from this I conclude that we set our own
limitations. This is the fundamental difference between the decisive leader and the average person
who is a follower. The average person used in this context, includes any given number or crowd
under the influence of a peer. The entrepreneur, visionary, or natural leader, will push the
boundaries. Like an athlete attempting a new world record, the leader in us will look for new
challenges. Therefore, I conclude that to be a successful leader, meaning going beyond the mere
acquisition of wealth or power, one has to be empathetic towards others and avoid self-constrictive
thoughts. To overcome this selfishness one must also realise that the mentality of the group is not
the same as their own. It may even be true that Solipsism is responsible for most of the problems we
encounter in the world. Like racism for example. To research this further, the reader must study the
psychological aspects of selfishness, which is outside the scope of this book. Although, I will share
a story with you. Between 26-29 April 1994, South Africa held its first free and fair elections.
Apartheid, (enforced separate development), was dead. It was a memorable day. We all stood in line
patiently waiting our turn. In the hot African sun., there was no impatience, everyone there knew
this was a moment to remember, we were experiencing history in the making. An experience to be
savoured. One that I am proud to have been a part of. It was a day every race came together as one.
I naively thought that this was a marking point for the future and that the world would witness a
new beginning for humankind. Alas, people of colour and women are still treated without equality.
Have you ever noticed that when we portray an alien species on film, they all look the same. Surely,
if extraterrestrials like us inhabit an entire planet. They will look different and speak different
languages just as we do on Earth. Or is there something more sinister to this? Isn’t it easier to
portray an enemy to us if they all look the same way. Does it appeal to the inner racist? Don’t all
little green men all look the same. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is important to recognise if
you have a lack of empathy towards a certain person or group because of your own prejudices.
Correcting your individual beliefs is an important stepping stone to becoming an ethical leader.
Nelson Mandela (1999), emphasised the essential need for all people to work together to achieve a
better future for all. Mandela stated, “none of us could be free, unless we are all free” and he spoke
of the first democratic elections in a similar way, “as equals - men and women of every colour,
language and religion, rich and poor - our nation was reborn”. If the basis for ethical behaviour
does indeed start with an understanding of equality, it would be beneficial to heed the advice of Mr
Mandela.

REFERENCES (1.3.4)
Wittgenstein (1969): On certainty, (Uber Gewissheit). HarperCollins. Paperback edition published
1972, by Perennial/Harper & Row. New York City.
IEC (1994): Independent electoral commission, election report, Pretoria, South Africa.
Address by President Nelson Mandela at Freedom Day celebrations, Umtata. 27 April 1999.
mandela.gov.za. (Retrieved 14 June 2020).

1.4 ON THE HESITANT PHILOSOPHER

Now imagine you are in a room full of people. The cone is in the middle of the room, on a table.
Everyone in the room is able to see the cone and we all agree on its shape and colour. Whereas the
individual who experiences hallucinations does not share this experience with the others. They are
on their own. Or we could say, the others do not share the same sensory stimulation. Now imagine
that another person enters the room. This person is very healthy and has full use of all of their
senses. To the dismay of the others, the newly arrived guest is unable to see any object on the table.
You may ask yourself these questions. Who is experiencing reality now? Is there a condition called
reverse hallucination, or could we say the person is un-hallucinating? I have already commented
that we, as humans, are taught that to see, hear, touch, smell or taste something is to experience
reality and that is proof of its existence. I have previously had to ask this question, how is it possible
to state with complete certainty that hallucinations are imaginary? It is such a deeply profound
topic, the question is worthy of repetition. So, if something appeals to the senses, is it real or not? If
we cannot hear something, this is not proof that it doesn’t exist. Hence, I propose that hearing
voices in a language we understand is in itself an expression of thought. I will discuss more on the
connection between language and ambiguity in 1.23. So if we adhere to the fundamental principal
of philosophy, cogito ergo sum, proposed by Descartes, auditory hallucinations are by definition
real to the person who hears them. To argue otherwise is to question the free thought of the listener.
Isn’t the act of silencing free will considered to be ethically and morally wrong. I will evaluate more
on ‘free will’ later. I will not discuss the implications for someone who hears voices in a language
unknown to them for now, as this will be covered under another theme. However, we humans are
curious creatures and are constantly looking for answers. We create professions to fill the need for
experts and evolving fields of specialities. Some of us are not content until we find the answers to
placate our curiosity. Others subconsciously seek awareness, a concrete meaning for our existence.
These type of people have the fundamental principles needed to become a decisive leader.

Although Voltaire regards free will as “an expression void of sense”. He likens making wilful
decisions to a matter of cause and effect. For example, I decide to travel in a lift from the ground to
the first floor. Voltaire argues that this will is one of indifference. That I am taking the lift because
there is something on the first floor for me to do, and it is a means of getting there, not because of
free will. There is therefore only a restriction on our ability to act out our will. For example, if the
lift has broken down and we need to take the stairs instead. Voltaire argues that the phrase “to be
free” means to be able and nothing more. To will is to wish. Hence, I wish to take the lift and
nothing more. I have a choice of taking the stairs or the lift because they are easier, but I could
equally find a ladder to get to the first floor. In which case I wish not to use the accepted methods.
Whichever way I get to the first floor, I do so only because I am able to, not because I am free to do
so.

REFERENCES (1.4)
Voltaire (1764): Dictionnaire philosopique portatif. The dictionary of philosophy. First edition,
published anonymously by Gabriel Grasset. Geneva, Austria.

1.4.1 WE ARE EQUALLY PHILOSOPHICAL

One day I had been out running again and I felt very hot, tired and out of breath, so I
decided to stop. Later on I related the story to one of my relatives. Now, this particular relative has
never been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity of a higher education. However, the advice
I received, albeit in jest, has to this day given me more incentive than any expert in the field of
sports psychology. “The hill is getting stronger and you are getting weaker”, was the reply. I use this
advice every time I struggle running up hills, or with any obstacle I encounter and it works.
Presently, I am using this same analogy to overcome the struggles of coping with the uncertainty
everyone is facing during the COVID-19 pandemic. What did this advice teach me? It reinforced
the notion I have, that one can learn something from anybody, no matter if they are educated or
illiterate, regardless if they are healthy, strong or weak, rich or poor.

Another relative once told me that a person can do more with $5000 than with $50000. I asked her
to explain this observation and she told me something from her own life experience. The monetary
values relate to monthly salaries. She commented that a person with a large salary never seems to
have any money because they spend beyond their means and collect unnecessary items of wealth.
Whilst the person living close to the breadline is forced to be thrifty. This person will shop around
for the smallest of items, like a loaf of bread and this person always seems to have money available.
Conversely the person on the high salary doesn’t worry about cost and never has any money left
over at the end of the month. Obviously this scenario is simplistic and does not apply in all cases.
However, I have included the example of how we may apply philosophical reasoning, even though
someone, such as my relative does not realise it. Therefore, I advocate that there is a philosopher in
all of us.
I must remind the reader that there are also a number of those who are affluent and do not have to
be concerned about where the next loaf of bread is coming from, but are grateful and aware of the
struggle faced by others. Within this category there are two authors who I admire for a particular
reason. Both turned their backs on a comfortable life and chose to live with the homeless or less
fortunate. Although it was temporary, they did this to gain an insight into a wisdom reserved for the
person who is free from the constraints of materialism. Presumably so they could write from the
soul. It is a lesson for the elite, for those who are unable to associate with the perception of
inferiority. It gave the authors the knowledge of survival and what is ethically or morally important
when faced with uncertainty in crisis. These writers were Jack London and George Orwell. It is
difficult to ascertain if those who we consider to be inconsiderate leaders are deficient in empathy
or efficient in singlemindedness or perhaps both. Likewise, it is impossible to prove that all the best
leaders have experienced any profoundly life changing events. I suppose, to do this would take a
lifetime of investigation and research. This is something few of us have, so it is sensible to look into
the lives of people like London and Orwell. Then to make comparisons with whichever leaders we
choose to investigate. Obviously this would be highly subjective and prone to individual preference.
However it will be a good lesson in philosophical reasoning. This is an approach I would like to see
more leaders adopting. There may be many reasons why someone looks to the field of philosophy.
Personally, I feel it is in the quest for truthfulness. Let’s consider this in more detail from the book
of a famous philosopher I have previously mentioned, Voltaire.

REFERENCES (FURTHER READING)

London, Jack (1907): The Road. Macmillan. New York.
Orwell, George (1933): Down and out in Paris and London. Victor Gollancz. London.

1.4.2 VOLTAIRE ON THE PHILOSOPHER

The description by Voltaire in the philosophical dictionary, dictionnaire philosophique
(1764), gives us a good insight into the reasons why a person turns to philosophy. Voltaire describes
the philosopher as being a “lover of wisdom and truth”. He explains that the philosopher has a dual
character and humbly gives lessons on virtue and moral truth without asking for anything in return.
Yet all have, at some time, been deceived by natural philosophy as a necessity for life. Upon
reflection Voltaire advises us that it has taken centuries to learn what a wise man can know in one
day. He questions why Westerners turn to Eastern cultures for wisdom and to find a wise person,
when they exist everywhere. Although one such wise person was discovered in the East, named
Confucius and this fulfilled their need. Since then a host of Greek philosophers have taught and
experienced equally pure moral philosophy. They have gained their respect by being just and
teaching others to do the same. All of the greatest names in philosophy at that time, Greek, Roman,
French gave up comforts and turned away from luxuries in order to learn the truth about philosophy.
I concur with the observations of Voltaire. Thus, I will have to find a leader who is humble, virtuous
and willing to teach what they practice. Furthermore, Voltaire tells us that the ponderous does good
only for themselves, but the virtuous does good for all of humankind. We live in society, so it stands
to reason that the only things that are good for us, are also good for society. Take the example of a
recluse who is pious and humble, but can only be regarded as virtuous when doing good. What
good is the recluse who does nothing? Well according to Voltaire, they are no use. Therefore it is
necessary to be a practical leader to be virtuous. The philosophical leader who thinks about words
of wisdom and truth is useful only when they teach others to promulgate the truth.

REFERENCES (1.4.2)
Arouet, Francois-Marie aka Voltaire (1764): philosophical dictionary portatif. French. Carlton
House. New York. Edition undated. Project Gutenberg, (retrieved June 2020).

1.5 KNOWLEDGE IS NOT INFALLIBLE

There is much debate about know-how and what counts as knowledge. Let’s say it is safe to assume
that you cannot know something without knowing something else. Even though one would have to
accept that a new born baby must therefore already have some inherent subconscious knowledge,
however meagre this may be. Pieces of knowledge are needed in everyday life, which on their own
are meaningless, but when used together dictate our actions. We do something for a reason. For
example, I know that when a door is closed, behind the door is a room. To gain entrance to the room
I have to open the door. Lets accept that there is an element of cognition to this. I have previously
learnt that the door must be opened to gain access and through conscious thought I am able to turn
the door handle. In epistemology, the study of knowledge, this is referred to as cognitive success.
Which is straightforward enough, as my knowledge of the process involved in opening the door has
successfully enabled me to undertake the action required to turn the handle and push the door open.
However, I believe that having cognitive success, although it may be accepted as reality, it does not
always follow that it is a certainty. Hence, I propose that most events, upon introspection, contain
some negative component. I have termed this component the ‘cognisance of fallibility’.
Furthermore, in 1.5.1, I will present an example of this fallacy.

1.5.1 THE COGNISANCE OF FALLIBILITY

Let’s take a look at the following hypothetical situation. If I say to you that Mark has a
thousand dollars. Is it true to say that Mark has five hundred dollars? (See 1.8.1). Experiential
evidence tells us, this is true. So let’s say, on the face of it, most people would agree from
experience that this is correct. Using deductive reasoning, or assumption, we have concluded that
Mark does have five hundred dollars. However, what if Mark is exaggerating and only has fifty
dollars. Given this new information is it true to say that Mark has twenty five dollars? Maybe the
answer is no, because Mark has lied before and his word is not to be trusted. Or is the answer yes,
because twenty five plus twenty five equals to fifty. Using empirical evidence, (see 1.8.1), it is fair
to say that this is also correct. This we accept or do you only assume this to be true, because a
mathematical equation states it is true. Using the same mathematical equation can present a
different result. Twenty five is half of fifty. One half plus one half is equal to a whole. So, does
Mark have a whole amount of dollars or two halves? The reality is, we don’t really know how much
there is. So let’s count the money. After counting the notes we find out that there is not fifty dollars
but one hundred dollars. We are understandably confused and ask Mark for an explanation, to which
he explains that he still has two halves and two halves make a whole. So, Mark was not lying, he
was implying. Now, it is acceptable to say that we have a comprehensive understanding of the
reality of the situation. We completely and thoroughly accept that Mark has one hundred dollars,
because we counted it. Our knowledge is substantiated. Or is it? Feeling sorry for Mark, we take the
money to the bank to deposit it into his account. Once there, the teller tells us that one of the ten
dollar notes is counterfeit. The reality for the teller is, there is ninety dollars, even though our
cognitive success, i.e. the counting of the money, indicated otherwise, that there is one hundred
dollars. Therefore, we must accept that the reality of a given so can change., (see 1.5.2). Remember,
I have already mentioned you can’t know something without knowing something else. So, how did
I know that Mark initially had one thousand dollars, which at the time was certain and real to me.
Yet I can no longer tell you that experiencing cognitive success about something is the truth and
reality, because it was Jane who told me that Mark had one thousand dollars and obviously she was
mistaken. Thus, Mark was telling the truth all along. It was us who misunderstood the information.
Is it a viable proposition to say that, knowing something, which has been learnt from information
that is incorrect is cognitive success? I do not agree, because it contains an uncertainty. Was Jane
lying or did Mark feed her false information. Did Jane even know Mark? Therefore, I propose that
the acquisition of knowledge must take into account an element of cognitive fallacy. It is worth
mentioning that Wittgenstein (1922), wrote, “a proposition can only say how a thing is, not what it
is”. Hence, all of my propositions, throughout this work, must be thought of as a guide. It is not
intended to be used in the descriptive sense. For example, the object, my blue cone is not a
proposition, it is an exact description. Hence, I am saying what it is and not how it is. You may call
it a yellow square, so which of our observations may be described under the cognisance of
fallibility. The answer is actually, both of our observations.

REFERENCES
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1969): On certainty. Basil Blackwell. Oxford, England.

1.5.2 ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHANGE

All around the world, monuments and memorials, but most predominantly statues, have
been defaced and vandalised by members of the public. Some have been removed legally by the
relevant local authorities, but the majority, particularly in the United States and Europe have been
forcefully removed. Many of us may have passed by these statues for years, even decades, without
knowing the history behind the person. We may not even have know who the person was, unless we
had taken the time to read the plaque and had done some research into the history of their lives. This
indicates that maybe we did not care, or that we were ignorant of the facts. Either way, it seems as
though the statue, as an object in itself, is harmless. The problem that has recently emerged is not
what the statue does, but what the monument or memorial represents. Looking to the definition of a
monument for answers, we find that it is constructed to “commemorate a notable person”, (Oxford
English Dictionary OED, accessed 30 July 2020). Whether this person is worthy of the title notable,
or is worthy of being commemorated, is a contentious issue. One thing for certain is that individual
knowledge and beliefs play an important role in our perception of these things. Even more
importantly is that this perception changes with the times and the demographics. The question we
need to ask ourselves is this; what is gained, or lost, when people resort to a forced change in
symbolism? From a philosophical perspective, Aristotle provides us with the background theory.
Lets consider that there are two basic types of change, static and dynamic. Static change relates to
the alteration of the subject, where the subject has substance. The example of static change Aristotle
provides is, the man becomes a musician. Note that the example implies the transformation of a
subject. In this case, a change in the competency of a person’s musical talent. Whilst dynamic
change relates to the manufacturing or destruction of matter. This implies the making or unmaking
of an object or symbol. The word matter being the term used to describe a solid, liquid or gas.
Aristotle uses the example of a solid lump of bronze that is sculptured and turned into a statue. The
destruction or unmaking, is important to remember. Once the statue is finished, it does not have to
remain a statue forever, it can be melted or broken down. It can change. Afterwards, another
sculpture may then be constructed from the left-over material. It is coincidental to Aristotle’s work
that current events are presently focused on destroying sculptures. These objects are specifically
targeted as symbols that represent people and events related to colonialism and racism. Thus, it is
the perception of the sculpture relative to our knowledge that is the valid component. Then surely, if
we consider knowledge in this way, the statue can be the subject of both dynamic and static
knowledge simultaneously. Dynamic in the sense that we now perceive it to be symbolic of evil and
wrongful exploitation. Static in the sense that it is what it is, just a lump of matter. Therefore,
knowledge changes our perception of the subject over time, which may best be described as
temporal change. Hence, the action of destroying an object and using the materials to construct a
new object is a direct result of our temporal thinking. Assuming this proposition is correct, it is
reasonable to expect that all monuments may at some time face a similar threat.

However, to consider if this suggestion is credible and to look for ways of resolving the problem we
must use comparative examples. Would it alter our thinking and be more acceptable to use ice
sculptures instead? Afterall, when the ice melts it becomes water, therefore the object has changed
considerably. It has undergone a change from a solid to a liquid. It’s temperature has certainly
increased, but of equal importance to us, it’s language has changed. It is no longer called ice, but
water. Each word describes a completely different substance and our perception along with it. If we
know the offending statue only exists when it is in the freezer, would we still be so obsessed about
destroying it? Some statues have already been removed and stored at undisclosed locations. This in
effect is the same principle. The people who find the symbols offensive want them removed from
sight. In this way they no longer appeal to the senses and are therefore no longer part of their reality.

Now consider someone who becomes a Grandmother for the first time. She has not physically
changed because of the birth of her granddaughter, but the language certainly has. To the family,
reality has changed, they now have a daughter. Although, we could argue that while the mother is
pregnant, a Grandmother is already ‘made’, because in reality the granddaughter is alive in the
womb. In much the same way as a statue that is in the process of being carved, but is not yet
finished may be considered to be a reality. However, our language accepts that someone only
becomes a Grandmother on the live birth of the granddaughter and an object only becomes a statue
when it is finished. Alternatively, if the only Grandchild dies, does the Grandmother no longer bear
this title? Maybe so, but the Grandmother will always retain the memory of her Granddaughter. So,
it is also safe to assume that destroying the statue will not erase all memory of it. Therefore, it
follows that our knowledge of any object is bound by language and memory. So, renaming a
distasteful object can make it acceptable. Although this is not a practical option, because it is the
person’s name that is objectionable and that can’t be changed. Painting it another colour could
achieve the same result because any change that affects our sensory perception of the object results
in a change in language. A blue or a green Churchill is still a Churchill. So, this is not a viable
option either, as the identity of the statue still remains the same. Therefore, one could argue that
people may dislike something solely because the description is unacceptable. The actual goal is to
erase the memory of the person, not the object. So, the conclusion seems to indicate a drive for
dynamic change as opposed to static change. Unfortunately, this draws a parallel with other
historical ideological purges, some of which were instigated by the very people who are represented
in the monuments that have been targeted. Then, what is actually gained by the demolition of the
monuments? Basically, it allows people who feel powerless, to administer some control over their
surroundings. To become empowered. It is not their intention to rewrite history. In the not too
distant future, people will walk past the new sculptures oblivious to the identity and symbolism they
represent.

Regardless of the situation and circumstances a question remains unanswered. What consequence
does these types of change have for the implementation and the application of ethical decisions? Of
immediate concern to the decisive leader is what philosophers have termed real change. Herewith,
real change is used in the context of natural philosophy. Aristotle commented, “Natural things are
some or all of them subject to change”. Cohen (2016) reiterates this by confirming that, “the study
of nature is basically a study of change and the things that are subject to change.” For the sake of
simplicity, I shall define real change as something factual that actually makes a difference to the
business, social, economic, political landscape, etc. Consider the manufacturer of bricks. The matter
is clay in its raw form which is fired in a kiln and so becomes a solid brick. This is substantial
change. The customer will select the bricks based on the colour and texture. Then the bricks are
delivered to the building site for the builders to use. Now, at this point another change takes place. It
may be argued that the bricklayer only has this title when they are laying the bricks. I propose that
whilst the bricklayer is not at the job, they are in philosophical terms, not a bricklayer. Therefore,
each day the bricklayer attends work, in the morning they undergo accidental change. The skill and
proficiency, (competence and experience), of the bricklayer is therefore irrelevant to the change
process. However, the skills are important to the architect. In the same way, key political leaders
and the most wealthy have the power to make real change happen. They also have the option of
pretending to be making real changes with the clever use of language. Any type of leader must
decide for themselves if ethics are more important than Machiavellian politics. One must choose,
right from the beginning, if you wish to be in leadership for the individual power, or are you there
for the people. If your concerns are genuine, I recommend becoming a pragmatist. Making sure that
real change happens and that it considers all of the subjects involved whether the subjects are of
matter or of substance. Lise Kingo CEO & executive director of the United Nations Global
Compact, commented that “leadership is about having the courage to be the change. Indeed to
insist on change.” This remark was made by her in the foreword of the 2020 global compact report.
Hence, Kingo reiterates what is the intention of this section of the book. That decisiveness is about
ownership. This definition is intended to suggest a legal and moral duty to change matters, which as
I have previously discussed and have identified as substantial change. Thus, to conclude, decisive
leadership is evident only if the leader is consciously prepared to substantially change matters for
the furtherance of their legal and moral obligations. I will leave the final word on this to Mary
Robinson, the first woman president of Ireland, “when Nelson Mandela brought us together, he did
so in the belief that together we are stronger, that change happens when people collectively take
action to make the world a better place.”

REFERENCES (1.5.2)
Cohen, S. Marc copyright (2004): Article; Aristotle on change. University of Washington. Last
updated on 09/23/2016, (Retrieved 25 June 2020), https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/
archange.htm.
Robinson, Mary. Chair of the Elders, https://www.theelders.org.
(retrieved 25 June 2020).

1.5.3 THE PRAGMATIC LEADER

Realpolitik is a proposal that was first introduced by the German journalist Ludwig Von
Rochau in 1853. In the book he published, Von Rochau was highly critical of the powerful elite of
the day that governed the German States. He remarked that it is unethical of them to think that this
power automatically gives them a right to abuse it. His strong criticism and condemnation of the
establishment led to his subsequent exile from Germany. During those years, his brave stance could
have led to imprisonment and even execution. This is a good example of bravery in the face of
adversity. Von Rochau was not happy to just sit back and watch the politicians abuse their positions
of trust. He knew it was wrong and only action would achieve the result he wanted for all of the
citizens of Germany. Hence, he promoted practical objectivity and in modern usage the term is
called pragmatism. The pragmatic leader is measured by the success of their practical applications.
In this way we distance ourselves from the language and rhetoric associated with the leader who is
perhaps very good at public speaking. A great orator may be able to gain popularity and win votes
without applying anything worthwhile to help the community. We are all probably aware of an
example where realpolitik has been the choice of rule. In my lifetime I have seen many instances of
empty dreams and broken promises. Even if a promise is made on the manifesto of a political party,
it does not necessarily mean it will be undertaken. Having said that, I was always curious as to why
the UK Conservative Party led by David Cameron conducted a vote to leave the European Union
(EU). An article published in the Metro newspaper dated 11 December 2018 explained the answer
to my question. Known informally as the Brexit vote, Mr Cameron was never in favour of leaving
the EU. So, why then did Cameron undertake a vote? Well, the answer to my question is this. The
referendum on the right to leave the EU was proposed in the election manifesto for the 2015 general
election. Mr Cameron was under pressure by Members of Parliament (MP’s), from both sides of the
bench, (Conservative, Labour and others), to uphold the promise of an outcome before the end of
2017. After a long delay, the decision to hold a vote was made after a poll of 2014/5 showed the
general public was in favour of remaining. History has proven otherwise. The poll was wrong. For
me, this is an example of compulsory or forced pragmatism by Mr Cameron. He did not make his
decision in the best interests of the nation. This is evident because he waited for the opinion poll to
indicate the outcome he wanted. It seems that unique real change leaders are difficult to find and
examples are therefore limited. In addition to this, it is always debatable that what the public sees or
hears, is actually a true reflection of what goes on behind closed doors. If you wish to follow the
path of a pragmatic leader, you will need strength and resolve. Mr Cameron failed, in my opinion,
by standing down as prime minister soon after the result did not go his way. He left a void and lost
his credibility. My reason for saying this, is because a pragmatic leader will use common-sense to
deal with things sensibly based on practical and not theoretical evidence. In theory he was supposed
to win the Brexit vote but in practice he lost. The exact opposite of a pragmatic approach.

REFERENCES (1.5.3)
Wittgenstein (1922): On certainty.
Von Rochau, Ludwig (1853): Practical politics: An application of its principles to the situation of
German States. Stuttgart Gopel.
Haigh, Phil: Article, the Metro Newspaper, “Why did David Cameron call a referendum on
Brexit?” Tuesday 11 Dec 2018. (Retrieved 11 June 2020).

