Philosophism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Something I posted somewhere else–

Sorry for not replying sooner, I’ve been away for a while, I’ve hit rock bottom philosophically and emotionally. I’m glad you liked my thread, unfortunately, I don’t have any answers for you, now. Perhaps humans, particularly myself, are too dumb to comprehend the universe, the answer(s) seem to elude us. I’m tired of building, I have watched my sysems crumble before my eyes, one too many times, often by my own hand, by my own insatiable mind. I began my philosophical journey trying to overcome skepticism, nihilsm, and failed, so it’s back to the drawing board for me, yes, back to Socrates. Perhaps the answers lie there, or at least the right questions.

What is my new system, then? Imagine a movement dedicated to the life, thought and person of Socrates. Nevermind Egoistic Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Deontological or Virtue Ethics. We shall make knowledge, wisdom and understanding our highest values. We shall dedicate our lives to the pursuit thereof with religious like fervor. Let us abandon the pursuit of pleasure, power, fame, fortune, and the myriad other things the world calls good. We shall venture into the streets in search of the good, in search of being, making use of the Socratic method, relentlessly asking people questions and documenting our conversations via journal or video camera-- school of minor talks, was it?

Afterall, has man not got himself into trouble by puting the previously mentioned goods (pleasure, etc) ahead of the good, the apparent, or the appearance of good ahead of the good itself (the absolute, objective good, or at least approaching absolute and objective), which can only be discovered by rigorous application of our Promethean gifts? Reason is the greatest good of all, for it is reason that allows us to go beyond the surface of things, and it is this shallow preoccupation with surfaces that has lead us into this present darkness (technology is good, more is good, etc). There can be no closed, final system, and that was my supreme folly.

What if the highest commodities were knowledge, wisdom, understanding… philosophy, rather than oil, coffee and pharmaceuticals? I’m convinced it would be a better world. Of course, knowledge is free, and that’s the beauty of it. Aside from the aforementioned goods (reason, knowledge, etc), what else? Basic necessities of course, we can’t philosophize if we’re dead, I don’t think… and freedom, we need freedom of thought and expression. Other than those, no other values shall be set in stone.

Imagine if people sought the council of philosophers as opposed to the priestcraft, imagine if there were temples dedicated to Prometheus, Socrates, Athena and others, where men and women could come and reason together. Yes, we should put less emphasis on physical activity and more on mental activity (and progressive mental activity as opposed to conservative mental activity), we should only act out of necessity, or when we’re convinced our actions will be worthwhile, more thought before action, be more tentative, more tentative. More deliberation, more contemplative reflection.

Well, there you go, another system, I wonder how long before this one collapses in my mind? A day perhaps, if I’m lucky. Tell me, am I sick???

2

In addition to being the supreme extrinsic good(s) (knowledge, wisdom, etc), why can’t they be the supreme intrinsic good(s), valued for their own sake, and not merely for the practical, utilitarian sake of assissting us in discerning other real good(s) from apparent ones. Yes, let us become a nation, a world of philosophers, let us create an economy of reason and discard this economy of frivolous apparitions. Let us utilize reason to uncover enduring good(s). Let us be willing to die for understanding, for life without understanding isn’t worth living.

3

Is reason so “good” or is it a afflicted curse?

Why is a rational existence any improvement over our ancient animalistic irrational past?

The only thing this “reason” you speak of has done is create a insatiable appetite for human beings in wanting to dominate the world and universe that surrounds ourselves.

It has been only the vehicle that which has released man’s greater tendencies of self destruction all over this planet.

It is also a vehicle for some of those amongst us to enslave the greater portions of the global populance in a more effective coordinated manner.

I fail to see the glorification in the development of human reasoning.

In a way all human beings are sick decadent creatures. :sunglasses:

All preconceived notions of social or existential utopias are doomed to failure.

Embrace the global dystopia instead. :stuck_out_tongue:

4

Why must you have a system, as such? I mean, it is great to have some foundation, ideals, beliefs, and all that; but why keep chasing some universal ideal? We are relational and adaptive by nature – why should your philosophy be any different?

So many people seem to get stuck there, and I am no exception. My own personal conclusion is that overcoming ‘the abyss’ is a nice idea, but a religious idea – one that seems to depend on a particular mixture of faith and ignorance [willful or otherwise]. For the rest of us, I think it is what we do in spite of that looming ‘abyss’ that is most important. To overcome it, in a sense, by accepting it and moving on.

[size=95]

[/size]

5

I think reason is the highest good, understanding is inherently good, no matter the cost, we need to know. You wouldn’t be posing such questions and counter arguments if you didn’t at least partially agree with me. The lowest goods are the ones man is currently preoccupied with, the accumulation of material goods, the satisfaction of bodily desires. I argue reason is higher on the order of things, because one, I feel it is, two, the desire for the lower things evolved first, and three, we have a passion for philosophy, if not, we wouldn’t be here, would we? ?

For the intrinsic reasons listed above and, an extrinsic reason-- it allows us to come into contact with many kinds of being, including the good. Our senses are fleeting, like shadows of the objective world. Through reason, we are able to distinguish the long lasting from the short lived, the eternal from the temporal. The short lived isn’t worth pursuing with intensity, for it is illusory, 'tis followed by absence, pain and death, it disappoints, there are consequences. The long lasting and the eternal, on the other hand, are worth pursuing with intensity… that is, if they indeed exist.

That is only because reason has been lead astray by the body, the lower must serve the higher.

What do you expect, the horse cannot lead the man. Reason is a precious gift, precious gift, why do you think Jehovah cast thee out of the garden? Uncle Ben said-- with great power comes great responsibility.

