Much is said about prejudice, but the basis of the word is that prejudice is something in which an analysis has not been generated.
Nowadays it is said that what goes against the dominant concept is prejudice, but this is just being against another concept, as long as there is a concept to oppose another concept.
At this point we have freedom of expression. Concepts generated to contrast concepts.
Prejudice would be correctly, something created without a rational analysis on a subject. A concept must be constructed in a rational way to the point of responding to the antitheses of its analyses.
A prejudice is defined when its bases are clear dogmas. Idealizing that everything that goes against the opinion of a group is prejudice, it is merely the annulment of thoughts contrary to the group.
Normally, social systems do not have a convergent position foundation, that is, they do not have a single solution, and in the end, any analysis based on human imagination, in the end, is a prejudice, because anthropocentrism is based on a dogma.
Anthropocentrism is the dogma that says that man is the center of all things. This is a dogma at the moment we have that the human being ceases to exist, does not make the universe cease to exist. In this way man is not the center of the universe.
In fact, catastrophes are not caring for man, for catastrophes man is nothing. So we clearly have that everything that involves the human imagination as a norm to define right and wrong is in the end prejudice.
So when someone bases his opinion on the opinion of the other, and both are grounded in the imaginative human concept, this is a war of prejudice.
Therefore, the only non-prejudiced system is the one linked to naturalism, in which the answer to an action is always the same.
So man cannot be the center of things but an integral part for the evolution of all beings. Expanding mechanisms to reduce expenses and increase production, in the context of universal laws, and not, in the concept of their will.
