Opening Statement - The Problem
Thank you for the invitation to join this forum. I am joining with some trepidation - I am not a philosopher and I have not any formal qualification in philosophy. But then, according to Jostein Gaarder in 'Sophie's World' - "...the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder ..." I also have to admit that I do not speak any of the peculiar languages 'ology', 'ism' and such, I prefer plain English.
The Problem, from my "faculty of wonder": For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this?
The Problem, from my "faculty of wonder": For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this?
Comments (141)
This has degenerated in the last few decades and people try and game the system. Once there is a small breakdown in the system, it rapidly becomes every man (or woman) for themselves.
We can have wonderful ideas about no strife, everyone being fed etc etc but as soon as a couple of people jump the queue the result is chaos and the breakdown of balance in society.
Also, when there is inequality then there is resentment and people wishing to get more than they have when they see others with more.
I also think we like a struggle and a bit of a scrap.
Not one ism was quoted there.
1. What, exactly, do you mean by 'system'?
2. You mention unwritten rules that were followed and then not followed - is that not the basis of any political change and if so, we humans has been doing that for as long as philosophy has been studied, not so?
3. You show negative comments on "a couple of people jump the queue", is that not the basis of our human innovation and progress? The same goes for "people wishing to get more than they have".
Your contribution is appreciated and thank you for the plain english but I do not find myself closer to an answer to my question.
The system was that people stood in line and waited their turn.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I was pointing out why this is. From your opening post. If everyone doesn't buy in, then we get a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!"
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
The answer is some people will always be selfish c**ts if they think they can get away with it and there aren't sufficient rules and discipline to stop them. It isn't rocket science.
Why do you think the world is as it is?
Do you think it might be because the lessons of philosophy may not actually be observed? That if more people actually comported themselves as philosophers, in a spirit of rational self-knowledge and temperance, then there would be correspondingly less strife. But then that cant really be imposed, it is something that has to be taken up voluntarily. And besides, philosophy itself is generally regarded as a bookish and irrelevant subject by a lot of people.
So - why blame philosophy? Dont the problems youre lamenting characterise unruly human nature?
In my opinion the only way to prevent these is perfection, which is impossible. From my understanding, Philosophy is a bunch of people trying and thinking everything they can to improve (Or at least that is how I think it should be).
Do you think one person can bring about such a huge change? While people do work together it is not simply 1+1=2 in terms of ability.
War might be easier to understand, can one person stop war. War is violence between two countries (rudimentary definition). On a smaller scale imagine two people, if one person wants to punch another, and follows through then it is violence. Can a person stop that?
If a country wants to start a war, what can stop them?
The only way to eradicate war, is to control people which is impossible, and most people would consider immoral.
Not to mention not all war is bad. War can be fought for many purposes, you would stop both the good and bad of war.
Its the same with everything else you mentioned, the only way to stop it 100% is to take away their freedom.
Which leads me to the question, would you rather live in today's world or in any point in the past? (and if the later please tell me what time)
My answer is simple: the world is as it is because that is how the world and we humans evolved. Which then begs the question, how did this evolution took place?
The answer to this question is a bit more involved but is spelled out unambiguously in the book, How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.
I'm not sure what philosophy has to do with world peace or orderly behaviour. Can you explain the connection?
Humans hold beliefs, and some of these beliefs fall under the domain of philosophy. It's a vast and complex subject, marked by frequent disagreement and often involving abstract or obscure approaches. Philosophers are just as likely to argue with rancour as any other group, especially when they hold different presuppositions. A subject like solving hunger or caring for the environment is just as likely to dissolve into conflict as any other issue. Why? Because there are always conflicting and contradictory values and beliefs attached to any proposed model. Philosophy won't end the diversity of viewpoints.
Welcome to the forum. Philosophy is not really equipped to solve the problems youve identified.
How is that different to my example? What do you propose to order society better?
1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
2. the study of the theoretical basis of a branch of knowledge or experience.
3. a theory or attitude that guides one's behaviour.
So, after 2,600 years of this study we still have armed conflict, poverty and hunger, we are destroying our own environment and we are somehow on the verge of being taken over by artificial intelligence. Why is that?
You mention "unruly human nature" - so, do we accept that the "human nature" that has been studied for this 2,600 years is in fact strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war?
Human nature has strong tendencies towards those activities. That humans are often inclined to those destructive behaviours is observable thoughout history. How to rein it in and to what ends are questions that indeed occupy philosophers (among others.)
As to your question: "Quoting Red Sky
This question has no utility - it think it is called a rhetorical question.
Why would philosophy eliminate the diversity of viewpoints? Do you believe theres only one way of thinking and that philosophy should get us all there?
Perhaps you should say my book, since you are the author :wink:
That is class. I wonder if he has worked why we no longer queue in UK as much as we used to.
It wasn't philosophers that contributed to our knowledge. It was scientists and inventors of technology. It is through science that we have been able to feed more people and increase their lifespans. Are there people still starving and still dying at young ages? Yes, but it seems we are heading in the right direction unless one makes the argument that more humans is the problem. We don't have enough resources to go around equally so is philosophy/science telling us that a Logan's Run society where everyone dies at 30 to maintain a steady population so scarce resources can be equally distributed is the way to go?
Science doesn't tell you what you should do. It merely tells you what is. What you do with that information is up to you - keeping in mind that you are an individual member of a social species that may need to compromise with other individuals to acquire the benefits of a group while trying to minimize the restraints the group has on your individual freedom and expression (what good are you to the group if you haven't attended to your own well-being?) Evolutionary psychology informs you that this is the set of circumstances we find ourselves cognitively in but it is ultimately up to you to decide how much energy you devote to the group as opposed to yourself.
Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but the way this quote reads is that "a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger," etc., came as a result of philosophy -which is absurd. Philosophy is not responsible for all the misery in the world. If that's not what you meant, then you really need an editor ;)
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
If anything, the purpose of philosophy is to increase diversity of viewpoints.
"Because it's there." As Mallory replied when asked why he wanted to climb Everest. Your book cannot end the diversity of viewpoints so why did you write it?
But things have gotten much better for a lot of people in the last thousand years. Hasn't philosophy played a large part in that?
Hi Pieter,
Welcome.
We all see what you are asking, but each word is important to the philosopher. You are making leaps without showing the logic and it may not be logical to make those leaps.
Just above you seem to be saying that there is one result from philosophy, and this result is the world where we are unable to have peace
It almost sounds here like you are saying philosophers are sowing the discord in the world, or at least supporting the philosophies that lead to or allow for all the badness.
I dont think that is what you are meaning to say.
So of we are to really dig into the weeds here, you need to speak more carefully.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
There are two threads raging on the forum right now as we speak that utterly challenge that. Good philosophy requires much more rigor than what the faculty of wonder requires.
But still, I personally do think good philosophy and wisdom can come from anyone, not just an academic (academia can be a hindrance to wisdom). So I truly welcome your sense of wonder and willingness to make assertions and test them out here in the forum. But, as youve already seen, welcome to all of the push-back!
I think you are asking too much and should ask narrower questions, if you want to get closer to the answer you seek.
There is the human condition and the world we share. I would say nothing in it has really changed for 5,000 years - we shoot ourselves and our neighbors in the foot constantly, and blame the other guy. Thats what we do to each other for various reasons and theories and causes and purposes, or maybe just is.
Then there is philosophy - which includes making observations like the one I just did about the human condition, but also includes seeing if this observation is said well and reflects the reality behind what appears. (So many ways to say what philosophy is.). Further, and more modernly, philosophy has come to be logic, the analysis of language itself. Its hardly about such grand questions you are asking at all. Its about whether your question is coherent and can even be asked let alone answered. Its about whether my observation about the human condition has any real sense and reference to it that others can discuss with me, or is it just my own narrative.
Last there is what you are asking - when is philosophy going to say the magic words that show us how to improve our condition.
But there is a huge disconnect as to whether such magic is possible. It is a philosophic question whether some universal Truth even exists, one that could magically answer your questions.
But also, there is an even bigger disconnect between knowing the one magical truth and subsequently following it and living it. The world is full of war because people dont always care about the truth and simply want to destroy others despite no logical reason to do so. People are sons of bitches.
All that said, there are answers to your question in philosophy-adjacent areas.
Why is the world so messed up?
Buddha: because of our desire.
Christ and The book of Genesis: because people are broken, our essential nature marred by a self-inflicted wound (original sin).
Existentialism: because mind in the universe is absurd, seeking to know the world it willingly distinguishes itself from in order to reconnect itself to that world through knowledge (absurd endeavor called truth) (also, in my opinion, a lot like original sin but without the religious baggage).
Politicians: because the other party are all deplorables. (Because some people are sons of bitches but not me.)
The philosopher qua philosopher hates those answers. Too mythical and psychologistic and idealistic, too able to be dissected into nonsense upon rigorous scrutiny.
But the philosopher has yet to provide an answer, and many philosophers do not think it possible.
And again, even if we wrote the magic book with the most persuasive argument concluding absolutely that compassion and love and humility and respect and charity, all fostered by self-discipline and practice, will together build us a better world, most of us would say, Im too tired, leave me alone.
That, in my opinion, is the problem - its not a lack of philosophy, its a lack of effort.
Basically, its your fault.
And mine. (Mostly mine.)
That is a much more succinct, and so better, way of saying the key takeaways I was trying say. :up:
I think the evolution randomly varies the magnitude of the selfishness in the personality of each newborn. With this individual variation in our societies, evolution will develop sweet compromises between too much selfishness and too much selflessness. No individual is autarkic, so it is forced to be cooperative. When the individual exaggerates its selfishness, the other individuals won't trust him or her anymore, thusly the selfish parts of the society will die out after a short time as the elements of personality are partially inheritable, I guess. That's why cooperative societies live for millions of years and selfish societies such as the Hitler-regime, for example, last for just a few years. But evolution won't stop to generate variations of personalities at random. That's why there's often three steps forward and one step back; the cycle goes on. Life is based on random variations, and that does not only affect the development of bodies but also that of the minds.
