Correct

So, Karl Rove joined Fox News, Mitt Romney said that if we elect Obama or Clinton we're all going to die, Mike Huckabee doesn't "believe in" evolution, and Demonology Spec warlocks participate in 25 man raids.

While each of these topics merit a rant of their own (aside: What the fuck does BELIEF have to do with evolution, anyway?) I think that there is a common factor, a common misunderstanding and fundamental mistake, in each of these situations which ought to be addressed:

What is correct?

I mean that not in the sense of "Which of these possible answers is correct?" but rather in the sense of what is correct; what is it to be correct? How is correctness determined? What are right and wrong, correct and incorrect?

To answer this question we must first confront a dilemma: If we know not what is correct then how are we to determine the correct means by which we may determine what correct is?

To overcome this dilemma we must think. We must abandon our entrenched indoctrination and intellectually explore the concept for what it is rather than what one thinks it ought to be. We must seek the answer while we seek the means. We must do philosophy.

When we think about correct and what it is in any situation for a thing to be correct we can easily determine what correct is not. Correct is not empirical. Correct is not subjective or objective. Correct is not moral. Correct is not ethical. Correct is not hypothetical, inculcated, arbitrary, or a revelation.

Correct, right, incorrect, wrong is the result of a process in which beings who correct assess a thing and so determine its correctness, rightness, incorrectness, wrongness. Correct is like purpose. Beings who purpose denote purpose onto objects, thoughts. In the same way beings who correct denote correct onto thoughts, opinions, actions. But what is the means by which correctness is denoted? How is correctness determined?

Context

Correct exists within a context for correctness. What is ethically correct, morally correct, empirically correct, subjectively correct, rationally correct, emotionally correct, mathematically correct, scientifically correct, theologically correct is determined via an assessment of the thing within the context in which correctness is assessed.

If one draws a picture of an apple what is the correct color for the apple to be? To answer this question we must know the context for correctness. Is it a black and white picture? Is this an apple based upon our world of apples or some other realm of apples in which Lilac, grey, and chartreuse are the only options? What kind of apple?

Correctness is always only ever contextual. But how to assess the contexts for correctness? How to determine correctness between a religious and non-religious context, a legal context and a moral context?

CONTEXT

While creating an absolute hierarchical ranking of contexts for correctness is incredibly difficult given the contextual nature of correct we can assess conflicting and differing contexts; we can compare the contextual correctness of multiple contexts. Take the examples of rationalism and empiricism. How would one contextually assess the contextual correctness of either context? Stated simply: Which is the best context?

The answer to this question will, of course, be contextual. Rationalism and Empiricism are each the result of different contextual needs and views which, themselves, result from differing contexts users mistakenly hold to be most contextually relevant and meaningful. In actuality, though, either of these contexts, in fact all contexts, exist as a result of the one fundamental context:

Life.

Correct is about life; human beings existing in the world purposing, correcting, acting, thinking, being. All contexts have a primary foundation of our being in the world existing as beings who context and so correct. From our being in the world, our existing, we can determine the correct contextual context for correct; the context most wholly harmonious with our being in the world.

Now work forward from life, from your everyday experience of being in the world and you'll understand why Mitt Romney is wrong, why Mike Huckabee is a dolt, and why people who bring Demonology Spec Warlocks to Gruul's Lair are fucking idiots.