I don't even know where to start with this because there are so many things I would like to respond to and I don't really have the time right now, but I at least want to point out one point that really bothered me:<p>"This is the classical philosophy of Aristotle and Socrates which is rational absolutism. It is NOT the charlatan 'philosophy' of mysticism, positivism, relativism, perspectivism, nihilism and altruism of Plato, Marx, Imannuel [sic] Kant, Kierkegaard, Hegel and so many others..."<p>First, it's simply not possible to make a clear distinction between the philosophy of Socrates and the philosophy of Plato, as Socrates never wrote anything himself and all we know of him is through Plato's writings. Even using Plato's writings it is impossible to truly discern what the philosophical differences between Plato and Socrates were exactly, as we only have access to Plato's Socrates.<p>Also trying to separate Aristotle's writings from a more "religious" tradition is a pretty ironic mistake. Aristotle's biggest contribution to modern society probably comes through his influence on the early Catholic church. In fact, the prevailing Aristotelian worldview of the Catholic church during the middle ages is exactly what was called into question by the Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers when it was replaced with more rational and humanist philosophies, like those of Immanuel Kant (who is also on the "wrong" side of the author's dichotomy despite probably being the most in line with what the author is trying to espouse.)<p>I've probably over-generalized myself in the last few paragraphs as I am not an expert on the history of Philosophy and I wrote this quickly, but I at least wanted to point out some obvious inaccuracies in the author's portrayal of that history so nobody gets the wrong idea.