1.6 ON INSTINCTIVE BELIEFS AND ABNORMALITY

Psychiatry, as with all of the studies and treatments in medicine, is not an exact science. Let me
explain this proposition in greater detail. A person presenting themselves to a consultant may
understandably feel uncomfortable and restless. These physical manifestations may then be noted as
symptomatic of an emotional disturbance. As I have previously discussed, it is knowledge that our
mind uses to identify the past. Let’s assume that past knowledge includes our own instinctive
beliefs. Even though the average person may not be conscious of these beliefs. Therefore, it is very
difficult for the consultant to decipher the underlying cause of any symptoms. Or if the symptoms
are in fact normal and appropriate under the circumstances. Something acceptable in one ethnic
group may be considered inappropriate behaviour in another. For example, some African tribes cut
their face on purpose, it is called scarification and is a rite of passage that identifies tribes. Other
cultures may consider this as self-harming, but some Africans regard it as a sign of beauty.
However, I must stress that the psychiatric establishment is aware of this distinction. Thus, the
culture and ethnicity of the person is taken into consideration during a routine assessment.
Notwithstanding, some patients, particularly the accused facing trial in forensic psychiatry, are
malingering, (faking their illness). It may even be impossible to identify the cause of the symptoms,
particularly if the person does not know for themselves. So, it seems there is a connection between
control and abnormal behaviour. Let us suppose that something unusual in the consulting room has
caused or triggered a latent fear and led to a feeling of anxiety. Yet, the reason for this is not clear to
the person. After a preliminary interview, the psychiatrist may believe that it is the effect of an event
from much further back, such as in the patients childhood. Whereas, in fact the fear is a normal
reaction to an external stimulus. To the professional it may be indicative of a disorder. So, the
psychiatrist asks questions to initiate a response. Given that they also have limited time in which to
consider a diagnosis, it is not difficult to understand the problems they face. Hence, the first
consideration is to treat the symptoms. Remember the opening lines of this work, whereby I raised
the question, what is certain in this world? Upon critical analysis it seems that the answer really
must be, nothing. Hence the psychiatrist should be faced with the burden of proof, (See 1.7).
However, psychiatry being a profession based on uncertainty, no proof is required, just the
‘opinion’, of the professional.

Based on philosophical arguments it seems on this occasion that science is failing us. Nevertheless,
the psychiatric establishment may easily counter my critique. By explaining that they hold the well-
being of the person who is ‘ill’ to be paramount to the exclusion of philosophical reasoning.
Another argument of equal validity is that the instinctive beliefs each one of us has accumulated,
are not necessarily based on fact. The knowledge may have become distorted and could be
construed as a coping mechanism to deal with a traumatic event. After all, there are events in our
lives that some of us would prefer to forget. Thus, it is equally possible that our imagination is the
thing that needs to be treated for abnormal behaviour. Another failing of science is there is no
filtering mechanism to differentiate between the visionary, the highly imaginative and the abnormal
mind. Another failing following on from this, is that there is basically only one treatment,
incarceration. Whether the person being treated is physically confined, under supervision of the
courts, or the drugs used to treat them are so debilitating that they create a situation of mind or
mental confinement. Whatever the choice of treatment, to be labelled with a diseased mind is to be
diagnosed as someone who is unable to function in the realm of socially acceptable reality.
Someone who’s reasoning does not follow the norms.

1.6.1 THE HIERARCHY OF REASONING

This leads me to consider the possibility of a self-proposed level of reasoning. That of an
instinctive choice we may not even be aware of. The levels within this hierarchy may be described
more like a bundle of thoughts. The levels may be written out as a list and should be considered
dynamic as the different components are subconsciously placed in order of preference. The order in
which they appear, if you like, is changing on a regular basis. At the uppermost levels, these
thoughts are used daily and are easily remembered. Alternatively, the other thoughts are latent and
are hidden, ready to dictate how we behave in society, as and when required, and are just as easily
remembered. The English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1912), proposed this theory of instinctive
beliefs. He explains that we subconsciously attempt to seek a harmonious system of instincts which
do not clash with one another. Maslow (1943), introduced a similar proposal in his hierarchy of
needs. The premise is based on the assumption that we are all motivated by needs, the most basic
being the instinct for self-preservation. This is the lower level and includes food and shelter.
Although, Maslow’s method is simplistic, it does allow us to think of life in terms of values and
structure. The shape we use to represent the hierarchy of needs is the pyramid. The visual
representation of this gives the impression that as we move up through the five levels, the
importance of each level lessens to some degree. The top level, the tip of the pyramid is called self-
actualisation. It is where, I believe, we are at risk of succumbing to individualism and unethical
behaviour. So, if I want to test this hierarchy of needs. As an example, I could call into question the
value of water to someone dying of thirst in the desert. Using water as an analogy I am referring to
the most fundamental basic need of humans. If you are lost in the desert and thirsty, there is no
monetary value we can place on the water anymore. The real value the water has is this, a substance
essential to sustain life. This makes it a priceless commodity and a multi-millionaire would no
longer be calculating their wealth based on investments. They would be thinking in terms of
Maslow's lowest level one, which is those basic needs for the preservation of life. Suddenly the
multi-millionaire has dropped their stature from the highest level, where one has already achieved
all psychological needs and is presumably living in a comfort zone. I understand from Russell’s
hypothesis that our thoughts are arranged in a similar form. That of a hierarchy of thoughts and that
we are continuously attempting to attain an orderly progression in a world of confusion. It is
possible to believe that the human mind is constantly experiencing instinctive behaviour and that it
uses an inherent set of values for the sake of balance and harmony. A disruption to this orderly set of
instinctive beliefs may cause the fear and anxiety I spoke about. Which in turn, may be identified as
a symptom of abnormal behaviour and in extreme cases, perhaps the psychiatrist would be justified
in recommending some form of intervention. For example, we know from instinct that fire burns
and is painful. Using the above system of instinctive beliefs, it is safe to assume that fire and pain
are located where the knowledge may be instantly retrieved if the danger of fire presents itself to the
individual. However, what if you were to deliberately put your hand into a fire, without the
experience, but with the knowledge that this action will result in considerable pain? Is it prudent to
consider this abnormal or a sign of a mental disorder? What if the fire exists only in your own mind,
but you intentionally put your hand in the imaginary flame and scream with pain. The first example
tells us that the pain only manifests itself when our mind detects a physical sensation. The burning
of the hand. The second example tells us that the pain only manifests itself when our mind detects a
mental sensation. Hence it should provide us with credible evidence that anything which causes
distress is real to the person. Even if it is imaginary. Furthermore, if we wish to eliminate the
distress, surely all that is required is to simply remove the source, be it the sensation of sight, sound,
touch, taste or smell. So, if a sensation is real to the person, is it fair to call it a mental disorder.
Who would you describe as having a problem worthy of intervention? The person who intentionally
puts their hand in a real fire, or the person who intentionally puts their hand in an imaginary fire. It
follows from this that knowledge is used as means to arrange the hierarchy of thoughts. As more
credible information becomes available to us, the arrangement of our thoughts alters accordingly.
Eventually, the absurd is no longer retained as a belief, it is pushed down further into our
subconscious, until eventually it can no longer be recalled, this information is forgotten and
therefore can longer be called knowledge.

REFERENCES (1.6.1)
Russell, Bertrand (1912): The problems of philosophy. Henry Holt & Co. New York.
Maslow, A.H (1943): A theory of human motivation. Harvard Psychological Review, 50(4),
370-396pp.
Maslow, A.H (1954): Motivation and personality. Harper and Row. New York.

1.7 ON THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Imagine that two parties are in a discussion. Now, one of them makes a specific claim about
something which the other disputes. The burden of proof falls, on the party that made the claim to
prove the declaration they have made. This is an acceptable requirement, particularly in academics,
and the level to which it is used depends on the gravity of the situation. For example, the claims that
have been made regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, throughout 2020, have been extreme at times.
The 45th US president Donald J. Trump, made a suggestion on the social media platform Twitter,
that the anti-malarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin could be used as a potential cure
or vaccine for the virus. Although his various claims are rather vague, in a tweet he wrote of the
drugs, “hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the
biggest game changers in the history of medicine”. (See references). Now, Dr Anthony S. Fauci
M.D. has disputed the statements and claims that there is no “anecdotal evidence”, to justify these
comments. This is of particular concern given that Dr Fauci is the director of the US National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Now, the burden of proof lies with Mr Trump
because he made the claim, but as I shall explain, he faces a difficult challenge. This is because he
has chosen a speciality completely out of his remit as a politician and former business owner. One
would be correct to disregard the comments made by Mr Trump as lacking credibility and therefore
without substance. In making these unsubstantiated claims, Trump has also redefined the politician,
as a person who is prepared to make statements without proof. Whether there are ulterior motives to
the claims, I am not able to ascertain. If Trump said this as a businessman would it be regarded as
an ethical misrepresentation? We now have to ask the question, is there a point at which politics and
business should or should not mix. I would have to say the answer is yes, at the ethical and moral
level. Given this conclusion I would also have to say that the actions of the president do not fit in
with my definition of a decisive leader. You may have different opinion. However, I will explain my
reasoning in more detail next, (see 1.7.1.).

In everyday life we do not need to consider the burden of proof all of the time. Imagine if we did, it
would be like the entire world is full of philosophers at a convention centre! It is also unlikely we
would be able to leave home without an explanation as to our intended actions. Consider that I tell
my partner, “I am going for a walk”. My partner replies, “I challenge you to prove it”. I then open
the door to the street, I step onto the sidewalk and then I start walking. “Ahah!”, exclaims my
partner. “I asked you to prove you are going for a walk. But you are already walking, so all you are
proving is that you are able to walk”. Life would be very tedious if we had to justify every action.
So, it is prudent to reserve the burden of proof for special occasions. At this time of pandemic
uncertainty the only proof we have are the statistics issued by each country in the world. There are
many like me who are extremely sceptical about the accuracy of these numbers. Here is a situation
where the burden of proof should be a prerequisite, but the complexity, dynamics and scale of the
pandemic do not allow the time to prepare for it, therefore we have to accept the paradox of
selective existence will contribute to the errors in the system. We need the statistics to make the
strategic decisions necessary to combat the spread of the virus. The statistics are only as good as the
testing regime and the accuracy of the data. Emerging Countries who need international financial
assistance more than others lack the proper resources to report the effects accurately. Western
countries whose political leaders have a different agenda, such as holding onto the majority
popularity vote. The global economy that needs to get back to its pre COVID19 levels. These all
contribute to the paradox, whereby the medical community, being scientific, will only act on
empirical data. Yet the global data is either inaccurate or manipulated. All of this is creating a tug of
war between science and politics. There is no standard of appraisal that he two can agree on.

REFERENCES (1.7)
Twitter: @realDonaldTrump, tweet posted on 21st March 2020

1.7.1 THE SAGAN STANDARD

The American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan, (1934-1996) is credited with the
standard known by the acronym ECREE. Sagan (1979), proposed that, “extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence”. We now refer to this as the ‘Sagan standard’. The standard
attempts to promote a Heuristic approach to problem solving, (see also 2.14). Heuristics teaches us
that, wherever possible, simple explanations and assumptions should be used to justify a claim.
However, there are many claims that are not easy to interpret and these require extraordinary
evidence. The claim made by Mr Trump is extraordinarily unique and an example of a claim that is
unsubstantiated. It is not supported by ordinary evidence let alone extraordinary evidence. The
specialised field of epidemiology that Trump has chosen to promote his advice on is unique and
therefore unproven. Hence, any support for his claim must come from new observations or
recognition of new evidence. This new evidence needs to be scientifically substantiated. This
evidence also needs to be tested and all of this must happen before Trump could possibly be able to
present the burden of proof to Dr Fauci. Given that Dr Fauci is a recognised expert in the field and
has much experience and gained a standing in the medical speciality of infectious diseases, Mr
Trump is facing a profound challenge, because he has no experience of epidemiology.
Notwithstanding, the more unlikely the claim is, the more complex the proof that is required. At the
time of writing no evidence by Mr Trump has been submitted. This is not to say that the comments
are untrue, they just lack all credibility. The reader and researcher should question whether it is the
interests of the national and international communities for politicians, especially ones recognised as
key powers, to make unsubstantiated claims. People are inclined to act on the advice of a person in
a position of power, in the same way that they are inclined to believe the media without doing their
own research, or just accepting a viewpoint because it has been proposed by one of our peers.

REFERENCES (1.7.1)
Sagan, Carl (1979): Brocas brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science. Ballantine books.

1.7.2 THE COVID STANDARD

As at the 18th of July 2020, the date of this section’s edited insertion, the statistics of the
cases used as a barometer for the spread of the virus are as follows, (reproduced from the reported
cases published by the John’s Hopkins University on the same date).

Global - Population 7.8 billion (source: worldometer)

• Confirmed 14 107 052
• Deaths 602 657
• Recovered 7 894 895

The only reliable measure worth using in the figures are the number of recoveries. This stands at
slightly over 50%, and has been so for a few weeks. Previously it was around 48% or less,
(according to my calculations). I see this as an important indicator, although it is not given the credit
it deserves. Particularly given that the WHO have implied that the virus will best be combated
because of herd immunity, see also 1.21.1. We have learnt that reducing the spread of the virus is
also a measure of reducing the R number. The R value when measured as the number one, means
that each person infected is infecting on average one other person. Governments are encouraged by
the WHO to reduce this number to less than one, which indicates a decreasing infection and which,
theoretically will eventually diminish to zero. However, the R number is calculated using the same
imprecise statistics, which once again leaves at the mercy of the paradox of selective existence. So,
is there a leader who we know with certainty has achieved this landmark? Yes, in fact there is. The
New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern has steered her country with decisiveness and strategic
direction to reach zero cases by mid July 2020. New Zealand is the first country in the world to
reopen the weekly 5km parkrun. Meanwhile the WHO has announced that the ex-New Zealand
premier Helen Clark has been chosen to co-chair the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness
and Response (IPPR). This has been met with consternation and opposition from the Trump
administration, who wants the WHO to blame China for the pandemic, and even referring to
COVID19 as the “Wuhan flu” to highlight that Trump still believes China should be held
responsible and liable for the global outbreak. So, not only is there a rift developing between the US
and the medical establishment, but it is being played out in the political arena. Given that the US
cases are showing no signs of dropping, (see below), surely it is obvious that a National leader and a
country with the best record is a better choice of pandemic uncertainty control than a country that
still has the mindset of Cold War era anti-communism. A mindset that discriminates their thinking
and is not helping control the spread in their own country.

USA - Population 331 million (2020 source: worldometer)

• Confirmed 3 677 453
• Deaths 140 888
• Recovered 1 076 823
NZ - Population 4,8 million (2020 source: worldometer)
• Confirmed 1 549
• Deaths 22
• Recovered 1 506

So, we have a country that has proven the R value can return to zero. Given that the virus is highly
contagious, R = 0 should be regarded as the Gold standard. It is only through dignity and
honourable behaviour from the leaders and the community that we will be able to reach this
standard.

1.7.3 COMPARING DIGNITY AND GREATNESS

So far, I have reflected on the philosophy of ethics, but what part does dignity and human
nature play in the matter? Hume (1741), devoted a complete chapter of his book ‘essays’ to the
dignity of human nature entitled, “of the dignity or meanness of human nature”. He begins by
recommending that when we are engaged in any form of dispute, it is important first of all, to make
sure all of the parties are arguing about the same thing. There is always a possibility that emotions
get the better of us and we can then become distracted from the actual substance of the matter. Thus,
we should always consider making comparisons when we are discussing anything which involves a
subject of controversy and debate. Hume also mentions that when forming our notions of human
nature, we are most likely to choose other animals including humans as a comparative example.
This is likely because all animals in the natural world are endowed with the ability to think, and also
because there is always an animal we can subjugate our superiority over. When comparing humans
to animals some people advocate the nature of the human race and champion it as being superior to
nature and all of the other animal species. Whilst others openly dismiss humans as a species filled
with vanity and that we are impelled to exaggerate our importance. I consider this to imply that we
are divided as to our position in nature. Hume goes on to say that an author who chooses the former
writes with rhetoric and declamation. I presume by this he means in a blustering, ranting fashion.
On the other hand an author who is dismissive of the human race, writes with irony and ridicule.
The contention comes in when we attempt to decide which of these authors is inclined towards
virtue. Greatness, Hume argues is made using comparisons with other things of greatness. Although
it is easy to dispute this in the following case. Alexander the Great was given the epithet ‘great’
when he was still alive. During his reign he was known as Alexander III of Macedon, but he was
named the ‘great’ because he never lost a battle even when faced by an opposing force of far greater
numbers. This achievement has allowed some historians to consider him the greatest military
commander of all time. It maybe that Napoleon Bonaparte would have been called the ‘great’ if he
had preceded Alexander III. However, all military forces eventually lose a battle. Therefore, Hume
is possibly correct in his comment about greatness and our need to bestow honour and respect upon
our fellow humans. That without comparability we have no standards. However, we also need to
show dignity and humanity at the same time. Human understanding does not include the complete
perfection of wisdom we pretend it does. Wisdom and virtue are scarce within human
understanding. When we do come across it in someone, we shower praise on the person. Though, it
is only through comparison with others that a persons standing is elevated in stature. Notice that we
regard wisdom and virtue above all other principles. The same applies to the epithet of beauty,
which we consider to be the physical equivalent of wisdom. Is vanity regarded equally important to
virtue? Hume calls this vanity self-love, which is not the same as narcissism, because one is
comparing themselves to others, not just to themselves. By comparison, a person who is not
inclined to friends, community or country is regarded by Hume as selfish or stupid. I think that
Hume considers this to be the ultimate in human vanity. Whereas there are acceptable reasons apart
from his notion of self-love that may be responsible for a person who either shuns society or does
not become enthusiastic about belonging to it. Alas, like so many pre-modern philosophers, I find
Hume guilty of the contravention he attempts to highlight. He launches a scathing attack on those
who prefer solitude, whilst simultaneously accusing those people of seeking fame. He reiterates this
by asking is the person as insensible to anger as they are towards friendship. Presumably, the
argument is that someone with a family, including children and relations will spend more on them,
than on themselves. That someone can be wise and virtuous, but at the same time they are selfish
because they do not show kindness to others. Hume suggests that by me doing a good deed for my
friend, this virtuous behaviour brings me pleasure, because of what the friendship represents. If I am
to do the deed to bolster my ego and to impress others, then it is out of selfishness and not the
pleasure of making my friend happy. My argument is that the pleasure of giving can be achieved
just as much through philanthropy and anonymously, by helping those who you might not know or
have never met before. A love of vanity and a love of virtue are closely allied. Therefore, human
nature is inclined towards the display of affection, although this may not be shown in public, as
most of us consider these displays the domain of privacy. The display of virtuous affection for the
love of it, is the need for self-importance over and above the consideration of others. The need for
dignity is akin to the need for self-respect. Thus it should follow that conducting oneself with
dignity should lead to greatness. The difference being that only the individual can conduct
themselves with dignity, while greatness can only be bestowed upon you by others. Projecting an
image of greatness which is unearned will eventually lead to your downfall. To behave with dignity
and respect one has to achieve the ‘knowledge of certainty’ or one has to understand the weakness
associated with uncertainty.

REFERENCES (1.7.2)
Hume, David: Essays with biographical introduction by Hannaford Bennett. John Long Ltd.
London. Rereleased by Project Gutenberg, 17 May 2011. (Retrieved 2 June 2020). Original work,
published by Alexander Kincaid. Edinburgh. (1741).

1.8 ON KNOWLEDGE AND UNCERTAINTY

I always used to remark that a business person must make a better National leader than a politician.
My justification for this was that politicians have a poor track record and a country should be run
like a business. Having run my own businesses on various occasions it seemed like a good idea.
Donald J. Trump has proven me wrong. The mistake I made was to consider everyone to have the
same level of proficiency when dealing with uncertainty as myself. The Trump administration has
made me realise that society needs help and guidance, not boardroom instruction, regulation and
rhetoric, especially during a crisis. I have previously mentioned the term Epistemology, which is a
branch of philosophy concerning the science of knowledge and I have already stated that there is no
such thing as an exact science. Let’s put this bold statement to the test once again shall we? Let us
presume that we are in the midst of a dilemma and the situation is making us anxious. Assume that
the cause of our anxiety is the realisation that we will burn our hand. The cause is in fact a memory
derived from actual experience or acquired knowledge, i.e. we may have been burnt in the past or
have seen someone else get burnt or been punished severely for playing with fire as a child. These
thoughts are stored in our memory, where all past knowledge presumably resides. I proposed this
previously as a ‘hierarchy of thoughts’ (1.6.1). Now, we also have a latent fear that we are going to
burn our hand. What happens if this veiled threat becomes a reality? We understandably become
fearful. The resulting anxiety is no longer a thing of the past, but a clear and present danger, albeit
of a future event. For now, I will define fear and anxiety as the same. When we burn our hand, the
sensation occurs right now, that is, in the present. Yet the realisation of the effect was already
present in our subconscious. Does this infer that the present also exists in past knowledge?
However, if I do burn myself in the fire right now, the ‘cause and effect’ both happen together, in
the present. Does this infer that anxiety has a simultaneous ‘cause and effect’, or that cause and
effect only occur together in the present, under certain conditions. Or that the cause is actually the
past knowledge of being burnt and the effect is the pain that occurs in the present. The answer to
this lies in making a distinction between time, realty and awareness. To do this there has to be a
differentiation between consciousness and the subconscious. My problem is, whether past-present-
future are just sensations within the mind or physical attributes with sensations. This complexity is
not easy to explain. I will attempt to make it understandable to myself and to the reader and
researcher. Subconsciously, we associate fire (the cause), with burn (the effect) in the past tense.
When we see or feel the heat from the fire, our awareness converts the past memory into present
thoughts. Now, the past known cause and effect belong in the reality of our consciousness. If we
fear the future, this is a conscious awareness, because the fire is here, now. Yet the fear of the future
also resides in our subconscious knowledge, if the fire is not here, right now, and we are not
thinking about it. Although we fear being burnt, we can not know if it will happen in reality, unless
we are able to see into the future. However, I have never met anyone who can prove that they can
predict the future with complete accuracy and certainty and I am sure neither have you. In fact,
because we know of the future ‘cause and effect’ of fire, it is naturally rational of us to fear fire,
therefore we must all suffer from pyrophobia. The fear of fire. Considering it is irrational of us to be
afraid of something we are not certain about, (the future unknown), and by definition the fear of the
unknown which, by definition is called anxiety. Therefore, we are anxious of the unknown, but how
is this possible, as the unknown is not knowledge. To dispute that we suffer from pyrophobia we
have to remove the anxiety, the past memory that has recorded the knowledge of the effects of fire.
To achieve this one will have to admit that we have no past memory of the pain fire causes. Or that
we have no belief that fire will burn us in the future. The epistemology agrees that there are
different types of knowledge. However, I have described that the fear of fire on its own is not
justification enough to prove that we suffer from pyrophobia. Thus, if the reality of the situation
differs from our preconceived ideas, we have no justification for the knowledge that fire burns.
Once more I have created complexity and uncertainty from what seems to be a simple suggestion.
Imagine that you are trapped in a raging inferno, with no means of escape and we all know fire
burns and it causes excruciating pain. This eventually leads to death, but you are not afraid of the
future, because you will go to heaven. Which means either denying the existence of one of the
cognitive effects caused by a sensation or a physical attribute, for the sake of justifying one of the
others. To elaborate, the sensation of burning causes pain. The sensation of burning to death causes
fear. I am scared of pain but not of dying. Therefore, I am scared of burning but not of dying. Even
though this goes against my knowledge of fire causing fear. If epistemology falls short, the reader
and researcher could be justified in referring to this as another example of, the paradox of selective
existence. Unfortunately, by selecting what you wish to believe exists, you would then fall into the
trap of having to convince me that you are no longer feeling any burning pain because you are
going to die. There have of course been instances of self-immolation, the act of setting fire to
oneself, as a form of protest. However, this is an act most of us would never be able to commit,
even when faced with the most uncertain future imaginable.

1.8.1 ON KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING

When making any type of a presumption or proposition, we are compelled to substantiate it
using knowledge. (See also burden of proof 1.7). As such, we would generally use some type of
evidence to back up any theory or hypothesis. New knowledge, is gained from learning and
something we know already is considered old knowledge. Essentially, I do not have to explain that
both require a learning experience. So, it is clear that there must be different types of learning.
There is Experiential learning, which is understandably considered as ‘learning from experience’, or
learning by experimentation. There is also observational learning, which is the acquiring of
knowledge using our senses, and I like to call this Sensory or Perceptive Learning. At first glance
there does not seem to be any difference between the types of evidence, whether it is derived from
old or new knowledge, because they are both learned as a result of experiences. However, the
difference I am most interested in, is that of empirical evidence and knowledge which is based on
accepted fact or a universal law. Empirical evidence or data is used to reinforce, or to discredit the
truth because it is not based on here-say. We also call this a posteriori knowledge, which means,
‘from after’, in Latin. Whereas, a priori knowledge, on the other hand, already exists, usually as
known facts. Hence the Latin translation, ’from before or earlier’. A priory knowledge is gained
from pure reason, (see 1.8.2) and deduction. Examples include, “all circles are round”, which is an
unnecessary repetition, “one plus one is two”, derived from our knowledge of mathematics, and so
on. In (1.5.1), I mentioned the story of Mark and the assumption that if he has a thousand dollars, he
must have five hundred dollars. This is also an example of apriority or prior knowledge. Now,
consider the proposition, if the German philosopher Immanuel Kant died aged 79, then he lived for
more than 50 years. This I am able to deduce a priori, because I have derived it by reason only.
Now, if I then tell you that Kant lived from 1724 to 1804, this is a posteriori knowledge, I have
found this out from facts and not by reasoning. So, to describe this simply, we either have
knowledge that we have learnt before, or we have knowledge we have learnt later. This knowledge
is then used as evidence of an experience, like actually flying an aeroplane. Or it is used as
empirical evidence to prove a reality or an unreality, like learning how an aeroplane is able to fly or
not able to fly. I know from historical evidence when Kant lived. So, if you say you have a signed
copy of his book, Critique of Pure Reason, published in 1881, I would also know a posteriori, that
this must be a false claim, because Kant died before then. Also, my experiences of running are
assumptions based on apriority. Whilst the number of marathons I have completed are justified,
based on a posteriori knowledge. You may ask yourself, how is this of benefit to the decisive
ethical leader? Well, it is important to know how certain you are of the facts before making any
claims or accusations. To be certain of the facts, one must know the type of sources of information
and where they have come from. (See also media sensationalism 2.14). Only then, can we
determine the credibility of the information and only then can we justify our ethical stance in
relation to the facts.