No, I don't think so. As I see it, philosophy usually reflects rather than leads. It's generally a couple of steps behind.
I think there are some philosophers that reflect and then lead. Popper, Russell, Kant, Epikouros, Sokrates ...
I used the words "usually" and "generally" because I didn't want to be too definitive. I'm sure there are some cases, although I don't know enough to argue the specific philosophers you've identified. I would have thought that the best candidates for philosophers who actually lead would be political philosophers such as Marx.
I correct myself: I actually agree with you regarding the word "usually". I have the impression that most philosophers remain caught in their reflection loop. They usually remain descriptive and unable to provide suggestions for problem solving. I guess this happens mostly in the field of language philosophy, less so in the field of logic, for example.
To whether this question has meaning or not I think that I, the one who asked the question, would be able to tell better.
My intent with the question is whether you think that times in the past are better than now.
Additionally, I think some people are trying to say that we would be in the same situation even without philosophy or even worse. Not having philosophy wouldn't change whether we have poverty or not.
Thats an interesting subject and could be a thread in itself: does philosophy lead or follow? I suspect it leads though it probably depends on the examples we focus on. @Joshs often argues that philosophy innovates and sets the direction, and it can take a hundred years for society to catch up to the ideas. Thats why postmodern ideas, while not yet fully assimilated and still resisted, seem to be gradually becoming more influential. Meanwhile, it's sometimes said that many people are still operating within the framework of 17th-century materialism. In the 19th century slavery was abolished based largely on ideas about rights and human dignity developed in the 17th century (Locke).
In my recent exchange with @Quk, above, I convinced myself that Im being too definitive in my statement. As I noted, Marx certainly had a big influence and led to a lot of social and political change.
As I think about it more, it probably makes sense to include scientific philosophers in with them. Descartes is a good example. Of course, that was back when philosophers were still scientists too. Perhaps more recently, Popper.
Social philosophy, such as postmodernism as you mention, strikes me as exactly the kind of philosophy Im talking about. Society changes and philosophy tries to explain it, often badly. As far as I can see, postmodernism just regurgitates ideas that have been around for a long time and tries to apply them to modern life and politics. Strikes me that to the extent it is influential, its primarily influential among philosophers, not the public at large.
I forgot to say that I consider the gentlemen I mentioned -- Popper, Russell, Kant, Epikouros, Sokrates -- in some of their works political too. Popper wrote about Marx. German chancellor Schmidt sought advice from Popper. Or think about Russell's pacifism and the moment when he gave up his pacifism in order to stop the nazis. And so on.
[img]
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/download/2705/YGID%20small.png[/img]
Is this? We exist. Existence means there is some form of balance.
Daily life is Peaceful enough for the vast majority. Example, I cannot recall having to fight anyone physically for any reason - at least since adolescence!
"The Logic of Existence". A bold claim to make that existence is logical.
Purpose? Utility? You understand what these terms mean? Explain please.
Get the idea now. Perspectives help. Alternative perspective offer different views of 'purpose,' 'war' and many other terms we throw around with gay abandon. The mistake we all make is assuming we know what we mean simply by using the authority of 'words'.
Philosophy started on one simple question: How should I live my life?
Everything else is basically a branch of this one question.
Im not smart enough to get the most out of po-mo but our mutual friend here - Streetlight - was right into it and gave me some insight into the brilliance of it with a personal tour. And he was smart as fuck. The fashionable view is that PM is derivative and relativistic flap doodle which suggests to me there might be something to it. It may still be too early
This is probably a digression, but I think it's far more than that. The term 'post-' is significant - similar to the sense conveyed by 'post Christian'. A post-Christian society may no longer identify as Christian, but it relies on many fundamental terms and ideas which were originally part of the Christian ethos. They have a shared understanding of what it is they no longer believe - which you couldn't have had, had you never been Christian. Similarly with post-modernism. The modern period I put between the Trial of Galileo and the 1920s, characterized by belief in progress, the normativity of reason and objective fact. Post modernism is characterized by relativism, the contextual nature of truth, and the rejection of meta-narrative. (And yes, @Tom Storm, I learned a lot from Street, but his vituperation was pretty hard to take at times.)
I took a look at your forum profile where you list Donald Trump Jr. as one of your favourite philosophers, hehe. What "reflect/lead" ratio would you diagnose in his case? I'm asking to find out whether a further dimension needs to be considered apart from the "reflect/lead" axis.
I agree; I had the same thought and wanted to post a similar comment. It's a generalization of all thoughts that have ever occured. As if philosophy were a creature with a phone number: "Hello, philosophy! What have you done?" -- On the other hand, poetry is allowed as well. So why not talk about "all thoughts of the world" in a poetic way and name it philo-sophy -- "the love of wisdom"? There we are again: Language is based on metaphors. We're running in circles.
Dont think too hard about this. I generally include Donald Trump Jr. on every list I make, including my weekly grocery list. Youve probably heard of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. I have been diagnosed with TJDS, Trump Jr. Derangement Syndrome.
I see. Just checked Wikipedia. Hadn't heard of this "syndrome" before; I live outside the USA, haha.
Theres a good chance Im the only person yet who has been formally diagnosed.
I meant the "[Bush/DT/...] Derangement Syndrome" in general. Did you get your diagnosis on this forum? Is it an inside joke?
It was a self diagnosis. Yes it is an inside joke - it came from inside me, although I have shared it here on the forum before.
I have always understood that the modern period was dated between the early and mid 1900s.
Im pretty sure thats how E A Burtt would see it also.
This seems to be your real question. You see fault in human nature, and you are inclined to ask how (or why) is it the case that evolution produced this.
I believe that one can take two very distinct approaches toward answering this, and they are distinguished by the way that one understands "intention". One is to position intention as pre-evolution, and the other positions it as post-evolution.
The latter restricts "intention" to a property of human beings, and something which was produced, or emerged from evolutionary processes. If this is the case, then we cannot place blame or fault on the evolutionary process which produced human beings. Human beings were produced by some random process and it is inappropriate to judge that activity as good or bad, which are properties of intentional acts. This renders 'there is fault in human nature' as a categorical mistake. We cannot direct any blame toward the evolutionary actions which produced human nature, we simply make subjective, fallible human judgements about that nature.
On the other hand, if intention is apprehended as prior to evolution, then it may be involved in evolution, and we have the premise required for judging these acts which have led to the current state of human nature as good or bad. This produces the common question about how good could God be, if He allows evil in the world.
I wasnt trying to be a nitpicker. Its just that Ive always understood postmodernism to be a reaction to the stark and dour minimalist rationalism of modern art and architecture from the early 1900s on.
I find postmodernism one of the vaguest isms. It's so vague; one could actually drop the idea entirely.
By my understanding, until such time as a fatal flaw has been confirmed in my reasoning, my theory stands.
The 'logic' to my first question is actually very simple:
1. For thousands of years we humans have suffered under strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.
2. Philosophy (by my understanding and as per the Oxford dictionary's definition) includes "3 a theory or attitude that guides one's behaviour. Also, 1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
3. For at least 2,600 years of philosophical effort, philosophy could not find a theory or attitude that could eradicate strife, civil disobedience, revolution or war. Nor did philosophy find the knowledge that could eradicate these problems.
I, most definitely, do not blame philosophy or philosophers for the woes of the world - merely pointing out the 'fact' that these problems have not been solved. Not by philosophy nor by politics, science, religion or any other human endeavour. And this is where my book comes in: I ask, is it not time that we rethink the very foundation of our perceptions, our understanding, and the basis of our knowledge - or do we 'pray' that somewhere along the line philosophers ( or: politicians, scientists, religious leaders ...) might find the solution(s) to our problems - before AI becomes the "next class of systems" and the human dream of 'Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity' becomes only the history of humanity.
I, also, do not disregard the positive contributions of philosophy. My book does not purport to replace this 2,600 years of philosophy - just an additional basis from which these problems might be addressed.
A next question that could be considered is: By who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true? A question that I also contemplate and address in my book.
I think you need to justify your assumption that "strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war" are "problems". These may also be understood as the means of overcoming problems. From this perspective, the real problems are something deeper, more significant, and these activities which you name as problems, are actually the way in which we free ourselves from those deeper problems.
Accordingly, I believe the "fatal flaw in your thinking" is a faulty generalization, and categorization. You place all "suffering" in the same category as "bad", not recognizing that some suffering is good, according to the saying "no gain without pain". Then you fault philosophers for not eradicating suffering, when in fact the good and proper goal of many philosophers, and philosophies, is to encourage us to endure some form of suffering for the sake of a higher good.
I humbly suggest that you read my book before you venture to a fatal flaw in my REASONING.
And while you are waiting for the delivery of my book, you might contemplate the following question: What, exactly, is the difference between philosophy and politics - or is the one merely a consequence of the other? You know, like the philosophy of Karl Marx and the one million people killed by Stalin's Great Purge.
You know, there was not so long ago another cr..., er, thinker on this forum who challenged all comers to refute his theories. He made his (also self-published) paper freely available on the internet and offered a four- or five-figure sum as a reward to anyone who would meet the challenge to his satisfaction.
Just something to think about as you eagerly check on your Amazon sales stats...
Did you not understand what I wrote? I suggested that you need to separate good pain from bad pain, and not class all different forms of suffering together as bad.
I don't care how many examples of pain you provide, and insist that the pain in your examples is bad pain, that still does not prove that there is no such thing as pain which is good. As the saying "no gain without pain" suggests, many athletes subject themselves to pain, in their training exercises, for the sake of a higher goal. That pain is good pain. In other words, we often understand that we must put ourselves through pain and sometimes even suffer, to get to where we want to be.
So, I suggested that the things of your examples "civil disobedience, revolution and war" are sometimes like this, good. Sometimes we must put ourselves through the pain and suffering of civil disobedience, revolution, or war, intentionally, for the sake of getting where we want to be. One form of suffering for what is good is known as martyrdom.
