Philosophy Google search.

I've just google'd 'philosophy', and the first link is sponsored:
'PhilosophyR Free Delivery | philosophyskincare.co.uk
'www.philosophyskincare.co.uk
'Free delivery on all orders. Hurry, shop now. Offer ends 6th February!'

Hmmm. So Google thinks that sponsored links are more important than Philosophy. Oh dear. This is one of the biggest corporations on the face of the planet, with the largest say in whatever happens on the internet, which is in turn the largest and potentially most powerful tool for human existance ever. So how Google organizes the information could be considered a reflection on the internet, which in turn is a reflection on us, i.e. the entire human species (that uses the internet at least). I could talk here about corporate greed, that the bottom line is Google considers advertisements more important for their bottom line, i.e. profit, than their service. But then it's only one ad, and I don't want to get into that argument because it makes me angry. It's also worth noting that this sponsored ad gets the tiniest of pink tints, just making it that little more noticeable and important than the other links. There's a science to this, no doubt, where scientists get together and study psychology to maximise the impact of advertising. It's the same science behind that all too familiar sentence at the end - 'offers end soon! Buy now!!' I don't want to get into this argument either.


The second link is Wikipedia:
'Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
'Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.'

The second link is Wikipedia, which of course aims to be a repository for all human knowledge. It is often criticised by academics for being inaccurate, but it's difficult to guage whether this is merely because it renders academic study virtually obsolete, meaning academics have an adgenda against Wikipedia. Should knowledge be so cheaply available like this, since it devalues the worth of a true, dedicated scholar, turning the Wikipedia user into a simple drone to be told what to think? Can we trust what is written on Wikipedia? And even if we make the move to the next stage of human evolution, and all of our knowledge is held on a single site, consider the consequences of what happens when that site fails. I do use Wikipedia, so I know I'm a hypocrit, but everyone is, so deal with it. That first sentence, the summary, is an accurate enough description, isn't it? That's as much faith as I put in Wikipedia to be honest. I trust it for a brief overview, and that's it.


The third link is:
'philosophy official site | skin care products | bath & beauty | perfume
'www.philosophy.com/
'philosophy celebrates feeling well and living joyously - hope in a jar skin moisturizer, amazing grace bath & body, purity made simple, & more beauty products...'

The third link physically disgusts me. Humans are vain. Disgustingly fucking vain.
That we need products to feel beautiful basically shits on people's values of what we consider beautiful. And then to tie this shallow artificial beauty bullshit with PHILOSOPHY!? What if beauty is a philosophy? What if the conclusion, for some people, to 'the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language' is that BEAUTY is the answer? Fucking vain. I'd vomit with disgust if the toilet wasn't already occupied by an attractive, high heeled, bullimic waste of space. Careful love, you'll get vomit on your beauty products, and then what will make you beautiful?


The fourth, FOURTH link is:
'Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
'www.iep.utm.edu/
'An open access resource hosted by the University of Tennesseeat Martin.'

The fourth link, finally, brings us to a University Encyclopedia. Now that's more like it. But fucking FOURTH? Fourth in the list, really? Humanity is fucking screwed.