Philosophy redux part 2

[Peter_Kropotkin]

in thinking about things this morning and this thought
came to mind…

I’m reading a book about scientific thought and the author often
mentions the two types of scientists, the theoretical ones
and the experimental ones… the theorist engages in theoretical
thinking about the universe… Einstein is, perhaps, the best known
theoretical scientist, but we can include Newton and Hawking here…
and experimental scientist is a hands-on researcher, who uses the
scientific method to design, conduct, and analyze experiments to
test theories, understand phenomena, and drive innovation in fields
like physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine… perhaps the best
known experimental scientists is Marie Curie along with
Ernest Rutherford…

We have here two different types of scientists, one uses theory,
mathematical models and abstract concepts to explain, predict
and understand natural phenomena…the other uses vast amounts
of data and complex equipment to find concrete answers and to
confirm or challenge existing knowledge…

and in thinking about this, we also have two distinct types of
philosophers… the theoretical one and the practical one…
The best examples I can use is ancient, whereas Socrates
is the practical philosopher, Plato is the theoretical philosopher…
Socrates is always trying to get to the practical aspect of philosophy…
Socrates was famous for ‘‘bringing philosophy down to earth’’,
not talking about the stars or the elemental force in the universe…
be it fire, water, air, land… as the previous philosophers did…

(note, that for centuries, there was no difference between science
and philosophy… what we call science, they called natural
philosophy and this distinction lasted from Socrates to the 1850’s
or so)

and of Plato, read his theories, and imagine trying to put
them into real life… his engagement with philosophy isn’t
a practical, real life engagement with life… his philosophy
has no practical application in life… and that is why we call
him a theoretical philosopher…
and Socrates a practical philosopher… you can take his theories
and practice them in life… in fact, he demands this practical
application of philosophy into our lives…

So, if we look at various philosophers over the centuries,
we can see that most of them, most, can be considered to
be theoretical philosophers… and why? Because you can’t
practice their philosophies in real life… exactly like Plato…
I would count, as theoretical philosophers as being any of
the religious philosophers, Augustine and Aquinas,
along with Spinoza, Kant, Hegel… the ones I would label
as real life philosophers as being the existentialists, Camus
for example, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Aristotle… they want
you to put their philosophy into action, into practice, not as
a theory, but as a philosophy to live one’s life by…

Now around here, ILP, there are plenty of theoretical polemists,
to name a few, MR. A. RealUn, Jupiter, future, to name a few,
but you can’t put their philosophies into real life practice…
to do so would be disastrous, both personally and within
a social context, within a society or state… those people
are engaged in theory, not in any practical application of their
philosophies, as pathetic as their philosophies are, because
their philosophies are not workable within a state or a society…

So, ask yourself, do you want to put your philosophies into
practice, or do you want to create a theory which cannot
work within a state or society… Like most people around here?

are you a practical philosopher or are you a theoretical philosopher?

Kropotkin

[daniel_j_lavender]

Great observations.

Most here are not actually philosophers. They are gossipers, complainers, bored web surfers, unwitting propagandists of the system relaying manufactured information and events.

@Peter_Kropotkin

So, ask yourself, do you want to put your philosophies into
practice, or do you want to create a theory which cannot
work within a state or society… Like most people around here?

are you a practical philosopher or are you a theoretical philosopher?

I seek primarily to be the former, a practical philosopher. And, perhaps to a certain degree, a theoretical one as well.

Hence the ontology I’m presenting:

Existence Is Infinite (2025)

Existence Is Infinite Daniel J. Lavender Abstract Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it. Terms And Definitions Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. Infinite (adj.)…

The ontology includes practical, accessible terms and definitions allowing readers beyond academia ontological access.

The ontology also seamlessly integrates science. Science seamlessly operates within the terms and definitions provided. That makes a significant case for practicality.

[futureone]

Hmm, a Peter K thread of quality, I must say…

[MrAuthoritarian]

I am a revolutionary collapse of corrupt societies theoretician.

[MrAuthoritarian]

"Because liberal democracies have worked in the past it is a practically sound political philosophy. Liberal democracy is the peak of humanity and the human experience.

I am Peter Kropotkin."

