a new understanding of today, time and space.

Kant ask, why has the sciences been far more effective
then the philosophers? in other words, why has science
been so successful in understanding the world,
when philosophy like metaphysics has been
unsuccessful in understanding the world?

metaphysics has been a problem since the age of the Greeks…

questions of the three traditional problems of metaphysics,
the nature of being, the cause of things and the things that
do not change…I realize that other crap has been thrown into
metaphysics, but let us deal with that in a moment…

why hasn’t philosophy correctly understood these three
problems of metaphysics?

why hasn’t there been any progress in metaphysics like
there has been progress in science?

I would suggest that its because science deals with
objects that can be experiences in some fashion through
the senses…objects that can be measured, weighed,
contrasted and compared to other physical objects…
you can learn something about an object by comparing
and contrasting it to another like object…
you can compare mars to Venus and by doing so,
you can learn something important about both…
you can gain knowledge that can be measured, weighed,
contrasted and compared…what you see is what you get…
there is nothing “metaphysical” or outside of the senses
in regards to Mars or Venus…it is science which means
anyone who bothers to look will see the same thing…
they might interpret it differently, but they will see the same thing…
in fact, they might interpret it differently because of
the person doing the interpretation might be doing so via
the prism of myths, habits, biases, prejudice and superstition.

you see Mars and say, that was created by God and every observation
after that is seen in light of the idea that Mars was created by god…
because your initial thought was wrong, it leads the entire observation
to be mistaken……… and that mistake is the basis of judging reality…
which leads one to mistake reality for something else…….
so the scientific method must begin without any bias or
judgement or prejudice, so that the original observation doesn’t become
bias because the original observation was flawed from the beginning……

so when we look at metaphysical questions, it is assumed that
our questions about the nature of being or the first cause of things (god)
or things that do not change (the soul) actually exists…

but, but we cannot look at a person and see a soul… we
cannot find a soul, no matter how hard we try…
but it is assumed that a soul must exist and will exist eternally…
and so we look for evidence for such a thing… we try to find the
the existence of a soul, the thing behind what we see and we cannot
understand why we can’t find it… well, we can’t find it because it
doesn’t exists… there is no thing behind the thing… we see a person
and that exactly what we have… nothing extra, nothing metaphysical,
nothing beyond the physical…….nothing that will exists forever…
we can’t see the soul because it doesn’t exists and it surely doesn’t exists
forever………

that is why science has progressed far beyond metaphysics
in philosophy… that is why science has been far more successful
then metaphysical concepts………
because there is no there, there in metaphysics…

if we drop metaphysics, the three questions of metaphysical thought,
then perhaps philosophy will be far more successful…in other words,
if we change the question/questions of philosophy, we might have more
success with philosophy………

in other words, we are reevaluating philosophy…
we are engaged in an attack upon our basic principles
of philosophy and this is according to Nietzsche, might,
might, lead us to an overcoming of our convictions that
has lead us nowhere in our understanding of philosophy……

a reevaluation of philosophy itself may be just what the doctor
ordered………. what are the “real” questions of philosophy?
what should we really be asking? if we dismiss the traditional
questions of philosophy and start over, what will we have?

what questions should we be asking instead of the traditional
questions of philosophy that have lead us nowhere?

a revaluation of values in philosophy itself…

quite a scary proposition and perhaps one that we now need…

Kropotkin

now one might say, Kropotkin, what about
Einstein, who by mathematical means, not observation,
not experience discovered such things as black holes
and the idea that time and space are the same thing,
timespace, and that matter and energy are the same thing,
E=mc2…

what about those examples of science correctly working
without reference to experience?

we don’t actually know if they are correct, the “facts”
as we have them, may be incorrect as we learn more
about those things from experience…
as we learn about black holes, we may find out that
they are nothing like we thought and we may also learn
they are exactly like we thought…

the answer comes from experience which is observation
and testing and refining our theories…

the thing to remember is this… we are part of everything…
we are part of the stars and we are part of anything that is material
for we are made of the exact same thing as every other thing in the universe.
which is atoms… the fact that we are made of the exact same thing
as every single other thing in the universe may mean, that what we
discover about ourselves, is also true in the universe…

we are material objects that have a limited time span
and limited senses to understand things…

I would guess that we are not just similar to everything else,
but we are the same as everything else……

if we find life in the stars, they will be similar to us because
they are made of the exact same basic material as us, atoms…
in fact, they will be the same as us, just slightly different
arrangement due to being on a different planet with
different environment………that fact alone, changes the nature
of the animals existing on that planet… the environment changes
the creatures, not the creatures change the environment…

as we exist as the same material as everything else, but in slightly
different shape and form, we are the same as everything else…
this means that given our senses in this environment,
we can discover or find anything any other living life form
can, given its limitations in biology…

in other words, given the same senses as we have,
an alien species might discover the notions of timespace
and E=mc2 and how matter and energy are the same…
they might phrase it differently or put it into different context,
but it will amount to the same thing…and why?