I admit that I have not read your book, but you seem to class all pain and suffering together as bad. Therefore you imply that philosophy ought to be trying to put an end to it, and has not been able to do this. I think that this is a faulty premise which amounts to a fatal flaw in your reasoning, making that reasoning unsound. As the saying "no gain without pain" indicates, pain is necessary for us to achieve what we believe is good.
Maybe your expectations of philosophy are as naive as a young friend of mine who says medicine is useless since it cant cure cancer. At least with medicine its clear what it sets out to do. Philosophy, by contrast, is an umbrella term for many (sometimes conflicting) approaches. The notion that a couple of thousand years of evolving schools of thought should result in an approach that will resolve all of humanitys problems is wild.
The other problem is the gap between a useful approach and actual human behaviour. This line of thought assumes that if we have a way to "eradicate these problems," people will agree and put it into practice.
But surely there's a difference between (1) having a philosophical solution and (2) implementing it. What if the philosophy in question can only be understood or enacted by a small percentage of people? What if it depends on a particular level of education or sophistication to be effective? There could be any number of great philosophical models for ending human suffering out there, but perhaps the real problem lies in human practice, not the theory.
The only reason why I check my book sales is because each book sold indicates a person that actually bought a book, which indicates the possibility that someone might engage with some sense on its content.
"The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man"), instead of the opponent's proposition."
But then I realised your strawman is actually quite useful: Of course some pain is useful, it is how our bodies tells us that there might be a problem, a danger, something bad. So, if I transpose this strawman back to my statement it would read: strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is good because it tells us that there is a problem, a danger, something bad; not so?
Also, I never suggested that philosophy should put an end to these bad things - this is exactly my point: after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, we humans has not been able to put an end to these bad things and because of THAT I do not expect any useful solution to these bad things from philosophy. So, thank you for your agreement that my question is a valid one.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
You think they can be 'solved' or even need 'solving'? I am confused. You sound confused.
You assume there is some ethical absolute? On what foundation are you posing this question.
If there were a perfect political ideology it would require perfect adhesion to it by every single individual. Frankly, I would be more worried if everyone followed one singular path! The very basis of existence appears based on the necessity of open-ended approaches rather than absolute ones - those end in annihilation.
In short, what are you talking about?
I do not have a definitive solution to these problems either - what I do have is an additional (to philosophy) way that these problems could be tackled. My theory (that I explain in my book) is not based on philosophy but based on a fundamental definition of a system, deduced from first principles.
Contradicts:
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Your hint at an alternative sounds suspiciously 'philosophical'.
1. For more than 2,600 years philosophy has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding.
2. We still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.
Both statements are in plain English, understandable and in my opinion true statements. From this two statements one could deduce that philosophy has not been able to solve these problems - if these problems has been solved by philosophy we should not be still suffering from them.
This then begs the question whether it is in the purview of philosophy to solve these problems. A valid question for sure. In my humble opinion, if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding we should be able to, at least, manage these problems better than we are at the moment. Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy.
Another valid question is whether we should leave the possible solution (or abatement) of these problems to politicians. The same deduction that I made regarding the failure of philosophy to solve or at least abate these problems could be made about politics. Politicians have not been able to solve these problems either.
Do we accept then that these problems are inherent to humanity - that strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is simply human nature? This, however, sounds like capitulation.
Hope this has abated some of your confusion.
Deductive Reasoning is part of logical philosophical discourse.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
This is just blatantly ignorant. We no longer burn people at the stake and even have free education and health care in many countries.
Anyway, good luck. Hope you stick around and pick up a thing or two. This forum is pretty good for low level entry into this kind of subject matter.
Have fun :)
You are quite correct, we no longer burn people at the stake, we are killing them much more efficiently.
Thank you for the "good luck". You should also stick around - we engineers has been saving the world for much longer than 2,600 years - and helped extensively in this efficient killing.
Your hint at an alternative sounds suspiciously 'philosophical'.
Surely, this would depends on a definition of what, exactly, is philosophy, not so? Which, in my understanding, is a philosophical question in itself.
Why would I. You have shown nothing of substance.
So?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
You can deduce many things from such. I repeat. So?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
One which has been discussed for centuries. SO?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Opinion. So?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Good for you! You have an opinion.
In short, you are of the opinion that philosophy is meant to solve all humanities problems AND you think if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding that we should be able to manage humanities problems better.
You then take these opinions as given, and follow up with a question based PURELY on these opinions. 'Why has philosophy not solved humanities problems?'
Imagine someone saying to you the following:
I believe science will solve all the mysteries of the universe. Science has not yet solved all the mysteries of the universe and has, if anything, multiplied them exponentially. So now I ask you a question: Why has science not solved the mysteries of the universe?
This is basically what you have done. You are under the assumption that the purpose of something is what your opinion of it is, rather than what it does.
Now, you didn't include a link, but that doesn't change the fact that you started a thread only to promote your book. That you did it under false pretenses only makes it worse, in my opinion. The only reason this thread has not been deleted is that there already was some discussion there. But keep this up and you will be banned.
You can open a discussion where you outline your ideas at some length. You can even refer to your book there, but you can't just say "I have ideas, go buy my book," which is essentially what you did here.
Right, this is what I meant by "something deeper". Now, how do you conclude that there is "a problem, a danger, something bad"?
Consider my example of "no gain without pain", and the athletes who subject themselves to pain for the sake of a further goal. There is not a problem here, not a danger, nor something bad. It is just a matter of a person who wants to better oneself with respect to a specific goal, and this requires pain. Therefore the pain is good under these circumstances Why couldn't this be the case in some instances of strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war? Then it wouldn't necessarily be the case that these are telling us that there is a problem, a danger, or something bad, it could just as likely be the case that these are indicating to us that there is something good, a specific goal, and these 'pains' are required to achieve that end.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Again, I reject your premise that these things are necessarily "bad" things, by the reasoning presented. Philosophy may be useful in helping us to understand the difference between bad things and good things. A little bit of philosophy could help you to understand that your premise that these things are necessarily bad is false. I suggest that you read some Plato, he's very educational toward understanding the difference between, as well as the various relations between, good, bad, pleasure, and pain.
Quoting I like sushi
Please, what other things could be deduced from the two fundamentally true statements?
Quoting I like sushi
These discussions included the input from philosophers, not so?
Quoting I like sushi
So, in your opinion, is my opinion wrong?
OR In your opinion, would it never be possible to manage these problems better?
Quoting I like sushi
So, is it your opinion that these problems should not be under the purview of philosophy?
Quoting I like sushi
According to Stephen Hawking the physicists are getting close to solve the mysteries of the universe. In fact he categorically stated that philosophy is dead and that the torch of knowledge is now carried by physicists ([I]The Grand Design[/I] 2010 with Leonard Mlodinow. Since I am not a scientist, I do not have an answer to this question.
You did it yourself here:
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
So, you can just as easily state that philosophy is moving us in the right direction.
Note: I do not at all believe any of that was meant in the manner you frame Hawking's as saying it. More likely he was more inclined towards Feynmann's view of physics (not assuming it can or will give a completely detailed description of the universe).
Honestly, I think you are better off addressing other people who are engaging with you rather than me.
Have fun :)
1. For more than 2,600 years philosophers have studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding.
2. We still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war.
To my knowledge both statements are patently true, what might be called historical facts.
From these two statements I made the following deduction:
1. The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipe dream.
A deduction that certainly is: belligerent, antagonistic, contentious, perhaps even hostile; certainly provoking - but is this not how a useful debate is generated?
The philosophical answer to this problem seems to be, these problems are due to the 'human condition', the fundamental dispositions and characteristics that are said to be innate to humans - human nature - this cannot be regarded as a failure of philosophy.
This, however, begs two questions:
1. Why is human nature like this - simply due to evolution?
2. If philosophy cannot be blamed for this (which concedes to a failure in philosophy), who is to blame? Or do we stick to the excuse of 'evolution', this evolution which is regarded by philosophy as an elaborate tautology?
Then on to the reason for me stirring up this debate, getting to my fundamental question: Why is the world as it is? One of the questions that has been bugging philosophers for as long as humans have had the capability of abstract thought. Leading to the question whether I have a solution to this problem?
The short answer to this is a most emphatic No! What I do have is a theory, or at least an idea of a theory, that just might provide a better understanding of why the world is as it is. What I am looking for is someone that could help me find a fatal flaw in my reasoning, a reasoning that is not based on a 'truth' as professed by any philosopher but on the assumption of a singular, conditional 'truth', that physical things, things with mass or energy, exist. If you regard this assumption as false, please do not bother any further - perhaps you have escaped Plato's cave, but consider the possibility that you are still stuck in some philosopher's cave. If you consider the possibility that this assumption might be valid and could, perhaps lead to some better understanding, please continue.
And no, it is not possible to present my theory on this forum, to use another analogy: "If I show you a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are the only things that you will see - a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I had to build the puzzle to the extent that the picture starts to appear for you to understand the picture that I see."
And yes, this quote is from my book, the one that I am not allowed to promote. But my theory is out there and I am trying to find the fatal flaw in it. Wasn't it Schopenhauer that stated: "All 'truth' passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." And yes, I have put the word truth in inverted commas because I do not know how or on what authority a decision can be made that that any true statement is in fact the truth.
"Decision (making) := The capability of some systems that could perceive their own state as well as the state of other systems and change their state accordingly. Thus, systems with a perception of the state of systems."
You still haven't addressed the points I made. The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is your generalization, that "strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war" are always bad, and therefore blameworthy.
In some circumstances, the suffering of "strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war" may be good, as I've demonstrated. If specific instances of these are apprehended as good by philosophers, then these will be promoted by philosophers, and philosophers will see no reason to eradicate them, as you believe they ought to.
This provides a completely different approach to "the human condition". The human condition is fundamentally good, not bad as you assume. And the effects of philosophy have guided the human condition even further toward good, and away from bad. Since the human condition is good, there is no need to assign "blame", as you do, and your project is misguided.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
See, you present the basic goodness of the world as a "problem". "Problem" implies that resolution is necessary, because failing to resolve the problem would leave people in a bad condition. This attitude, of the need for a resolution to this question "why is the world as it is?" will create stress and anxiety, if the question cannot be answered. That is bad. The 'bad' is created by you classing the question "why is the world as it is?" as a "problem" which therefore needs to be resolved.