Still waiting to hear from a liberal their plans for when liberal democracy collapses.

“You don’t understand, liberal democracy will never collapse. Liberal democracy is forever, eternal, and immortal! I am Peter Kropotkin.”

Never say never.

[niallm12 (Niall)]

@Peter_Kropotkin

Now around here, ILP, there are plenty of theoretical polemists,
to name a few, MR. A. RealUn, Jupiter, future, to name a few,
but you can’t put their philosophies into real life practice…
to do so would be disastrous, both personally and within
a social context, within a society or state… those people
are engaged in theory, not in any practical application of their
philosophies, as pathetic as their philosophies are, because
their philosophies are not workable within a state or a society…

You probably should have just left that part out, it is a bit flamebait..

@Peter_Kropotkin

I’m reading a book about scientific thought and the author often
mentions the two types of scientists, the theoretical ones
and the experimental ones…

What’s the book? Sounds interesting.

@Peter_Kropotkin

So, if we look at various philosophers over the centuries,
we can see that most of them, most, can be considered to
be theoretical philosophers… and why? Because you can’t
practice their philosophies in real life… exactly like Plato…
I would count, as theoretical philosophers as being any of
the religious philosophers, Augustine and Aquinas,
along with Spinoza, Kant, Hegel… the ones I would label
as real life philosophers as being the existentialists, Camus
for example, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Aristotle… they want
you to put their philosophy into action, into practice, not as
a theory, but as a philosophy to live one’s life by…

One of the most practical philosophers I have encountered so far is Marcus Aurelius, it can all be applied as far as I can tell. Thanks for the other suggestions, and it’s nice to have them sorted into practical and theoretical, especially for a layman.

[Peter_Kropotkin]

One of the criteria for our understanding of
the practical application of philosophy, is this
question of being sustainable… an example
of unsustainability within a society/state setting
is Hobbes ‘‘State of Nature’’’ clearly a ‘‘State of Nature’’
as Hobbes presented it, is unsustainable… it cannot last
very long… and the same is true of a dictatorship…
an example of a unsustainable dictatorship was the Soviet
Union… and it only lasted 75 years or so… and it was one
of the longer lasting dictatorships ever…and the same
is true within philosophy… one of the unsustainable examples
of a philosophy lies within Plato Republic… that particular
state is unsustainable… why? because it fails to enable people
to meet their own needs… Plato never talks about the needs of
people being met… How does the need of people, for example
of love, is being met within his Republic? or the need of
feeling a sense of belonging? or their need for love?
How are those needs being met within Plato’s Republic? Who
knows because he doesn’t go there…

but we must go there… how within the state/society do we
met our needs, both bodily and psychological needs?
within a dictatorship, we cannot meet those needs either…
there is no sense of belonging within a dictatorship,
such as the Soviet Union… or Hitlers’ Germany…
and why? because the priority lies within the expansion
of the state… the state has priority, not the individuals
within that state… thus their needs are unmet…
both physical and psychologically…
An example needs being met lies within the Declaration of
Independence:

‘‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’’…

The entire declaration is one formal statement of the way needs
need to be met… and the best way to meet these needs, both
bodily and psychologically, is by the principles of democracy…
that is why, in part, that American are so unhappy right now,
their needs, are not being met within our modern state…
given that we now exists within an oligarchy, not a democracy…
it is through meeting our own needs, that we can begin, just begin
mind you, to make that long journey into becoming human…
meeting our needs is just the first step, certainly not the only
step or the last step… what is the goal or purpose of existence?

With that we can then work out what political, social, economic
system we must have to meet those needs…

Kropotkin

[Peter_Kropotkin]

Niall:
Peter_Kropotkin:
I’m reading a book about scientific thought and the author often
mentions the two types of scientists, the theoretical ones
and the experimental ones…

N: What’s the book? Sounds interesting.

Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought:
Kepler to Einstein by Gerald Holton…

Kropotkin

[niallm12 (Niall)]

@Peter_Kropotkin

Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought:
Kepler to Einstein by Gerald Holton…

Bloody hell, it’s £43.99 on the Kobo store..

Is it worth it?