because we are the exact same material as an alien species,
atoms… now our form and senses and shape may be different,
but that is because of environmental reasons, which creates
different biological forms and shapes and senses……….

it stands to reason, if we and aliens are made of the same stuff
as the universe, we will given enough time and motivation,
find the exact same thing out about our universe and how it works…

in other words, we have our Einstein, aliens have their own version
of a Einstein and they came up with roughly the same thing because
the universe is the same to everyone because of this idea that
the universe is made up of the exact same material… atoms…

Kropotkin

rereading a book called “What is ancient Philosophy” by
Pierre Hadot……… early in the book, he writes about Socrates………
and what exactly does Socrates offer us?

Socrates himself, says that he know nothing and he says that quite often and that
he has nothing to teach others…

so, what is the point of Socrates?

what does he bring to the table for us moderns?

he has no wisdom, no ideology, he knows nothing…

what can we learn from that?

he says the reason for his search was because the oracle of Delphi said
that he was the wisest man in Athens……….well, he knew this wasn’t true,
he said he knew nothing… so, how could the oracle claim that he was the wisest
man in Athens, when he had no knowledge or anything to teach…………

so he went about Athens trying to find a wiser man, thus proving the oracle wrong,
but everyone he met believed that they had wisdom, knowledge and after talking to
them, he discovered that they really didn’t know anything more then he did…

so, in his questions, he lead the person he was questioning to the understanding
that they didn’t know anything… that they too had no knowledge or wisdom……

now, this brings us to an interesting point, what actually happened?

the person being questioned thought they had knowledge but what they really had
was their myths, biases, prejudices and superstitions and that passed for,
wisdom or knowledge… but it isn’t wisdom or knowledge if it is simply mindless
myths and prejudices passed down from generation to generation to generation…
without being examined………… so what the person being questioned thought was
wisdom and knowledge, was actually just unexamined myths and biases and ism’s
and prejudices of their childhood……………. Socrates brought the person in question
to the point where they were forced to have a Zen moment… recall that a Zen moment
is like where the mountains dance and the sea waves foam and wildly churned
and the rivers overflow their banks… and after the Zen moment
the mountains return to calm and the sea becomes tranquil and the rivers
return to their banks………Socrates forces people to realize that didn’t
have wisdom or knowledge and when people discover that, they
become dislocated from what is solid in their lives…………

what we believe about what we know is part of the glue that keeps
us attached to the earth…if we believe we have knowledge about
the reality we exist in, that gives us trust and faith
in our universe…

if we no longer have faith or trust in our knowledge, then we are shaken
up, we have our Zen moment………….and this is the point that Socrates was
driving to with people, to force them to have their Zen moment that
to rethink or reevaluate what they believe in or what they think is true………

they must overcome their belief that that they have knowledge and wisdom
and to the point where they can now find real knowledge, real wisdom
about what is the goal of people…………………facts are not knowledge, facts
are not wisdom, understanding the values, that is real wisdom… knowing what is
worth living for…for Socrates, values like justice, duty, moral purity, they were
the values worth living for, worth dying for…

but is Socrates right about those specific values being the values worth living
for, worth dying for?

or are there other values worth understanding and worth living for, worth
dying for?

that is the question, isn’t it?

and that is philosophy………

not necessarily knowing that a specific philosopher believed
in some certain thing like “eternal forms”

but what values are values worth living for, worth dying for?

not facts, but values…………

it is not a question of having knowledge or being wise, but of understanding values.

Kropotkin

Let us continue to understand philosophy in terms
of Socrates………

Socrates says he knows nothing and he knows he knows nothing
and he has nothing to teach…

compare that to other philosophers…Like Kant or Hegal…
or in fact like any other “university” professors…
university professors are people who teach for a living…
we have a large group of philosophers who were in the university’s……
for example, most the Medieval philosophers were university professors,
St. Aquinas and Peter Abelard and Duns Scotus for example…
and in the modern times, we have Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Wittgenstein,
Quine, Nietzsche, just to name a few…… the real question is how
many were not professors, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz,
and Socrates…………

so professors by definition, teach, and what they teach, for the most part,
is philosophy……. Descartes is famous, rightly so, about his attempt to
find certainty in knowledge by doubting everything…… he entire attempt
at philosophy was with the action of doubt or doubting…….
now if we look at Socrates, he never said, he had certainty,
his approach was from doubt… I don’t know anything…
I have nothing to teach………… and what method did Socrates
use? Questions, nothing but questions… he rarely if ever said,
this is what I believe to be true… in fact, that was a criticism
of him by his contemporaries…he never said what he believed in,
he avoided answering questions about what he personally believed in……

and another criticism was that he always said the same things…
he repeated his questions in the same way to every person he met…

and to get the same response, to get the person under questioning
to admit that they in fact didn’t know anything…… to get them to
realize that they were just repeating the myths, biases, prejudices
and superstitions that they were taught from childhood…
and those myths, biases, prejudices………… they had never been
examined by the person holding them to see if they were, in fact,
worth holding……….