If, on the other hand, we approach the question of "why is the world as it is", with the attitude that the world is intrinsically good, then the question is merely a curiousity, a point of interest, which philosophers may address in their spare time. It is not a "problem", so there is no urgency to find an answer. Then, there is no stress or anxiety created by this question, which is more like a rhetorical question now, and the 'bad' that supports your desire to blame, which you have created intentionally, with your will to debate, is completely annihilated.
I have addressed the point you made. I am patiently waiting for you to explain to the thousands killed in the Gaza war that their deaths was for a good cause. They died for something good, something deeper.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Also, I am waiting patiently for you to explain to the millions that have been killed in the Ukrainian war that the world is intrinsically good. that their deaths is not a problem that needs to be addressed - there is no urgency to understand why war takes place - why the world is as it is.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I would submit the following argument: "Any decision on what is good and what is evil is made based on what is politically expedient. There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good and evil could be made. It is, therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man."
IfQuoting Metaphysician Undercover, why after 2,600 years of philosophical guidance we humans are still killing each other by the millions?
Perhaps a bold claim:
"[I]Existence[/i] := Defined by the Argument of Existence. The argument that things includes mass or energy or that a thing is perceived to exist or that there is some change in a thing."
I don't see how one particular case is relevant. Your faulty generalization implies that all instances of war and revolution are bad. I gave a clear explanation why your generalization is faulty. No matter how many examples you provide, and claim that they are consistent with your generalization, this does not address the problem I pointed out.
Citing particular instances which support your generalization does not prove that the generalization is correct. All you are doing is providing further demonstration of the flaw in your reasoning. You seem to believe that finding particular examples which support your generalization is all that is required to prove it correct. To prove such a generalization requires demonstrating that it is impossible for things to be other than as described by the generalization. But I have already demonstrated to you how it is possible for things to be otherwise. Yet you continue with your insistence.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
This definition of "good" does not support your generalization that all war and revolution is bad. In fact it supports what I've been trying to explain to you. Such things are sometimes "politically expedient".
I maintain that all war is evil.
Please tell me, who or on what authority, can a decision be made that any particular war is good?
That's a completely unjustified, and I will add unreasonable, assertion.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
The authority who declares war on any particular occasion, obviously, decides that this particular war is necessary, and the right thing, therefore good thing, to do.
You may, from a perspective other than the authority who declares the war, decide that that particular decision for war, is a bad decision, and evil, but what would make your decision more authoritative and correct than the other decision that the war is necessary?
From you assertion:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Since no rational person, even with the necessary authority, will declare any war on any particular occasion, unless he/she believes it is necessary and the right thing. Thus, whenever a war is declared by a rational person it must be a good thing to do and whenever a war is declared by an irrational person it must be an evil war, obviously. Surely, any person declaring an unnecessary war must be irrational.
But then, who or on what authority, can a decision be made that any person, with authority to declares any war, is in fact rational or irrational? Surely, any person that declares any war would regard himself to be rational. Also, the people that has given the authority to the person declaring this war, will regard this person rational, not so?
By your assertion then: All war is good. And this I reject with contempt.
You might consult some good philosophy to get to the bottom of this issue. If you are truly interested, then I assume that is what you will do. Happy reading!
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Why would you conclude this? Just because you may find a person, or persons, in every instance of war, who would say this particular war is good, doesn't mean that all war is good. Such a conclusion would require equivocation. because these different people calling different wars good, and the wars that others called good, bad, would have conflicting ideas as to what defines "good".
So, you continue to demonstrate that the fatal flaw in your reasoning is faulty generalizing.
I think both sides, in any war, think they are fighting "the good fight".
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You did not answer my questions, why? Then, why would I consult philosophy to get to the bottom of this issue; after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, philosophy was unable to get to the bottom of this issue. Perhaps it is time to consider some different understanding.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So, by your submissions then, some wars are good and some wars are evil. Then, please tell me, by who or on what authority can a decision be made that any specific war is good but another war is evil?
Yes, but is one side objectively right? To use the archetypical example of "the good war", WW2, wouldn't you agree the Nazi's were the "bad guys" and UK was fighting "the good fight"?
Language, laws, government, and other products of the imagination change with the rise and fall of custom and usage, but the biology from which they are derived has hardly evolved since anyone started speaking them into existence. So its a matter of what it is were looking at, the people or their artifacts. The shifting veil of the artificial and abstract gives the impression of progress, or to some, of decadence and decay; but beneath the thread-bare language under which human history attempts to disguise itself is the same superstitious and tribalistic mammal that was there since the beginning.
I also mean that ideals such as peace or prosperity are so empty that we wouldnt even know it if they manifested. Unfortunately, that is one of philosophys problems: it is often an exercise in multiplying nouns or playing with synonyms. Abstractions are a necessary fixture of language and thought, but when they cannot be tethered to the world by way of concrete example, or are stuffed solid with equally floaty terms, it becomes impossible to know what we are speaking about, let alone to know how to reach them.
Again, my suggestion is that you study some philosophy and learn some principles. This will answer your question.
Another unanswered question, yet you maintain that my generalisation that war is a problem that has not been solved by 2,600 years of philosophical effort is a fatal flaw to my theory - but you do not know what is my theory. I have stated, categorically, that my opening statement to this forum is a problem statement, it is not my theory nor is it part of my theory.
You maintain that some wars are good, yet you cannot tell who or how a determination can be made which wars are 'good' and which wars are 'evil'. As for philosophical principles - perhaps you could try the [I]Principle of Sufficient Reason[/I]: '[A principle] of sufficient reason [obtain] in virtue of which we consider that no fact could be true or actual, and no proposition true without there being sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although most often these reason cannot be known by us.' [I]Godfriedt Wilhelm Leibniz[/I] as quoted by [I]Nicholas Rescher[/I] - and tell me what would be a sufficient reason for any war to be good. Then tell me by who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true; a scientist or politician, a religious leader or a philosopher?
My suggestion would be that you stay in your ivory tower and watch the world, with your strawman, burn - from a safe distance.
Quoting RogueAI
My agreement, or not; whether the WW2 Nazi's were the "bad guys", or not; is irrelevant to my problem statement. Please consider:
'Any decision on what is good and what is evil is made on whatever is politically expedient. There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good or evil could be made. It is therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man. Examples of the political determination between good and evil are abundant. A salient example is the Second World War:
1. For millions of people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were good.
2. For millions of other people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were evil.
3. For millions of people Joseph Stalin and Communist Russia were evil.
4. However, for the Allied forces, Joseph Stalin, and Communist Russia were good, at least until the end of the war - a salient example of political expedience by itself.
5. To the very large number of private citizens killed in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, the Allied Forces were patently evil.
All five of these statements are quite valid, actually patently [I]true[/I], but in clear contradiction to each other, giving evidence of my original statement. So, after about 3% of the world population perished due to a single war - the war after 'the war to end all wars' - no determination can yet be made on what is good and what is evil.' p123 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If I understand your prose correctly, you agree with my problem statement.
'Please consider the following two naive but fundamentally [I]logical[/I] statements:
1. Attempting to define or study any ambiguous notion by describing it in terms of other ambiguous words; is inevitably doomed to ambiguity. Adding more and more ambiguous words to this effort will never change this result.
2. Trying to define or study any ambiguous notion be defining and studying its perceived attributes is a self-referencing exercise. The only possible result of this exercise is that this specific notion ... is this specific notion.
To me these two statements make sense, and they seem to be consistent, perhaps even seminal.' p5 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/i]
Perhaps it is simply due to the "human condition", the allusive 'nature of man' - a condition or nature that philosophy can do nothing about. But, surely, this human condition, this nature of man, has changed in the last 2,600 years - during the time philosophy has contributed to human understanding and knowledge - and if it can change it could change to a better world, not so?
Perhaps it is unfair or wrong to blame philosophy for these long standing problems. It would make more sense to blame politics - "The only result I see from politics are a world in which ..." But then, is politics not a result of philosophy? Case in point, the philosophy of Karl Marx that lead to the most devastating politics in our world. Who nows where post-modernism or meta-modernism will end up? A better world? Not if one consider the track record of philosophy.
Then, perhaps, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have a valid point:"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." But if I look in the light of the torch of the scientists, into the future, I see at least two major dangers: The environmental disaster we humans are bringing over ourselves, fuelled by the consequential efforts of science => engineering => technology => wealth and The danger posed by artificial intelligence. This artificial intelligence that only require two more capabilities in order to take over our world, abstract thought and survival.
What then? If neither philosophy nor politics nor science could solve this human condition, this nature of man, who can? Surely not religion - this human endeavour has been around even longer than philosophy!
Please consider an alternative foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved. A foundation that is not based on philosophy, religion, politics or science. A foundation based on a fundamental understanding of systems, a definition of a system from first principles. A definition that provides for a classifications of systems that provides a theory of evolution without any tautologies and which solve the demarcation problem. An understanding that clearly shows that the emergence of wealth preceded the evolution of modern Homo sapiens.
You claim to offer a foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved and then proceed to describe this foundation in an obfuscating manner.
Snake oil salesmen have always been part and parcel of humanity's problems.
Well, we don't know that for sure. Who could say? Was the first revolutionary invention (incandescent lighting, refrigeration, etc.) spoken in perfect completion and detail at the moment of it's conception? Were you? Were any of us? No, sometimes things develop into something that an observer would never imagine.
So why not let it? Is this not after all, one if not the only key things that sets us apart from the animals beneath us?
You still owe me a chess re-match, by the way. :grin:
Quoting praxis
You certainly seem to be obfuscated, my foundation is an understanding of systems (something, it would seem, you have no understanding of), defined from first principles - founded on the "... basic, seminal, fundamental, primordial truth of the existence of physical things ... If we cannot agree on this, that [I]physical things[/I] exist in fact; our only option would be somewhere between the philosophical areas ... called [I]nihilism[/I] and [I]fatalism[/I]. And, for sure, solutions to our problems cannot and will not be found in these areas." p9 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I] - words in italic (from the quote) is defined unambiguously!
