Philosophy and the Black Con

The philosophy serving as the foundation of the ideas presented in The Black Con is based on the Socratic and Hegalian dialectic that sees the history of ideas following this basic pattern:

• an idea is created;
• the opposite idea is often created in response to the idea;
• these two ideas clash into one another and often create a synthesis. Then this synthesis is a new idea, which creates an opposite idea, which results in another synthesis.

The first idea is called a thesis; the opposite idea is called an anti-thesis; and the combination of the two ideas is called the synthesis.

 Granted this dialectical process may seem as a little complicated, but as we will soon see, using the dialectic is perhaps the best way of understanding all the ideas and spirits involved in the U.S. racial conflicts.

The dialectic helps us see not how we should think and see, but rather how we actually think and see in the everyday world.  The dialectic helps us see how the world is.

For example, in an ordinary discussion, you might propose and idea, or a hypothesis.  This can be called a thesis.  Then the other person counters with an opposing idea.  This can be called an anti-thesis.  If the discussion continues and you and the other person exchange thoughts and arguments concerning the thesis and the anti-thesis, you both might agree on a new idea, which is a combination of the thesis and anti-thesis.  We can call this new idea the synthesis.

With the cognitive eyeglasses of the dialectic, we see that, although the Progressives and Black activists often claim we need more discussion on the topic of race relations, what has historically happened has been that most of the discussion is on the theses. This thesis includes many of the ideas which we summarize in what we will call the Black con. The anti-theses to this discussion are hardly ever heard, and when they are heard they are denounced by angry and often violent denunciations of Progressives and Black activists.  They define these anti-theses as being racist, hateful and evil.

But in fact the anti-theses are often rational, well-intentioned, and moral arguments that are necessary for the resolutions of the racial conflicts in the U.S.  If the theses and the anti-theses are authentically discussed in a rational manner, there is a high probability that a synthesis (a resolution) can be created.  On the other hand, if the only ideas and arguments that are discussed are the theses, then any chance of resolutions is hopeless.

This is how the world works.