the unexamined life is not worth living…

this is a motto that bears repeating…

the unexamined life is not worth living…….

we hold myths, biases, prejudices, superstitions and ism’s
that, if understood correctly, won’t withstand examination…….

that is one of the real basis of philosophy…
not just to know that specific philosophers
specific beliefs about say, space and time…
to have facts and knowledge about specific philosophers,
but to have a method of examining the basis of beliefs
that we and others hold…………….

in other words, philosophy is not about what we hold to be
true as facts and knowledge outside of us, but about what is inside of us
as to the basis of and understanding of the beliefs we hold inside of us…

“It is not enough to have the courage of our convictions,
but to have the courage for an attack upon our convictions”

to examine them, to attack them, to see if they really
correspond to that which seems to be reality…

but here we run into the problem of the question of “reality”
what is “real”? or what is “reality”?

as far as I can tell, Socrates never asked this question……
because he not was engaged with something outside of us…
and Socrates never engaged with questions about things
outside of us……….

His questions were about the nature of love, of justice, of what is moral,
what is right…………………….

so what is justice? we cannot answer that question until we actually understand
what justice is……… and I have given my answer, justice is equality under the law…
justice is simply being treated the same legally as everyone else is treated…
if under the law, people are treated differently, due to wealth or power
or position, that is unequal, unjust…………… and is not justice………

justice and equality are the same thing…………. that is the type of question
Socrates would have asked…………. and the facts and knowledge we have,
are simply used to answer the question about if we have justice…
if blacks and whites commit the exact same crime, and the
conviction rate for blacks is twice that of whites, that is not equality,
that is not justice…… for different standards are used for different
class of people… it is not equal, it is not just, it is not justice…….

that is how facts and knowledge should be used… to better help us understand
how values are being used…………… values like justice……
and some facts and knowledge have no connection to values…
like how does the fact that earth lies 93 million miles from the sun,
create any use for a value? it doesn’t……………
it is just a fact or some knowledge that only has a value as a fact or
knowledge……………

the unexamined life is not worth living……

and how does the fact of the earth being 93 million miles from the sun,
helps us in understanding the unexamined life?

many of us think, and I admit I was one of them, that having facts
or knowledge was having some sort of wisdom… a fact that made me
wise… nope………………having facts or knowledge doesn’t have anything
to do with wisdom, with values……………

so when we understand the statement, the unexamined life is not worth
living… what exactly are we examining? the values that we hold,
not, not the facts or knowledge we have… the values like justice or love…

and for many of us, the values we hold are the myths and biases and
prejudices…… we were taught in childhood………….

so in philosophy, we are not asking if the sun is 93 million miles from earth,
that is a fact, a piece of knowledge… we are asking ourselves about
the values we hold and if what we believe about those values are really
the values we should be holding or the values we believe to be true,
are in fact, true………

the unexamined life is not worth living………

that is a quote that should be in every home, work place and place
of worship in every country in the world…………

the unexamined life is not worth living…
that is asking, in fact, for one to begin the search
for the truth in doubt…… for it is doubting
that leads one to the truth about values……

the question about the unexamined life is basically asking
for a person to doubt………….

do you begin with doubt or do you begin with certainty?

the answer to that question really is the basis for which we can
decide if you are a “true” philosopher…

Kropotkin

the failure of, the reason philosophy is in a Cul-de-sac, which
forms the basis of why I began this thread years ago is because
philosophers have tried to make philosophy “scientific” and
“scientific” means science and science is about facts,
knowledge… and philosophy isn’t about facts, knowledge…
philosophy is about values… thus the failure of philosophy
over the last 200 years… existentialism is the closes philosophy
has come to approaching values instead of facts, knowledge……

we have Marx who created Communism… which he said
is based on History, scientific history, as I believed he called it,
and that is why communism failed in the soviet era………

he created a “philosophy” based on history…… but that isn’t
what “philosophy” is about…………not on facts or knowledge,
that is science… you cannot have an historical/scientific philosophy,
you can have a philosophy of history, but not a historical/scientific philosophy…

and Marx said his idea of Communism was based on “science”…
thus his failure… to complete his failure came Lenin and Stalin who
tried to turn an economic theory which is what Communism is,
into a political theory, which it is not… and that is why the soviet
union failed… it was an economic theory turned into a political theory……

and this is part of what our reevaluation of values leads us to…
to an understanding of such theories as communism and capitalism
and economics and history……. because economics is partly about values,
but it is also about facts and knowledge…… that is why economics
is so muddled today……… is it an “philosophy” or it is a “science”?
the answer decides if economics is really a “philosophy” or just
another “science” like physics…….

If Marx had made communism a value system, instead of “historical
materialism” he would have created something philosophical,
and not scientific……… if Marx had truly understood philosophy,
he would have done things rather differently because philosophy
and science is different……………

by examining our systems, our ism’s and ideologies, in light
of whether they are facts and knowledge or a question of values,
leads us to better understand such ism’s and ideologies as
communism and capitalism and socialism and Catholicism…
are they values based systems or are they facts/knowledge based
system/systems… a system is what such ism and ideologies
really are… a system of coherent thought about a subject…

and Socrates never ask such questions as what is an ism or
what make an ism different from another ism………

he asked, what is love, what is justice?

so, we can better understand that Socrates was
a philosopher and Marx was not… had Marx concerned himself
with values, he would have been a philosopher…
Marx was a pseudo philosopher, not a real philosopher……
as long as it pretends to be scientific, it is not philosophy…
if it is about facts or knowledge, it is science, not philosophy…….

so to be a “true” philosopher, one must not engage with science
or the scientific method or facts or knowledge, one must engage
with values like love or justice or community, courage, cooperation,
equality, fairness, freedom, harmony, individuality, peace, so on and so forth…

so which values should we hold and which values do we actually hold?

that is philosophy, not science…….

Kropotkin

I read and responded to a thread by “Guide” that basic question
was "What does pre-Kantian mean?

and as I thought about it, I wondered why did “Guide” used the
words that he used… in other words, I wonder if he… (big word warning)
“obfuscate” his post or did he “elucidate” his post? and if, either one,
why?

In other words, he may have used english, but he didn’t make
his point clearly, and why didn’t he make his point clear?

I believe he “obfuscated” his point… render his point to be obscure,
but why?

At this point, we return to past philosophers like Kant and Hegel…
reading either one is notoriously difficult because of the language both
used… Read Kant in the english translation and you are still looking
for the english translation… apparently from those who can read both
German and English, it is easier to read Kant in English then in German
because of the way both languages are structured…

but why would one want to make obscure one’s point instead of
making it clear?

I read once, somewhere a long time ago, that it was Einstein, I think it
was Einstein, who said, that if you can’t make a statement that is understood
by an “average” person, the reason might be because you don’t really understand
the statement yourself…the reason to make it obscure is to hide this fact…
so you might sound important or scientific or philosophical or actually have some
knowledge or facts or wisdom that make you smarter then anyone reading it…

but the truth is by not simplifying your points into something the average person
can understand or in my case, I write so the average 10 grader can understand
my point…by not simplifying your points, you admit that you don’t actually
understand your statements…the wife is home, catch you later…

K: so, after talking to the wife… and taking a walk with the wife,
and then taking a nap with the wife, actual real live nap, the wife is
still asleep, soooooooooooo where was I?

so, I wonder if any will accuse me of making the statement that
“guide” really doesn’t know what he is talking about?

not at all… Guide was simply a random person who happened
to stumble into my path while I had been thinking about this for some time…

are the philosophical points there to try to impress people, or are you actually
trying to hide your lack of philosophical insight, or are you actually
trying to make a real philosophical point, either to yourself, which I often
do, or try to make a general philosophical point to any who might understand it…
motives are often at the heart of what we do…the why is as often as important
as the what… what did you say as oppose to why did you say it as oppose to
how did you say it?

the basic rules of journalism apply to philosophy…
the article must answer 6 basic points…
who, what, when, how, where and why…
every time you listen to the media, regardless of the medium,
these 6 points must be answered…
now transfer these basic points to philosophy…

Who, what, when, how, where and why…

in fact, all communication made between people, must answer
one or more of these basic points…
in fact, think of our disciplines like history or economics or sociology,
must in fact answer these questions also… as must philosophy…
and fiction… think of a book, Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” it too tells us
of the basic points of journalism… the who, what, when, how, where and why…….
you can think of fiction writing as “creative journalism”

now, what of poetry? quite often poetry will not answer all of these basic points…
but poetry is not really about information as much as creating a mood within a person……
poetry is often not interested in in giving much information outside of how the poet
was feeling at that time…would journalism be of much use if it was simply about
how the journalist felt about such matters as tax cuts or gun control?
would philosophy be of much use if it was simply about how a philosopher
felt about the metaphysical questions about being or understanding
things that do not change? journalism and philosophy and history must
be about more impersonal matters unlike poetry which is about personal matters……

quite often historians like Toynbee and Gibbon did make their personal feelings
known about certain historical events…… Toynbee especially was famous
for his personal comments about historical events…as he was a religious
person, everything that he wrote was infused by his religious feelings and he
judge historical events by his religious feelings…but, but did that
personal religious judging by his feelings affect his historical writings?

YES, yes it did… and it has been commented on by much smarter people then
me…

so should philosophical writers judge philosophical matters by their
own personal feelings, be it religious or social or political?

and can you escape writing about philosophical matters within
your own personal feelings be it religious or social or political?

ask yourself…

Kropotkin

what is its value of having facts or knowledge?

a philosophical question……

Kropotkin

There aren’t just Republican and Democratic parties in the House! Remember THAT!

There aren’t just Republican and Democratic parties in the House! Remember THAT!

K: and? what is your point?

Kropotkin

ok, so what happens after we have finished
our reevaluation of values and we have uncovered that
we are no longer indoctrinated with the myths, habits, prejudices
and superstitions of our childhood………what now?

we have returned from our Zen moment and we see the world in a new
light and with new values…now what?

we reintegrate into society with our new found values…values that
we can truly believe that are our values, not inherited values from
our childhood indoctrinations…and we use these values to understand
the world, with values that are truly our own……

“but it is not enough to understand the world,
we must change it”

Karl Marx said that……and he is right…

we must take our new values and transform the world…

the change we seek is based upon the values we have uncovered
in our reevaluation of values…

let us say, we have found that love is the value that we must
transform the world with… and we go from the particular, individual
value of love to a universal value of love…values that can be used to
protect the system we inhabit……. for we are social creatures,
we exists in groups, which are systems and those systems, if they
are worth keeping, are worth protecting with our newly found values…
we exist with each other and we need each other and the way we co-exist
is by values that we use as we interact with each other and the values
that drive our systems…in other words, what values give our social
systems the ability to be stable… love is far better at keeping a system
stable then hate……. hate will destroy a system, be it a family system,
a political system, a chess club, anywhere we come together to form a system…

hate is surely as much a value as love and which value makes the system
stronger and more stable and allows one a chance to exist and grow,
hate or love? I think we all know the answer to that… we are social
creatures and our values must reflect that…our values must not only
represent us, but those values represent who we want to be…

our values belong in the past, present and future…….
that is why we must find our values, not the indoctrinated ones,
but our true values…….for this allows us to not only co-exist with
others, but to co-exist within ourselves…it is not enough to
hold values if we don’t use those values to transform the world,
the many systems we are part of…we use these new values
to find our place in the universe, the world, this reality, within
our social groups/systems and we use those values to become who we are……

the center of human existence lies in the values that we hold, be it
negative values like hate, anger, lust, greed or for positive values like
love, peace, hope, charity among other positive values………

the positive values allow our system be it us or be it our political
or social or economic system to exist and prosper and maintain its
stability……

negative values damage us and the systems we are part of………

holding positive values allows the system and us to grow and prosper…

so, what values do you hold? and why?

Kropotkin

in thinking about Kant’s three questions,

what can I/we know,
what should I/we do
and what ought I/we hope for…

the second, what should we do is really a political question…
the first is a philosophical/scientific question
and the third is a religious question…

( recall that in Kant’s age, there wasn’t the split between science
and philosophy that there is now… science was philosophy
and philosophy was science) it was called Natural philosophy……

anyway, back to the the second question, the political question of
what am I/we to do?

what is the goal of life? that is essentially what the question
is asking, what is the goal of life… and that goal gives us our
actions as needed…once again, I bring up the idea of taking
a journey… without a goal, a destination the journey cannot
be completed until we have a goal/destination…otherwise
we are just aimlessly wondering around the land… which is in
fact exactly what American has been doing these last few decades because
we haven’t had a goal or destination to aim for and it is preventing us
from us accomplishing anything… we have been aimless wondering
about with no goal to aim for… that is precisely what has been the
problem with America these last decades… and the role of the partisan
followers in this biblical wondering the desert for the last 40 years?