Quoting praxis
So for philosophers with their heads in the sand
Im notably no closer to understanding this foundation from which solutions to humanitys problems might be found.
Dont you believe that it would be good if I did understand it?
Is it that only an elite class of people are capable of understand it?
Also, you say that solutions might be found from this foundation. Arent humanitys problems important enough to present a foundation that you have more confidence in?
Empty words. You have presented next to nothing.
Author: I have all the answers!
Forum Members: Okay. Tell us.
Author: Here is a quote from my book that basically shows I am a physical realist.
Me: So what? You have simply shown a philosophical stance and yet also insinuate that philosophy is not what you are doing.
People have been patient here. You have given nothing but a poor attempt to sell a book - which frankly I would not read even if you paid me at this point given your inability to engage in a genuine and frank manner (ironic given that you ultimately claim to do this in 'plain English').
This thread is dead to me if the next few response actually present something.
Maybe participating in another thread would help you to reveal your ideas? Either way, it is fun to jump into other discussions and see what other people think in general.
GL
I find it easiest to start with science. Science starts with a hypothesis, which is a set of known words, and posits a conclusion. We then test against those words and conclusions to see what outcome we get.
Philosophy is the creation of logical words that we can put together to test in science. "Gravity" at one time was not a word. "What if everything in the world is constantly pulling on everything else in the world?" That's a philosophy. You piece together a hypothesis. Then you test it.
Philosophy that is successful integrates into a culture and the sciences. The idea of a 'human right' was proposed as a philosophical concept and is agreed upon by many cultures as defacto. "Gender ideology" I would argue is still a philosophy, and a particularly bad one at that.
So why is philosophy seen as dead? Because it has generally been subsumed into other areas that have science and specialized learning behind them. Can you wax philosophically about the mind without keeping up with the current science of the human brain? Not effectively, no. Philosophy is ironically an independent field of study that eliminates itself over time as it succeeds. There really aren't many problems left that do not already have an associated field. I would argue that AI involves a massive amount of philosophy, but you also need to understand how it works to construct something that you can test.
I argue that there are only a few areas of pure philosophy that are still left.
God, knowledge, ethics, and art. Even then, there are specialty fields and discoveries that one must be aware of it adequately approach these. Its just that none of these areas of philosophy have become objective fields yet. The day that they do, they will no longer belong to 'philosophy' but become a science.
The fact that there's not much left shows how much philosophy has already accomplished. Unfortunately many people come into philosophy and try to make a career out of its failures. The preservation of old philosophy and its study is really just an academic pass time at best, and often times just a fun exercise in creativity and logic if one wants to tackle the subjects in seriousness. There are a few people who genuinely try to push the field forward, but its a hard road. I have two papers here that attempt to tackle knowledge and ethics from a unique venue, so if you're interested in exploring something that has not been ascertained by society as 'true or false', you might enjoy the read.
Knowledge as context
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context
A proposed start for an objective morality
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1
Maybe you'll enjoy them and find some value. :)
Quoting praxis
It would be awesome if you could understand it - I am looking for the "fatal flaw" in my understanding.
Quoting praxis
I am not sure what you mean by "elite class", but if my editor could understand it - although she had some difficulty with the metamathematics - I am pretty sure most members on this forum is capable of understanding it.
Quoting praxis
Absolutely!
I have confidence in my work but it needs to be stress-tested. That is why I am looking for an "astute reader" that could help me find a possible "fatal flaw" in my reasoning. The statement that I posted in my introduction is only part of my problem statement, in an effort to solicit some stress-testing of my work.
From the responses I received in this conversation I conclude that my problem statement is a valid problem - unsolved by 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour.
Quoting I like sushi
No problem - I am trying to find a reader that could think outside the box and with the capability of understanding what I have written and (most importantly) assist me to find a possible "fatal flaw" in my reasoning.
A Bedouin was caught in a box canyon by a desert lion. He started to pray: Allah, if you are on the side of the lion, let him kill me quickly so that I do not suffer too much. If you are on my side let me kill the lion quickly before he hurts me too much. But if you are on no one's side - stand aside because here is a big fight on its way.
I am like this Bedouin.
Thank you for your welcome, I do appreciate it.
I do not have any issue with the substantial contribution that philosophy has made on the progress of humanity - there is no denying this. My problem is with the established fact that through this 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, philosophy was unable to solve the most pressing problems of humanity. Problems like poverty and war. Nor can philosophy suggest any solution to the more modern problems like the danger posed by artificial intelligence and human's efforts to destroy our planet with a self inflicted environmental disaster. "The bottom line is if we cannot find an agreed upon answer to the question: Why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable? Then [I]systems[/I] of artificial intelligence will surpass humanity, and our human ideals of [I]Liberte, egalite, fraternite[/I] will not [I]exist[/I] anymore. It will only be the history of humankind." p2 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I].
The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles, but then; in a quest that lasted more than 100 years, such a general systems theory has not been found.
I claim:
"Unless a fatal flaw is uncovered, this understanding (fully described in this discourse) is not only a valid systems theory but also a valid theory of everything." p227 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I].
I neither have a problem with an initial response to this claim that I must be smoking some really good s#@t or be totally off my rocker. All I am looking for is one fatal flaw in my reasoning - a flaw that would render my theory inconsistent or without utility. Also, If I am merely daydreaming under the influence of some really good s#@t, then surely a fatal flaw will stand out like a sore thumb.
The only thing that I ask from any "astute reader" is an agreement on the perception of the conditional truth that physical things (the things consisting of mass or energy) exist. All my understanding follows from this assumption.
With all due respect to philosophy and the members of this forum: If philosophy could not arrive at a better understanding of "human nature", an understanding that would render a better chance for solving humanity's problems, then it is high time that we consider a different understanding. An understanding that provides a valid speculation on the existence of God, a valid definition of knowledge, an understanding that: ethics, justice, human rights, value, human action, ... are merely political rhetoric and art is simply "A deliberate transformation of the feelings and emotions of the artist (the life form making the art) into a physical form." p96 [I]How I understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/i]
Yes, I did that in the link for a proposed objective morality. I have yet to have anybody rationally critique its first premise conclusions that the necessary base of any possible objective morality that is real, must note that existence is preferable to non-existence. From there I build a theory which is absolutely a work in progress, but I can't get anybody to go deeper than the initial premise because most just want to talk about human morality. My morality starts as 'existential morality' which eventually builds up to human morality.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
It is perfectly fine to insist on any starting conversation "We are going to assume X is true." If anyone says, "But I don't believe X is true" then you simply note that is not the scope of the conversation and that the discussion is IF X is true. Anyone who does not agree to this can be ignored in their responses.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Correct. Its why I entered into the field. Its what I've focused on for years. But most people in this field are not interested in it. They want to safely stay in the things they are familiar with as scholars. They want to play word games or tell you what THEY think instead of listening to and actually dissecting your ideas. Or worst of all, just troll your thread.
I am very interested in talking about things besides long dead philosophies of the past that truly have no further relevance or solutions. If you are interested in seeing my takes on the issues, feel free to read my posts and comment in them. If you have your own take and you want me to dissect it, feel free to post and I will do my best.
Oh, one more on the valid speculation of God. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1
Frankly, it appears that you're looking for an 'obtuse buyer' of your book and that's why you avoid openly discussing its contents.
Good luck with that endeavor.
Quoting praxis
No. I am looking for a reader that can think outside the box, who reads and understand my theory then helps me find a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.
"If I show you a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are the only things that you will see - a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I had to build the puzzle to the extend that the picture starts to appear for you to understand the picture that I see." p232 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.[/I]
Thus - there is absolutely no utility to try and explain a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I got the answer I was looking for from my opening statement - my problem statement in Chapter 1 is a valid problem and philosophy is unable tp solve it.
... and good luck with your endeavours.
Where?
EDIT: nvrmind. Found it
I looked for a possible outline (rather than a puzzle piece) on the Amazon sample and was disappointed. To my surprise I did find this nugget of wisdom in your preface though:
As the dictionary noted, Philosophy is the "study" of Nature, including human nature. And it has produced many "theories" for thinking about the problems you listed. But human culture has also developed Religion and Science to do something "practical" about our problems.
Religion typically blames errant human nature for human problems, and prescribes tolerant endurance (Faith, attitude adjustment, virtue development), and/or busy work (rosary & rituals) to keep your mind off your troubles, but postpones any final resolution to another time & place. Meanwhile, Science has produced technological fixes for many of our problems with Nature, but has done little to remedy our troubles with Human Nature*1.
So, it seems that we can either wait patiently for our absconded Savior to return, or philosophically sigh that perhaps another few million years of Evolution will perfect the imperfections of Incomplete Human Nature*2. Meanwhile, we can continue to "study" the People Problem from various perspectives*3. Perhaps beginning with the mote in the eye of the observer. :wink:
*1. Hell Is Other People:
Jean-Paul Sartre on Personal Relationships
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/02/08/hell-is-other-people/
*2. Incomplete Nature :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature
*3. Buddhism presents a nuanced view of human nature, emphasizing both its potential for goodness and the presence of inherent challenges. While acknowledging our capacity for greed, hatred, and delusion, Buddhism also teaches that we possess Buddha nature, an inherent purity and potential for enlightenment. This nature can be obscured by negative mental traits, but through spiritual practice, we can remove these obstructions and realize our true, enlightened state.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=buddhism+human+nature
I suggest you stay in your cave and watch the shadows play out against the empty wall.
From the "[s]troll[/s] spammer."
Thank you for this - yes it would seem some are still stuck in Plato's cave watching the shadows play out against an empty wall.
Who needs enlightenment when youve got freshly popped popcorn and a good seat in the cave.
I too, have no training as a philosopher, and most of my relevant reading prior to retirement has been in the empirical sciences : especially Quantum Physics and Information Theory. But I do "wonder" about non-empirical problems & "why?" questions. So, my retirement hobby is to explore the practical & theoretical implications of my personal worldview*2, which is explained in a website and blog*3.