1.8.2 KANT ON KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING

Immanuel Kant (1781), is probably the most famous philosopher to have introduced the
differences in knowledge to a wider audience. In the popular book, Critique of Pure Reason.
Immanuel Kant’s work was so influential to other future philosophers that it deserves more study on
the subject of knowledge. In the critique of pure reason, Kant (1781 and 1787), begins by
discussing the difference between pure and empirical knowledge. He tells us that all of our
knowledge begins with experience and of this there can be no doubt. Although there is certain
knowledge that we do not acquire immediately from experience, but from a general rule. However,
this rule is in itself formulated from experience. He uses the example of a person who ‘undermines’
their house. That is, the person digs away under the house until it collapses. The person does not
need to know the science behind the laws of gravity, a posteriori, but they do already know a priori
that if one drops an object, it falls to the floor. Therefore, by deduction it is certain that if the
supports holding up an object from the ground are removed, then the said object will collapse and
fall down. In the case of the example, it is the house. Anyone would have been correct in proposing
to the owner of the house, before the digging commenced, that the house will fall down. Most
would be inclined to agree because it is an accepted fact. Kant referred to the term “knowledge a
priori” as being absolutely of all experience or from experience only. Empirical knowledge being
learnt through experience only. Kant also used the term pure knowledge to describe a priori
evidence and empirical knowledge to describe a posteriori evidence. I have considered the types of
knowledge in much detail because the reader and researcher will come across this, at all levels,
throughout their lifetime. Therefore it is important to know the differences when researching a
subject.

1.8.3 KANT ON CAUSE AND EFFECT

Kant also refers to much of what I discuss on cause and effect in 1.8 by stating that “every
change must have a cause”. Which he refers to as a proposition of the commonest type. Consider
that we know without doubt, that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect. Now
Kant is telling us that because we know an effect is caused, then every change is a result of a cause.
If this is so, then we do not always have to justify our knowledge of generally accepted facts. In this
way we are excused for ignoring uncertainty when it is an accepted fact. It also follows that we are
then permitted to consider risk as being acceptable. In the same way an axiom, which by definition
is a proposition or a truth that is so acceptable it is not considered necessary to question the
authenticity of it. These arguments are all considered to belong to apriority knowledge. In addition
to this, the reader and researcher should be mindful of how easy it is to confuse the terms theoretical
and empirical. Although empirical evidence is not theoretical, it is knowledge derived first hand,
hence the definition indicates that it is factual. As discussed non-empirical evidence may also be
considered to be factual. So, it is in all importance, the actual context in which we use the terms that
matters most. So, Kant was telling us over two hundred years ago that all of our actions are due to a
reason. I will return to the proposition made by Trump about unproven drugs being a treatment for
COVID19. If we accept that there must be a reason for the remarks, what is the reason? It is safe to
assume that the remarks were the cause intended to bring about a change in other people’s thoughts.
Additionally, there are some who will base their own thoughts on the knowledge that Trump has
introduced. Therefore, the effect of the unsubstantiated proposition made by Trump can have far
reaching effects, because it is certain to cause a reaction and an associated change. Now the
question we need to ask is, how far should a politician be allowed to cross the ethical and moral
divide,? Is the business leader more restricted from this encroachment in their responsibility to the
stakeholders? Surely, the responsibility a key politician has is much greater because the effect of
their actions has wider implications. The point I am trying to get across to the reader is the hidden
damage careless talk can cause. At the time of editing this piece, (14 July 2020), the Brazilian prime
minister who has been a proponent of Trump’s initial nonchalant reaction to the COVID19
pandemic has tested positive for the virus. Both leaders initially downplayed the efficacy of wearing
masks in public to the extent of refusing to wear a face covering. Eventually Trump relented which
was reported in an article on 11 July 2020, by Caroline Linton, published by CBS news entitled
“Trump seen wearing face mask in public for first time”. Bolsonaro commented, according to the
Folha de São Paulo, a Brazilian newspaper, that the “wearing of masks to protect against COVID19
was for fairies”, this allegation was made a day after Bolsonaro tested positive for the virus. The
Guardian picked up on the story and published an article on 08 July 2020, by Tom Phillips, entitled
“Brazil: Bolsonaro reportedly uses homophobic slur to mock masks”. Eventually he was ordered to
wear a mask in public by federal judge Renato Coelho Borelli, who commented that it was to,
“protect his own health or that of those around him”, as reported in the same Brazilian newspaper.
Now both leaders have supposedly retracted their objections and have been pictured wearing masks
in public. However, it is impossible to determine how many people have died as a result of their
initial actions. Hence, I am justified in calling on both leaders to refute the following. That it is
possible to pickup a virus by touching a contaminated surface with your hands. We subconsciously
touch our face regularly and this means that it is also possible to transfer the virus. Wearing a face
cover will reduce the spread of a virus because it stops us from touching our face directly with our
hands. (See John Hopkins University website information on COVID19). Therefore, I conclude that
Trump and Bolsonaro are irresponsible in their actions and may actually be complicit in the deaths
of some of those who mimic their actions. In comparing the ethics of business, (see case study part
3.0) and modern politics, the only striking difference I have is this. The representative of a business
entity conducts their unethical behaviour as covertly as possible, avoiding publicity. The modern
politician is not averse to flaunting their arrogance of power and in so doing risks the safety of the
voting population they are entrusted with protecting. These comments may come across to the
reader with dogmatism on my part. Nevertheless, as you will find out throughout this book and
particularly in part 3, it is very easy to find sources of unethical, immoral and illegal behaviour
amongst the most senior leadership circles.

REFERENCES (1.8 - 1.8.3)

Kant, Immanuel (1781): The Critique of Pure Reason. First edition.
Kant, Immanuel (1787): The Critique of Pure Reason. Second edition. Translated by J.M.D.
Meiklejohn.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org “What is Coronavirus?” Reviewed by Lauren M. Sauer, M.S.
(available 2020). Copyright 2020.

1.9 ON THE CIRCLE OF LIFE AND DEATH

To fully understand the of uncertainty, it is essential to visit our perceptions of life relative to death.
Let us return once again to my favourite object, the blue cone. We have agreed that placing it in the
cupboard will hide the object from view and we also agree that eventhough the object is out of sight
it still exists, it has not just disappeared or died. Kant, (1787) explains this of any object. That we
can take away all of our understanding of that object. Namely, the colour, texture, shape, weight,
and by so doing, the body of the object will vanish in our mind. Although, Kant says, the space it
occupies will remain behind, because it is impossible to eliminate that from our thoughts alone.
This suggests that the space is the object. In the same way our mind may forget a piece of
information, yet it may still exist in our subconscious, hidden away from view. Anyone of our
senses is capable of triggering a memory and miraculously the knowledge returns as though it was
there the whole time. Smell is a potent sensation. It has the ability to make us vividly recall aspects
of past events. Anyone who has given up smoking will most likely attest to this fact. The smell of
cigarette smoke can cause a strong craving, even years after the person has stopped smoking.
Although, if we think about it, this craving is not actually for a physical object, (the cigarette), it is a
desire for the psychological effect that the cigarette has on the brain. Our ‘knowledge of
association’ does not include the chemical reaction the nicotine goes through in our brain. We just
instinctively associate, lighting the cigarette, and inhaling to experiencing a specific feeling. In this
example the feeling is good. In the next example the feeling is not good. Assume the smell of a
certain type of food always reminds us of a family member who died many years ago. This is very
real to the person, but if I propose that the smell is proof that the relative is still alive, we may be
astonished to find that the reality is not as straightforward as it may seem. The critical philosopher
will become more uncertain of the answer, which is what this work has set out to present to the
reader and researcher. If the smell exists, and the associated imagery of the relative exists, and death
exists, by definition does this infer that the relative is still alive or dead? One has to admit the
existence of life, before accepting the existence of death. This is why people have coined the
phrase, ‘the circle of life’.

REFERENCES (1.9)
“The circle of life is a symbolic representation of birth, survival and death. The idea of life as a
circle or a wheel exists across multiple religions and philosophies. Life is represented as a circle
because it is a constant loop. People are constantly born and are constantly dying”. Source:
www.reference.com (retrieved 25 April 2020).

1.9.1 THE CONSERVATION OF LIFE

Is evidence of the decaying cadaver proof of death? Or is it only evidence of the break down
of the mechanism, (the physiological machine we call a human body). If I burn my blue cone, in the
same way that we conduct a cremation, only ashes remain. Has the cone ceased to exist? If I bury
the cone until it breaks down into dust, in the same way that a person is buried, does it cease to
exist? I could dispute this using the circle of life, by suggesting that the ashes may be mixed with
potting soil. Surely the resulting bacteria, organic matter and the plants that grow in it are proof that
life does not cease to exist. Maybe life transforms itself from one state to another. In the same way
that scientists believe Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, (1687), that energy can neither be created
or destroyed. So, instead of the conservation of energy, we may have to accept that there exists, ‘the
conservation of life’. Can anyone say with certainty, that the mind ceases to exist when the body
dies? The psychiatrist must believe that the relative no longer exists for the sake of their
professional integrity. Some may dismiss the idea as nonsense and that the person has made up the
story to gain sympathy. Others may use mysticism or spiritualism to explain the phenomenon. The
person who sees their dead relative while awake, will most likely be diagnosed as experiencing
visual hallucinations, as a result of the trauma associated with losing a loved one. Certain religions
believe in life after death or reincarnation. A wise person once told me, death is not a problem for
the person, it’s the ones who are left behind that suffer. So who is correct, is anyone described
above in denial? Is the reader and researcher able tell me, with complete certainty, what is the
reality of this scenario. As one begins to think more critically, the fundamental question of human
existence will ultimately form in the mind of anyone who considers this subject. One which is the
focus of so much controversy. What is meant when we speak about life and death and what is the
meaning of life? Is there life after death, and does the mind die with the body. How could we
possibly determine this if there is no longer a physical presence. Is the body just a sophisticated
method of transportation and a highly developed instrument to measure sensory awareness for the
mind? Previously, I discussed and proposed that as humans we inherently seek harmony and order
in our thoughts. The average human being will be comfortable with the axiom that when a person
dies, they are no longer alive. This discredits any belief that our knowledge of reality can only
really be proven, if we experience things via our sensory perceptions. How can we know the
experience of death without actually dying? What if our relative died in another country and has
been buried before we have the resources to visit the country. Does this indicate that life, death and
existence are in the mind, because they are not physical things. Remember that Descartes would
only believe what he could see and experience for himself. The only certainty it seems, is that the
doctor has recorded it on the death certificate. However, the doctor is only able to state with
certainty that the patients vital signs have ceased to function. Not that they have ceased to exist.
Witnesses have attended the funeral and will confirm that the person has died. Again, this is a
contentious issue because none of the mourners have ever died, so how can they know what death
is. If I return to the example of the room full of people and of the person that is visible to no one
else, except for me, and of this I am certain. Now, I relate this not to a psychiatrist but to a clinical
psychologist. Together we may reach the conclusion that the image exists only because I want it to
be real. We agree that it is both a remarkable and an unexpected appearance. This I accept as an
accurate description. However, if I explain that the apparition uses insulting and derogatory
language with the intention of upsetting me, then I really do not want it to be real. Of this I am also
certain. Now, one may argue, that my experience can not be defined as a certainty anymore, because
it is a contradiction. Although, I am able to deduce from the above example that we certainly have
the ability to choose what is real and what is not. Particularly because the perception of this reality
exists only in my mind and not in the mind of the psychologist. If I am able to choose to believe
that the hallucination is real I may also be correct in assuming that I am able to control my instincts.
What is the true definition then of a mental disorder? Does it apply to anyone who is unable to
control the sensations that trigger their own unique set of instinctive beliefs, even though they are
sometimes aware the sensations are not real. If so, then upon critical evaluation, everyone in the
world must experience some form of abnormality of the mind. Hence it is necessary to define what
normal is. Is it the ability to control something that doesn’t exist to other people. Is it the inability to
control what doesn’t exist to other people. Or is it the inability to control what does exist to other
people? If none of the above apply. Normality is the ability to control what does exist to other
people. On face value this seems like the obvious choice. So, if my twin brother and I both hear
voices or see apparitions and we believe in the reality of the hallucinations, then these are normal
thoughts. Observation of my brother and I together would have to conclude that there is no evidence
of abnormal behaviour. However, an assessment of either one of us, individually, would
undoubtedly result in a different diagnosis. This diagnosis would probably refer to an abnormality
and a lack of reality. So, it is my conclusion that uncertainty dominates all aspects of our lives.

REFERENCES (1.9.1)
Newton, Isaac (1687): Mathematical principals of natural philosophy. Royal society London. Latin
translation.

1.10 ON EMOTIONS AND ABNORMAL BEHAVIOUR

Will scientists one day be able to design a device able to measure and evaluate the effect that our
sensory inputs have on our thoughts? Could this device then allow us to change the inputs which are
responsible for causing us distress or unhappiness?Although this is unlikely to happen soon, once
again we have to agree that it is not impossible. For now the medical profession uses powerful
medication and electro-shock therapy to treat disorders of the mind. These are short term solutions
and in a sense are used to anaesthetise the patient. It has the affect of masking the symptoms, which
to the observer is an indication of a positive result. Thus, in reality the effects are being treated but
not the cause. One must question the professional ethics of this approach. Statistically, the
psychiatrist is able to show that from x amount of patients, they have successfully treated y amount
of people. Though how many have been cured? A set of statistical analysis does not give full
credibility to the answer. The Economist Magazine, (15 September 2005), ran a story about Ernest
Hemingway (1899-1961), who after undergoing 20 sessions of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT),
and losing most of his memory, stated, “It was a brilliant cure but we lost the patient”. Although
ECT is used for depression, on July 2, 1961 Hemingway shot himself. However, it is important to
stress that some form of crisis intervention is necessary sometimes, to protect those who are a
danger to themselves, or to others. The problem is the degree of intervention. To what extent should
a medical professional be allowed to delve into, in the quest to ‘cure’ a patient, when both the
psychiatrist and the patient are faced with the uncertainty of reality? The answer to this question
may well lie in the decision making process. In Part 2 of this work I will attempt to explain, in
detail, the short comings of decision making during uncertainty. The reason I find it necessary to
devote so much time and consideration to this problem, is my concern over the observations made
by, Keltner et al (2014), who concluded, “the dominant driver for most decisions are emotions”. If
we accept this as a truism, then it could indicate a worrying trend amongst the leadership elite.
Particularly those in senior roles who are already self-centred and then go on to develop
abnormalities in their behaviour.
REFERENCES (1.10)
Keltner D, Oatley K, Jenkins JM. 2014: Understanding Emotions. Hoboken, NJ, :Wiley.
The Economist, 15 September 2005, Science & Technology section. Electroconvulsive therapy.
“Shocking treatment”, How ECT works. (Retrieved 31 May 2020).

1.10.1 ON PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS

I am prepared to accept that the level of emotional influence on one’s thinking decreases
with professionalism. I am also inclined to believe that this is probably because experts and
consultants use their competency, relevant history, education, experience, and research data to arrive
at a diagnostic or analytical decision. Yet, I feel that there is still a problem using statistical analysis
to quantify how effective any psychiatric intervention might be. I propose this, because emotions
are measured using qualitative data. This data presents itself I. The form of words or body language.
In other words the feedback that the psychiatrist uses to make an analysis is, by definition,
measured by it’s quality rather than quantity. Often the decision is then based on what action the
patient might take. I admit it is unrealistic to expect the psychiatrist to predict the future. Therefore,
they have various guidelines to act on. The Merck manuals USA, recommend a routine assessment
to include a general medical and psychiatric history and a mental status evaluation, (MSE). The
‘mental state evaluation’ is used in the UK. Other clinical assessment tools include the Beck
Depression Inventory and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for assessing psychosis. There are many
sources of information available to the psychiatrist, including that from family members. Now I
want you to think about a person who threatens to commit suicide, but in reality they have no
intention whatsoever of doing so. The person is sectioned and detained under the mental health act,
until it is decided that they are no longer a threat to themselves. This will be recorded as a
successful choice of treatment. Conversely, someone makes the same threat, and no intervention
beyond prescribing anti-depressants is taken, thereafter the person takes their own life. In hindsight,
we can say that this was the wrong choice of action. From a philosophical perspective, we are
ultimately responsible for our own actions. So, are others justified in intervening if our instinctive
beliefs do not match their own? Let’s revisit the hypothetical situation I proposed and imagine that
the first person suffers a traumatic event because of being sectioned. The effect is profound and
after being released from hospital the person actually does commit suicide. Both of the patients
have now died, yet the psychiatric establishment is not liable although they may be found
accountable. The records will show that both people had suicidal thoughts, or ideation. This is
enough to exonerate the professionals. Psychosis is considered a severe mental disorder, in which
thought and emotions are so impaired, the person is allegedly detached from reality. The medical
establishment attach so much to the severity of psychosis that it is considered a disease. However, I
have yet to adequately define reality and disease in the same context. Also, I feel uneasy with the
choice of the term disease, whereas the word ailment would work equally as well. The reader and
researcher may not agree with me, but my presumption is that the word disease was chosen to allow
experimentation and justify physical intervention, such as ECT. If this is true, the psychiatric
establishment may be considered to be complicit in unethical practices. Or is there no hidden
motive and it is a figment of my imagination? Does the stress of making the wrong medical
decision contribute to the world of uncertainty? When one is faced with a difficult question, I would
recommend the use of the word conundrum to describe the situation, because it is a puzzling
problem. There are too many, ‘what ifs’, to persuade me that the correct plan of action is available
to everyone at all times. Although I am more certain now that uncertainty exists at every turn and
around every corner. Hence, I will abstain from offering a solution and leave it up to the reader and
researcher to decide the answer to the psychiatric conundrum.

REFERENCES (1.10.1)
Merck manuals professional version, official website, copyright 2020, Merck Sharp & Dohme
Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA, www.merckmauals.com/
professional.

1.11 ON THE MARGIN OF ERROR AND IMAGINATION

Once we begin to look around and notice more of our surroundings it becomes evident that this
truly is a unique planet. Years ago it was decided to call the planet, Earth, from the Latin terre as in
terrestrial, or ‘of the earth’. We have never found concrete evidence of another extraterrestrial
planet, like ours. Indeed no evidence of other life has been reported by the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), institute. I wonder if the money spent by the SETI institute
could have been used to find intelligent life on Earth instead! Although, there is no proof that
another planet, like earth, does not exist. Conversely, there is no absolute proof that another life
form does exist somewhere in the universe. Meanwhile, here on earth, scientists and engineers use
their knowledge of certainty to design and create. They work to a specific set of rules and guidelines
and refer to uncertainty as, ‘the margin of error’. At first, this uncertainty was learnt using ‘trial and
error’. A technique called heuristics, of which I will refer to often in this work. This method has
worked for humanity for thousands of years and has led us to successfully build the infrastructure
we use today. The margin of error allows a physicist to either agree or disagree, with certainty, that
I am able to see some form of matter or an object that others cannot. For the moment let’s agree that
no two objects of matter can occupy the same area at the same time. I shall refer to this area or
volume as ‘common spacetime’. Now, I will inform the physicist of the following. I am able to see
the object occupying the space, at the same time that you see ‘emptiness’ occupying that same
space. Will the physicist regard me as someone of unsound mind? I will continue with this analogy
by referring to my experience as ‘individual spacetime’. Let me define this as a phenomenon that is
unique to me and as such exists in my mind only. In fact no-one is able to prove me wrong and even
the most highly regarded physicist is unable to say with certainty that what I propose is impossible.
The reader and researcher will most likely be aware that most of us struggle to understand infinity.
Think of the circle under the cone I mentioned at the beginning of this work. The circumference of
the circle has no end and no beginning, is this infinity? Try applying this to the universe, whereby
we are taught that there is no end and infinity goes on forever. Is the universe a circle? If so what
exists outside of the circle. Let me assist you to understand infinity by proposing that you should
imagine yourself to be at the centre of the universe. Regardless of where you are, even a billion
light years from earth you are still at the centre of the universe. Therefore, one will never reach the
so called ‘end’ of the universe. The standard model of Cosmology assumes that the universe is
identical in all directions1. This implies that if one of us heads out from the North Pole and one from
the South Pole, we will experience the same effects regardless of how far we travel. This seems far

1 Isotropic
fetched, because you might be headed towards the Sun and I might be on my way to Pluto.
However, cosmologists do mention, ‘at a distance’. In terms of the universe, and this is a very, very
long distance. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) disputes this, whilst
cosmologists remind us the universe only looks the same in all directions. It soon becomes apparent
that science and philosophy need each other. There must be some cohesion in the quest for
credibility. The philosopher will easily show the uncertainty of my analogy about infinity by asking,
what is meant by myself? Is it the same ‘self’ wherever you are in the universe. If infinity exists,
and there is no record that it has ever been experienced by anyone, we must accept that there are
things in our imagination that do exist. As I have previously mentioned, depending on the context,
our imagination may also cause us to be labelled insane. Yet it is possible to discuss the concept of
infinity, which has no limits, and by our own admission infinity is an unknown, as though we know
everything about it.

REFERENCES (1.11)
Porter & Watzke: NASA article, 7 April 2020. “Universe’s expansion may not be the same in all
directions” NASA.org (retrieved 10 June 2020).
Shostak, Seth. Senior astronomer, article: “Search for space aliens comes up empty, but
extraterrestrial life could still be put there”. Published 01 July 2019, (retrieved 23 July 2020),
www.seti.org. Article originally published on NBC news, 26 June 2019, subtitled, “The
‘breakthrough listen’ initiative listened in on 1,300 star systems and found no sign of ET but the
search is set to expand”.

1.12 ON INDIVIDUALISM AND ETHICS

Alfred Nobel (1833-1896), established the famous Nobel peace price, in 1895 a year before he died,
with the proceeds of his dynamite and armaments businesses. When his brother Ludwig died in
1888, the newspapers mistook him for Alfred and the obituary read, “le Marchand de la mort est
mort, (the merchant of death is dead)”. There is an article about this incident in the Smithsonian
magazine by Colin Schultz (2013), entitled “Blame sloppy journalism for the Nobel prizes”. This
report had such a profound effect on Nobel, he decided to leave a legacy of philanthropy, in the
form of private contributions to the Nobel fund in Norway. The fund was reportedly established for
the “good of the people and for a better quality of life”. Nobel is also the benefactor of other prizes
including physics, chemistry, economic sciences, physiology or medicine, and literature. What did
his actions teach us? On face value it seems that there was an element of guilt involved. However, I
do not believe the intention from the outset was to make money from killing people. I will discuss
this further under the subject of moral reason and desire, (2.3.1) suggested by Unger (1975). Nobel,
the entrepreneur, used his knowledge and skills to invent a weapon of destruction. However, the
initial use for dynamite was mining and therefore non-lethal. That is if one ignores the destruction
to the environment and other natural habitats that extractive industries cause. Now, as a business
grows, it is hoped that other applications will be found for the unique products the organisation
manufacturers. Unfortunately for Alfred Nobel, the business evolved into a large scale armaments
producer and Nobel became very rich as a result. Upon the evidence provided, one could argue that
he was a victim of his own talent and success. Others may argue that if he hadn’t had done it,
someone else would have. I have also found similarities between Nobel and the life of Henry Ford
(1863-1947). During WW1, the Ford Motor Company contributed to the war effort, even though
Ford was an outspoken pacifist during the conflict, Samuel (1922). A subsidiary of the business,
Ford Germany Ford-Werke was used to produce military hardware, particularly vehicles for the
WW2 Nazi war effort. It is easy to condemn a manufacturer for their actions, but faced with the
uncertainty of war, the government under a state of emergency, has powers to force organisations to
comply with their political ideology. During our present state of disaster, businesses and
organisations are adapting to another enemy. Some are using the coronavirus pandemic for
profiteering. Producing or distributing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), hand sanitisers, virus
test kits, medical equipment, etc. Is there anything wrong with that? Let’s assume that the products
are manufactured to the correct standards and are for sale to the general public. Is it unethical to
profit on the uncertainty and fear of others? No, because when we buy PPE we are buying products
to protect our health and safety. Where the ethics seem to be questionable is if the prices are
inflated, which is what happened at the beginning of the pandemic. Once the free market system
took hold, these prices rapidly dropped back to acceptable limits. So, competition is a good thing to
help prevent unethical practices. Obviously, unscrupulous dealers have no place in our society and
should be dealt with accordingly. Hence, I will always condone those who indulge in fraud and
knowingly sell products of no value or of danger to the consumer. Profiteering in this way has been
around for a long time and was becoming increasingly evident long before the outbreak of the
pandemic. Although the answer to the root of the problem actually lies with the consumers
themselves for creating a demand, we are also responsible for along sure that the supplier provides
us with value for money, inasmuch as we all like to find a bargain and sometimes are only interested
in who can sell the product at the cheapest price. One could argue that the motor car only came into
demand after the invention created a supply. However, once the product becomes popular, the
opportunity presents itself for someone to fulfil their desires. The motivation to strive for material
gains is unique to the person and is called individualism. The economics of supply and demand is
not within the scope of this book, but the ethics of it is.

REFERENCES (1.12)
Solman, Ragner (1983): The legacy of Alfred Nobel - The story behind the Nobel prizes. The Nobel
foundation.
Wilhelm, Peter (1983): The Nobel prize. Spring wood books.
Schultz, Colin (2013): Article“Blame sloppy journalism for the Nobel prizes”. Smithsonian
magazine.
Ford, Henry & Crowther Samuel (1922): My life and work-An autobiography. Garden city
publishing co. Inc.
Watts, Steven (2006): The people’s tycoon: Henry Ford and the American century. Vintage
paperbacks.

1.12.1 ON FAME AND FORTUNE

Many people, myself included, have identified a serious problem that is influencing our
society. That is, the desire for fame and celebrity status at any cost. The rise of Individualism is
contributing to a world where self-worth is becoming the prevalent value and ethics are considered
to be of less importance. Ronald Riggio Phd, wrote in Psychology Today (27 July 2017), “more
affluence leads to a greater sense of self-reliance and a detachment from others”. This detachment
from others is, by definition, called ‘a lack of empathy.’ In other words people find it more difficult
to sympathise with others and may be inclined to be envious. My own experience of business start
ups is as follows and they tend to follow a familiar pattern. At first the motivation is towards being
successful, paying the bills and surviving. There is no actual monetary value attached to this. For
this reason I will call it, ‘the uncertainty of the business model’. (See 1.20.1, the unethical business
model). Once we achieve a good standard of living and presumably our wealth increases as well, it
is very hard to decide the level of financial value we are happy with. Some are even prepared to
sacrifice their wellbeing, marriage, family, and friends for the sake of this new found status and are
reluctant to lose it. Others look at other ways to hold on to their new found prosperity. This can
cause a person to display symptoms of abnormal behaviour, akin to peniaphobia, (the morbid fear
of poverty). Is it fair to say, the rise of individualism is creating a profound lack of awareness of the
real plight of millions of people living in the poorest of countries. This lack of empathy towards
others, is intentional, yet most of those with wealth and power seek justification for keeping their
authority and influence at all costs. Yet, are they to blame for this culture? It may be argued that
anyone who aspires to be rich and powerful has as much opportunity as the next person.
Wittgenstein (1922), summed up the entrepreneur by stating, “what is thinkable is also possible”.
Most successful businesses started from a unique, simple, sound, idea. For example, Richard
Branson started the Virgin brand from nothing, as did Allan Sugar with Amstrad, Steve Jobs,
(Apple), Jeff Bezos, (Amazon), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook). None of them inherited their
respective businesses, they built up their businesses with decisiveness and risk. Is it too easy to
make them scapegoats and media targets, or is some of the negative attention deserved. Is there
such a thing as bad publicity? I put it to you that every time we see a news story with the logo of a
company, we subconsciously remember it like an advertisement. It seems to me that people have
short memories when it comes to language. What I mean is that we forget a written or spoken news
story faster than a symbolic representation, like a logo. For this reason I say that the facts behind the
COVID-19 pandemic will be forgotten soon after it is over. Though, the visual representation of the
coronavirus will live on for much longer. Like the virus itself, it will be around for a while, as we
have now been advised by the medical establishment and the WHO. In an article published by the
BBC news world service on 14 May 2020, “Coronavirus may never go away, World Health
Organisation warns”. The WHO emergencies director Dr Mike Ryan made this stark prediction
during a briefing.

1.12.2 ITS ONLY A WHITE LIE

The choice certain wealthy people make, such as using tax avoidance and creative
accounting to either hide their money or to hold onto it is a concern to some of us. Being wealthy
means being able to afford the best lawyers and accountants. It does not necessarily mean that a
business owner, entrepreneur or visionary is actively looking to corrupt the system. It also does not
indicate that the person set out initially to make money wit the intention of avoiding any taxes. So,
could it be that the system itself is corrupt? That it actually encourages people to bend the rules.
Once again it depends on a persons individual beliefs whether a misdeed is considered to be wrong
or the system is considered to be wrong. Afterall, a country is unable to function without a budget.
Have you noticed how we sometimes refer to bending the rules as being acceptable and even
encourage it. That we seek to downplay the severity of bad practice and justify it with the use of
terms such as, ‘white collar crime’, or a ‘white lie’. As though the colour white, a symbol of
cleanliness, is somehow regarded as untainted. We represent angels in white clothes with white
wings to symbolise purity. Once again this is an example of how our senses can be manipulated,
which can also influence our individual beliefs. However, this ‘whitewashing’, does not alter the
fact that telling a lie, no matter what colour it is, is dishonest. Let me ask you this, assume you have
driven around without a licence or insurance for a while and not been penalised for it. Or you have
watched television without a licence for some time and got away with it. Or you inadvertently
walked out of a shop without paying for an item. Do you tell the relevant organisation,
administration, or authority and pay back the amount owed. If not, are you any different to the
affluent person who uses legal ways to avoid paying their dues? Are these examples any different to
using off shore accounts or tax loopholes. In fact, in the eyes of the law, you have actually
committed the greater wrongdoing, because you are criminally negligent. Although it may seem
petty, a conviction for shoplifting is still a criminal record and could affect your chances of career
promotion or job interviews. Hence, does the problem of dishonesty lie with those who want
symbols of wealth they cannot obtain themselves. Or is it social media, for promoting the rich and
famous, ‘the celebrities’, as leading a life of affluence. Is the inherent selfishness of humankind at
fault, is solipsism, to blame? (see 1.3.4). My observations have reinforced the notion that
individualism maybe responsible for widening the gap between rich and poor. An unethical culture
of ‘the winner takes all’ does not contribute to society, it is responsible for the enrichment of the
few at the cost of the many. Throughout this work, I confront the reader and researcher with
examples of how uncertainty creates fear and trepidation. Evidently, only the individual can turn
these negative emotions into positivism. If you are not inclined to create your own wealth and are
waiting to win the lottery, you will probably be waiting your entire life. Alternatively, if you do not
have the wealth others have, being jealous and envious must be equally as individualistic and I do
not see any difference between the two. Both attitudes are compromising and I suggest that the
person who is envious of others would be just the same if they were in the position of those they
envy.

Hobson (1920), explains in detail how we generally have three tiers of morals within our respective
countries. The individual, which includes the family unit. The group, which may be our working
environment, business organisation or administration. Then there is the Country or Nation, to which
we uphold different national standards of morality. He argues that it ought to be just one, because as
I have previously mentioned, we are afterall just individuals acting in groups. However, our morals
evidently do differ depending on where the control lies. By control I am referring to the body that
sets the rules we live by. For the individual in a household this may be one or both partners. Within
the workplace it may be our manager. If you are the owner of the business it may be an industry
standard. When we talk about the nation as a whole, the moral standard is dictated by social norms.
Hobson justifies this hierarchy by explaining that, if our perception of the corporation is one of
corruption, we are more inclined to act improperly towards the corporation. It is the result of not
being able to envisage the corporation as a moral being, that makes us inclined to treat the
corporation with indifference. Hobson summarises this thesis by sating that we may regard them,
(the corporations), are “moral monsters: we say they behave as much and we are disposed to treat
them as such.” Outside of the country the moral standards are regarded as international. A person
who takes offence at another country’s actions towards their own is probably more inclined towards
Nationalism. Hobson tells us that the problems associated with internationalism are because of trade
and this is a result of the economic situation within the country. This is a most profound statement.
It may well be that most of the problems in the world are a result of economics which in turn create
international conflict and may be due to a the intention lack of moral standards. It is also worthy of
mention that the individual is likely to choose immoral practice for the promotion of wealth whilst
the government is more likely to choose immoral practice for the of promotion of power. That either
of the two is capable of resorting to falsehoods in the quest for wealth or power, there is no doubt.
Maybe then we should accept that humankind is not able to operate within the bounds of moral and
ethical practice, as it is constrictive and hence, is an obstacle to success. If this is so, there is the
option that Nobel went with and that is, using the influence of wealth and power, no matter how it
was obtained to do good. I therefore conclude that righting the injustices of the past is something
that must be decided by the individual.

REFERENCES (1.12.2)
Hobson, A. John 1920: The morals of economic internationalism. The riverside press Cambridge,
Boston and New York. (Retrieved Project Gutenberg, 09 July 2020).

1.12.3 ON ETHICS AND MISREPRESENTATION

Herewith, I have compiled another hypothetical situation for you on to peruse on ethics.
Suppose X steals $5 and Y steals $1000? Who is guilty of the greater dishonesty? On initial
inspection, everyone I asked this question of replied Y. Then I mentioned that Y stole the money
from a large oil corporation and X stole the money from a poor old lady on pension. The opinion
immediately changed, X is now the dishonest one and the oil corporation deserves what they got, so
Y is off the hook. Especially when I tell them that Y was demoted in favour of a man with less
experience than her. Incidentally, X tracks down the old lady and gives her $10 instead. Now people
pat X on the back and exclaim that X has repented on their actions and is exonerated. X fails to tell
anyone that it was the old lady’s bus fare home. She had to walk in the pouring rain and as a result
became ill. X hastily leaves and does not contact her again, so X does not know if the old lady
recovered. Was this unethical of X not to follow up and make sure the old lady is OK? After all it
was due to the actions caused by X that caused her to become ill. Therefore X is complicit in her
contracting a respiratory illness. Given that a form of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS),
named COVID-19 is ravaging the planet, X is particularly deceitful.

Now, it later transpires that Y works in the public relations department of the oil corporation. By all
intents and purposes Y is a representative of the company. This is evident because Y is responsible
for issuing press releases and writing speeches. In Y’s capacity as a professional Y has a written
code of practice to adhere to. Within the code it mentions that the employee shall not participate in
illegal activities. Has Y acted in a morally reprehensible manner by stealing the $1000? I would
have to say she has. My reasoning is that Y represents the company and as such is morally
responsible for the organisation. In stealing the money Y has acted unprofessionally. A year later we
find out that Y was involved in a cover-up for the company, who happen to use fracking to extract
oil from underground rocks. The by product of fracking is a toxic effluent that must be disposed of
according to environmental standards, in the correct manner. However, the company were losing
money so they decided to transport the effluent via road tanker to another US State. This State has
many abandoned mines and the liquid waste was pumped into the ground where it mixes with and
contaminates the groundwater. Although Y issued a press release to the contrary, Y did so at the
request of the company. Y knew the truth at the time and raised it with the immediate superior. The
supervisor assured Y that everything was legitimate. Y did not exercise the right to become an
anonymous whistle blower. Was Y unethical? However, after being demoted, Y decided to steal the
$1000, as a form of revenge. Y donated all the money to an environmental group, who clean
beaches of oil spills. Some will regard this as ethical, others won’t. Therefore it is evident that
ethics are subjective. The severity is based on personal feelings and beliefs. Is this ethical in itself or
is it another example of the paradox of selective existence? Whereby we choose whatever is
convenient as our objective reality. (See 1.17.2).

The hypothetical example may not be so far from the truth as the following report published in the
Guardian Newspaper will prove. Alison Stine, (2017), wrote in the article, “in a tiny south-eastern
Ohio town, the ‘Hazel Ginsberg well’ is holding waste from out-of-state fracking operations, a
sludge of toxic chemicals and undrinkable water. The Hazel Ginsberg mine has a long history of
violations, so many that the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) ordered it shut.” Eight
members of Appalachia Resist, a local anti-fracking group were arrested for demonstrating their
opposition to the illegal chemical dumping. So, who or which entity is acting unethically? (For
source information see references at the end of this section). These serious allegations require
further research immediately, before irreversible damage happens to the environment. Ben Stout, a
biology professor at Wheeling Jesuit University analysed a sample of frack waste taken from
Athens County, Ohio. (See reference below). The high content of radioactive material and metals
deemed the sample to be classified as hazardous. The argument from the Appalachian Resist
movement is that the wells are not licensed to hold hazardous waste. The well casings will fail
resulting in the waste leaking into the ground. This was independently verified in research by Dr.
Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University. (Source: Appalachia Resist website).

Now I have determined that there is probable cause to believe that the company involved has
undermined business ethics, we need to address the philosophy of their actions. From an academic
perspective I would hope that experts in social sciences pick on the matter. The question we need to
answer is, “why did the complicit entities engage in unethical behaviour?” Firstly, the fracking
company would need to be contacted to ask why they chose to illegally dump hazardous waste, thus
polluting the groundwater. No response is forthcoming so I will surmise. My interpretation is that
economics is the primary reason. It stands to reason that it was cheaper to dump the waste from
Pennsylvania in the state of Ohio, as, at the time, there were no restrictions. Secondly, the local
authority, the ODNR have stated that they will only test the groundwater if it becomes
contaminated. The question here is, how will they know its contaminated if they do not test it. Other
ethical considerations are the need for remedial action to be taken in response to behaviour due to
an unethical businesses practice. In this case, remedies could include, introducing licences for waste
disposal. Shutting off the well heads so no more waste can be introduced into the disused wells.
Regular testing of groundwater samples will need to be managed for many years before the all clear
can be sounded. Given that some of the contents are carcinogenic, like barium, this opens the door
for legal recourse, such as a class action against the fracking company. In my hypothetical situation
Sandra working on behalf of the company breached their own code of conduct. Let’s assume that
her boss told Sandra to deny that the effluent was toxic and of no danger whatsoever to humans.
Although she was working alone on a single instruction, Sandra can not be held accountable as an
individual. So what about her boss. He too is a representative of the company and although he has a
corporate responsibility to uphold, he is still acting on behalf of the company. Phillips (1995),
argues that to avoid blaming, (see 2.2.1), individuals in the corporation, organisation or
administration must be held accountable for upholding business ethics. French (1979), informs us of
the importance and justification for designating the legal title of a Moral Agent upon the
corporation. This is what Hobson (1920), originally referred to as a Moral Being, (see 1.12.2).
French explains that moral agents have a responsibility not to cause unjustified harm to others.
Therefore if an employee, for example, commits fraud using any of the company’s resources or is
associated with any company resources, the company is morally complicit, (see 3.0.1). This
interpretation of a moral agent also avoids the act of senior management delegating away their
responsibility and with it their liability for any moral wrongdoing. It then allows the most senior
manager or owner of an organisation to be held culpable for the actions of their employees and
allows the senior leadership to be charged with corporate manslaughter in the event of a death
caused by the negligence of any of the staff or representatives of the organisation.

Most organisations do have a guideline of moral principles that they can call upon or refer to if
doubt prevails. This document is found under the business heading entitled Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR). It is a written code of ethics and is recognised as part of the business culture
of an organisation or administration. Although, I find it increasingly obvious that the business
culture is normally far removed from the CSR guidelines. Maybe the answer to this lies in the fact
that the CSR is not a legal obligation but a moral one. It may well turn out that the document is used
as an excuse rather than an instrument of ethical behaviour. The CSR code of practice is used to
help the business or corporation to set out guidelines for the protection of the environment and for
upholding the values essential to our social welfare systems. Implementation of the CSR, for the
best part is vague and unfortunately lacks any of the powerful influences it deserves. Part 3 of this
book is a detailed comparison of a number of international companies. Each one is a large employer
and has a CSR. However, as the study reveals, the mere fact that a company has a written CSR does
not indicate that the company adheres to this written code of responsibility. It is my opinion that the
CSR is worth nothing, unless it is kept under constant review and that there is a measurement made
to indicate the comparison between what is proposed in the document and what is actually
implemented. The key here is the implementation. Presently, there is no reliable indicator of an
organisation or administration’s ethical, moral and social responsibility standing. Belonging to a any
number of administrations is also meaningless when any individual within an organisation can
conduct themselves unethically or immorally. For example, I have known of a FTSE100 listed
building services and electrical contracting company who has full regulatory approval. Yet the
managers would employ causal staff from employment agencies. In one particular instance I met
with an electrical test engineer who admitted to me that he had no electrical experience whatsoever
and was a mechanic. I am inclined to call this misrepresentation. If the reader and researcher is able
to propose and align the business community into a cohesive co-operation, social and environmental
responsibility will automatically take more preference as a driving force, instead of the omnipresent
quest for increasing profits.

REFERENCES (1.12.3)
Stine, Alison: Article, “Far away from any witnesses, my small town is being poisoned by fracking
waste”. The Guardian newspaper, dated 21 September 2017, (retrieved 13 June 2020).
Blog.appalacianresist.wordpress. Menu, History: “In June of 2012, an anonymous Ohion collected
a sample of frack waste from an Athens County injection well and sent it to an independent lab for
testing”. (Retrieved 13 June 2020).
Hunt, Spencer: Article, “Fracking brine. Gas-well waste full of radium. The Columbus despatch
newspaper, dated 3 September 2012, (retrieved 13 June 2020).
blog.appalachiaresist.wordpress.com: Article, “arrestees for Ice Office Blockade released. 11 July
2018, (retrieved 13 June 2020).
Phillips, M.J 1994: Article, “ The inconclusive ethical case against manipulative advertising”,
Business and professional ethics journal, 13(4): 31-64pp.
French, P.A. 1979: Article, “the corporation as a moral person”. American philosophical quarterly,
16(3): 297-317pp.

1.13 ON SELF-PRESERVATION AND PARADOXISM

Imagination and entrepreneurship differentiates us from other animals. It has also contributed to the
various industrial revolutions and the associated adverse impact to the environment, (e.g. pollution,
global warming, climate change, etc). If this is the case, then we need to ask, are we foreign to the
planet, like an alien species creating imbalance in the same way that an invasive species spreads
into other habitats and upsets the natural ecological system? Why are we even on this planet at all
and what is our purpose. This is a reasonable and valid question given that we are unique in so
many ways to the flora and fauna and given that we are taking more from the planet than we are
putting back into it. This topic has raised philosophical debate for centuries. Humanity has raged
wars and fought over land since the beginning of time. By this statement I am of course referring to
our limited knowledge of the actual beginnings of ancient human existence and civilisations. At
face value, our inherent quest for self-preservation seems to be at fault. Meanwhile the natural
world co-exists in harmony, in a world where Death is as much a part of Life. Humans by
comparison, place a high regard to the extension of their lifespan. Euthanasia is banned in most
countries, even though the quality of life of certain individuals is so excruciating, they wake up
every morning hoping to die. I admit that science and technology is being used for the benefit of the
natural world, unfortunately, in the quest for added value and profitability the human world takes
preference over the natural world. A typical animal will have an instinctive pattern of behaviour,
(called the laws of nature), and restrict themselves to their own habitat. Yet, we human beings know
no boundaries and change the laws of survival to suit ourselves. Although we are not adapted to
certain environments, we ‘invade’, the deepest oceans, the highest peaks, the polar ice and outer
space. I have mentioned more than once that we are inherently selfish, this lack of empathy
becomes more apparent as the planet’s resources run out and we destroy more in the search for
more. Alas, we continue to cause irreversible damage to the world, drilling for oil and extracting
metals and minerals, for manufacturing. Once more, humankind ignores the philosophical
perspective, preferring a state of denial. To survive, we must destroy. We call this contradiction a
paradox, a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement of irony. (See 1.17 for a detailed
analysis of paradoxes). Are we stumbling ignorantly through the world of uncertainty? If I am
wrong, there is no harm done. If I am right the existence of the human race is in jeopardy. Who is
willing to take the chance? Surely, with the superior gift of subjective intelligence, we are able to
see that utopia is preferable to dystopia. Or are we choosing to live our life ignoring the obvious? If
this is true than we are living life paradoxically. This observation may be the key to our
understanding and our subsequent actions. Writing is not in my vocabulary, is an example of a
paradox. Since, if I am unable to write, how could I write this statement and if writing is not in my
vocabulary how could I use it in a sentence? This example highlights my belief that we chose to live
in denial for the sake of self-preservation.

1.13.1 UNETHICAL THINKING

This section considers people who do not commit individual acts based on their unethical
beliefs. Those individuals who do is dealt with in 2.2. Here I am concerned with those individuals
who only think of unethical acts but have either no intention of committing them or are incapable of
doing so. On the topic of self preservation, people have told me on a number of occasions that the
world is over populated and it needs another war, presumably to reduce the population because they
feel the world is under threat. This is an extreme and contentious issue, but I have to consider the
context and ask does it hold some form of truth? Is it unethical to think of total population cleansing
the same way we do about ethnic cleansing. Now that COVID-19 is doing the job that these people
have promulgated for so long. I have not had the opportunity to question them again to find out if
this is what they wanted. I am also inclined to consider that the idea originated from Darwinism. If
the doctrine of the survival of the fittest is what these people are basing their suggestion, that the
world “needs another war”, it may well have arrived in the form of COVID19. To consider warfare
as a means of reducing the global population is completely inconsiderate. The cost to the economy,
the psychological trauma, the displacement of people, refugees, famine, disease and deaths of
infants and children that total warfare causes cannot be acceptable for any reason at any cost. The
resulting damaged infrastructure that needs rebuilding is of no use to any economy. It is unclear
where those who see war as a solution to overpopulation think this war will take place. I suspect
somewhere remote from where they are are living. I presume that these unethical thoughts may
centre around a viral pandemic in the future and not warfare. I also think these proponents of a
solution to world overpopulation were referring to a World War and not any number of proxy wars
that have occurred since 1945. In the same way the pandemic has affected the entire world as did
WW1 and WW2. So, it is not unlikely that a person who thinks that the world is overburdened with
humans, will also be equally at ease considering that the world needs another pandemic, if they are
told by a source in the media that Human Resources are responsible for destroying the planet.
Whichever way one considers these thoughts, we can only consider them to be the personal beliefs
of inconsiderate individuals, who presumably are not amongst those living in poverty. Now, let’s
consider the seriousness of unethical thinking as opposed to unethical behaviour. Is the unethical
thinker actually being considerate, by looking for a solution to overpopulation. Is it unethical to
think about doing something extreme, but not actually committing the act or inciting someone else
to commit an act. Are those who propose warfare as a solution serious, or do they know that the
suggestion is so absurd that it will never become reality. If so they may not be considered to be
unethical thinkers, but they may be guilty of the paradox of selective existence. (See also 1.17). In
other words they have to find a belief to justify their own thoughts, and in so doing subconsciously
alter their thoughts to one which is against moral social behaviour. The manner in which they
propose to resolve overpopulation is certainty unethical as it brings back memories of real historic
events associated with ethnic cleansing. Hence, being a decisive leader does not necessarily mean
that one is ethical, especially one that has made the move to killing for whatever means to an end. I
do however conclude that unethical thinking is a result of uncertainty and fear, similar to a phobia.
For the sake of a definition within this section, I propose that Unethical Thinkers are those who
have thoughts which may or may not be voiced as opinions, and to which the individual has no
intention of acting on. Let’s consider the person who is envious of someone else’s successes. This
individual x, then wishes bad things will happen to topple y, and ruin the person they envy so much.
What if something untoward does happen to y, for example, the COVID19 pandemic has caused y
to lose their business. Now, x is driving past one day and sees y on the street. Is it fair to suggest
that x is in some way complicit in the downfall of y. Let’s assume x does feel that way and becomes
morose because of their guilt. Are we now able to connect the two together, x and y. If so what
would the definition be for this, maybe ‘unethical thinking by association’. You see, although x did
not commit a bad deed physically, they did so mentally. I have previously gone into much detail of
how the psychiatric establishment can take legal action against someone who ‘thinks’ things but
does not necessarily act on them. What about if nothing had have occurred and y was still as
successful. Well, it is safe to assume that x will still be equally as envious. What if y was even more
successful, and x had lost their job in the Coronavirus pandemic. Would x then be justified in
elevating their level of envy? Is there a level at which a person may be excused for turning their
thoughts into actions. If x does or says nothing, nobody will know about the ill feelings x has
towards y. If x takes action but is never caught, still no-one will know. So, the question I put
forward to the reader is, at what stage may a thought be defined as unethical?

1.13.2 UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

After making references to ethnic cleansing in the previous section, one would be excused
for considering this genocide a dark part of history. One which has no place in modern life.
Unfortunately, purportedly it is still happening and makes a mockery of all forms of international
administrations who profess to be on the side of social responsibility. The UN Secretary General
Antonio Guterres once described the Rohingya as “one of, if not the, most discriminated people in
the world”. This group of people have been forced to flee to Bangladesh in a twenty first century
diaspora. The Myanmar government denies the Rohingya people citizenship of their country and
refuses to recognise them as an ethnic group. The Myanmar authorities regard them as illegal
immigrants, even those who are born in the country. UN investigators published a report in August
2018 that accused the Myanmar military of “mass killings and rapes with genocidal intent.” In
December 2019, the leader of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi rejected allegations of mass genocide in
the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Even though, Medicine Sans Frontieres (MSF), Amnesty
International, the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR and Human Rights Watch (using satellite
imagery) all have evidence, including witness statements to the contrary. Given that Aung San Suu
Kyi is a 1991 Nobel Peace Price laureate, the question is how could the leader of a country allow
this type of abhorrent behaviour. In an article published by the Asian Times entitled, “Has Suu Kyi
made Myanmar less corrupt?”, we learn that anti-corruption policies have not been implemented
for the military, (Tatmadaw). It is alleged that the Tatmadaw have a corporate presence, through
“two major military-owned conglomerates and subsidiaries”. Members of Tatmadaw are immune
from civilian prosecution under the 2008 constitution which reinforces their political role.
Whistleblowers have no legal protection and are therefore reluctant to speak out, for fear of
revenge. A study by the Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business (MCRB), based in Yangon,
reports that bribes often disguised as donations, are not illegal, as was the case under military rule
before Suu Kyi came to power. The study also found that Myanmar mining companies have made
payments “touted as donations” to secure land extraction rights. The result of which may be
environmentally damaging. Suu Kyi promised in her September 2015 election campaign that ”no
corruption will be tolerated”. However, it seems that the powerful Myanmar military is exempt
from this promise. Kyi has tried to distance herself from the actions of the military, as though they
are solely responsible for their actions and the government has no liability. This brings into question
whether Myanmar is actually still a military state or if Kyi has changed the political doctrine to one
of democratic principles. Who is the moral being or agent? This situation highlights how important
it is to ascertain the morally responsible power. Theoretically it should be the entity with the highest
authority. However, in this situation, by delegating away her responsibility Kyi is in fact admitting
that she has no real leadership over Myanmar.