their role has been to prevent us from creating a goal, a destination for
us to reach…their partisan bickering has prevented America from
coalescing around a goal from which we can then begin to move forward…

one of my major beefs with Obama has been he didn’t form or create a
grand vision to us to travel toward… he presidency was an ad hoc one,
where they went from one crisis to another without any master plan to
get ahead of the every increasing crisis… he went from position to
position but never connecting the positions into one master grand plan which
created a goal/destination for us to try for or reach…

begin with a master plan and then treat the following crisis under
the master plan…… so, the way forward is to treat any event or crisis
as part of the master plan and subsume those events into the destination
we are trying to reach…

so we have a terrorist attack… instead of treating it as a separate
and individual event, it becomes part of a overall, overarching plan
in which the terrorist attack is becomes part of the overall master plan…
instead of treating the terrorist attack, ad hoc, as a single individual event…

we treat the terrorist attack within the confines of the master plan…
we simply react to it as part of a comprehensive already created plan…
our response is one of, this has been expected and is already accounted
for in the master plan…… because we know what our destination is going
to be, we can simply overcome this and continue on to our overall goal……
9/11 didn’t need to become the clusterfuck it became if, if they had
simply had a plan in place to overcome it…… in other words, the 9/11
American response was far worse then the actual attack… the attacks
damage was not physical but mental, psychological… it damage our
psyche far more then it did physical damage………and it needed to be
treated that way……. it wasn’t the physical damage of 9/11 that was
the problem, but the damage to the psyche was the problem…

and by having an overall, overarching plan that had such events like
9/11 within them, we could have easily overcome such events…
if we had a plan, a goal, a destination to reach, 9/11 wouldn’t have
been such a deal… but because we didn’t, we simply reacted ad hoc
and by doing so, overacted in such a way to severely damage
America in the short run and the long run………

if you have a plan, a goal and you hit a setback,
that is exactly how you can say it, ah, we hit a setback but
it doesn’t matter because it is a small setback that won’t prevent
us from reaching our goal……. if you have a goal of saving
a million dollars and you have a setback of your house burning down,
that is a setback for sure, but it doesn’t have to stop you from reaching
your goal/destination… you simply take it as a setback and continue on
building your wealth to a million dollars… it doesn’t become something
that is permanent and stops one from reaching their goal/destination…
no, it is just a temporary setback and that is what 9/11 should have been…

a temporary setback… not an end all, be all………….

so what should I/we do… is really a political question and requires
us to think about and decide upon a goal/destination…….

so, what goal/destination should we try to reach for or decide upon?

and how does that goal fit into the question of “what are we to do”?

for the one answer tell us about the one question…

so, what should our goal/destination be?

Kropotkin

a good friend sent me something by William Hazlett,

"On the ignorance of the learned from table talk, Essays on
Men and Manners (1822)………

as this little essay strikes pretty much where I am at
at this moment, I shall comment on the essay in regards to
certain aspects of what I have been thinking about…

Hazlett speaks of learning from a book… most readers
passively read a book… but I have learned over the years
and have put into practice these last few years…
is the art of engagement with the reading material…

in other words, I engage in a dialogue with the written material…
learning, true learning is a dialogue between two people…by engaging
in a dialogue with the material, we bring out the matter at hand in
our minds……. if we are passive, we simply absorb what the writer
has said and we may or may not understand it………. but by
a dialogue with the writer, we can get a better sense of what the
writer was saying and most importantly, we can create
a dialogue within ourselves about the material at hand………

so given this understanding of how in writing and especially
in philosophy, we must engage in dialogue with what we read,
who is the best philosopher on ILP?

the answer is rather easy given the engagement in the material
by both parties… he demands engagement with the material…

of course the answer is …. Iambiguous……… because he demands
engagement with the material… he wants dialogue about the matters
at hand……….he doesn’t engage in polemics like the rest of us…
he engages in dialogue……. we all could learn something from
Iambiguous…………… I know I can………

Kropotkin

so let us extend this idea…… the idea of engagement with the
material instead of just passive interactions with the material…

we can say this is true of our political interactions…

for our bottom line about human beings is we are social
creatures… ignore or forget about this fact at your own risk…

we are social creatures and and all we do or think about, must
reflect the basic fact we are social creature…

so, for us to become our best selfs, we must engage with
that aspect of human beings being social creatures…

and that includes, especally includes the political
part of the human being… we are social creatures and
we best discover this aspect of ourselves in the city…

it is in this action and interaction in the city with our fellow
human beings that create or brings out the best of us…

so is the modern city today, best suited to bring out the best of us
by our interactions with our fellow citizens?

by god, no… in fact, we have created cities that
more and more prevent interactions with our fellow citizens…
we walk around with our nose’s stuck in our “smart phones”,
and we hid ourselves in our houses watching bad TV shows like
the “real housewives of… whateve” we have isolated ourselves
from our fellow man, our fellow citizen and that lack of
dialogue, that lack of interaction with our fellow person,
has damaged us………… I am just as guilty of this as anyone else…