I haven't read your book, but I have scanned the Google summary*1. Based on that overview, it seems that our worldviews may have some ideas in common, but others that may clash. I'm not familiar with Meta-Mathematics, but I do know a bit about Systems Theory & Holism. I don't meditate, and don't do drugs ; so if we have anything to inter-communicate, it will have to be done in conventional English language, with allowances for a few necessary neologisms. :smile:
*1. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence :
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=How+I+Understand+Things.+The+Logic+of+Existence
Core argument : "It challenges the idea that existence can be adequately captured by concepts, whether through rationalist or phenomenological approaches".
Note --- If we can't understand the world conceptually, and put it into words, do you think we can only explore the world system experientially, via meditation or drugs?
Beyond Conceptualization :
"It argues that existence is not solely a concept but is inherent in the act of being itself, and that we often lose sight of this when trying to define it through language."
Note --- Again, this "argument" seems to dismiss rational Western Philosophy as incapable of dealing with the ontological problems of humanity. Are you recommending something like Sartre's "being-in-itself" or the spiritual awakening of Ram Dass : "Be Here Now"?
Reception and Criticism :
"[i]The book is described as a potentially controversial work, challenging established philosophical ideas.
It has received criticism for its lack of concrete examples and its potential to alienate readers familiar with traditional philosophy."[/i]
Note --- My own amateur personal philosophy questions both "established" philosophical concepts, and "classical" concepts of Newtonian Physics.
Summary :
In essence, the book invites readers to question their assumptions about existence and to consider the possibility that a more fundamental understanding of being is needed to address the complexities of human existence and the world around us.
Note --- I don't know if my Information-theoretic worldview provides a "more fundamental understanding of being", but it is certainly different from both traditional religious & scientific ideologies. If your responses seem encouraging, I may even attempt to read your book.
*2. ENFORMATIONISM
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to the ancient worldviews of Materialism and Idealism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's also a TheoryofEverything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page44.html
*3. Introduction to Enformationism :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
Or they will say thank you
"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave." [I]William Drummond[/I]
To which I would add; he that does reason just might gain understanding, perhaps even knowledge.
I will try my very best to respond encouraging enough - I don't meditate nor do drugs either - rather play chess.
Your *1 Thank you for putting this on this forum. The one issue I have is that the responses you quote (Core argument, Beyond conceptualisation, ...) is generated by artificial intelligence, which is (currently still) incapable of abstract thought. I will address your notes:
Quoting Gnomon
We can understand the world conceptually AND put it into words - this is exactly what I claim to have done - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.
Quoting Gnomon
This is one of the big misunderstandings that I found from both some of the respondents in this whole preceding conversation AND from artificial intelligence's responses to my work. I do not dismiss rational Western Philosophy per se - I concede unequivocally to its contribution to where we are and what we have today - I merely state that 'philosophy' seems to be unable to solve some of the dire problems that we are facing: such as hunger, curable diseases that is not available to the poor, war, the dangers from artificial intelligence and an environmental disaster of cataclysmic proportion. THEN I propose an understanding that is NOT based on 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour BUT on a fundamental, deduced from 'first principles', definition of a system - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.
Quoting Gnomon
Very valid questions, but easily resolved with a valid solution to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy. The only "solution" from philosophy is Popper's self-referencing definition: science is whatever is discovered from some scientific method. From my definition of a system and classes of systems I was able to solve this demarcation problem - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.
Quoting Gnomon
From my understanding there is certainly some utility in a "Information-theoretic worldview". Some years ago I had some very useful conversations with a savant mathematician on his information-theoretic worldview. He, unfortunately passed away, but I do honour him with my understanding of "consciousness" - he pointed me towards this understanding - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.
I have started reading some of your musings on 'enformationism' - my first response is: be very careful of what I call a "philosophical trap", you only end up with oxymorons like "ethics of science". "The Laws of Nature have no morality, no honour nor any legal standing." p111 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]
IF you decide to read my book THEN please read the whole book before you start shooting holes in my reasoning.
And again, thank you for your openminded response.
Poor Pieter, a modern day Galileo forced to endure to endure the TPF Inquisitionso heroic. :lol:
I was thinking what a shame it would be if your work did have the potential to help solve the worlds problems but never got off the ground because youre such a terrible marketer.
Hopefully, semi-sentient but heartless AI will be able to scan your words, and summarize them, without a personal agenda, to warp your intended meaning. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for my own understanding of "the problem" with analytical philosophy. I may have opinions of my own.
I can understand your reticence to reveal bits & pieces of your thesis on the "TPF inquisition" forum, which may evoke unsympathetic & prejudiced responses, by those who enjoy pointing-out Flaws more than noticing Virtues. Any flaw in your reasoning would most likely be found in the intuitive or inferential leap from parts to whole. But analytical minds may more easily see the flaws in isolated parts than the synthesized system. :smile:
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
For those of us on the outside, can you summarize your System, and its Principles, in a single paragraph? If so, I may be able to determine if it is A> of interest to me, and B> within my range to understand. However, due to my own limitations & flaws, I may or may not be able to discern the "fatal flaw" in your reasoning. I'm currently reading a large book on a similar controversial topic : "to expose the fallacies of some of our culture's deepest metaphysical convictions". So I may not be able to get into your book for a while. :meh:
Note --- According to the Wiki quote below, the philosophical quest for wisdom seems to be an abject failure. And yet, some of us still quest-on.
"Philosophy is the study of wisdom, understood as the ability to conduct the human activities; and also as the perfect knowledge of all the things that a man can know for the direction of his life, maintenance of his health, and knowledge of the arts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Philosophy
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
The demarcation problem is a struggle to distinguish between Science and Pseudoscience. And I don't have a simple solution. Sometimes today's Woo becomes tomorrow's Wow! : e.g. Plate Tectonics & Germ Theory. Those conjectures were only accepted after they were defined in enough detail to fit a puzzle piece into the whole picture. Can you express your "solution" in a single sentence? :wink:
Note --- If you don't want to over-simplify, in view of trolls & critics, you can message me in the Inbox.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I define Laws of Nature simply as limitations on change. No ethical implications intended ; unless you imagine those laws as discriminating between Good & Evil, from the perspective of the Programmer. From my cog-in-the-works perspective, they simply steer the evolving cosmos in the direction of Time's Arrow. :nerd:
Excerpt from another reply :
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
What you call General Systems Theory may be what Jan Smuts encapsulated as Holism. Which is one of the basic principles of my own thesis. It's fundamental to my worldview. :cool:
Holism and Evolution
Orderly Cosmic Transformation
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html
Note 3. What is complex systems science? : Complex phenomena are hidden, beyond masking by space and time, through nonlinearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence.
https://www.santafe.edu/what-is-complex-systems-science
Claudius van Wyk
https://claudiusvanwyk.academia.edu/
I have sent a contact request to your academia link.
I can post a sentence or even a paragraph summary of any of my concepts - it will only be a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle OR a small part of a big painting, virtually useless.
I could say to you:
"System := Components (things that are) and the interactions between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose." p27, p135
and
"The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exist no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature" p69 Solving the demarcation problem.
and
"Law (of nature) := If the sum of mass, energy and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature." p34
and
...
I can even tell you that holism and reductionism is simply two sides of the same coin. "It (my systems theory) describes a [I]logic[/I] of understanding any part of a whole and any whole as a part." p200
and
Quoting Gnomon is simply philosophical musings used and misused by politicians in order to motivate the decisions they are selling to the hoi polloi.
Then ... I don't mind sideswipe's from the "TPF Inquisition"; the only utility from philosophy is that from time to time their musings coalesce into some new political movement. And, we all know where 'politics' are leading us - apparently a perpetuation of poverty and war. But then how do we make our world a better place to live our lives? A new political movement based on human consciousness? This 'consciousness' that nobody, not even philosophers, can define - thus simply a new religion:
"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180
I can go on with such excerpts for as long as you like, it will still be only a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I am quite sure that my work would be quite within your range of understanding, the only question outstanding is: Quoting Gnomon but that can only be determined by you yourself.
1. No digital copy.
2. Far too expensive for a first time unknown and uncredentialed author.
You're going to have to decide what you want out of this. Is your purpose to make money? I'm sure you're familiar with the book market and understand its not the place to do so for most people.
Do you want to have it read and people seriously discuss your work? Make an electronic pdf, host it somewhere, and link to it here in the forum for people read and dissect. There are people like myself who would willingly read it and give it a chance. But we're not going to pay for something from an unknown in the field who for all we know just has an opinion vs groundbreaking work.
Obviously your idea cannot be summarized on the forum, otherwise you wouldn't write a 260 page book. The only way you're going to get a serious discussion that understands your ideas is buy getting people to read it. If you do decide to make an electronic version, message me here and I promise you I'll read it and give a fair critique.
Yes. That's one way to describe the notion of Holism. Systems Theory was developed --- by Bertallanffy, et al --- primarily for pragmatic scientific or engineering purposes. But Holism was intended by Jan Smuts mostly for philosophical applications, such as understanding the Hows & Whys of natural Evolution. Here's my own definition of Holism :
Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I assume that instead of "collection" you meant "connection". Physically, a "demarcation meridian" is simply a point of reference for defining boundaries. But I suppose your DM is a philosophical assertion that Natural & Cultural laws are categorically distinct, with no overlap, no connection. But how does that "solve" the problem of distinguishing between Science and Pseudoscience? Are you saying that Science is natural (hence factual) and Pseudoscience is cultural (hence imaginary or counterfactual)? That seems to be merely a restatement of the problem, not a solution. :wink:
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Yes. Reductionism is basically the Scientific Method devised in the 17th century. That's a practical way for humans to break Nature down into analytically understandable puzzle pieces. But 20th century Holism is a Philosophical method --- "a logic of understanding" --- for viewing a collection of entangled holons as integral & functional parts of an interacting System, with novel functions of its own. :nerd:
The New Physics :
The advent of holism in the 20th century coincided with the gradual development of quantum mechanics. Holism in physics is the nonseparability of physical systems from their parts, especially quantum phenomena. Classical physics cannot be regarded as holistic, as the behavior of individual parts represents the whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html
PS___ I included the Academia link in my last post because C. van Wyck is a scholar of Holistic Science, and he may be related to you :
Claudius van Wyk
https://claudiusvanwyk.academia.edu/
As for the rest of the discussion, I can only give the following "two naive but fundamental [I]logical[/I] statements:
1. Attempting to define or study any ambiguous notion by describing it in terms of other ambiguous words; is inevitably doomed to ambiguity. Adding more and more ambiguous words to this effort will never change this result.