REFERENCES (1.13.2)
Article: “Myanmar Rohingya: What you need to know about the crisis. BBC World News, 23
January 2020. (Retrieved 15 June 2020).
Article: “Has Suu Kyi made Myanmar less corrupt?”, by Thompson Chau, subtitled, “NLD
government has prioritised graft-busting but the business-minded military is still immune”.
Published 11 February 2020, (retrieved 10 July 2020).

1.13.3 UN GLOBAL COMPACT INITIATIVE

It would not be considerate of me to discuss unethical behaviour in a global context without
referring to instances of the drive for good practices within the international community. However,
it is becoming increasingly difficult to research the subject without coming across accusations of
bad practices, some are illegal and at any given time there are a number of lawsuits currently in the
process of being considered by the relevant authorities against international organisations. The
United Nations Global Initiative was set up to promote the United Nations Global Compact. It is
promoted as “the worlds largest corporate sustainability initiative”. The mission and goals are very
much aligned with that of the Elders, (see 2.4). However, I have some concerns after studying the
relevant documents by accessing the official website unglobalcompact.org. One has to ask, is the
UN just a brand that is used by organisations to project an image of ethical business practices? In
the quest for corporate governance it is easy to affix labels and buy into sustainable partnerships. If
this is so, the corporate business community is guilty of using unethical practice to promote ethical
behaviour. There is no doubt that the UN Global Compact was set up twenty years ago with the
aims and objectives given. Now that the way forward is to promote the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG’s) and succeed in the vision to meet the goals for 2030, the next ten years should be
highly beneficial. However, I have now come across numerous examples of partners presently
engaged in conduct which is not representative of an ethical organisation. Accessing the website of
the UN Global Compact during June/July 2020 produced a list of organisations from the 2020
report, that participated in research and provided case studies. Originally I set about to find from
this list of forty companies which ones do not have a tarnished reputation. It was not long before I
found it easier to find companies that do have a tarnished reputation. One must ask this question of
Lise Kingo, the CEO & Executive Director. Why is the United Nations Global Compact aligned
with corporations that are actively engaged in illegal activities that go against the principles of the
administration? The forty companies listed in the report are credited, (pg 136 point 2. “Structured
interviews”), as a source of information used in the report. The Chief Sustainability Officers (CSO),
of each company were allegedly interviewed for data to be used as the core ethical standards of the
UN Global Compact administration. That is the “Ten Principles” and the SDG’s. The results of the
exercise are so compelling, I have found it necessary to devote Part 3 to a comprehensive report. As
we move forward into the next industrial revolution from the current one termed industry 4.0, the
advances in technology this brings are being heralded as the most profound ever. So, how is it
possible that up to 50% of the worlds population are facing poverty, (see references 1.13.3 the
World Bank report). Why is this happening when there are well funded administrations like the UN
tasked with eradicating this imbalance? According to a press release in 2018 by the World bank,
“almost half the world’s population...still struggles to meet basic needs”.

REFERENCES (1.13.3)
UN Global Compact Progress Report 2020: “Uniting business in the decade of action, building on
20 years of progress.” PDF report downloaded 26 June 2020. Prepared by DNV GL. Steering
committee, Lose Kingo, Remi Eriksen, Ulrike Haugen.
“Nearly half the world lives on less than $5.50 a day”, press release by the world bank,
Washington, 17 October 2018 (retrieved 02 July 2020).

1.14 IMAGINATION SENSE AND TIME

For the sake of the reader’s and researcher’s wellbeing, I will refrain, for the time being, from
further discussions about Armageddon, the term used in theology to refer to the end of the world,
and return to my discussion on the subject of imagination. To discover more from this section we
will try to answer the following question. What makes individual spacetime unique to the
individual? Initial analysis hints at another sense in addition to the accepted physical senses. Some
refer to this as a sixth sense. I propose that it is linked to time. Time is considered in the scientific
community as ‘the fourth dimension’. Picture my favourite object once again, the blue cone. When
looking at a drawing of the cone we see it in two dimensions. When looking at the physical object,
we see it in three dimensions, and as I explained previously the cone appears differently, depending
on the angle you look at it. All of the three dimensions, (3D) make up the space. Now add the fourth
dimension (4D) and it is possible to think that a discrepancy may take place between the common
spacetime we experience together and the individual spacetime we experience as uniqueness.

In section 1.0, I first mentioned Sir Isaac Newton and his influence on philosophy and physics, or
natural philosophy. Newton is credited with starting the scientific revolution after publishing the
Mathematical Principals of Natural Philosophy, (1687), containing theories on the laws of motion
and universal gravity. Another great thinker, Albert Einstein (1879-1955), developed the theory of
relativity and calculus further, which has allowed us to define the world of uncertainty with better
understanding. If the reader and researcher wishes to refute my interpretation of space, time, sense
and imagination, you will need to prove that the present exists the same way to everybody at exactly
the same time. You also need to provide evidence to at least indicate that we experience reality in
the same way at exactly the same instant. For example, imagine the difficulty of doing this if you
are comparing yourself with a person in a coma. How do we know how the mind of a person in a
coma is reacting to the forward incremental progression we call the movement of time. Surely, to
this person who is clinically unconscious, time has no relevance. Which is the same as we
experience within a dream when we have no perception of time. Consider this, the next moment you
look at the sun, remember that you are witnessing a star that is already eight minutes old. This is the
length of time scientists have calculated it takes for the speed of light to reach the earth. Then
consider other stars that are so far away they may actually have died, but the light particles are still
penetrating the earths atmosphere. So it is possible to see something that is already dead. Consider
also that because of the curvature of the earth a person at the equator will see the sun before
somebody at the North Pole. Admittedly this difference in time is imperceptible to the human mind.
Yet it does not alter the fact that they are not seeing the sun at the same time. Hence they are not
experiencing the present in the same way. Is the person at the North Pole experiencing the past or is
the person at the equator experiencing the future? Relative to one another the answer is yes either
way. Additionally, if the time has changed, the sun will not be in exactly the same position relative
to the earth. It will occupy a different space. Once again this will only be perceptible to the most
sensitive instruments, but it is a fact that the spacetime has changed. Therefore one can easily
imagine that each person has an individual spacetime and it is independent of every other person’s.
However, I am faced with a problem. My example makes it difficult to explain the existence of
common spacetime without using the phrase “relative to”. Hence, having to explain Einstein’s
theory of relativity which is too complex to be contained within the scope of this book. To explain
this phenomena in simple terms it is necessary for me to temporarily remove humans from the
scenario. Picture the people in the room I mentioned previously. Imagine that they all leave and the
blue cone is on the table. A pure example of common spacetime is that the four dimensions of the
cone remain alone in the room, at a certain time. Now ask two people to enter the windowless room,
one is deaf and one is blind. Suddenly outside the sound of distant thunder can be heard. The deaf
person can see the cone but is unable to hear the thunder. The blind person is able to hear the
thunder but is not able to see the cone. They are sharing common spacetime, and experiencing
individual spacetime. Both at the same time, is this possible? The question forces me to propose that
humans are unable to sense common spacetime, and that it exists in the absence of us and/or our
sensory awareness. This theory creates doubt as to the existence of the present. Faced with the
above explanation, it would be easier for me to explain to the reader and researcher that I am certain
that the past exists, because I know my family history. Also, I am certain that the future exists
because I know that I will wake up every morning after a nights sleep. But, I am unsure of the
present. Beside the fact that I am writing this essay now, I am unable to say with certainty that my
work colleague is also writing at the present time. Why? Because it is possible that the delay in
thinking and writing between the two of us is not the same. If the present applies only to the time of
the day, for example today at 15:17:22, I wrote this word. Now, twenty two seconds does not define
the time precisely. That is why we talk of nano-seconds and other even smaller units of time. In fact
there is no limit to the number of decimal places in a second. It is infinite. Therefore, I challenge the
reader and researcher to prove that we are both in the same present time measured to the second
with a billion decimal places. Even using the most sophisticated atomic clock, this exercise is
impossible, hence we must agree that there is uncertainty as to whether my present and your present
are identical. If this is true, and none of us share the same present, then there is a valid reasoning for
the existence of individual spacetime. As two people will not ever be experiencing the same
spacetime and therefore have different perspectives of past, present and future. My concluding
argument is that we are truly all individuals, whether it is mentally or physically, so it is
understandable why we choose individualism as a last resort when faced with overwhelming
uncertainty.

REFERENCES (1.14)
Harrow, Benjamin 1920: From Newton to Einstein. Changing perceptions of the universe. D. van
Nostrand Company, New York.

1.15 THE UNCERTAINTY OF UNIVERSAL SPACETIME

Maybe it would be easier to ignore sciences like nanotechnology and accept that we all live together
on earth with universal spacetime as our point of reference. For the sake of conformity this is in fact
what we do. It is what keeps all of the aircraft flying around the globe from crashing into one
another. It also allowed us to conduct the first successful manned moon landing in 1969. Yet it also
reinforces the proposal I made of an individual spacetime. If individual spacetime has no physical
property and exists only in the mind of the individual, there will be no visible effect on another
object. Therefore, it will have no relevance, in the hypothesis of the human version of a physically
uniform, universal spacetime. When we experience olfactory, auditory or any other sensation and it
reminds us of something from the past, our individual spacetime time has altered, but this has no
effect on universal spacetime. You may rightly argue that this is because our memory belongs in the
past and does not alter what is happening at the present. It seems to me as though we must have
something intangible, a direct psychic link perhaps, to be able to synchronise our experience with
that of another person. There are people who claim to be able to do this using extra sensory
perception. This indicates to me that we are aware of a lack of conscious synchronicity. That there is
a sub-conscious awareness and we are justified in looking for its existence. Scientists have
conducted experiments on twins to determine if they are able to communicate telepathically. So, it
appears that our inherent need to understand the unknown and the quest for knowledge is insatiable.
The more I explore this quest, the more I realise our inability to answer life’s questions with one
hundred percent certainty. I find this indicative of a natural tendency for us to adopt philosophical
critique when science, technology, engineering and mathematics fail to provide definitive answers.
So I am now able to explain to the psychiatrist that I am not surprised no one else experiences the
person who speaks only to me. That I feel it is perfectly normal not to experience what I can. My
reason is that our individual spacetime is not in synchronisation and exists only to the individual.
Maybe the hallucination will appear to both of us, only when our individual spacetime
synchronises. If so, there is no justification in calling it an hallucination. Common spacetime exists
because we share the same consulting room, the chairs and the tables and universal spacetime exists
because we have arranged to meet on a certain date at a certain time. Where is the abnormality in
this situation? Is it possible that most humans live in denial. Is it our need for mental harmony, that
robs us of the realisation that we co-exist in a world of uncertainty. Without uncertainty is it even
possible to begin to analyse and to understand the world of certainty? In the same way, that without
experiencing happiness, how would we know when we are sad. Henceforth, I propose that
uncertainty is a valid component, something which has meaning and is essential to life as we know
it. Now that I have recognised uncertainty as something that is real and has substance, the reader
and researcher would be justified in asking if it can be quantified. How much of our lives can be
described as certain? Consider the saying, the only certainty in life, is death. This is true, but there
must be other things that are also certain. Yes there is and I am able to say that the following may
now be regarded as a truism, this fact is that ‘uncertainty is certain’. Richard P. Feynman, (1918 -
1988). Nobel prize winner for physics, (1965), made his own conclusion on the topic, saying that,
“Scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty”. In other words, anyone
can lose themselves in the world of science fiction, just by pushing the boundaries of science fact.

REFERENCES (1.15)
1969 Moon landing, history.com editors, original publication 23 August 2018, (accessed 24 July
2020), A&E Television Networks.
Feynman, P. Richard 1985: “Surely You’re joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a curious
character. W.W.Norton company.

1.16 ON TIME KNOWLEDGE SENSE AND PERCEPTION

Have you noticed that when we are faced with a frightening situation, time seems to stand still? Am
I to be ridiculed if I believe that the mind is able to slow time in the event of danger. Upon analysis
it is simple to assume that our thoughts become sharper in order to allow us more time to access the
situation. This phenomenon may be automatically triggered for the sake of self-preservation. Once
the danger has passed we may then revert back to universal standard time. However, it is also
feasible that we actually feel that time is speeding up. The reader and researcher with a knowledge
of physiology may argue that, it is the body's reaction to fear that releases adrenaline and has
nothing to do with time at all. Regardless of the reasoning, one is still faced with a contradiction.
Does the perception of time slow down or speed up? This perception is real to the person and by
definition must therefore exist. Hence, I acknowledge that individual spacetime does exist and that I
am able to control time, albeit within the context of my own mind. If this is indeed possible, it may
be natural for us to sense events from other times. Using my previous example of the light from the
sun, to change time is also tantamount to changing space. If the reader and researcher thinks there is
even a remote possibility that this is true, one will have to question whether there is such a thing as
a hallucination. The imagery depicted in the paintings of Dali (1904-1989), and Picasso
(1881-1973), are defined as surrealism. Yet the paintings exist, many people have visited art
galleries and seen them. This presents the philosopher with a dilemma. Does the imagination of one
person become real if others can see it? If so, is it sensible to believe that the imagination was real
in the first instance. Notice that I refer to ‘the imagination’ as though it is a tangible thing. This
leads me to consider the relationship between ideas, imagination and the mind. George Berkeley
(1710), considered this relationship and concluded that one cannot exist without the other. This
basic assumption may be applied to everything I have written about thus far. Consider that the ideas
I have proposed only exist when someone is reading about them. If I do not show this essay to
anyone and put it in the cupboard with the cone, there is no mind to make the ideas exist. Obviously
this is a fallacy because they still exist in my own mind and on paper. The principal that something
exists only in the minds of people and God, is easy to discredit, yet it was held to be true by
Berkeley and the philosophers of the day. Kant (1724-1804), regarded as a pioneer of idealism, also
believed that things, such as objects in space and time, only exist essentially in our own minds. I am
unable to agree and the doctrine has been discredited by many others. For example, I do not know
you, (the reader and researcher), but I know if you are reading this work, you must exist. I have
included this to emphasis that the contents of this essay are not to be taken on face value, and
should be subjected to the same critical analysis. Returning to the example where someone hears
voices others cannot hear, The person knows that they exist, not because they are just an idea in my
mind but because they are acquainted with them. Russell calls this ‘knowledge by acquaintance’. As
opposed to ‘knowledge by description’, which you the reader and researcher use to describe my
blue cone. You have never seen it, you know what it looks like, but this does not automatically
indicate that it exists outside of my imagination.

REFERENCES (1.16)
Definition surrealism, http://www.britannica.com/art/Surrealism. Accessed 23 July 2020.
Berkeley, George 1710: A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge. Part 1. Dublin.

1.16.1 FEAR UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT

There is no doubt that people experience uncertainty, because sometimes this causes
distress. Distress is a mental emotion and the physical manifestations of it, such as a raised body
temperature that causes sweating, a raised heart beat that may cause palpitations, are real to the
person. Also, these effects can be measured, or quantified. This raises the question. If the effects are
real, is the cause also real? These effects can be described as Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, known
by the acronym FUD. By definition this reaction may also be described as the ‘acquisition of
knowledge’ and therefore must provide proof as to their existence. To refute this statement, one
would have to believe that the imagination does not exist. In so doing one would have to believe it
is possible that I do not exist. Obviously this is untrue, otherwise how would I have been able to
write this work. Let us apply the observation made by Russell (1912), in the problems with
philosophy. To be directly aware of something is to be acquainted with it. Hence, the spoken words
I hear, directly appeal to my sense of hearing. This in the same way stimulates my consciousness in
a similar way that the cone looks blue. However, the blue cone always exacts the same reaction to
me. Whereas voices produce different reactions every time I hear them. Now imagine that
suddenly, the light bulb in the room fails and I have to replace it. The new light bulb is much whiter
in contrast to the previous one. All of a sudden, I see the blue cone differently. How is this possible?
Blue is blue. I hold up a piece of tracing paper to the light bulb and my perception of blue has
changed again. The philosophical realisation of my experience and everything I have written so far
is thrown into doubt. However, after allowing myself to reflect on this new found knowledge, it
actually reinforces my propositions and theories. Our perceptions are linked to the sense data,
proposed by Russell. The data is acquired through our senses and we receive this data from the
object. As the data changes, so too does our perception of the object. Then it must make practical
sense that the uniqueness that defines us as individuals is a result of all the information we acquire,
from our senses on a daily basis. This explains why people from different backgrounds and
geographical locations have differing individual beliefs

1.17 THE PARADOX OF SELF-CONTRADICTION

Many years ago, Voltaire wrote that “the world can exist only by contradictions”. He also declares
that animals never vary their opinions, unlike humans, who as I have explained vary their
preferences according to the information we receive. If contradiction is such an integral part of our
lives, it follows that the word Paradox must be the most essential word in the scientists and
philosophers vocabulary. The world of theories and postulates demands answers from extraordinary
circumstances. We have all worked with paradoxes, yet it is probably also the most misunderstood
word in the scientists and philosophers vocabulary. There is a valid reason for this. The word is a
contradiction unto itself. We are unable to even define it without including some incongruities. If I
was to define a paradox as placing something in front of a mirror and reversing the image, I would
not be far off. Take the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) for example.

Paradox A - a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated

may prove to be well founded or true.”

Paradox B - a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from
acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.”

The definitions actually contradict one another. One could easily be excused for saying, the theory
of Science and Philosophy is the art of manipulating words. This makes me consider that the field
of science and philosophy is also wide open to speculation and conjecture. Which is not a bad thing
at all. It is probably what makes the fields a magnet for lateral thinkers. Am I correct in my own
thinking though? Do the definitions really contradict each other? In Mathematics 4 + (-4) = 0. So,
would I be correct in assuming that the two opposites of contradiction cancel one another out,
leaving neutrality. Notice that definition A includes the term may prove, which also means it might
not prove and definition B contains the term that seems, which means it is possible it may not give
the appearance of. These are vague terms, which indicates to me that the definitions of paradox are
not assured and must be taken on merit and that they are also unique to every situation in which
they are encountered. Let’s start to break the definitions down into parts that are more
understandable shall we. Firstly, I need to come up with a statement that is absurd but well founded
or true. Secondly, I have to come up with a well founded sound statement that is absurd. I know, it’s
paradoxical, but that is science and philosophy for you. During the coronavirus pandemic countries
have been using an enormous amount of resources into managing the spread of the virus. They are
also putting much effort into eradicating the spread of false information on social media. Herewith
are two of the claims and although they may seem ludicrous, when investigated may prove to be
well founded or true. Which is the same as definition ‘Paradox A’, determined by the OED.

Examples of paradox A.
Claim A1: Pregnant women are more susceptible to catching the COVID-19 virus. It seems absurd
to believe this. However, based on other substantiated evidence, the susceptibility of pregnant
women to viral respiratory infections is actually true. This was determined by the data evidence of
other infections such as the coronavirus SARS outbreak. (Source: WHO).

Claim A2: Increasing the amount of baths and showers, helps to stop the spread of the virus. This is
another story on social media that at first glance seems preposterous. Yet it is based on fact. The
virus lives on most surfaces for quite a while, depending on the structure and material. Therefore, it
stands to reason that constant cleansing and washing is effective in combating the virus spread.
(Source: WHO). There have also been claims that men are more at risk than women. In my opinion
this may be because women generally pay more attention to their personal hygiene than men.
Although, the reports mention that women have stronger immune systems, are more likely to follow
social distancing and take symptom more seriously, (healthline.com).

Alternatively, herewith are two more of the claims and although they may seem true and well
founded, when investigated have been proven to be unsubstantiated. Which is the same as definition
‘Paradox B’ determined by the OED.

Examples of paradox B.
Claim B1: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) strain was made by humans in a laboratory. This
seems to be a feasible explanation, given that the virus is unpredictable and like nothing else most
people have ever known in their lifetime. Additionally, COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan
province of China. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been researching the origin of the SARS
virus there as long ago as 2005, when they published a report on their findings. The institute has
identified bats as a potential source of the virus. China introduced the one-child policy in 1980,
named the family planning policy it limited each family unit to one baby. This controversial policy
was rescinded in 2015, but it indicates that China is capable of extreme measures. Even though
there seems to be valid reasoning for China to release the strain, accidentally or intentionally, there
is no evidence or credibility in this accusation. Researchers are working feverishly to determine
which animal actually transmitted the disease, but the consensus of opinion is that it was also at
certainly from bats. This information was supplied by the WHO in a scientific brief of 09 July 2020,
entitled “what is the connection between COVID19 and animals?”

Claim B2: There have been recorded cases of COVID-19 being transmitted to owners pets,
particularly cats and dogs. Although the previous claim admits that the virus was transmitted from
animal to human. It therefore seems logical to presume that it will be transmitted the other way,
from human to animal. The WHO confirm (as at 24 July 2020) that COVID19 is “spread through
human-to-human transmission.” However, they do admit that several cats and dogs have tested
positive as well as ferrets. Although, there is no evidence that these animals can retransmit the virus.
See the WHO Q&A, “can I catch COVID19 from my pet and other animals”. So this claim has the
dubious honour of falling within the definition of Paradox A and B. It is an unsubstantiated claim
either for or against the proposition. This ability for a claim to be unproven as true or false is an
indication of how fragile our interpretation of the facts can be. For instance the media have been
promoting the claim that the virus is “airborne”. The general public are obviously very concerned
by this allegation. However, by referencing the true connotations under the WHO Scientific brief,
“COVID19 implications for infectious diseases”, of 09 July 2020, a different explanation is
forthcoming. The airborne transmission only applies to hospital operating theatres, described as
“airborne transmission can occur during medical procedures that generate aerosols, (aerosol
generating procedures)”. Additionally, in crowded places with poor, inadequate ventilation a long
and concentrated exposure presents a risk of infection. This is hardly the doomsday scenario
presented in news headlines such as the USA today article published 06 July 2020, (accessed 24
July 2020), entitled “Coronavirus spreads by airborne transmission, experts say”. It should be
noted that the article itself does explain the nuances associated with the claim. However, having
spoken to many people, the understanding of airborne is that it can be carried by the wind to far
reaching places, which is not the case.
REFERENCES (1.17)
Arouet, Francois-Marie (1764): Voltaire’s philosophical dictionary portatif. French. Carlton House.
New York. Edition undated. (Retrieved 15 June 2020, project Gutenberg).
World Health Organisation WHO, Q&A on Coronaviruses (COVID19), from the official website
www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-Coronavirus-2019. Accessed 24 July 2020.
Oxford English Dictionary OED, definitions, “paradox”, accessed 26 June 2020.
Curley, Bob: Article, “Why COVID19 is hitting men harder than women”, fact checked by Maria
Gifford, healthline media, 12 May 2020, (accessed 10 August 2020).

1.17.1 THE PARADOX OF SELECTIVE EXISTENCE

The problem it seems, is that we take too many things for granted without paying enough
attention to the fine details. Although, researchers become more inquisitive and demanding of the
facts. Yet, once again it depends on the time each of us has to devote to the tasks we are allocated.
The research scientist, the CEO of a large corporation and the leader of a country have different
priorities. Each individual can only consider so much information and rely on others for the rest, as
we can only remember a certain amount of information. Let’s assume for now that we acknowledge
time can only possibly exist in the present, and that we know past or future time is not a reality. We
know this without giving it any thought or due consideration. Yet to learn, or acquire knowledge,
we have to utilise our memory. Recollection is a past memory. When we hear a voice we know we
automatically recognise it. As a child I remember playing outside and being called to come inside
for dinner. I recognised the voice of my mother at the time and that dinner is a meal. Russell (1910),
described the past knowledge of my mother’s voice as ‘knowledge by acquaintance’, because of my
personal relationship to my mother. The past knowledge of the food is described as, ‘knowledge by
description’, because although I know what dinner is, I don’t actually know what’s for dinner. To
dismiss this, is to infer that the memory of my mother’s voice is not real and if that is the truth, then
we must believe that there is no past. If there is no past. Or if we are not able to remember any of
our past knowledge, we are unable to function, as everything would exist only in the present. I
would not be able to write, because I would not remember how to do so. Conversation would not be
possible because we would not know any words. Is it feasible to assume that for the sake of your
own existence, someone who hears voices others do not, not only has to believe that the voices are
real, but also that they know them by acquaintance. Is this why the psychiatrist is insistent on
knowing who the voices are by name? Is it correct to say that by recognising the voices and giving
them names, is to admit that you are acquainted with them. Yet to do this is to confirm a lack of
reality to the psychiatrist. I have mentioned this paradox before, between the need to believe in
existence only when it is suitable to do so, for the convenience of our understanding. Henceforth, I
shall refer to this as the “paradox of selective existence.” To explain the paradox I will refer to the
definition of paradox from the OED, that no matter how ridiculous the proposal or theory is, it turns
out to be true. (See 1.17A). For example, although my blue cone changes colour according to the
type of light, it is invisible to the blind person and also to me when the light fails. To say that the
cone disappears when the light is switched off is apparently sound reasoning. But if I touch the cone
in the dark it is still there. So to say that the cone disappears when the light does, is to insinuate that
it no longer exists. Which is logically unacceptable because I am able to feel it in the dark.
Returning once again to the example I posed earlier on auditory hallucinations. If I suggest that the
voices change their tone, or attitude from happiness to anger or speak in another language, we are
still expected to believe that they do not exist. This proposition, although being apparently sound, or
from acceptable premises is self-contradictory, because how can we be expected to believe the
voices exist if they are only imagined. Additionally, in order for x to know the voices, it follows that
the voices must know x. Once I accept this as true, any conversations that we have must also be
deemed to be true. The “paradox of selective existence” describes this as, believing in something
when it is convenient for the sake of understanding, but in so doing, it requires the person to deny
that something else exists. Or to describe it another way. Denying that something exists to the
detriment of something else, so as to justify a personal belief. Robert Burns, the famous Scottish
poet and bard, summed up the paradox of selective existence in his quote, “there is no such
uncertainty as a sure thing”. I propose this paradox using my own research and studies, and to
uphold my proposition, there is no reason why you cannot contradict my suggestion with your own.
You see, by critically disputing the paradox of selective existence, you will in fact be reinforcing it.
Try it and you will understand what I am initiating with my reasoning.