I cannot grow as a human being without interacting with my fellow citizens…
it is within the dialogue and interactions with my fellow human being
that will allow me become something more… to overcome who
I am now…………. it is in the engagement with my fellow citizens,
not in my being passive, that will allow me to become who I am………

so, we have as our basis of being human, first of all, awareness
and secondly, engagement…we must be aware of who we are
and what we might become and we must become engage in that
prospect and engage within ourselves and with our fellow human beings……

so, if you ask yourself, what can I do to be a better human being?
(and I ask you, has any of you ever asked yourself what can
I do to become a better human being? the sound of silence…

so to become a better human being
become aware and engage with whatever reality you are facing…

Kropotkin

so given what we see in this modern age, what is
the most prevalent attitude we see in this most modern of times?

I would say, passivity/resignation……. all those conspiracy
advocates have abdicated from their engagement with
the modern world and have retreated into their own
fantasy world filled with hate and conspiracies against
them…… and most of the rest, allow their time to be fill with
the minutiae of daily life… who is picking up bobby from school
and what time is the recital tonight? and others, escape with
video games and having their noses in I-phones on such silly sites
like facebook with its fake friends………the modern world
is just a life long attempt to escape accountability/responsibility
for our own existence……………….

if there was one phrase I would use for the modern world,
this is it…

we use the tools of the modern world to escape
any type of engagement with ourselves or the world…….

this is why passive ism’s and ideologies appeal to us…
it allows us to maintain our life long attempt to
be passive in the face of life……………

such active ism’s and ideologies are frowned upon because
they force us to engage with ourselves…… communism and
anarchism is hated because it forces people to engage…
philosophy done right, forces people to engage with who they are…….
religion allows passivity because it allows god to be the
center of focus instead of where the focus should be which is
right on us……… the philosophical sayings of, become who you are…
is disliked because it forces a person to engage with becoming who
you are……… if taken seriously, you must engage to become who you are…

the Socratic saying of, the unexamined life is not worth living…
becomes an act of engagement into your own life…………
you must engage to examine your own life…….

“it is not enough to have the courage of your convictions,
you must have the courage for an attack upon your convictions”

that quote if taken seriously, forces one to become engaged with
your own life… you cannot be passive and have the courage
for an attack upon your convictions… that courage requires
engagement into your values……………… to discover what
values you believe in, requires engagement……. you cannot be
passive…………

are you engaged in your life or are you passive?

are you becoming who you are?

are you engaging in an attack upon your convictions?

are you examining your life, your values?

if you have only one point in life, that point is simply this,
become engaged……….in your life, in your values, in who you are…….

are you engaged?

Kropotkin

so, thinking about our “existential choice”…
in other words, the choice of values, what values are we to
follow or engage with………

the “existential choice” of the Christian is to follow the values
of Christ……. but do they? I have already answered this one as no……
because the Christian has abandon those values of Christ, of compassion,
of charity, of love of thy neighbors, of the sermon on the mount
and the parable of the good Samaritan…… all of which has been
abandon for the hypocrisy in supporting the party of treason, the GOP,
and the traitor in chief, IQ45…….

the “existential choice” we have, is what values are we going to have or use, to live
our life…………………….

are we going to engage with the values that are positive, like
love and peace and justice and equality and charity or are we going to
engage with negative values like hate, fear, greed, lust, anger…….

this discussion of values is at the heart of the discussion of who we
are as Americans……. we might say, we support the American values
of truth, justice and the American way of life………

if you support the right or the treason party, then your values
are of hate and anger and greed and those values that you claim
of Truth, justice and the American way of life really means,
not truth, for the GOP and traitor IQ45 is against the truth,
is against justice for justice as its heart is about equality…
justice demands that we treat everyone equally regardless
of position, wealth or power and if we don’t treat everyone equally,
then we don’t have justice and we clearly don’t treat everyone equally
under the law, so we don’t have justice and if you don’t support
equality/justice, you cannot say you are a supporter of truth, justice
and the American way of life…………

so in the end, what values do you support?
do you even know what values you support?

for to know what values one actually does support, means for one
to engage in an examination of your life and who has the courage
for such an examination?

so who are you? you are the values you engage with and the values
you act upon and the values you live your life with………………

your actions determine who you are and your values decide your actions…
so, what are your values?

