A Writ by Uncle Emanuel Watkins on What is the Supreme Rational State?

(Again, the process of writing a Writ differs from writing an Essay in that, in determining who is the reading audience, the first method should always reduce the whole world's population to the common denominator of a lone trespassing prostitute.  Indeed, the writer of a Writ should always reduce his or her reading audience to within the being of the one being made to prostitute herself upon the streets while she is having to suffer from the harshest of seasonal elements whether that be during the hottest of days or during the coldest of nights.)

The Old World

At a moments notice, to protect the borders of their city-state home of Athens, Socrates the great Athenian hoplite would grab his armament and arms to scamper off diligently with his other fellow Athenian guards.  The incredible bravery exhibited in such battles by this future philosopher and father of all Western Civilization became *legendary.  Upon his return from war, his students, as was customary of them, would all come running up asking about his exploits and of all the particulars having taken place during the conflict.

In typical fashion, Socrates would settle them down by agreeing to do so, but only after they had first demonstrated to him the progress they had made in their school work.

And what have we all learned today?  Well, after countless amounts of pain suffered and blood spilled, we have arrived at the conclusion that "corruption is the most supreme of all things rational."

Indeed, to Socrates question of "what is rational?," we should all provide the paradoxical answer of "corruption."  Understand, Socrates using a new teaching method already had the problem worked out prior.  Indeed, as he surely had if figured, a rational person is one who, by the use of dialectic truth engines, has discipline themselves along a general path in a direction towards what is the best-principled truth, somewhere between what was established to be false and deceptive, and what was established by the sophists to be an unapproachable Truth.

Plato, one of the students of Socrates and the first master professor in Western Civilization, the one who developed the Theory of the Forms and Best Principled Statements, would have gone about working the problem out this way:

Okay, as an irrational person is one who behaves in the most informal of states, in contrast, a rational person is one who would behave in the most formal.  Or, think of an irrational person as being one who would be adorned in the most informal attire of just wearing their undergarments perhaps, or, even less so, of being so primitive as to wear nothing at all.  Meanwhile, consider a rational person as being one who is adorned in the most formal attire of a suit and a tie.

We should consider this the Old World.

The New World      

Aristotle, being that he was the father of deductive reason, might find irrational my conclusion that "political corruption" is the most supreme of all forms of rational reasoning.  However, like most, he couldn't see that there always existed a missing variable in Plato's dialogues.  This variable is an invisible character representing the ruling class, the ones who could never be spoken poorly about - accused of ruling irrational - or else there would have been severe consequences to pay!  These were those who had absolute power as the all-knowing tyrants living within the world of Greece.  Indeed, a paradox exists here that, while the sophists and the philosophers were instrumental in helping rid the world of corruption, the best we can ever be ruled over is by corrupt politics.  

Indeed, Plato wrote of a conflict pitting two kinds of "knowers" against the other with one being the sophist (literally the Greek meaning being one who is a wisdomer) and the other being the philosopher (literally the Greek meaning being one who is a lover of wisdom).  While the sophists were the oral ones making sophisticated arguments that the ultimate Truth could never be approached, meaning that this was the best truth out of all and, as a consequence there existed no such conclusion as the truth, the philosophers took up their challenge and, by the use of dialectic truth engines, proved that certain refined truths were more valuable than others, ethically speaking.

While there is no such thing as a perfect Union as a sophists might argue, suggesting that the best any truth can be is in two parts while the same is true of the endeavor of government, our Founders argued for the existence of a more perfect Union, suggesting the most ideal state is the one always perfecting in its quest to advance the Civil Purpose of the people.          

Our enemy is the same today as it has always been.  They are born into their position as the most supreme of all thinkers even over the rational thinkers (or else).  These are the same ones who concocted a way of sentencing Socrates to death.  Indeed, they are also are the same ones who schemed a way of crucifying the Almighty.

In our New World, there exists a better way to govern than the Old World two-party system.  I know this to be the case as most Americans also consider it so, for most of us are far too busy to be either liberal or conservative.  Instead, as the best rational thought can ever be is a corrupt and cruel politics ruling over us, then the best authority is the one that is circumcised (narrowed) towards what is the most ideal - the government that is best controlled by the people.

Indeed, the best government is not the best endowed man among many, as our Founding Fathers declared while submissive to God's authority, but all men are endowed.  

As the most supreme rational state above all else will always be a political corrupt one (or else), the American way is to circumcise authority reducing it down to what is the most ideal by way of controlling government towards a relationship that is an ever improving 'more perfect Union.'