REFERENCES
National Library of Scotland, digital archives, Robert Burns (1759-1796). Accessed 24 July 2020.

1.17.2 THE PARADOX OF OBJECTIVE REALITY

Objective reality, as I present it, is to use factual information or information truthfully as a
means to prove something is real. The paradox of objective reality is considered in the definition, “a
sound statement that leads to a contradiction”. (See 1.17B). Therefore, the paradox is the use of
true facts in good faith to promote a proposal, but in so doing inadvertently proves the unreality of
the proposition. The paradox is also meant to instigate a counter-intuitive study into the paradox of
selective existence. By this I mean that while we all agree a premise requires evidence to dispute it,
I am suggesting that a paradox requires another paradox of opposing theory to reinforce it. Let’s
revisit the claim B1, that the coronavirus (COVID-19) comes from a laboratory. Kristian Andersen,
an associate professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research and his colleagues
have determined that the spike proteins were the result of natural selection and not genetic
engineering or modification (GM). Even given this scientific information, the US president Donald
J. Trump insists he has seen evidence to the contrary. The WHO has also determined that from all
the available evidence the virus is naturally occurring, and there is no suggestion of it being a
manufactured virus. First impressions seem to indicate that Mr Trump is in denial. Once again he
has made accusations without the burden of proof. (See 1.7). Is the president spreading false
information? If so for what purpose. When asked to substantiate the claim, Mr Trump does not
provide us with a credible source. Could he be guessing? Whatever the reason, this type of rhetoric
from a key world leader can only result in the loss of credibility unless it is given in good faith.
Whatever the truth, the president has provided me with an example of the paradox of objective
reality. Let us assume that Mr Trump has seen evidence and is making the accusation in good faith.
That it is a sound statement, we would have to then agree. The proposal is that the virus comes from
Wuhan, which is true. That it was engineered is not true. That the Wuhan Institute of Virology has
been working on a similar virus for years is true. The paradox is that someone must be presenting
the information objectively and factually but the reality of the situation is one of subjectivity, hence
the truth is presented selectively. The term the media uses to describe a politician who intentionally
presents information in this way is a spin doctor. The term I would use to describe a politician who
presents information this way without doing so intentionally is extraordinary, to say the least.

REFERENCES (1.17.2)
Bryner, Jeanna: Article: “The coronavirus was not engineered in a lab. Here’s how we know” 21
March 2020. Live science editor-in-chief, (retrieved 17 June 2020).
Trump, J. Donald: The White House press event, Friday 1 May 2020. Published on the White House
website, (retrieved 17 June 2020).

1.18 ARISTOTLE ON PHYSICS AND ETHICS

It is not my intention to single out psychiatry as an unethical profession, but in my opinion the
science behind psychiatry is too vague and erroneous to warrant the power over humanity it holds.
The paradoxes I propose can be applied equally to any profession. In fact, there is an example so
blatantly obvious it would be inconsiderate of me not to mention it. The world of quantum
mechanics, also known as quantum physics deals with the scientific aspects of nature from the
ordinary macroscopic scale, that we see with the naked eye, to the sub-atomic microscopic level. In
fact physics has in many ways evolved from Ancient Greek philosophy. Before Socrates, Thales of
Miletus is credited with stating that, “every event has a natural cause”. Aristotle, (fourth century
BC), wrote in his famous work Metaphysics, that sciences are either productive, practical or
theoretical. He proposed that Physics is a superior science because it is theoretical and is concerned
with natural things of the first order and thus define reality more closely than the others. In fact
Physics was initially termed the science of natural philosophy. However, it is Aristotle who is first
credited with defining physics as a theoretical science in its own right. Aristotelian Physics in
particular, still holds a fascination for philosophers as it is concerned with the study of nature. There
is much speculation and disagreement over Aristotle’s works, but there is no doubt as to the
connection between science, nature and philosophy. Aristotle probably laid the foundation for
modern applied ethics. In his seminal work, the Ethics of Aristotle, we learn that ethics
concerns,“the philosophy of human affairs”, and covers a diverse range of subject matter, including
political and social sciences. Being one half of a single treatise, with politics the other half.
Therefore, reinforcing my notion that politics is the most influential source of knowledge and power
to the national and international community. Aristotle expounds upon us that knowledge on its own
does not allow us to be virtuous or good. There is a clear requirement for the rule of law. What is
interesting, is that although the treatise was written so many years ago, the merit of the content is
still relevant today. In the same way, this book can advise, but it cannot implement the good conduct
it sets out to promote. That at some point we rely on the political community, government or state
for assistance. This assistance takes the role of policing and punishment. However does being the
good citizen Aristotle teaches us about, still ring true in the world. It is hard to lead a life upholding
strong virtues under a government accused and found guilty of corruption. Again, I have found the
need to explain this phenomenon whereby the citizen feels it is right to copy the wrongdoings of
those who are entrusted with the leadership responsibility of our corporations and country. Not only
that but if one person does wrong, and your neighbour is not paying their way, it is easy to sign up
to the doctrine, “everybody is doing it”. Hence, Aristotle draws a similarity between the state leader
and the individual citizen. That the law of the land applies to all, whether one is part of the
government or part of a family. He comments further that moral philosophy in its theoretical form is
of no use to anyone unless it is applied. This is where we reach the pinnacle of our discussion, in the
search for people who govern using APPLIED ETHICS. Foremost, to find the leadership quality of
an applied ethicist in someone, it is that qualitative value called moral experience that matters. That
is, the actual practice and implementation of good character. This is not only an interesting concept,
but a necessary one and one that is worthy of further consideration. As the reader of this book, you
have enough material for your perusal, on the theory of ethics. However it is useless and holds no
benefit for the individual unless the theory is put into practice. This includes personally following
the doctrine presented by Aristotle. So, on concluding, one can be a good citizen, even amongst
those who do not feel obliged to be moral. Or alternatively, this may be explained as understanding
that there is no credible argument to adopting a careless attitude when any of us can practice ethics
just by being in possession of the necessary skills. For example, since the London Congestion
Charge Zone (CCZ), was set up on 17 February 2003, by Transport for London (TfL), many foreign
embassy staff have evaded the daily payment charge under diplomatic immunity. As ordinary
citizens we are obliged to pay and will be fined if we fail to do so. The argument, “well others are
getting away with it”, will not give us immunity from payment. Notwithstanding, it is unfair that we
have to pay whilst diplomats flaunt the law. It is very easy to abandon our ‘good citizen’, moral
code in this situation. However to do so will incentivise others not to pay. At some point there will
not be enough money to administer the zone, which is allegedly used to promote social and
environmental responsibility. Some argue that the zone is a money-making scene devised to fill the
coffers of the City of London. Once again, on an individual basis, being a good citizen means
behaving in a responsible manner, which by definition means following the rules and regulations so
that all citizens can enjoy the same benefits from society. Whether or not the state has the best
interests of the citizen at the forefront of their own ethical conduct is a contentious issue. Afterall, it
is one thing to be a model citizen and another to be good just for the sake of not being punished. It
seems that the law, politics and ethics will always be synonymous with injustice and not the
wonderful world of co-operation and equality Aristotle would like it to be.

REFERENCES (1.18)
Wharton, Jane: Article, “Foreign diplomats owe UK more than £116,000,000 in unpaid congestion
charge fees”. The Metro newspaper, 9 May 2019, (retrieved 24 June 2020).
Aristotle. A treatise on Ethics. Greek, translated as ‘the ethics of Aristotle’ by J.A.Smith. (Retrieved
24 June 2020, project Gutenberg).

1.18.1 CONTRADICTING PHYSICS

Previously, I mentioned that two objects cannot take up the same space. Yet in quantum
physics a phenomenon called quantum entanglement has been identified, whereby particles can
share the same proximity. The world of quantum physics is full of paradoxes and so complex, a full
description is best omitted from the scope of this work. Basically, there is so much we are unable to
prove in physics, but in order to move forward with further theories, one must either ignore or
accept these theories as unproven and that they are merely stepping stones on the path to greater
discoveries. (See the physicist Feynman and Heinsenberg on uncertainty). It is not surprising to me
that astronomy had a huge influence prior to quantum and particle physics. The ancients would look
up at the night sky in awe and wonder about the existence of the moon and the stars. I wonder if
they knew that the mechanics of the universe seem to follow a different set of rules to that on earth.
Much of what we have learnt about the cosmos has been because of space exploration, either with
telescopes or by sending out probes. Things react differently outside of Earth. The most obvious is
weightlessness. One thing that is a common feature is universal gravity. All celestial bodies seem to
exhibit this force and one simple equation from Newton defines it. Yet physicists are still unable to
explain what causes gravity on earth. There are many scientific theories that all lack the burden of
proof. Physics is based mostly on a priori knowledge, and is studied in the same way we analyse
and consider philosophy. This being the case, the question arises, am I able to provide enough
evidence from unsubstantiated knowledge to reinforce my proposal the paradox of selective
existence? I will explain further. We know that an invisible force called gravity exists, just by
releasing an object and watching it fall to the floor. We know that gravitational attraction occurs
outside of the earth’s atmosphere. We know that it gets weaker, the further away we are from the
planets and stars. It seems inexplicable at first, that for the sake of believing in something else, such
as the nature of the universe, physicists will need to ignore that gravity does follow the same set of
rules in space. Although, scientists do propose that space is not actually a vacuum, i.e. it is not
vacant at all. Even though we are taught, using a simple bell jar experiment, that sound does not
travel in a vacuum. We were also taught that a vacuum is the absence of everything. The absence of
everything implies the presence of nothing. (See 1.2). Scientists propose that outer space, those
areas between celestial bodies, contain low density energy made up of hydrogen and helium plasma.
Electromagnetic force also seems to exert it’s influence in space. Light from the sun travels through
this void and reaches us, supposedly as waveforms of photon particles and can be bent due to
gravity. It soon becomes apparent that there is a awful lot of thing’s happening in this ‘empty
space’. Notice that in order to put forward a notion of something we do not understand, we
immediately come across things we have to deny the existence of. Otherwise we are unable to
justify our reasoning. In the same way the philosophy of everything must contain paradoxes. Like
accepting that nothing exists. I have already mentioned that for me to prove certainty, I need to
disprove uncertainty. Therefore, we must doubt ourselves in order to prove our belief in existence.
After much deliberation I concur with Descartes on his doctrine Cognito Ergo Sum, I think
therefore I am. By analysing all of the workings and mechanics of the world dubiously, one will
ultimately realise one’s own existence, but not the meaning of our existence, this we will need to
ignore for the sake of our existence. This is the paradox of selective existence in natural
philosophical terms, or physics.

1.19 LESSONS FROM DECISIVE THINKERS

Decisive thinking requires a number of qualities, which when used individually or together, allows
a person to make decisions effectively. The true value of this quality only normally becomes
apparent during a crisis. It infers firmness, but does not necessarily imply unfairness. To be decisive
is to be positive. Therefore, the decisive leader is an optimist and will normally look for the best of
a worst case scenario. We call these people influential and their communities will consider them to
be great leaders. However, this does not differentiate between good and bad intentions. The scope of
this work is concerned only with leaders who have contributed to the benefit of the others. I have
dedicated this work to those who have proved to be decisive leaders, which is of course subjective
and is open to discussion, depending on an individual’s preferences, bias and prejudices. As a rule, a
great leader is considered to have benefited the majority, but it is accepted that they will never
satisfy everyone. Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865), the 16th president of the United States, was
arguably, such a leader. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, banning slavery.
However, his intentions and personal justification was not for the freedom of the slaves, but for the
preservation of the Union. Lincoln (1862), wrote a letter to the New York Tribune, outlining his
personal obligations. In the letter he specifically stated, “if I could save the Union without freeing
any slave I would do it......”. Although, after liberating the slaves he enlisted them into the Union
armies to fight in the American War of Independence, which lasted from 1861-1865. The fact still
remains that they were now free and without the decisiveness of Lincoln, we will never know how
long it would have taken to repeal the slavery act. So, Lincoln was without doubt a decisive thinker,
but this does not automatically identify him as a moral leader.

In 1.3.4, I discussed Nelson Mandela, the first African born president to represent South Africa after
the end of white Apartheid rule in 1994. Mandela had an enormous task ahead of him. Other
African countries that had gained their independence from colonial rule had not faired very well.
There was always a chance of civil war breaking out. However, thanks to the extraordinary
decisiveness of Mandela, large scale bloodshed was averted. The president made a point of
reassuring the white population that they would not be avenged for the wrongs of Apartheid. The
defining moment was on 24 June 1995 when South Africa won the rugby World Cup in
Johannesburg. Wearing a springbok jersey, and cap, the emblem of white dominated South African
rugby, Mandela stood side by side, with the team captain Francois Pienaar as they raised the Webb
Ellis Trophy for the first time. Not only did this promote peace. These actions, in my opinion,
assisted South Africa to help develop and implement policies as an Emerging Market. In an
environment where international influence plays such a crucial role. The importance of
International relationships and the impact they have on the domestic and national economics of the
country, cannot be underestimated. Afterall, the state of the economy has the most impact on the
livelihood of the citizens, which in turn affects the wellbeing of the population.

In this section I have deliberately chosen two famous figures, Abraham Lincoln who, according to
historians took decisive action on the slavery act, allowing freedom for all, but only as a means to
create the Union. The Union during the American civil war, which was also known as the United
States of America, was also referred to as the ‘North’. (See also north/south divide 2.18). Mandela
who was prepared to face the death penalty at the Rivonia trial of 1963/4 and was imprisoned for 27
years, for the sake of freedom for all. At the end of his very lengthly statement at the trial, he makes
a final comment about the liberation struggle for freedom from Apartheid, “it is an ideal for which I
am prepared to die.” Lincoln did lose his life due to an assassination, so one may argue that he paid
the ultimate price for his beliefs. Which one is the most honourable or were they both equally of
sound moral character? I encourage the reader and researcher to adopt their own opinion on what
makes a decisive or a great leader. Your choice will depend on your individual beliefs.

REFERENCES (1.19)
Lincoln, Abraham (1862): New York Tribune, letter published 22 August 1862, editor in chief,
Horace Greeley. This day in history, A&E television networks (accessed 1 June 2020).
Lincoln, Abraham (1844): The writings of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1843. Volume one. (Retrieved
project Gutenberg 5 June 2020).
Broun, Kenneth (2012): Saving Nelson Mandela: The Rivonia trial and the fate of South Africa.
Oxford University Press.
Mandela, Nelson (20 April 1964): Statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the
Rivonia Trial. Palace of Justice, Pretoria Supreme Court, Pretoria, South Africa.
Mandela, Nelson (1994): Long walk to freedom. Little Brown & Co.

1.19.1 FEYNMAN ON UNCERTAINTY

During one of his lectures the eminent physicist Richard P. Feynman (1955), stated, “I think
that when we know that we actually do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it”. I concur with
this observation and as a result, I admit that uncertainty does exist. Feynman went on to mention
that a student must develop an “attitude of mind” . The attitude he was referring to is, the one of
uncertainty. That it is important to realise we do not have all of the answers to all of the questions.
Although Feynman believed this to be a vital attitude for the successful scientist, I insist that it is
applied to all aspects of academia. From an early age a person should be encouraged to question
everything. Although anyone with children who ask questions continually might disagree! It was
the Ancient Greek tragedian Euripides, (480-406BC) who is credited with the first reference to free
thought in one of his plays. “Question everything, learn something, answer nothing”. Given that
Euripides is famous for his comedies, as well as his tragedies, it is unclear if this was said in jest or
in distress. However, the message is clear. By adopting an attitude of mind, the inquisitive will
remain open to conjecture and it is hoped that this will encourage creativity. Which in turn may
result in a breakthrough for the academic establishment. Feynman (1955) noted that to liberate our
thinking requires an “an admission of ignorance”. An acknowledgment that there are many things
we do not know, that we are not infallible. This is the first step towards unblocking the confinement
of intellectual thinking. This self imposed restriction has held us back for a long period of human
history. Feynman also refused to believe the theory that the reason for our existence is on earth
merely as “a stage for God to watch mans struggle for good and evil”. He justified this by also
explaining that scientific views are complex and full of unknowns. I assume from his statement that
he regards theology as a simplistic model, that is is used to answer the questions we do not have
answers for. Or a way of explaining the nature of the universe through storytelling. However, does
the reader realise the inconsistency of his beliefs. Firstly Feynman encourages us to admit
uncertainty and to adopt the attitude of mindfulness, to be open to all propositions. Then, he
disputes a theory which is impossible to disprove with any certainty. However, he does devote a
great deal of time and detail to providing the true reason for our existence on earth. Yet after all of
the analysis Feynman eventually concluded, “nobody ever figures what life is all about, and it
doesn’t matter.” Like Euripides he was well known for his wit and it is uncertain if he was serious,
but I can conclude that he was right.

REFERENCES (1.19.1)
Pomeroy, Ross. Article: “Richard Feynman on how scientists can believe in God”.
RealClearscience.com. Published 10 April 2013. Accessed 25 April 2020.

1.19.2 THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

 Werner Karl Heinsenberg, was a German physicist who like Feynman specialised in
quantum mechanics. Also, like Feynman he soon realised the paradox faced by analytical physicists
and went as far as to name it ‘the uncertainty principal’. Heinsenberg (1927), proposed that, in
nature one cannot assign exactly the same values to two variables, (speed and position), because
these quantities can only be determined using some uncertainties. Here is another example of my
own paradox of selective existence, which may be applied to anything that is not a complete
certainty and relies on the choice of the known over the unknown. The complexity of the principle
is outside the scope of this work. So, basically, what Heinsenberg is telling us, is the same as
Feynman. That to understand some things we have to recognise the existence of uncertainty. In 1.18
I spoke about space and vacuum. What does the uncertainty principle tell us about these areas of
nothingness? Well it is no coincidence that the uncertainty principle is also called the indeterminacy
principle or to describe it in simple terms, the not exactly known principle. I mention this, because
we are unable to determine if space or a vacuum contains nothing, unless it contains something. Let
me explain. If I want to create a vacuum on earth, I need to suck the air out of a container. I am able
to measure this using a pressure gauge, which will indicate a negative reading. Only the walls of the
container are keeping the air from rushing back in. The Earth does not like these differences in
pressure and tries to correct it by pushing air back in, similar to weather fronts which is nature’s
way of finding equilibrium. So, how is it I am reading something from nothingness? Well the
reading does prove that there is something quantifiable in the vacuum. What though is this negative
pressure, which all we know for now is obviously the opposite of blowing? To understand this, you
need to ignore something. Either that there is anything in the container or that there is nothing in the
container. At the extremes the container is either full of air, or it is empty of air. In between,
depending on how long we have been sucking out the air there will be a mixture of fullness and
emptiness. Even though we can read the negative pressure becoming greater, the pressure is actual
decreasing. Hence, it is not possible to know the actual amount of emptiness. This is indeterminacy.

Now consider that the container is made of rubber. As the air is sucked out, the rubber contracts
until the rubber walls meet each other. Now it is safe to say that there is nothing left but the space
the rubber container previously occupied. The space outside the container still exists. So, is it safe
to assume that space cannot be created or destroyed? Yes I would think so. Imagine the Earth
hurtling through the universe, (or space which we once believed to be devoid of everything), at
66,660 miles per hour. I hypothesise that at any single moment the Earth will never occupy the
same space, because it is also rotating while orbiting the sun. Simultaneously the Milky Way, our
galaxy, is spinning around a black hole at its centre and moving as a whole through space, away
from the location of the Big Bang. All of this is happening at an incredible speed. Therefore, it
would be unrealistic to believe that the Earth could ever take up the same space it occupied in the
past. Now, just like our rubber container there are forces acting on the Earth, but instead of air
rushing into the vacuum, gravity is pulling it back. Now how is this possible? Additionally, if I
swing a weight on a string around my head and let it go, centrifugal force will propel it outwards.
Why then do we not fly off into outer space because the Earth is spinning at about 1000 miles per
hour. Again, this must be because of gravity and as I have explained scientists cannot justifiably
explain the cause or existence of gravity. So, to understand space, do we also have to ignore gravity
on Earth, even though the effects are visible to the naked eye. This is my full understanding and
application of the indeterminacy principle. Remember though, it is not an exacting description of
the Heinsenberg uncertainty principle, which is relevant to particles in space. However, the
understanding within the context of this book is that we will never know everything and it is
important to accept this fact.

REFERENCES (1.19.2)
Indeterminacy principle, definition (physics) another name for uncertainty principle Collins English
Dictionary - Complete and unabridged, 12th edition 2014. HarperCollins publishers.

1.19.3 HAWKING ON UNCERTAINTY

According to the English physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking (1988, ch 4), the uncertainty
principle, helps us to understand and accept the strange behaviour of light particles, or photons.
Although, I find it difficult to imagine how the light from celestial bodies manages to reach us on
earth, when everything in the cosmos is supposedly rushing away due to the Big Bang at about the
same speed. However, Hawking informs us that the uncertainty principle also disproves the
scientific deterministic theory of cause and effect. The scientific version informs us that everything
or every event in nature has a cause and effect. For example, the evaporation of water causes
clouds, the effect of which is rain. Obviously it must be quite a complex matter to disprove this
theory. Some people consider us to be part of nature and as such attempted to apply the theory to
humans. Though, it is not long before things start to become uncertain if we apply this theory to
humans. I and some of my colleagues have a problem with equating humans to the scientific natural
world, given that natural philosophy preceded natural science. Some may disagree and point out
that we belong to the family Hominidae, which is a group including the great apes. Others argue
that the bible considers man to have been created by God and not from animals. Geneticists have
made a comparative deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis between humans and chimpanzees and
found over 98% homology, (the state of having the same relative). Thus concluding that we share a
large percentage of our DNA with chimpanzees. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the
remaining 2% is what makes a human a human. Alternatively, one may suggest that the remaining
2% is what makes a chimpanzee not a human. So, are we 98% chimpanzee or are chimpanzees 2%
human? The Smithsonian gives a more detailed explanation on these differences, (see references).

What is Human behaviour? To explain this question in simple terms, it is a reflection of an

individuals actions. Basically, everything we do we do for a reason. For example, I put on my
glasses, so that I can read, I read to gain knowledge. However, the philosophical deterministic
theory, by comparison, suggests that all events are ultimately determined by causes regarded as
external to the will or are considered to be beyond our control. Now, if all events are causes, it
follows that this must include all of our own actions. The theory therefore proposes that we cannot
be held responsible for our actions because they are determined by causes external to the will, this
infers that we have no control over what we do and therefore we cannot be held liable for our
actions. Although I, and I am sure you, will agree, this theory is paradoxically absurd. Yet to
philosophers and scientists, no matter how unrealistic a theory may sound, we still need to present
evidence in the form of another theory to disprove the former. After extensively reviewing the
theory I have my own opinions. A person who encounters deterministic behaviour, only experiences
events that include an automatic response to a stimulus, like blinking or sneezing. Once we consider
a decision, there is the opportunity for us to reconsider. This refutes the claim that all causes are
external to our will. Therefore, I conclude that to be a true determinist, one must give up the ability
to make automatic choices and decisions. Even if this were possible, some of our actions are
automatic and we do not always have the time to pass judgement before everyone of our actions.
Imagine that a large hailstone falls out of the sky. I now apply deterministic behaviour and accept
that I have no control over nature and the outcome is already determined. The hailstone hits me on
the head and it hurts like mad. Why? All it takes is to change direction and the hailstone will miss
me. Let’s assume that it is a child and the child does not know any better. After being hit the first
time, a child learns to stay indoors or to seek cover when a hailstorm approaches. Hence the
deterministic theory does not allow for a change in reasoning. What it may be useful for is
determining abnormal behaviour. The person who continually allows themselves to come to harm
without taking any evasive action must be considered to be suffering from some abnormality of the
mind. (See 1.10.1).

Hawking assures us that the deterministic theory has now been disproved by the uncertainty
principle. I imagine you must be asking, what if someone disproves the uncertainty principle? Well,
this is what academics teaches us, it is why research has an infinite amount of subject matter and
variation. If we were to accept everything without credible evidence, it would open up the door for
the unscrupulous. There are many cases of this happening during the COVID-19 pandemic. For
example, administrations have become concerned with the unethical companies that have suggested
bogus cures as a means for profiteering. An official Food and Drug Administration (FDA) news
release, from the US FDA together with the FTC, has targeted and sent warning letters to several
companies accused of selling COVID-19 products fraudulently. The FDA news release headline
states, “Coronavirus update: FDA and FTC warn seven companies for fraudulent COVID-19
products.” Will this stop further fraudulent activity, I doubt it. However, it is reassuring to know
that there are administrations actively looking after the interests of the general population.

REFERENCES (1.19.3)
Hawking, Stephen (1988): A brief history of time. Bantam Dell.
FDA news release: Coronavirus update, 9 March 2020, fda.org.
Article: “What does it mean to be human?” Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History,
Genetics. The Smithsonian Institution, site last updated 23 July 2020. Accessed 26 July 2020.