[Peter_Kropotkin]

in an earlier post, I mentioned a group of ILP members
who are theoretical polemicists, but another reason why
they are useless, is that they are nihilistic writers…
for within their writings lie a viewpoint that negates,
devalues human beings and their values…
Nihilistic writers have nothing to offer us because we cannot
put their philosophies into practice because it, their philosophies
negate people… to offer us a dictatorship as a political system
is to offer us to be negated as human beings…for the only value
that is acceptable within a dictatorship is that the only thing of value
is the dictator and the state… we see this with Nazi Germany
and we see this within the Soviet Union… the individual is
negated in favor of the state… the state comes first, no matter
what else…

or to say this another way, a dictatorship treats people as
an es, a thing, not as an you… to follow Buber’s terminology…
people are treated as simply an object, not as a subject…
Each and every single writer I pointed out on ILP, does the
exact same thing… by their idea’s, they negate human beings
and their values…

If there is a hallmark of the modern age, that is it, the negation
of human beings and their values…
this negation is practiced within both the political system
and the economic system… to make profits more important
than human beings is nihilism and that is the entire capitalistic
system in a nutshell… putting profits before people…nihilism…

and the vast majority of political systems do the same thing,
put that system/ideology before human beings… that is why
I reject, as a political system, dictatorships, oligarchies,
monarchies, Authoritarianism, theocracy, and even one state
communism…and within that political rejection lies my rejection of
nationalism, conservativism, fascism, and libertarianism…

what political system puts people first? take three guesses…
and what economic system puts people first? that is a much
tougher guess… because right now, there is no current economic
system that puts human beings and their values first… as it should
be…

Kropotkin

[Peter_Kropotkin]

Niall:

Peter_Kropotkin:
Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought:
Kepler to Einstein by Gerald Holton…

N: Bloody hell, it’s £43.99 on the Kobo store..
Is it worth it?

K: I believe I bought it in a used bookstore…
quite a while ago… don’t even remember where or
how much I paid for it…
I rarely ever buy new books, I basically wait until it
comes out in paperback or I find it in a used bookstore…
and is it worth it? that is up to you…

Kropotkin

[niallm12 (Niall)]

Fair enough. I need to stop collecting books like some kind of rabid squirrel anyway, I’ll never get through them all. I guess it’s just in case the UK government shuts down the internet altogether to protect us poor vulnerable citizens, then at least I’ll have something to read.

[daniel_j_lavender]

@Peter_Kropotkin

One of the criteria for our understanding of
the practical application of philosophy, is this
question of being sustainable… an example
of unsustainability within a society/state setting
is Hobbes ‘‘State of Nature’’’ clearly a ‘‘State of Nature’’
as Hobbes presented it, is unsustainable… it cannot last
very long… and the same is true of a dictatorship…
an example of a unsustainable dictatorship was the Soviet
Union… and it only lasted 75 years or so… and it was one
of the longer lasting dictatorships ever…and the same
is true within philosophy… one of the unsustainable examples
of a philosophy lies within Plato Republic… that particular
state is unsustainable…

Fair point.

And I contend the ontology I’m presenting is just that, sustainable:

Existence Is Infinite (2025)

Existence Is Infinite Daniel J. Lavender Abstract Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it. Terms And Definitions Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. Infinite (adj.)…

The ontology does not crumble or sway under various systems. Systems emerge from it.

The ontology accommodates all systems mentioned, and even proactively integrates the socioeconomic system to which you allude:

@Peter_Kropotkin

because right now, there is no current economic
system that puts human beings and their values first… as it should
be…

[futureone]

@Peter_Kropotkin

what political system puts people first? take three guesses…

No clue, as all political systems are garbage.

[MrAuthoritarian]

@Peter_Kropotkin

Yet what never occurs to liberal democratic capitalists is that the pretense of democracy isn’t even real where it is all theatrics controlled by an elite super structure where their own liberal democratic capitalism is a kind of dictatorship also with the more organized illusion of freedom.

Never occurs to them that their own system they support is oppressive in human exploitation, instead they go around in their smug arrogance proclaiming it is the best system of the entire world where if others don’t embrace it that must mean they’re a bunch of evil fascists that should be destroyed.