Why it’s essential to create a solid foundation of knowledge and to use this foundation for the bases of shared knowledge and learning

Introduction

Why it’s essential to develop solid foundations for knowledge and to use this foundation for the bases of shared knowledge and learning. In this world of dis, mis or mal-information, it's important that we are able to disseminate from fact and faction for ourselves and create our own foundation of knowledge. One way I believe we can do this is analysis how the greatest philosophical minds in history created their own foundation of knowledge. To answer this question, I will analyse theories against blockchain technology's potential.?

Hagel’s theory on the importance of history

Hagel's theory of history is a sociological approach to understanding history based on the idea that social and economic changes are the primary drivers of historical development. According to Hagel, the forces of change are those of production and consumption, which create a cycle of change that shapes both social and economic life. He argues that the history of any society can be understood by looking at how these forces interact and affect one another. Hagel's history theory emphasises the importance of material conditions, such as economic and technological advances, in determining the course of history. He emphasises the role of power and privilege in determining who can benefit from the changes brought about by advances in production and consumption.

Hegel would likely approach blockchain technology from a philosophical perspective to understand the underlying principles that govern it and compare contrasting such principles against the current financial tools we use today. He would likely consider how blockchain technology works as a system of interconnected networks, how the technology is used to store and transact data, and how the technology is used to facilitate trust and transparency. He may also consider how blockchain technology is used to create new forms of financial and economic models and how it can be used to develop new ways of conducting business. Additionally, Hegel would likely explore the implications of blockchain technology for society, including its potential to reduce inequality and create new forms of economic and political systems, against the current financial and e-commence tools we currently use.

Aristotle and learning from past experience

?The importance of history would apply to Aristotle's theory of knowledge, in that he would emphasise the value of learning from past experiences. For example, Aristotle believed that knowledge is acquired through experience and that this learning should be based on understanding the past. According to Hagel, understanding history is essential for understanding the present and preparing for the future. As such, Hagel's theory would support Aristotle's notion that knowledge is acquired through experience and that it is important to learn from the past to be able to apply it to the present.

?Aristotle understands the importance of knowledge and reasoning based on knowledge acquired through experience, observation, and rational thinking. He believed that the most fundamental form of knowledge is derived from the senses and that all other forms of knowledge must be based on this primary source. He also argued that reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions based on logical evidence and making valid inferences. I would use Aristotle’s understanding to explain, what is, money, investing clearing and settlement, double entry bookkeeping and are interaction with Web 2.0, and use this understanding to create a better understanding of the potential of blockchain technology. According to Aristotle, knowledge is acquired through abstraction, which involves taking the essential features of a particular phenomenon and forming a general concept of it. Thus, according to Aristotle, knowledge is acquired through logic and rational thinking.?

Plato and Socrates's theory of reasoning and truth

Plato believed that reason and truth are the foundations of knowledge and provide the basis for all ethical and moral decisions. He believed that reason and truth are essential to access and understanding the divine realm, which is the source of true knowledge. Plato wrote that “reason is the ruling principle of the universe” and that “truth resides in the realm of the Forms,” an eternal and unchanging realm of pure ideas. He believed that reason and truth are the only paths to wisdom and knowledge. Socrates also believed everyone has an innate capacity to learn and understand the world around them. He wanted to emphasise this point to encourage people to use their own powers of critical thinking and inquiry to discover new truths.

?By highlighting the importance of learning, Socrates advocated for a more enlightened society that was not reliant on traditional authorities and structures but instead on individual exploration and understanding. This is a key point in Socrates' philosophy, which is still relevant today. Each of the philosophers highlighted the importance of discourse and debate for the development of mankind. By applying and combining our understanding of human nature and exciting technology,? we can analyse these opinions to develop, improve and create new technologies for the benefit of all. This can only happen with free speech.?

JFK’s warning about secret societies

John F. Kennedy’s speech on secret societies, delivered on April 27, 1961, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York, highlighted the importance of the right to free speech and the need to learn from each other and challenge each other, through a process of shared learning that can benefit society as a whole. There is no time in history, is this speech more important, than today.?

“The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society, and we are, as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.?

Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.? And there is a grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the limits of official censorship and concealment. I do not intend to permit it to the extent it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.??

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards and to recognise the nature of our country's peril. In times of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline to prevent unauthorised disclosures to the enemy. In a time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.? Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemies are advancing around the globe.?