that is the “existential choice” we have…our values………

Kropotkin

we also have “existential choice” in other ways…

but let me lay this out…

we have as I have noted, one way, which is engagment,
active participation in our lives… becoming who you are, is not
an passive matter, it is an active/engaged activity…

but there is an second way of philosophy…
and that is reflected in those who seek retirement from
the way of the world… in other words, philosophical pursuit is
meant to teach one to retreat into one’s own indifference and
passive nature…the christian best shows us this, when he/she
retreats into contemplation of god and makes the “existential choice”
of not engaging in the world and escaping from the world…

when one says, pox on both sides, they are accepting this idea,
that best way to travel through life is by not engaging in the world…

those who retire to the monastery or escape into the desert to
contemplate god… are escaping from life, not engaging in life…

that is an “existential choice” and then there is a third way…
the way of using philosophy to heal…man has a soul disease
and we use philosophy to cure him…Socrates for example,
often speaks of doctors who heal and he says that a philosopher is
a healer of souls…

so we have philosophy being one of three actions, first is engagement,
the second is retreat into oneself and the third is using philosophy as
an act of healing of one’s soul or the societies soul… as it is often the
case that the reason a person is soul sick is because the society is
soul sick… the act of personal alienation is being soul sick because
the society is sick and you have become alienated from that society
because it is sick…how are we to heal oneself or the society?

that is the question for philosophy and philosophers…

so, which of the three possibilities do you accept,
the healing of philosophy,
the escape of philosophy or
the engagement of philosophy?

make your choice, your “existential choice”

Kropotkin

let us take a better look at these three “existential choices”

one is engagement,
two is retreat
and three is healing…

let us at two, retreat…

we have seen number two, retreat, practice a great deal since
the beginning of time… I have spoken of the Christian during
the Roman era that practice retreat, escape from society…

we also have Greek philosophical practices of the Epicurean school for example,
that preached that the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, by
achieving peace and freedom from fear and the attainment of the absence of pain…

this is done by escape into the self-sufficient life surrounded by friends……

don’t depend on society but become self sufficient both physically and mentally…

you also have such “religions” as Buddhism which proclaims that the prime
factor in the universe is suffering and we must escape from this “suffering”
by withdrawing from life and working on becoming “enlighten” or gaining peace
by becoming or having “enlightenment”… withdrawal is the key………

and we see this today…… the withdrawal of people from the political process…
we have less then 50 % of those eligible to vote,who actually vote… this is
the withdrawal idea from the political “storm and stress” that we see every day…

we see this at work every single day… but is this “existential choice” the right choice?

let us rephrase this, what values do we want us to have, us, being you and me?

what values do we want society to have? and does withdrawal into ourselves
represent those values we have decided upon?

we rarely have answer, only questions………

Kropotkin

so we have the three forms of philosophy,
the engagement, the retreat and the healing aspect of philosophy…

and we have Kant’s three questions and they are…

What can I know?
what can I do?
and what can I hope for?

so, we ask, of the three forms of philosophy,
into what category do the three questions of Kant fall into?

do the Kantian questions fall into the engagement form of philosophy
or do the Kantian questions fall into the retreat form of philosophy
or do the Kantian questions fall into the healing form of philosophy?

the three Kantian questions seem not to be about retreat as they are
active questions, what can I…
and the three Kantian questions don’t seem to fall into the healing form
of philosophy and so, by process of elimination, we are left with
the Kantian questions being an engagement form of philosophy…

What can I know? Descartes answer this question with,
Cogito, ergo sum… I think therefore I am…
and every philosopher after that to Kant attempted to answer this
question in light of the new scientific method that had
thrown the entire question into question… the new science had
denied the prior precedence of authority like Aristotle and the bible…
so, that is why this new question of, what can I know, was so important…

What can I do? in light of the new philosophy, this question is also
about engagement……. what can I do? or what should I do? can also
be asked………… and we have the new philosophy saying that we don’t have
to follow the old ways, the old method, the old authorities…we can find
a new path into the brave new world… thus the answer to the question of,
what can I do, or what should I do, is also about engagement…
how do I engage with the world?

and what can I hope for? what can I hope for?
and this question is also about engagement…….
it isn’t a retreat form of question and it isn’t about healing,
it is about how do I hope, which is another form of engagement…
it is engagement about the future… to what can I hope for in the future?
and can I make it happen in light of what can I do, or what should I do?

for the future is about making hope become real……. and that is engagement…

and searching for the truth? what form of philosophy is that?
is searching for the truth, engagement or retreat or healing???

Kropotkin

we have three forms of philosophy,
the engagement,
the retreat
the healing…

is that it? is that all of philosophy that we have to think about?

no, I believe that there are other forms of philosophy
we have to find those forms of philosophy, but I think
they exists………… we might have not just three forms
of philosophy but maybe 4 or 5 or even 6 forms of philosophy…

what other forms of philosophy might we have besides the
engagement, the retreat or the healing form of philosophy?

Kropotkin