1.20 ON INTROSPECTION AND AWARENESS

A friend told me today that we should respect the individual religious beliefs of everyone on earth.
In this way, she explained that our own beliefs would become stronger. There is much to be said
about this statement. In the same way, if one scientist dismisses the theory of another, on a whim, or
unsubstantiated evidence, who lacks credibility? Even if the theory is completely incredible, it still
requires valid reasoning to dismiss it as a fantasy of human imagination. However, the validity of
the theory may not be the true reason why the scientist has spent years, or in some cases their entire
lifetime working on it. Let’s suppose that the theory is the raison d’etre of the scientist. The
invention of the theory may be the justification for the existence of the scientist and the validity of
the theory is secondary. In the same way a person's religious beliefs are their raison d’etre, their
reason for being and everything else is secondary. Thus the perception of reality in the mind of a
person is the first step towards an awareness of their own existence. If I suggest to you that I have
gained my insight from talking to myself and that my imagination has told me what to write, you
are reading the reality of my imaginary conversation. The relevance of this realisation is profound. I
am aware of my own awareness. I have become acquainted with the knowledge that I am aware that
my thoughts exist. This goes beyond mere acceptance. Maybe it is my raison d’etre, my reason or
justification for being. Russell (1912), referred to this awareness as ‘knowledge by introspection’.
Looking into my own self-consciousness and conducting a critical analysis is as personal as I can
get. It would be foolhardy of me to expect anyone else to experience this self-awareness in the same
way that I do. The psychologist will try, using questioning techniques, verbal or written and by
reading my body language, but the psychologist is limited by their own knowledge. Viewed this
way, there is certainly a chance of misrepresentation by anyone who attempts to gain the knowledge
of introspection of another individual. Introspection is the definition of looking into ones own
individual knowledge with a philosophical critique. We may all be doing this for the sake of
achieving a harmonious balance and for maintaining structure to justify our personal existence.
Does this indicate that professional intervention is unwarranted? Perhaps it does in the eyes of the
philosopher. Although, as I mentioned before, philosophy has a historical link to science.
Remember this comparison, when you have a leaking pipe in the house, and you do not have the
knowledge to repair it, it is advisable to call a plumber. When you have a broken mind, and you do
not have the knowledge or insight to repair it yourself. If it is correct to assume that if you have
reached the point of desperation. You should seek the advice of a professional. However, if you are
not aware of your own awareness, you may not realise that it is time to seek outside help.
Alternatively, if your awareness produces a satisfactory experience you may feel it is not necessary
to seek outside help. Sometimes it is advisable to seek the help of a mentor. Someone who is not
judgemental and is willing to guide rather than instruct. The use of a mentor is quite common in
higher level academics and upper business management. The mentor should know you well enough
to recognise if you are lacking introspection and awareness. With this guidance, you may be able to
evaluate and fix any problems, before they become irreparable.

1.20.1 THE UNETHICAL BUSINESS MODEL

Consider this true example of unethical practice. A conveyancing lawyer or attorney is
responsible for the process of transferring a property during the sale process. The money is
deposited into a trust account and any interest accrued on the account is then supposed to be paid to
the buyer. However, there are instances when the conveyancer holds onto the money for as long as
possible with the intention of keeping the interest. They do this by asking the buyer to sign a
contract that defers the right to receive the interest that is rightfully theirs. This is done when the
sale/purchase agreement is made up, but not explained in full to the buyer. The actions of the
attorney may be in contravention of the law society code of practice. However, the practice is not
necessarily illegal and may thus be construed as unethical and bad behaviour. There are many
examples of organisations that conduct their business unethically without recourse to the law.
However, they run the risk of falling foul of administrations who are set up to protect the consumer.
Yet these practices still go on and it is troubling why organisations get away with unscrupulous
activities. It may be frustrating for the ordinary consumer who tries to pursue a complaint through
an ombudsman. I will not cite any sources or lay down any proof on this, but from personal
experience I have never had a satisfactory outcome from any ostensible consumer protection
agencies. The best reaction is normally obtained from threatening to go public by contacting a
mainstream newspaper. Most companies try to avoid bad press because there will probably be many
others with a similar complaint. In fact this is what some organisations do, particularly if they are
multi-national. There are many examples of this practice which may be easily accessed from the
internet. The reader may well have had a better experience. However, it is the effectiveness of
consumer protection groups and administrations that is the key issue here. For example, there are
now gambling awareness advocates that have setup measures to protect people who find themselves
in difficulties due to problem gambling. We are familiar with the ban on cigarette advertising and
have possibly noticed the warnings about problem gambling on the products. Whether this is an
effective way of helping people who have a serious psychological problem is something that should
be studied further.

During the COVID-19 lockdown, South Africa was the only country in the world to ban the sale of
cigarettes and alcohol. It was a bold step and although it was highly criticised it has its merits. The
consumption of alcohol has been proven to increase the number of hospital admissions, which puts
additional strain on the health system. However, the ban did not stop people from smoking or
drinking, as the consumption of these products was not banned. It stands to reason that the supply of
these items has become very lucrative on the ‘black market’. Now, consider the ordinary citizen
who has some cigarettes or alcoholic drink at home. Is it morally wrong to sell it to friends or
family and could it be regarded as immoral to give it away? If the true reasoning behind the alcohol
and cigarette ban is to save lives, then the answer must be yes it is not only illegal under the Covid
regulations but unethical. What about the small shopkeeper who has paid for their stock but is not
earning any money from it. It is taking up shelf space and has probably been paid for. Is it unethical
for these small business owners who may be facing liquidation to sell their stock via the back door?
These shopkeepers have family to support and the regulations have placed many people in the same
situation as they would if they were dealing in illegal drugs. As with the contraband sale of
cigarettes and alcohol. Even though certain substances are banned, there never seems to be any
shortage of supply. This is apparent because we read about arrests for possession or dealing with
regularity. We also know the dangers of ‘hard’ drugs and of the misery and suffering they can cause.
However, is the argument about illegal drugs leading to addiction and death still a valid reason for
keeping them banned? The business referred to as the illegal drug trade is worth billions of dollars.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), publishes statistics on the prevalence of
the elicit trade in controlled substances. It is referred to as an epidemic in the reports. For example,
one publication is entitled, “Ethical challenges in drug epidemiology: issues, principles and
guidelines”. Thus, are we correct to assume that the global drug trafficking business model is of as
much concern as the COVID-19 outbreak. If so, why is there no global effort to eradicate the illegal
drug trade on a similar grand global scale? So, it seems that the world consists of multitudes of
small business models, overseen by large scale organisations. The administrations we rely on to
control these business models, whether or not they are illegal, it seems are selective and are
disproportionate in their response. If the ethics at the top are questionable, then this will filter all the
way down to the individual citizen and small shopkeeper.

REFERENCES (1.20.1)
Cohen, Michael: “Booze ban back in South Africa after virus rules go unheeded”. Bloomberg
politics. Original article, 12 July 2020, updated 13 July 2020. Article accessed 09 August 2020.
 1.20.2 THE HISTORY OF THE SWEATSHOP
Let’s take trip back in time, to Victorian Britain. Henry Mayhew wrote a letter to the
morning chronicle on 06 November 1849, (retrieved from victorianlondon.org. and accessed 09
July 2020), highlighting the poverty in London’s East End garment industry. He describes how the
people working in the garment industry in those days were called slop-workers. The conditions they
lived in were squalid and depressing. They typically worked 14 hour days all week with rarely a day
off. Out or their already meagre wages, deductions were made for accommodation, food and drink,
plus they even had to pay for some of the raw materials. Some had to supply their own cotton and
thread. All of which was paid to their employers who were aptly named slop-sellers. It was a cruel
hard life. There was no recourse for the inhuman treatment of the workers. People were regarded as
a dispensable resource, to be exploited and without the rights we have come to expect today. Or has
this immoral practice continued and could it still be going on? It seems as though the answer is yes.
The Washington Post exposed Nike for the complicit use and unfair treatment of Uighurs in China
in 2020 in the following articles.
• 29 February 2020, “China compels Uighurs to work in shoe factory that supplies Nike”, by
Anna Fifield. Muslim Uighurs have been sent to work under forced supervision at Qingdao
Taekwang Shoes Co. The company has been manufacturing and supplying shoes to Nike for
thirty years or more.
• 11 March 2020, “Nike to review supply chains in China after reports Uighurs forced to make
shoes”, by Anna Fifield. Further to the article of 29 February, Nike has issued a statement that,
the company “has been conducting ongoing diligence with our suppliers in China”. Although
Nike claims an “ethical and responsible” approach to manufacturing. It is difficult to understand
how their quality inspections miss the internment by the Chinese government program to “strip
the Muslim Uighurs of their culture, language and religion”, using de- radicalisation. A practice
that is openly advertised on the internet, albeit in China.
• 17 March 2020, “Your favourite Nike’s might be made from forced labour. Here’s why.”, an
opinion by Vicky Xiuzhong Xu and James Leibold, of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
This article reinforces the allegations of forced labour and includes references to internet
advertising which promises batches of Uighur workers, as young as 16, delivered within 15
days. The minimum order being 100 workers. The writers are convinced that the companies
know about the practices and comment, that “the multinationals continue to dodge their social
responsibilities”.

These articles force us to ask the question, how far down the supply chain of a multinational
company do we need to look before the company is deemed to be free of responsibility for the
suppliers behaviour? Morally, I consider a company to be socially responsible, if human rights are
contravened at any point in the supply chain. This point of view was already proposed on 16 August
2019 in another article published by the Washington Post Global Opinions entitled, “Foreign forms
operating in Xinjiang need to consider human rights - or risk being complicit”, opinion by Sophie
Richardson. In the article we are told that “foreign firms have a history of aiding the Chinese
government in its repressive activities”. Richardson is the China Director at Human Rights Watch,
which has documented many instances whereby multinational organisations have profited from
abuses of human rights. The opinion given is that these abuses may have been avoided, had the
companies implemented “due diligence” and followed the United Nations guiding principles on
business and human rights.

Hobson (1906), regards three reasons for the “causes of sweating”, (Chapter V). An over supply of
low-skilled and inefficient labour presumably causes the price of wages to be driven down to a
point where the worker is living at or below the poverty line. This situation occurs where free
competition exists and according to Hobson is an obvious consequence of an over supply of labour
for a under supply of jobs. The situation changes when a minimum wage is introduced, but this is a
consideration for economic strategy which is not in the scope of this book. Hobson explains that all
the time there is a level of unemployment the risk or “sweating “ exists. All the time there is an
influx of agricultural labour from the rural to the urban conurbations, there will be an excess of low-
skilled industrial labour. The inflow of unskilled foreign labour also adds to the over supply and is
exacerbated by a sudden large exodus. The importation of cheap goods that compete with the
“sweated labour” manufacturers goods has the same effect as increasing the supply of cheap labour.
Hobson draws a parallel with the importation of cheap German goods into East London, as having
the same effect as the importation of German workers to make the same clothes in the East London
sweatshops. Another factor Hobson highlights is the introduction of machinery which takes away
the need for skilled hand workers. These workers must either learn another skill or join the low-
skilled workforce. Already in the late 1800’s industry was moving out of London to the outlying
counties, thus furnishing the “sweating trades” with an oversupply of cheap labour. The true result
of this oversupply of low skilled labour is unemployment and poverty. Hobson laid most of the
blame squarely on the shoulders of the immigrant communities. “Two thirds of the ‘sweaters’ in
Liverpool are foreigners”, he contends “chiefly from Germany and Russian Poland”. These
immigrants, he assures us are able to drive down prices by sub-contracting and working from home,
driving down the wages in the factories. Having experienced the attitude towards immigrants in
Britain firsthand I blame the attitude and behaviour of the moral citizen. Although, facing prejudices
and not having the opportunities actually forces one to become an entrepreneur. In a way, this can
work in your favour, if you have the resources. However critical one is now and was in the 1800’s,
the “small workshop” it seems, was the key to the elimination of the sweatshops. Micro business
needs less capital to start up, running costs like rent are lower, there is less legislation, such as the
factories act so the small workshop spends less on compliance. However the most important point
and one which is most relevant to this book is that of the, “irresponsibility of employers”, Hobson
stresses that the modern employer is growing more “impersonal”. He explains that the manager or
nominal employer is not the real employer. “The real employer of labour is capital”, and it is the
owners of the capital who bear the responsibility of paying back the capital owed by the business.
This is an overwhelmingly profound statement. It should never be underestimated and holds true as
much now as it did in the early 1900’s. All the time the owners are reliant on the lenders to keep
their business funded, the real employers are the lenders themselves. This is why Hobson describes
it as “impersonal”. Karl Marx (1848), witnessed and experienced these conditions in the
Manchester slums. It was the catalyst for him and Friedrich Engels to look for ways to stop the
exploitation of labour and together they wrote the Communist Manifesto. The political doctrine
attempts to avoid the real employer of labour being the capital or the rule of capitalism. We will
never know if the implementation of these ideas would have been better or worse for the workers.
Now, if you think that modern sweatshops in 2020 are the domain of countries considered to be
Eastern or third world or impoverished. That they are far removed from the modern practices of
Western Europe, think again. The Sunday Times has revealed that there are poor working conditions
and pay in a clothing factory located in Leicester UK occurring during the COVID-19 lockdown in
the city. The factory manufacturers clothes for the FTSE listed company Boohoo. The National
Crime Agency (NCA) has also confirmed it is investigating allegations of exploitation in Leicester’s
textile industry. A spokesperson for the NCA has commented that they have “visited” premises to
follow up on reports of “modern slavery and human trafficking”. It appears that the company
supplying Boohoo does not advertise their name at the factory premises and are allegedly paying
some workers £3.50 to £4.00 per hour. The National minimum wage at the date of the article is
£8.72 per hour for over 25 year olds. An undercover reporter for the Sunday Times infiltrated the
factory, which also breached COVID-19 health and safety regulations. The comments made by
former MP Mary Creagh are similar to those made by Hobson 100 years ago. Boohoo falls into the
category of the “impersonal” employer. They are listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE), so
the real employer is the investor. Having said that one of these investors has taken a moral stance.
Aberdeen Investments a 3.3% shareholder in Boohoo has reported that they are “dumping the
stock”, on ethical grounds. On the news Boohoo announced a “full investigation into the supply
chain.” This is a good example of how the “real” employer can make a difference. So, in this
example Capitalism has proved effective. Furthermore on the use of sweatshops in Leicester
England, the city has been disproportionately affected by a ‘second wave’ of Coronavirus and is on
lockdown once again, during July 2020. This new information was first reported on the UK
government official website, gov.uk, under a News Story by the Department of Health and Social
Care, published 30 June 2020. The article states that a localised Coronavirus (COVID19) lockdown
is back in place “following a surge in Coronavirus cases in the area. I am suggesting that there is a
strong link between the sweatshops and the surge in cases. My reasoning for this is two fold. The
disregard for workers safety at the garment factories in relation to COVID19 regulations. The
poverty that is directly associated with the operations of these sweatshops. Henry Mayhew (1849)
made this association abundantly clear in his studies of the slop workers of the London East End
and Hobson (1906) also drew a parallel with the economic hardships of the sweating system.
Hobson wrote, of the term “sweating”, that it originated from the tailoring industry in the “narrow
application”, of the practice of over working under the sub-contractors who received the work from
the factories and distributed it to home workers. He summarised the sweating system as, “the
condition of all overworked, ill-paid, badly-housed workers in our cities.” (Problems of equality,
Loc 831). Hence, poverty is understandably associated and linked with overcrowded living and
working conditions. Therefore, it is impossible in an exploited, overcrowded factory to follow the
government guidelines on social distancing for the reduction of the spread of the virus. These
guidelines recommend to “keep your distance from people not in your household (2 metres apart
where possible)”, from the website, gov.uk. In the 06 July 2020 article by the BBC, allegations were
raised that some workers at the factory were found not to be wearing face masks and “there was no
evidence that social distancing measures had been implemented”. My conclusion is that, if the
allegations of widespread work abuse is to be believed, this must have had a negative impact on the
containment of the spread of the novel Coronavirus, COVID19. Additionally, it should be noted that
these workers would not be able to eat sufficiently nutritious food, which is necessary to maintain a
healthy immune system and the insanitary conditions are conducive to airborne transmissions of
bacteria. If my assumptions are correct, Luton is another town that needs to be investigated as there
is a very similar situation unfolding here as in Leicester. Both also have a high immigrant
population.

REFERENCES (1.20.2)
Hobson, A. John 1906: Problems of poverty, an inquiry onto the industrial condition of the poor.
Sixth edition, (retrieved Project Gutenberg 09 July 2020).
Article: “Boohoo to investigate Leicester supplier over exploitation claims”. The BBC news, 06
July 2020, (retrieved 10 July 2020). A report based on the article published on the same day by the
Sunday Times, entitled “Boohoo: fashion giant faces ‘slavery’ investigation”, by Caroline Wheeler,
subtitle, “Priti Patel ‘appalled’ by illegal wages”. Also edited by Amardeep Bassey and Vidhathri
Matety, Steven Swinford. This article is subject to a legal complaint by Jaswal Fashions Limited.
(Retrieved 10 July 2020).
Further to the complaint, Jaswal fashions was found to have been unfairly included in the
allegations by the Sunday Times. This occurred because their company signage was still on display
even though they had vacated the premises in 2018, presumably before the sweatshop was set up.
(Self-Edited 18 July 2020). The BBC had previously reported on the concern in 2019.
Article: “Leicester: A city fighting fast-fashion sweatshops”, by Laura Heighton-Ginns & Katie
Prescott. BBC business news, 10 May 2019, (retrieved 18 July 2020).
Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich 1848: The manifesto of the communist party, manifest der
kommunistischen partei, Anonymously published by the Worker’s Educational Association
Kommunistischer Arbeiterbildungsverein, Bishopsgate London.

1.21 ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ‘SELF’

On analysing Hobson (1906), we looked at reasons why sweatshops first appeared in the nineteenth
century. This insight brings me to enquire more about the dominance of the affluent over the poor.
Why it is that some people are easily inclined to force their influence over others. Why are some
people more inclined to take advantage of the weak and vulnerable? Does the tyrannical leader have
a psychological problem similar to some form of sadism, or does this feeling of ones own worth,
value and status stem from the perception of the self? After analysing and studying many leaders,
these are questions that have troubled me for some time. The conclusion I have come to is that these
particular set of people lack self-esteem and self-worth. This manifests itself in a disregard for the
wellbeing of others. They have a diminished responsibility which explains the lack of self-control.
Therefore in order to compensate for their own inferiority they look to reinforce their own self, but
are able to do so only by enforcing their will on others. If this is in fact indicative of a person with a
low regard for themselves. How is it possible to interpret and fix what can be defined as a broken
mind? If indeed there is such a thing as a broken mind. The introduction of this work asks the reader
and researcher, what is certain in the world? So far it appears that the answer is still nothing.
Remember the hypothetical story of the plumber who fixed our leaking pipe? What if I tell you that
in doing so this plumber inadvertently weakened another section of the water piping system. In a
few weeks time the water pressure causes another leak to appear. The original fault may have been
repaired satisfactorily, but the integrity of the overall system has been compromised. I propose that
this example can equally be applied to the mind. For instance, the symptoms of depression may be
fixed for now, but the underlying cause has not been cured. I am asking the reader and researcher to
imagine the imagination of another persons mind. Maybe you believe you can do this. It is highly
likely though, and like me you can not experience the feelings and sensations in another persons
mind. Some people lack empathy and are willing to sacrifice their own ‘self’ for the sake of
profiteering. Like the owner of the modern sweatshop. Most people will answer honestly and say,
“no I am not able to read other people’s minds”, but I do have empathy. Now suppose I fracture a
bone in my leg, are you able to feel the pain that I feel? I doubt that you can. If I feel anxious,
depressed or suicidal, I know that no one else feels these exact same thoughts of mine. Although
someone with the correct training can tell by my body language that there is a problem. This
inability to empathise with the self of another person must obviously hinder the ability of someone
to help me. What if I mention that I have difficulty with my thoughts, that I am unable to connect
with myself. This is described in DSM-5, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders
as depersonalisation disorder. The core symptom is described as the subjective experience of
“unreality in ones self”. It may also be a symptom of schizophrenia. The definition of this is ‘split
mind’, something which most people misunderstand. It is not to be confused with multiple
personality disorder, which is also covered in the DSM but has largely been discredited. However,
these are all related to the ability of the individual to control one’s self. This leads me to ask, at what
point should a professional be allowed to take over the control of an individual’s ‘self’? The
philosophical interpretation of self is complex. The ‘self’ is distinctive from ‘other’ and is defined
relative to the individual as, “the object of their own reflective consciousness”. The ‘self’ is the
subjective component described by Russell under the heading introspection. So the DSM definition
of the ‘subjective unreality of one’s self“, could also a description of normal behaviour. The only
part that the professional and the individual disagree on is what is reality. Given that this reality is
subjective, the definition of abnormal is speculative and the interpretation of the self depends on the
person who is making the judgement. Envisage the act of standing outside of yourself looking in
and asking, who am I. This act, as I have previously mentioned is introspection. (See 1.20).
However, the answer to this question may not necessarily be the same every time you ask yourself,
who am I? Therefore, it follows that the detachment from reality may be a normal part of the self.
Particularly if you apply a high degree of subjectivity and critical analysis in trying to explain to
yourself that some of your thoughts are real, to which I attached the definition, ‘selective reality’. I
admit that introspection of myself sometimes returns some results that others would describe as
unreal. So, it is safe to assume that this applies to others as well. Let us analyse the ‘self’ of a person
who believes they are Jesus. Nothing anyone says to the person is able to dissuade that person
otherwise. Or even to introduce doubt, no matter how small, into the reflective consciousness of the
individual. Most would describe these thoughts as ‘unreality in ones self’. The professional
establishment would agree that the person is delusional. Are you certain about this though? No you
are not, because you are not able to prove with complete certainty that the person is not Jesus. The
professional establishment considers that if the individual does not cause any harm with their belief,
it is not necessary to take action. However, our society does not allow behaviour that can cause
harm to ourselves or to others. This includes physical and psychological harm. The interpretation of
what defines psychological harm may vary widely around the world, depending on the ethnicity and
ideology the population. So let me say that if the person oversteps the boundaries of our need to co-
exist in harmony, intervention will be considered necessary. This may include locking the individual
away, to segregate them from society. The aim of this is to displace the individual reality of self,
with the accepted reality of the social group or community. Does the subjectivity used by the
individual to describe their reflective consciousness hold no validity anymore? Being under lock
and key, and losing ones freedom to co-habit with society will obviously, in my opinion, alter an
individual’s subjectivity. Is this the ultimate example of the loss of free will? Remove the ‘self’ and
you will be contributing to a society of conformists, without realisation and empowerment. In our
quest to find order in the world of uncertainty, are we heading towards a world dominated by sets of
rules, that are themselves ambiguous and thus uncertain? Are most people subconsciously avoiding
uncertainty by adopting the instinct of a herd of animals? I raise this highly controversial question
because the definition of herd instinct is, a mentality distinguished by a lack of introspection. On
this subject I have become highly critical and outspoken on the science of psychiatry. Compare a
maximum security patient and a prisoner. Both have their freedom of movement restricted and are
not allowed to leave the confines of the establishment. Yet the patient also has a restriction imposed
on their consciousness, thinking, reality and the self. Whereas the prisoner will be able to tell us
that, “you may lock me up, but you can’t incarcerate my mind”. Additionally, if the prisoner suffers
from time to time with depression because of being confined, surely the patient must do so as well.
However, the doctors will report that the patient is suffering from symptoms of their diagnosis and
force them to take more medication to sedate the mind. I therefore conclude that the psychiatric
establishment is guilty of stealing the individual identity and self of a person. That psychiatrists
may well use their profession to make up for their own lack of self worth, by forcing their will upon
the weak and vulnerable.

REFERENCES (1.21)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) 2020: The American Psychiatric
Association.

1.21.1 THE CROWD COLLECTIVE

Interestingly, the journalist James Surowiecki, (1967-present), proposed in his book, the
wisdom of crowds (2004), that “in conditions of uncertainty, humans, like other animals, herd
together for protection”. He argued that this is a good thing, as the combined effort of the masses is
better at resolving problems on a large scale, as opposed to smaller groups making the decisions on
everyone else’s behalf. We call this combined effort collective intelligence. I disagree with this
definition because the term intelligence is highly subjective and call it the crowd collective. Upon
analysis, it is actually quite obvious that Surowiecki came to such a conclusion. If a cross section of
people in society are used to make a prediction about a known event, the average of all of the
guesses will be close to the actual result. This has been proven in mathematical probabilities. If the
number of people or samples increases in making an assessment, the accuracy will also increase.
For example, if we ask 10 people to guess the weight of someone. Then we ask 10,000 or 100,000
people, to guess the weight of the same person, the second survey will produce a more accurate
average result. The third survey will be even more accurate than the second. This raises the question
of who controls the power and sets the universal ideas and beliefs we are encouraged to follow,
(ostensibly without question), for fear of being labelled abnormal and antisocial. Is it the ones who
hold the keys? Has a world order evolved that yields the power to control our own perception of
ones self? It should be noted that Surowieki does differentiate between a wise group and that one of
the key factors is trust of the collective group to be fair. Surely, if the crowd are able to make a
better judgement, it seems irrational to give so much power to so few. I conclude from this that any
average individual within a crowd, has the ability to make sound judgements during times of
uncertainty. However, the same average individual would prefer to have an elected person declare
any decisions on their behalf. The reasons for this may be long and varied. Though, generally I feel
people prefer the comfort of the crowd, just in case these decisions turn out to be wrong. Then we
do not have to admit any guilt or liability and we have someone else to blame, ostensibly the
spokesperson. We can also change our minds without losing face in a crowd. Alternatively, the herd
or crowd mentality is a form of safety net. In this situation people are united by a common belief.
However, if we want to know the truth as to an individual’s beliefs, it is best to ask for an answer
anonymously. Like a vote in a referendum, whereby the public are protected from any bias towards
their political affiliation, by anonymity.