The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, and no missiles have been fired.? If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been clearer, and its presence has never been more imminent.? It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, the people, every businessman or labour leader, and every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

?It is a system that has conscripted vast human and material resources into building a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.? Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumour is printed, and no secret is revealed. In short, it conducted the Cold War with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. Nevertheless, every democracy recognises the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack and outright invasion.?

?The facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.??

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. They undoubtedly would not have published such items if we had been engaged in open warfare. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognised only the tests of journalism, not national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.? The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention and urge its thoughtful consideration.??

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call on every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.? I do not intend to establish a new Office of War Information to govern the news flow. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma I have posed and would not seek to impose it if I had one.?

But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their responsibilities, consider the degree and nature of the present danger, and heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.? Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" I suggest you add the question: "Is it in the interest of national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavours and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.? And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate wholeheartedly with those recommendations.??

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma a free and open society faces in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.? The unprecedented nature of this challenge also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts they need and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices we face.??

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. From that scrutiny comes understanding, and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking for your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.? I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it.?

This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and expect you to point them out when we miss them.? Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive.?

That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why the First Amendment protected our press-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasise the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.??

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news and improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.?

?Early in the Seventeenth Century, Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.? And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be: free and independent. “

?John F. Kennedy's secret society speech is one of the most iconic and memorable speeches of the 20th century. Kennedy used the speech to address the growing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union and to provide his own vision for the future of the world. Today, we have potential conflict with Russia and China and blockchain technology and the role it will have in our monetary system as an important part of that hegemonic struggle.

Applying JFK’s speech to society today

By defining the characteristics of a secret society and then going on to explain how the US and the USSR could work together to create a more peaceful and prosperous world. There is no greater a secret society than that of the Federal Reserve, the financial system's inner works, and the role of firms like DTCC and Cede&Co, even with the creation of Bitcoin and the secret nature of how or who created the Bitcoin white paper.

He highlighted the need for mutual understanding and respect and warned against the dangers of nuclear proliferation and the arms race. The speech was a powerful call for solidarity between the two superpowers. Kennedy's words were inspiring and hopeful but also direct and uncompromising. He called for us to put aside our differences and work together to create a better world. Kennedy's speech was a powerful reminder of the importance of international cooperation and peace. It served as a rallying cry for a new era of global unity and set the tone for the remainder of his presidency.?

John F. Kennedy's defence of free speech was rooted in his belief that democracy was based on an open exchange of ideas. He argued that free speech was essential to democracy, as it allowed citizens to express their views on important issues. Kennedy argued that free speech should be protected regardless of whether one agreed or disagreed with the views being expressed, as it was essential to the functioning of democracy. He also argued that free speech was essential to a healthy society, as it allowed citizens to express their creative ideas and challenge existing beliefs. Blockchain technology can be used for so much good. However, it does provide those in control of the technology, especially in the case of a CDBC. as such, given are tempered understanding of human nature and our historical understanding of our banking system, we need to create a policy that both limits their power and ensures the technology is for the benefit of all and not the few. This can only be done through free speech, which is a right of all citizens, not just those in power, and should be protected. I would love to help create a world, as highlighted by Plato, where we are all ‘philosopher kings’? to develop a solid and vibrant nation, allowing citizens to explore new ideas and solve social and political problems.

It’s of the utmost importance that institutions, like the Federal Reserve and DTCC are accountable to the American people and ensure their policies are effective. I cannot emphasise the importance of the right of free speech enough as a tool to seek truth and knowledge. Freedom of speech allows people to express their thoughts and opinions without fear of retribution, enabling them to explore ideas and find new facts. It strengthens democracy by allowing citizens to express their views and hold their government accountable for its actions.?

Conclusion

I want to bring together my understanding of the financial world, to create an opinion on the future of blockchain, and for each reader, to form a level of doubt that Descartes would have applied. From this shared learning, we can develop and demand policies within the sector that can benefit society. That uses this foundation of knowledge to create a foundational understanding of the key concepts, protocols and stakeholders, so we can develop a concrete understanding of the future benefits and pitfalls that the technology may have. To form a policy that will benefit all. By understanding philosophy and the process of knowledge, we have a better chance of creating knowledge that is likely to last. This can only be done through open, honest and transparent debate, around are shared experience of our current financial system, and how that shared understanding can be applied to blockchain so that policy can be created so the technology can benefit all and not a few.