2. Trying to define or study any ambiguous notion by defining and studying its perceived attributes is a self-referencing exercise. The only possible result of this exercise is that this specific notion ... is this specific notion." p5 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/i]
Are you blaming Analytical*1 Philosophy for all the problems of the world? If so, do you think Holistic/Systems philosophy will cure all the ills of incompletely-evolved human culture? That's a pretty big "if".
Karl Marx's sociological theory placed most of the blame for poverty, hunger, & war on the unbalanced economic System of Capitalism that ruled the world for at least 2600 years. That out-of-whack system placed almost all of the labor on the lower classes (98%), but allocated most of the rewards of labor to the upper classes (2%). His simple solution to the world's inequities was to allow Capitalism to eventually collapse due to its internal contradictions. Ironically, those inspired by his theory were not patient enough to wait for social evolution to do the job, and turned to violence & vengeance to do the job. So, can we now look back on Communism as a failed Grand Scheme, or perhaps a "pipe dream"?
Marx wrote that "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." His philosophy has changed the world positively in some ways : allowing liberal Labor Parties of the masses to compete on a slightly more level playing field with Conservative elites. But currently, a conservative backlash is set on erasing most of those gains in social equity.
With that historical record of "changing the world" via Philosophy, how do you envision your Systems Philosophy solving the 2600 year old Problem of "strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war" and also " to have peace, and to eradicate poverty and hunger." How will you convince the masses and the elites of the Logic of Existence? How can a theoretical philosophical revolution/transformation restore the balance of Justice & environmental Harmony? Can we fast-forward humanity to a Utopian stage of evolution? :cool:
PS___ Are these practical questions answered in detail in the book? If so, it might be worth the price of admission.
*1. I used "analytical" as a contrast to "holistic", not in the modern sense.
SEE-SAW OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, & ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE
No, I do not blame philosophy for all the problems of the world and no, I do not think some "holistic/systems philosophy" will cure any ills of we humans.
To my knowledge there does not exist any example of communism that has not failed OR is not failing.
Nowhere AND never, did I claimed to have any solution to the problems of the world. What I do claim is a better understanding of why the world is as it is. An understanding that just might succeed where 2,600 years of philosophy has not succeeded. And, NO, my understanding is NOT based on any philosophy. It is based on the conditional assumption of the existence of physical things, the things that consist of mass OR energy. You can either agree with this [I]logical[/I] assumption OR not. If you do agree - my theory is built on this - read on, it might be worth the price. If you do not agree - sit back and watch the future unfold.
:D
Why you are still allowed to continue this I find strange. Have flagged several times now as at every opportunity you are trying to flog your book.
How are the "conditions" of your assumption different from the metaphysical philosophy of Materialism*1? As a pragmatic position, I do assume that physical objects exist in my environment. But I didn't arrive at that conclusion by logical reasoning. It's just the cultural default assumption for making your way in the world. From my reading of physics though, I also understand that the material substance of those objects is essentially a "frozen" or stabilized form of dynamic Energy. So, it seems that causal Energy is more fundamental*2 than malleable Matter. That's a concept, not a direct observation.
Be that as it may, the existence of Matter & Energy is not in question. But the "core argument" of your Logic of Existence remains to be derived from the bare fact of a material world. You seem to be denying the ability of philosophical concepts to produce useful answers to Ontological questions : " It challenges the idea that existence can be adequately captured by concepts, whether through rationalist or phenomenological approaches" If the essence of Existence cannot be encapsulated in concepts or words, what is the alternative : direct unmediated Experience via meditation or drug trips*3?
Anyway, I suppose your "conditional assumption" is what logicians call an Axiom, and is accepted as self-evidently true, without relying on empirical evidence. But obviously, your "understanding" goes beyond the bare existence of a material world. So, what does it say about the Ideal world of concepts? Does it deny the validity of Idealistic philosophy? Or does it explain how a material world could evolve creatures who engage with the physical world by means of metaphysical ideas & concepts, as mediators of ultimate ding an sich (noumenal) Reality? :smile:
*1. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism in metaphysics, according to which matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
*2. In modern physics, the concept of energy is often considered more fundamental than matter. While matter and energy are interconnected and can be converted into each other (as described by Einstein's famous equation E=mc²), energy is seen as the underlying principle that gives rise to all physical phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+more+fundamental+than+matter
*3. According to James Glattfelder in The Sapient Cosmos : "the psychedelic experience conveys 'unitary' knowledge". He's referring to direct access to a parallel reality, from which the conventional world of our physical senses emerges." Since I have no psychedelic experience, I cannot concur with that assertion.
Your logic is most impressive - a prime example of excellent philosophical reasoning.
I have stated, categorically, in my opening statement, that I am not au fait with the 'ism' and 'ology' languages - however, I am pretty convinced that no study of "metaphysical philosophy of materialism" would explain to me why the world is as it is; why we still have poverty and hunger, revolution and war.
You could consider the veracity of:
"We humans could argue about the existence of things until the cows come home. The only thing we have is a perception of things, albeit physical, abstract or imaginary things. Through perception, we gain information, glean knowledge, construct abstract things and conjure imaginary things - even play politics." p201 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/i]
I'm still playing along with your cryptic statement of "The Problem", hoping to get a glimpse of
The Solution without having to buy the book. But all I get is a statement of the obvious : that after 2600 years, linguistic Philosophy has not solved the problem of physical & social friction (discord, strife, conflict, discontent, dissention, antagonism). As far as I can see : nor have spiritualistic Religion and empirical Science brought an end to "poverty and hunger, revolution and war). All of those disciplines have attempted to explain "why the world is as it is" to no avail. And, so far, after 2.5 millennia of -isms, -ologies, & messiahs, Salvation remains firmly lodged in the prospective future.
Like you, the Buddha made no attempt to philosophize about the sad state of the world, and offered no magical rectification. He simply accepted the imperfect planet Earth as it is, and concluded that the world's problem is not your personal problem, but each person's emotional reaction to imperfection creates internal problems. So, his Stoic solution was not to change the world, but to change your mind. Of course, ignoring the general Problem will not make it go away, hence "we will still have poverty & hunger, revolution & war".
If the Buddha's fatalism is not to your liking, other more sanguine thinkers have posited aggressive positive action to deal with The Problem. For example, Transhumanists depend on science & technology to fix what's wrong with the hand we've been dealt. Extropy*1 is essentially an optimistic reliance on Science, instead of God, to solve the world's perplexing predicament*2 . But I have concluded that the world may have a built-in long-term solution to the thermodynamic & socio-dynamic problem of Entropy & dissipation & devolution. I coined the term "Enformy"*3 to suggest that Nature is not passively going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket. And without human husbandry, things could get worse. What's your verbal or actionable resolution to The Problem? :joke:
*1. Extropy, in the context of transhumanism and futurism, is a concept that represents the potential for positive change, growth, and the enhancement of life. It's often viewed as the opposite of entropy, emphasizing increasing order, complexity, and intelligence. Extropy is a guiding principle for those seeking to optimize human existence and societal structures through technology and innovation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=extropy
*2. The Human Dilemma :
Entropy, Extropy or Enformy?
In his recent book, Heavens on Earth, Michael Shermer said, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics leads to the First Law of Life, which is to get your life in order". For that purpose, he proposed the philosophy of Extropianism, which is a key concept from the ideology of Transhumanism. In a Skeptic Magazine article, Shermer offered the technological optimism of Extropy as an alternative to Jordan Peterson's more tragic heroic stance in 12 Rules For Life, An Antidote to Chaos. The human dilemma ackowledged by both authors is the same : if humanity were to passively acquiesce to Fate, the world would soon revert to a state of nature, "red in tooth and claw". Some people think that would be preferable to the mess that human intervention has gotten us into. But when God created his earthly Paradise, he made a man from clay "and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." [Gen. 2:9,10,15] That's because the pastoral environment that humans find pleasant tends to revert to tangled jungle or thorny wilderness in the absence of human husbandry.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page16.html
*3. Enformy, was defined as the organizing principle of the universe. Now I wish to build on that foundation to construct a philosophical, scientific, and religious paradigm suitable for our current level of understanding. But first I have coined another new label to distinguish this fledgling worldview from other old and new conceptions of physical and metaphysical reality. Enformity is a salient quality of our universe which has been overlooked by materialistic science, and taken for granted by spiritualistic theologies.
https://www.enformity.enformationism.info/page2%20welcome.html
I think "self-promotion" on the forum is a problem only if you make money from clicks or book sales. I frequently provide links to my own website. But there is no pay-wall, so the information is free . . . . and worth every penny. :joke:
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I know what a "geodesic" is in non-Euclidean geometry. But I have no idea how or why it would apply to universal human problems. So, right off-the-bat, your Problem Statement is over my head, and above my pay grade . . . . hence "un-navigable. :wink:
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
This "beyond first principles" concept is not in my amateur philosopher vocabulary. It seems to open the door to "to radical innovation and a deeper, more expansive understanding of reality". But not for my little untrained pea brain. Perhaps there is a website for Mathematical or Meta-mathematical Philosophy, where someone could communicate on your level. :nerd:
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
That is indeed a bold statement. But I am not qualified to accept or deny it. I have my own notion of a "fundamental structure" --- Holism --- that points toward an answer to Douglas Adam's query about : "Life, the Universe, and Everything". But I don't think the final answer is "42". Good luck with your attempt to root-out any possible "Fatal Flaw" in your non-philosophical reasoning. :smile:
PS___ In your OP, you quoted Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow : "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.