The term herd immunity was relatively unknown before the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. It
defines the resistance to the spread of a contagious disease within a population group, hereinafter
called the herd. The resistance to the spread results if a significantly or sufficiently high proportion
of people become immune to the disease. This immunity may be through the use vaccinations and
immunisations or as in the case of COVID-19, through recovered cases. On the 21 June 2020, the
number of recovered cases is over 4.5m out of a total of almost 9m, (Johns Hopkins University).
During this Coronavirus pandemic almost all of the people I have spoken to refer to the number of
cases. I wonder if this is because it is the greater number statistically and because of that the number
of cases gets the most publicity. Nevertheless, we have to concentrate on the benefits the herd plays
in the pandemic. Looking at the statistics, in a worst case scenario, there is a good probability that
half the world will survive. Eventhough we are living a paradox of survival, whereby we are
frightened of contracting COVID19, but on the other hand, we would like to be one of the
recovered cases. It is these circumstances in between that we are actual scared of, this is the
unknown, because no one knows how their body will react to the virus until we catch it. So, in this
instance it seems as though sometimes it could be a good idea to go with the crowd. Although, all
the advice is to remain as isolated as possible and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) do not
condone herd immunity as a viable prevention, (BMJ 2020;370:m2728). The cited news article in
the BMJ is headed, COVID19: Herd immunity is “unethical and unachievable,” say experts after
report of 5% seroprevalence in Spain. The article explains that only a small proportion of those
individuals tested in Spain are carrying the COVID19 antibodies in their blood. So it seems that the
power of herd immunity and the terminology is an exaggeration.

When I initially suggested the paradox of selective existence at the beginning of 2020, I did not
realise how close I was to forthcoming events. If Surowiecki (2004), is right about the human
instinct for grouping it may be that this ancient inherent trait will save us. What about the isolated
leader though, who is forced to admit their shortcomings as a human. Some world leaders have self-
isolated, like Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, because of contracting the virus. Others have
done so for safety. Others have died, such as the Burundi president who is suspected of dying from
COVID-19. There are a number of scenarios that are playing out. Yet it seems that the best outcome
for someone is if they have recovered from the virus. Only history will be able to confirm this,
when the pandemic is eventually eradicated. Further to the hospitalisation of Mr Johnson, on the
12th of April 2020, St. Thomas hospital, London, England, announced that Boris Johnson had
recovered enough to be discharged. He continues even now (edited 18 July 2020), to lead the
country throughout the pandemic of uncertainty. This must be a good choice, as someone who has
lived through the uncertainty of life or death from the virus must surely be inclined to make more
informed ethical decisions for the Nation.

REFERENCES (1.12.2)
Surowiecki, James 2004: The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how
collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. Doubleday: Anchor.
News Article: “I was too fat, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson says about his trip to ICU while
battling COVID19”, by Nancy Dillon. MSN news online, 27 July 2020, (accessed 07 August 2020).

1.21.2 ON THE CREATION OF DOUBT

This leads me ask the question. Are the wealthiest, most powerful individuals on earth best
suited for decision making on a grand scale, when no-one has any experience of a similar global
crisis? Given that I suspect the wealthiest people may be more concerned about keeping their
wealth intact, to the detriment of the poor. The COVID-19 pandemic may still prove my reasoning
to be incorrect. In ancient history during times of great tragedy and disaster, people turned to
religion to make sense out of the disorder. So, if there is a truly an omnipotent entity called God,
why has he not done something to help us? Let’s accept that religion expects us to believe in things
that are unproven and not to believe in things that are also unproven. Faith means living
comfortably with uncertainty. The basic principals of religion conform to a universal code of
practice for living. It must be said that these principals, if interpreted for the good of humanity,
teach us harmony. However, in order to follow these religious beliefs, without question, we also
have to conform to the paradox of selective existence. To follow your chosen religion you have to
do so without question. Otherwise you will start to doubt the reality of your own self. You will have
to admit that your unreality in ones self is different to the person who believes they are Jesus. You
will have to argue that the common statement, “God speaks to me” is normal practice in religion.
Yet the voices atheists hear are diagnosed as an abnormality of the mind because of what is said, but
not necessarily who has spoken the words. The religious believer, with good intentions, may also
offer to help by exorcising the demons in the ‘tortured soul’s’ mind and by converting the atheists to
their ideology. This is the paradox. It’s acceptable if God tells me, repent your sins or you will enter
eternal hell, but not if he tells me directly that I must die for my sins to save others. The second part
will be taken as a warning sign of abnormal thought. So what have we learnt? Uncertainty can be
acceptable, for the sake of proving a theory or belief, but doubt is more unforgiving. Most of us live
our life ignoring doubt for the sake of mental harmony. Even so, it is easy to create doubt if none
exists. For example, if I ask you to think of any town in the world, (X). Then I conduct a survey and
ask three questions.

i. Have you ever been to X?

ii. Do you know anybody from X?
iii. Do you know anybody who has ever been to X?
Most people will answer no to all three questions. Anybody who answers yes to anyone of the
questions is automatically accused of being part of a conspiracy theory or of being deceived. The
conspiracy theory is that the town X, although it may be on the map, actually does not exist. This
was first described in the Bielefeld conspiracy. However, the town does exist, yet the ruse is capable
of intentionally creating doubt. Given this scenario it is difficult to believe something even if we
have experienced it. Namely, you may have visited the town or you may even live there. One may
even begin to doubt their own sanity when faced with such compelling evidence.

REFERENCES (1.21.2)
Article: “City of Bielefeld offers €1 million for proof it doesn’t exist”, by the BBC news Europe
section, published 22 August 2019, (retrieved 18 July 2020).

1.22 ON OPTIMISM SANITY AND RELIGION

Unfortunately, humans can become hostile if your subjective thinking does not fit into their
particular choice of group mentality. This can become considerably worse and even dangerous if
one’s behaviour does not comply with the acceptable social standards of the country in which you
live. This hostility is probably, and almost certainly a result of fear and this fear is almost certainly a
result of the unknown. One only has to to study the diverse array of phobias to realise that most
humans are afraid of something, but not all humans are afraid of everything. Amongst this vast
array, there are a number of phobias attributable to the state of mind. Dementophobia is the fear of
becoming insane. Psychophobia, is used to describe someone who is afraid of a person regarded as
being insane. Mentalism or Sanism describes someone who discriminates against another person
they believe to be of unsound mind. The fear of the unknown is without doubt frightening for some.
For others it offers a chance to learn and explore other conceptions. Are we afraid of the condition
called insanity or the perception of the insane? One only has to scroll through the list of horror
genre books and films to answer this question. Many of the plots centre around someone with
mental health issues. The film Psycho (1960) by Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980), is one such
example. The central character Norman Bates played by Anthony Perkins is an out of control serial
killer. People with mental health conditions report about the stigma that results in discrimination
from these preconceived ideas of madness, hysteria and psychotic killers. I have been told that even
a person in the mental health profession who meets a patient for the first time, will often speak to
them as though they are a strict parent addressing a child. The irony of this, is that, these are the
ones who mean well. Should it be taken as a sign of empathy or concern for the wellbeing of the
patient? Meanwhile, others in the profession feel it necessary to raise their voices and adopt an
intimidating stance. Maybe they are showing their authority and also mean well, who knows, only
they can answer this question. Maybe, it depends on the diagnosis and the reaction is based on
individual beliefs, but I have a suspicion that it is a deep rooted fear, one we develop from the
image projected in films like Psycho. The reasons may be conjecture on my part and will need a
psychological study to be proven, it the fear is real. Although, I do know that it is difficult to find
the right balance between patronisation and hostility, regardless of the situation. Once again society
dictates the balance. Once again, I will consult the philosopher in me, using logic and deduction to
arrive at the answer. Consider another religious friend of mine. She was having financial problems
and this caused her anxiety level to increase to the point where it had become a problem. Enough
for her to be labelled with the diagnosis of a mood disorder. After vigorously praying regularly for
weeks, she assured me that her prayers had indeed been answered. The anxiety had subsided and in
the following weeks she was offered another less stressful job, with a higher salary. Her deduction
and reasoning was that God had answered her prayers. However, I am troubled by something. How
much praying is enough to resolve your problems? Is it possible to over-pray or to under-pray? Is
the action of praying a form of meditation, which helps one attain a higher level of self-awareness
and introspection. Has the affect of praying led to the reordering of the levels of awareness in the
mind and caused the harmony Russell proposed. One has to realise that when praying, one is
speaking to a deity, something the atheist does not believe exists. Then, who is it experiencing the
unreality of self? The book Candide, ou l’Optimisme, (on optimism), by Voltaire (1759), uses cause
and effect as it’s main theme. It is a satirical, sometimes dark comedy, that follows the surreal
journey of someone in their quest for philosophical answers, such as the problem of good and evil.
Although Voltaire, a philosopher of the Age of Enlightenment, ridicules everything, he makes a
specific attack on Leibniz (1646-1716), and the German philosopher’s own opinion on optimism.
During the Hanoverian period, Leibniz had concluded that, “our universe is the best possible one
God could have created”. Although, it must have taken Leibniz many years of reflection and
deliberation to reach this conclusion, given that beside being a moralist, he was also an
accomplished philosopher, mathematician, scientist, engineer, lawyer, and philologist. Voltaire, took
offence to the statement and ridiculed it, because of the events he witnessed during this time. He
experienced first hand the effects of the terrible seven years war (1756-1763) and before then, the
catastrophic earthquake in Lisbon (1755) which are both described in his writing. Voltaire refused to
believe that a righteous God could allow such destruction and devastation to befall humankind.
After years of deliberation myself, I realise, it is impossible to prove that a God or Gods (depending
on the religion), do not exist. Therefore, I am unable to say with certainty that my friend’s prayers
were answered or were not answered. I am equally unable to answer with certainty whether my
friend resolved the problem on her own, without any outside intervention. Blaise Pascal, the
philosopher and mathematician (1623-1662), reiterated the notion that religion is, by definition an
uncertainty, by stating that: “If we must not act save on a certainty, we ought not to act on
religion”. This statement unambiguously proposes a universal link between religion and
uncertainty. The question remains, do some people use religious belief to explain away uncertainty,
because it is too difficult to admit the fear of living with doubt? If people find that their faith helps
to overcome fear and anxiety, surely this must be a better option than reverting to the use of
prescription medication. I will leave this for the reader and researcher to decide.

REFERENCES (1.22)
Leibniz, W. Gottfried 1691: Reflections on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas.
Pascal, Blaise 1670: Pense’es de M.Pascal sir la religion. French first edition.
Pascal, Blaise 1958: The “thoughts”. Translated by W.F.Trotter.
IMDb website review. Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock, 1960.

1.22.1 ON SANITY AND CREATIVITY

I would like to propose a theory on the link between abnormality and ingenuity. I believe
that people with, what the professional establishment may consider a disorder of the mind, may
actually be at an advantage over people who lack the motivation and drive necessary to achieve
great things. That is, if they are able to control, and channel, what may be described as, over-
stimulated thoughts, into a vision and have the ability to develop their ideas into practice. To
understand the theory one must consider that all of the greatest innovations start off as an idea in
someone’s imagination. This someone is able to see the image of something that is completed,
before it has even started. Historians have given us many examples of people regarded as eccentric
geniuses who have gone onto produce great deeds. These same people also elicit what may be
described as abnormal behaviour. It is possible to achieve anything if we believe in the concept with
complete certainty. So, it stands to reason that the most outlandish ideas others dismiss as ‘crazy’
can only come from those of us who think unlike others, or abnormally. Whatever this concept or
idea maybe, like creating a new invention, proposing a new theory, discovering a medical
breakthrough, or formulating a unique business idea, the originator is not the same as the average
person. Thus, the theory I suggest is just a way of identifying why there is a difference in the
imagination of the inventor or entrepreneur. I propose this because of the number of great people
who have exhibited behaviour described as outlandish. The only way I am able to suggest a link
between mental health and a person of brilliance is to mention those who have committed suicide.
This act is considered by most to be considered under extreme circumstances and are most certainly
the result of mental health problems. I have already mentioned Hemingway in section 1.10. Vincent
Van Gogh, the painter is renowned as an artist. In life he suffered considerably. Living on the
breadline he gave away many of his paintings. At one moment of insanity he cut off part of his ear
with a razor. This was reported in a local French newspaper dated 30 December 1888, entitled
“Chronique locale”. Then, the following year he painted at least two of his famous works, Self-
portrait with bandaged ear and pipe. The painting shows Van Gogh with a bandage on the wound.
On the 27th of July 1890 at the age of 37 Van Gogh shot himself. The event was recorded in an
article published on 07 August 1890, by L’Echo Pontoisien newspaper, subtitled under the name of
the village Auvers-Sur-Oise. Obviously a deeply troubled individual, but an artistic genius
nonetheless. Two examples are of course, not a definitive study to prove my theory, however there
are many more, should the reader wish to pursue this line of reasoning further.

REFERENCES (1.22.1)
Gaylord, Martin 2006: The Yellow House: Van Gogh, Gaugin, and nine turbulent weeks in Arles.
Penquin, random house.

1.23 ON CERTAINTY KNOWLEDGE AND FACT

In the introduction to Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell (1922)
writes that, “in practice, language is always more or less vague, so that what we assert is never
quite precise”. Throughout this book I have used my knowledge of the English language to describe
my thoughts and to assert my knowledge of uncertainty. Yet now I am urging the reader and
researcher to reconsider what you have read, and to interpret the validity of the entire text, based on
your own knowledge of the language I am using. Yes, it is true that the words I use are designed to
impart my views. However it is the interpretation of the words that is of importance to me and more
importantly to you. Assume that I am certain of myself, and this work is written to the best of my
abilities. This statement already creates doubt as to the certainty of my knowledge. Unless I am able
to say, this work is written to the best of every English writers ability, I am not capable of getting
close to any certainty. Therefore, it is safe to assume that there are words, sentences, or paragraphs
that contain ambiguity. If I wish to prove to the reader and researcher that uncertainty is linked to
knowledge, I have to prove that certainty is also linked to knowledge. In order to do this I need to
define certainty. At first glance this may seem easy compared to what has been discussed up till
now. Let’s suppose certainty is a truth. For example, I see someone close this book at the last page.
If I then say to you, “a wise person read my book”. You may reply, “how do you know the person is
wise?” Then I reply, “because the person read my book”. This is not a certainty because my
definition of wise will not correspond exactly with your definition of wise. If it is not a certainty, it
follows that it is not a fact. If it is not a fact, it cannot be considered as a truth. Then it must be a
belief, which is a vague version of the truth. Russell goes on to say, “facts cannot, strictly speaking,
be defined”. So, the only way is with the use of propositions. This is what makes a fact true or false.
Hence, I now propose that, “a wiser person read my book”. Just by adding the letter (r), the
composition has changed and with it the interpretation. Although, we are not finished yet. The
proposition still raises questions. Is it true that the person was wiser before reading my book or
because of reading my book? After making enquiries we find out that the person cannot read. So,
we must assume that the person was wiser than me before reading my book, but how is this
possible. How is someone who cannot read wiser than me? It is because the person is a village elder
and is regraded amongst the indigenous people as the wisest person on earth. The proposition may
now be changed to, the people know I am not as wise as he is. Now, the fact remains that the person
did not read my book. My initial statement contained assumptions. That the person is wise because
the person read my book. To me these were facts. The crucial question is, do I now say that the
initial statement is false? Maybe it is now, but it wasn’t at the time. So, it seems time is another
component to consider when defining certainty. This is clear if one considers, I am sure that the
number nine bus is not here, because it has not arrived yet. Later, I am sure the number nine bus has
arrived because I am riding on it. Both are certainties, but the facts are different depending on the
time of day. Up until I discovered the facts about the wise person, my knowledge was based on my
own interpretation of the information, within my own mind. After that, I realised the need to make
propositions instead. So, I would have saved myself a lot of embarrassment if the initial statement
had been, “A person looked at my book”. This I am certain of, because I witnessed it and to me it is
a fact. Klein (1981), wrote that “knowledge requires (epistemic) certainty”. Therefore, I reiterate,
with the use of the above example, that certainty is possible if we have sufficient knowledge at the
time. Even-though the knowledge may be false. Furthermore, it follows that uncertainty is also only
possible with knowledge. After all, I only knew that my statement was a proposition based on my
untrue belief, once and only after the facts became known to me. Unger (1975), had already made
this observation and described it by remarking that, “we rarely or never have beliefs that are
certain”. Another term used to denote the confusion over language is the structured proposition.
These are also called Russellian propositions after Bertrand Russell, who taught us that if we
propose something with the same result in two different ways, then they do not not share the same
meaning. Russell (1912) used mathematics to explain this difference. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is not
the same as 1 + 3 = 4, eventhough the result is the same. Consider two people, who are able to
comment on the same subject by using different sentences, either verbally or in writing. They are
both baking a cake from the same recipe. One instructs us to, add the butter after it has been melted
and the other person instructs is to add the butter until it melts. They are basically the same
propositions but according to Russell are different in structure and therefore cannot be considered to
be the same. My wife, who is an accomplished cook has shown me the two propositions and it is
true, there is a difference. In fact, the chemistry is affected by the process and although the result is
the same, a cake has been baked, the texture of the mixture is not the same.

To conclude, Voltaire argues that there is no complete language that is able to describe our thoughts
and ideas exactly. For example, it is impossible to describe with complete accuracy the feeling of
silk between our fingers. Ask one hundred people and each person will give you a different answer.
Feel the silk yourself and your thoughts will be difficult to transcribe. However, I am able to say
that such and such an item feels like silk. Although this still does not help me to describe what silk
feels like. Thus, as Voltaire comments in his philosophical encyclopaedia, all languages are
imperfect.

REFERENCES (1.23)
Wittgenstein (1912): On certainty, (Uber Gewissheit). With a foreword by Bertrand Russell.
Klein, D. Peter 1981: Certainty: A refutation of scepticism. University of Minnesota Press.
Minneapolis.
Unger, M. Roberto 1975: Knowledge and politics. Free press.
Russell, Bertrand 1912: The problems with philosophy.

1.23.1 ON FACT OR FICTION

I have mentioned previously that it is through the use of propositions that we are able to
present a fact as true or false. The political arena is one place where the definition between fact and
fiction can be a grey area and is open to constant scrutiny. If a statement is made to the press, it is
usually written with the help of a speechwriter. Any comment is then taken and reproduced in the
media, but it is interpreted by the reader as being true. In fact the only truism is that the words were
spoken. It does not necessarily follow that the content is accurate. The same goes for a scientist
speaking at a conference or a manager addressing a meeting. It is true that the presentation has been
conducted in front of a number of people, but bear in mind that all of these people are part of a
targeted critical audience. Hence, the subject matter will be scrutinised and analysed for
inaccuracies. Thus, if you want to project the right impression, it is best to choose your words
carefully. There are exceptions to this, of course. We do not have to look hard at Mr Trump’s
comments to realise that he will often speak or tweet, before he has given the content its full
consideration. One may argue that this rhetoric is what made him the president in the first place.
Maybe people wanted an outspoken leader, rather than a polished professional. If this is the case,
the general public may not be particularly interested in the facts. Maybe, people want simple
explanations, because they are wise to the manipulation of language. Or could it be that something
may only be regraded as true if action is taken or there is some physical evidence to back up the
proposition. Of course, until such time as the evidence is presented, we may regard the proposition
as true, based on our own judgement. Alternatively, it should be noted that the president has been
using social media to communicate his thoughts. People most likely feel closer to the person
because they are able to post their own messages on-line in the form of responses. Nonetheless, the
written or spoken word is still presented in a particular language. However, given that the language
of social media is constructed using many aphorisms and abbreviations, it is likely that the chance
of misinterpretation is even higher. This brings me to consider, if a person does not understand the
language, and has to rely on a translation, does this affect the interpretation. The reader and
researcher has probably heard of the saying, ‘lost in translation’. It may not be clear what is lost, but
I believe the saying is referring to the context. Some words have no precise meaning when
translated, for example, the language of Wittgenstein is German and many of the words he uses
does not have a precise meaning in English. The Austrian philosopher Wittgenstein (1969), wrote
much about the subject of certainty. Enough to have a work named on certainty published after his
death. Previously I commented about how language is an imperfect way to describe ideas, thoughts
and particularly emotions. Imagine the problem trying to interpret philosophical and scientific
reasoning. One initially has to read it in one language, interpret the meaning and then translate it
into another language. Then the reader has to interpret it themselves in a way as similar to the
original as possible. I do admire people who are able to do this. As, without them we would not be
able to share the ideas of most of the world’s writers, philosophers and scientists. Which brings me
to the subject of science fiction versus science fact. Is there a clear distinction or a recognised
boundary between the two? From all of the information so far, obviously the answer to this is no,
there is no clear definition, there IS only science.

1.24 ON THE WORLD OF OPPOSITES

How will you feel if I describe a condition that casts doubt on everything you have read so far? As
though I haven’t subjected the reader and researcher to enough brain teasers and about turns
already! Well there is such a condition and it’s called Aphantasia. This is a medical term used to
describe a person with the inability to visualise. First coined by Francis Galton (1880), someone
who is aphantastic is unable to visualise their own family members. A person with this condition
will not be able to conjure up the image of my blue cone, or the sun, the moon and the stars. It
should be noted that this condition is only diagnosed if there is no evidence of brain injury. Yet there
are enough people who suffer from this condition, to warrant more research. Also, there is an
opposite effect to this condition called hyperphantasia. Although, I find this very difficult to
understand, because how do we quantify an overly vivid imagination. It seems that everything in
this world must have an opposing extreme. Like the weather, which swings between hurricane and
drought, the mind may experience cyclical experiences in the quest for equilibrium. Like the
weather forecast, which most of us know is never certain and therefore does not have a one hundred
percent probability of being correct. The more I deliberate on the question of harmony, the more I
find examples of our inability to make sense of the mind. Someone with bi-polar disorder will
oscillate between periods of mania and that of depression, in fact, the condition was originally
called manic-depression. Suppose that I am able to visualise visiting the dark side of the moon. Not
everyone can do this, as I have explained. I don’t remember going to the moon and there is no
evidence of me being there. We know there is no proof of anyone ever visiting the dark side of the
moon, then how am I able to visualise it. Particularly so, given that scientists assure us that it is so
dark, nothing can be seen with the naked eye. Why then am I able to visualise this darkness, yet the
person with aphantasia who visualises nothing all the time is considered to have an abnormality of
the mind. Is the person with aphantasia actually the one of sound mind and to visualise the
impossible is actually not healthy for the individual. Once again we return to the question, what is
normal? And once again I am unable to answer with any certainty. Obviously we do not have to be
certain of something to accept it as a truism. Hence we use an axiom, which is something so evident
that it is regarded as being true. I have spoken of this premise previously and it is used to help us
arrive at a conclusion. Without axioms (postulates), we would never be able to agree on anything.
For example, if I say, “I put my hand in a bucket of water”. It is not necessary to say.......”and the
water was wet”, because we automatically associate water with wetness. Here is another example of
a priori knowledge, (see 1.8.1). However, I am unable to postulate that a person with aphantasia,
who is unable to visualise, is also unable to dream. I would have to believe someone, if they tell me
that they are unable to dream, even though it may be that they are only unable to remember
dreaming. We are also unable to postulate that a person who experiences periods of mania, is in fact
having a form of hyperphantasia. Either condition causes a type of mental overindulgence, which
may be problematic to the person or affect other people. Once again we fall into the realms of
psychiatry, psychology and psychoanalysis. It appears that critique has no direction, and is circular,
because I always tend to end up where I started. Infinity, the never ending story, the world of
uncertainty never ends and yet it is always beginning.

1.25 ON THE CONCLUSION OF UNCERTAINTY

What can I say to conclude this critical analysis. I propose that we live a life filled with false
pretences. That when all is said and done we are individuals who are most selfish when we have
everything and least selfish when we have nothing. There is no question that we are intelligent, but
we fear the unknown, because we are uncomfortable with uncertainty. We promote vague
assumptions about certainty to justify our own failings. To reinforce the false belief that we have
complete control over the planet, we create ‘grey areas’, situations that may be construed in
whatever manner we consider fit for purpose. I am uncertain about the reason for our existence, but
I am certain about one thing at least. That we live a life of incomprehensible paradoxes.

At the beginning of this book, I detailed an interview with Antonio Guterres. On 28 February 2020,
the UN Secretary-General held a press conference two months before that interview and made this
stark warning.

“Today the World Health Organisation raised the risk of assessment of COVID-19 to very high at
the global level. We are seeing cases in a number of new countries. This is not a time for panic, it is
a time to be prepared, fully prepared. As WHO director general Dr Tedros said, the greatest enemy
right now is not the virus. It is fear, rumours and stigma. Now is the time for all governments to step
up and do everything possible to contain the disease. We know containment is possible but the
window of opportunity is narrowing. And, so I appeal for solidarity and full global support, but with
all countries fully assuming their responsibilities.” (United Nations Secretary-General, www.un.org,
Accessed 18 May 2020).

At the time of writing this prologue, (July 2020), the global death rate now stands at over 625,000,
with over 12 million cases, (source: Johns Hopkins University of Medicine coronavirus resource
centre). The figures may not be accurately reported, but it is a clear indication of how uncertainty
can turn apathy into anger and doubt into danger. Once the decision was made to ignore the
warnings, the window of opportunity was lost. When the mistake became apparent fear and panic
set in. Now the denials and accusations have started between the key countries. The more I learn
about certainty, the less I know about uncertainty. The more I learn about uncertainty, the less I
understand about certainty. This phenomenon was described rather poetically by Blaise Pascal
(1623-1662), “We sail within a vast sphere, ever drifting in uncertainty, driven from end to end”.