I’m aware of how obscure and esoteric this all sounds, it’s obscure and esoteric even to me, yet it’s why we’re here, so we may as well entertain it at least.

6

I think man needs an ism, it doesn’t necessarily have to be eternal, absolute, religious, but even Nietzsche needed an ism, he had his master/slave and dichotomy, well, I have my philosopher/scientist dichotomy, among others… I’m not antiscience, I just think man is overly preoccupied with it, and all it entails. The Joker speaks of the blunders of science, not reason per say. When science is superseded, or at least tempered with philosophy, harmony shall ensue, methinks.

Well, you may be right, how long I have suffered by disregarding your advice, Statiktech.

7

I think man needs some kind of direction in his life, nevermind the refuse we amuse ourselves with, man needs a foundation, and I think if we’re honest with ourselves, that’s why we’re here, but many are too affraid to admit it.

8

I agree, which is why I said it is good to have ideals and beliefs. My real point was to remain adaptive and honest. An ‘ism’ need not be a concrete set of universals or absolutes to be useful or practical. In other words, don’t be afraid to cut a belief loose if you are presented a better understanding. Intellectual honesty can be a heavy burden in that regard at times because you may end up, as I think you have, admitting to yourself that you don’t have the answers.

I can’t really tell if this is sarcasm, but that is just my own personal conclusion. I often feel like the philosophers I most admire already take things like that as something of a ‘given’. Of course we can be skeptical, even to the extent of doubting reality itself. But why? I’d get lost in doubt because I allowed my skepticism to obscure my goal. Then, I was just doubting, everything, for no particular reason and with no particular aim. I look back at some of the greats like Socrates and Confucius [one of my personal favorites] who urged people to act/think objectively. Fact is, whether or not anything is purely ‘objective’, by definition, is a useless debate:-- What better, more practical, and prudent, alternative do we have in life but to act objectively?

Finally, I realized these men were concerned foremost with virtue, ethics, proper living, etc. That is where they sought more objective understanding. They weren’t developing philosophy as some esoteric, or subjective, hobby; but, rather, as a way of life. Something more objective to live by.

9

.

.
tx: Well said, but there is one important thing missing from your recipe, one of these ‘other things’ that the world calls good; namely, love. For without love even these great things - knowledge, wisdom and understanding - are empty and without foundation. Skepticism, Cynicism, Nihilism, etc, are all “easy” philosophies because they seem reasonable and efficient (and require nothing more than a dismissive attitude), but they are failed philosophies precisely because they require a flawed vision of the nature of humankind. Indeed, I dare say that any philosophy that cannot even see love or its significance to the quality of human-being … well, such a philosophy is hardly fit for any sensible person, that’s for bloody sure. And a sensible person is one who values philosophy for what it can do to improve his or her own personal life (and those of others too).
.
So philosophy is NOT an occupation or a profession or even just a hobby; rather it is the vital element or energy that drives our minds (limited as they are by lack of imagination and focus). Granted this is very difficult for many people to see and accept. This is because most people - even philosophers - lack vision. And philosophy is all about vision. And this means that science is philosophy’s telescope and microscope and sensor-array. Science is philosophy’s tool! Any other arrangement between the two is utterly absurd, if you think about for a minute. That’s why philosophy’s current slavish subservience toward science is so reprehensible and cowardly. It’s like Sophia saying “Well, I can’t do this anymore, so I might as well just give up, and beg for the crumbs off of science’s dinner table.”
.
That’s not philosophy; that’s just some deaf, dumb, and blind mutant hybrid of science and philosophy that knows not which way is up! :frowning:
.

.
tx: Actually, this is a rather good working-definition of what I call ‘Logos-in-action’. The “other” Logos, the cosmic-force “out-there” is largely a speculative entity, which is to say, an abstract concept (of dubious value, some would say), which is to say, basically a convenient fiction. But Logos-in-action does not have such awkward and painful ontological weakness, owing chiefly to the fact that it is a large part of who and what we are: as Aristotle puts it, a ‘rational animal’. More animal than rational, to be sure; and more flawed than logical in all our thoughts and feelings and actions! But still Aristotle gave us something to shoot for; and also the means to improve our collective condition, namely science. But science can only take us so far. It’s time to take the next step … beyond the “logical” restrictions that science gleefully imposes upon philosophy. But this is a step that not all can take, for it requires courage, determination, purpose, and above all, focus.
.

.
tx: I think maybe you are confusing rational methodologies and techniques with the rational use of such methods. That aside, it may be that you would benefit greatly by studying the history of civilizations from the bronze-age to the present. The progressive rationalization of human life therein is impressive and difficult to ignore. Check it out.
.

.
tx: hmmm … sounds like something a christian of the augustinian persuasion might say!
.
In any case, I disagree with this assessment of the fundamental nature of human-being. True, there are many individuals who are indeed just as you say. Boils on the buttocks of the world, they are. But as a species we are still what we always were, namely, fearful little creatures trying to do what is best for you and yours … But that’s not good enough anymore! This collection of “sovereign nations” business is fast becoming not merely obsolete, but also highly counter-productive. We are a single species sharing a single economy within the context of one world. One world under one set of rational-laws that cover everybody; that’s the only feasible solution open to us at this late stage in the game of rising and falling civilizations. We are now teetering on the edge of collapse, and if don’t get our act together very soon, it will be all over for us. From now on we have to be what Aristotle hoped we could be: more-rational ‘fearful little creatures’.
.

.
tx: I totally agree, LT. Let’s put something very like this into the global-constitution that make’s everybody everywhere equal citizens with the same rights and obligations, all living under the same law of reason. And who judges whether or not any particular law is rational or oppressive? Why, philosophers of course! :smiley: