Universal Reasoning

Humanity is defined by its unwillingness to 'let it be'. Our species has matured and evolved on the principle of adaptation, manipulation, and control of its surroundings, through which has developed a fundamental stubbornness. There are, of course, instances of apathy in all beings; stubbornness is not present in every interaction (though it could be argued that refusal to care is but another of stubbornness' embodiments), but is an accompaniment of any scenario in which there is an underlying stake in how one's response/opinion is perceived (arguably, everything). We are all Cartesians; Descartes' theory of Universal Reasoning has provided humanity the logical support needed in order to magnify its individual perception of personal infallibility. In other words, Decartes made us all even bigger, closed-minded, one-track jackasses than was previously established by fundamental human nature. Where once one could reinforce his/her personal views by trust in past displays of common sense, s/he is now able to tack on to the list of inherent credentials the attribute of universal intellectual potential: if one holds the power of universal reasoning, there is no concept mentally out of reach; 'I have the ability to rationalize the universe, of course I know what I'm talking about on this specific matter.' It is because such a response has become so normative that we are faced with multiple, contradicting 'truths', and definitions of 'truth' in every daily interaction; it is also because of this that people define their individual principles prior to application, rather than letting experiences shape their cemented guidelines to life. We see our views and opinions as building blocks of our 'self' and consequently, we are all at each other's necks every time a personal, 'defining' principle gets called into question. Add a spotlight to the mix and you just produced Jerry Springer.