So, it seems that you are trying to communicate with philosophical zombies. :joke:
FWIW : Ervin Laszlo was a child prodigy in classical music, who eventually became a non-academic philosopher of science, with a focus on Consciousness. He is now described as a Systems Theorist and Integral Theorist. Obviously, an autodidact genius, and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Since his "new paradigm" & Integral Systems worldview seems to be similar in some ways to your own Logic of Existence, maybe he, or someone in his orbit, would be capable of discovering a Fatal Error, if any, in your theory. Unfortunately, I am not in his orbit, or in his intellectual class. :cool:
Ervin Laszlo identifies a convergence of crises, including environmental degradation, social instability, and economic challenges, as major world problems. He argues these issues stem from a fragmented, ego-driven worldview and call for a shift towards a holistic, interconnected perspective. Laszlo emphasizes the need for a collective awakening and a move towards unity and compassion to navigate these turbulent times
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ervin+laszlo+world+problems
Ervin Laszlo --- Home Page
"We have reached a historic turning point - a "point of bifurcation" - at which we must find new ways to upshift our individual and collective consciousness to ensure the desired resolution of these crises."
https://ervinlaszlobooks.com/
Methinks you are short-selling yourself. Moreover, giving up without trying will bring you nowhere.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, it would seem that my definition of philosophy is spot-on:
"Philosophy := The study of questions without answers." p3 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]
What I do find peculiar about this is the apparent disinterest in any utility:
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting T Clark
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Gnomon
I have no issue with Ervin Laszlo's problem identification. I've had some communications with the Laszlo family (Erwin and Alexander) - they seem to be working hard on their Upshift Movement, which is just a new religion claiming human 'consciousness' as the latest saviour. The do not seem to be interested in a better understanding of the very foundation on which 'consciousness' is built.
It's obvious you find this peculiar or hard to fathom. The real question is, why?
But youve chosen the word 'disinterest', and thats not the correct word. Disinterest makes an assumption were avoiding something that youve already decided is obvious and valuable. We (or at least I) don't share this presupposition. I would simply doubt that philosophy holds the power of wrapping up all problems neatly into a single, unified solution that solves all problems. That sounds more like the promise of Marxism or some kind of immature notion of philosophy as a kind of magic spell you cast so the jagged, messy parts of human life (your poverty, hunger, revolution and war) vanish.
Why would you think philosophy has this purpose? Is it because you believe philosophy (as some see religion) uncovers capital-T Truth, and that this will set us free? I don't see how philosophy is a guide to perfect living or a pathway to ultimate truth. Help me see what you see. I think the difference between us is that perhaps you see philosophy as a kind of blueprint for healing the world, while I see more as an attempt to ask better questions.
Since feckless Philosophy has not solved all the world's problems in 2600 years, would you characterize your alternative program --- to achieve "a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves" --- as Science or Politics or Religion, or perhaps a fusion of all of the above? Working independently, none of those problem-solving procedures has come close to a real-world solution.
Empirical Science has made some progress in dealing with Natural Evils, mostly by isolating humans from Nature. Which has introduced some problems of its own. Spiritual Religion has addressed the world's problems primarily by promising salvation in another life, or a parallel world, or in drug-fueled dreams. But most philosophical solutions --- Stoicism, Buddhism, Taoism --- deal with "The Problem", not by perfecting Nature, but by making an attitude adjustment in the mind of the sufferer.
I tend to view Nature (Universe) as an ongoing holistic program/system that is made creative & dynamic*2 by its internal conflicts & contradictions*3, and by having open options (freewill) at decision points. That's not a paradox, but a necessity for any living & evolving system. So, the only way to fix our careering Cosmos may be to go back to the beginning and work from the top-down, perhaps with Pre-destination. :wink:
*1. Questions Without Answers :
[i]While philosophy certainly grapples with fundamental and enduring questions, the idea that it's solely "the study of questions without answers" is an oversimplification. Philosophy involves rigorous inquiry into fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language, often with the aim of finding answers or at least deeper understanding, even if definitive solutions remain elusive. . . . . .
Philosophy explores complex, abstract questions that often lack easy or universally accepted answers. These questions challenge our assumptions and push us to think critically about the world and our place in it.[/i]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Philosophy+%3A%3D+The+study+of+questions+without+answers
*2. Creativity often thrives on internal conflicts and contradictions, rather than being hindered by them. These tensions can be a source of inspiration and drive innovation, forcing individuals to reconcile opposing ideas or navigate complex emotions. . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=creativity+internal+conflicts+%26+contradictions
*3. Good vs Evil : in physical terms, boils down to the conflict between constructive Energy/Forces and destructive Entropy. The universe so far seems to have negotiated a compromise or stand-off between those positive & negative powers. But the emergence of Life & Mind may indicate a slight balance-tipping advantage toward order & organization & complexity & harmony.
I can provide snippets and quotes from my work as much as I like, you will not see the 'full picture' from this quotes, thus you will not understand the picture that I have AND fully described.
"So, my arguments will not be based on some [I]truth[/I] according to: Aristotle, Jean Baudrillard, Georg Cantor, Charles Darwin, Kurt Godel, Douglas Kellner, Nicholas Reschar, Bertrand Russel, Ernst Zermelo or any other name one could add to this list. My arguments are based on the (conditional) [I]truth[/I] of the [I]existence[/I] of [I]physical things[/I] - the valid Pole of Existence (on my Geodesic of Knowledge). It is thus a basic requirement that you, the reader, must also apply your intelligence and not merely your memory." p12 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I].
Thank you for the interest you have shown thus far - I do appreciate it. I have confirmed my problem statement and will conclude with that.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Perhaps you could sketch out in a few dot points how this relates to the point that philosophy should have solved all the world's problems. If it's too hard to adapt your complicated ideas to this request, we can move on.
Below is a summary of my work, surely you could glean my line of thought from it:
Chapter 1 - The Problem
The basic problem is that after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour we are still suffering from strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war. I introduce the concept of a Geodesic of Knowledge where any point on this geodesic is some assumed truth and the lines are inferences to deduced truths. This geodesic is unnavigable so I define a pole, the Pole of Existence, based on the conditional assumption of the existence of physical things.
Chapter 2 Human Perception
In this chapter I solve the philosophical problem of discernment from two fundamental arguments on existence and understanding. Defining the words: everything, nothing, something, anything, sometime, somewhere, consequential, unique, equivalence, time invariant, perception of data and collections. Collections is defined by ten axioms.
Chapter 3 Systems of Things
A system is defined cognitively and then, with a valid perception of the collections of things and the arguments that make the Zeroth Argument of Understanding valid, the following is mathematically defined: components, interactions and the Laws of Nature, the purpose of a system, duplicate systems and equal systems. Recognising that in general, systems do not come into being in any algebraic manner, they evolve, the fundamental algebra of the properties (mass or energy and information belonging to) of systems is defined. From this, the fundamental and universal boundaries of all systems can be defined. This, however, leads to the Paradox of the Universe: If anything that is something has a purpose (is a system), then everything must have a purpose (be a system). But if everything has a purpose then this purpose is something else than everything. This paradox is resolved.
Chapter 4 Evolution of Classes and the Demarcation Meridian
At least two system attributes could be used to understand different classes of systems: a classification based on the interaction between a system and a collection of data and a classification based on the interaction between a system and its purpose. When the two classifications are combined the following, consequential and subsequential, classes of systems can be identified: The foundational class, a class capable of decision-making, a class that could survive, a class that could communicate, a class that could reason, a class that could create and a class with the capability of abstraction. This classification provides a theory of evolution without any tautologies (a long standing philosophical problem) and solve the demarcation problem (an even longer standing philosophical problem). This classification also provides for a speculation on the fundamental function for systems science.
Chapter 5 General Results, a Mathematical Definition, and More Defined Words
First some results from this understanding, giving evidence that this definition of a system solve a number of problems encountered with current definitions. Then I provide evidence that my definition of a system is, in fact, a mathematical definition. This chapter concludes with some word-definitions based on the definition and understanding of a system: Causality, analysis and synthesis, complexity, technology, economics and jurisprudence, science, engineering, art and war.
Chapter 6 Universe-View of Systems
Using the philosophical notion of a world-view, I give evidence that this theory of systems provides a universe-view of reality. Amongst some other views, it also provides a definitive understanding of the dangers of artificial intelligence.
Chapter 7 A Discussion on Salient Results
A discussion on the cognitive understanding of a system, the systems theory of evolution (defined in chapters 3 and 4), a systems theory of wealth, human phenomena, reality in itself and the reality of abstract systems. This chapter concludes with a speculation on the existence of a God.
Chapter 8 Now What?
A discussion on how this systems theory provides answers to some other philosophical questions: the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and whether mathematics was discovered or invented, also a systems perspective on prejudice and how this effects politics and its use of the fallacy of human rights as an entitlement. This chapter concludes with a speculation on what, exactly, is consciousness.
Chapter 9 In Defence
In anticipation to some possible criticisms to this systems theory, I offer four different defences: arguing that this theory is not just plain reductionism, neither incomplete nor inconsistent, a valid systems theory in comparison to a definition proposed by an article published in the IEEE Systems Journal and finally a valid theory of everything although I would rather name it a Theory of All Human Understanding. I regard two of these defences seminal: the defence that it is neither incomplete nor inconsistent in contradiction to Gödels theorem and that it provides a valid theory of everything in spite of the philosophical view that such a theory is not possible.
Chapter 10 The Answer
Here I argue that the Geodesic of Understanding and Knowledge, I proposed in my first chapter my problem statement, is in fact a viable alternative to 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour. It does not provide answers to all problems but it does provide a fundamental structure for a better understanding of life, the Universe and anything.
Post Scriptum
Not only do I provide the standard nomenclature, a reference list, and a thesaurus of the words I defined in the text. I also provide a list of 13 projects of enquiry that could be contemplated based on my theory
"You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore."
... and good luck to you.