The history of philosophy is one where as in modern times, after 1500 A.D, philosophy has followed,
reacted to science. Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza all reacted to the science of the times which was
Galileo, Copernicus, newton. As science turned more into the clockmaker theory, so did philosophy.
Nietzsche followed Darwin and Nietzsche’s philosophy showed the impact of darwin. So the next step
in philosophy should follow in sciences path. But that leaves a problem because science now is about
chance and probability. every aspect of quantum physic’s and evolution is about chance and probability.
But how does one create a philosophy of chance and probability within the confines of philosophy.
Philosophy itself doesn’t lend itself well to such things as chance and probability.
The next phase or step in philosophy must in part speak to what the universe is telling us
about itself.
Now one may argue that existentialism as a philosophy was driven by the darker themes that are inherent in
chance and probability. Dark themes such as death and despair. The problem with existentialism is that
it drove itself into a dead end, it couldn’t escape. it literally had no where else to go.
Now the next phase of philosophy cannot trap itself into a corner like existentialism did.
It’s ok if you find yourself at some point in a dark place but the philosophy of the future must
then escape into some road map of the future. such dualism such as yes/no and good/evil
no longer exist because yes/no and good/evil no longer fit into a universe of chance and probability.
What does yes and no actually mean when chance dictates our lives? What is good or evil for that matter,
when we exist today as a series of chance actions, probabilities such as the random nature of the combination
of DNA which created us. Life is a series of chance encounters and death itself is an random act, (which is the
basis of Camus’s thought which is suicide is the only real choice you have in life)
where should we begin in this next step of philosophy?
At the beginning, whereas we understand that nature itself
tells us that our only purpose in life is in the perpetuation of
life. We cannot begin anywhere else but there. Life exist to
continue itself, that is the role of life and we exist as a part of life
and so our role is one of perpetuation of the species.We attempt to create
meaning, purpose even order in our lives with such things as ideologies,
philosophy and religions, but that is outside of the the most basic and fundamental
aspect of our lives. wife is home, more later.
I think occultism is part of the next step in philosophy.
We can try to make good guesses and estimations about the things science hasn’t found yet.
This isn’t for everyone, however, as it’s difficult and not many are suited for the task.
Another next step in philosophy is to make estimations about what is most probable based on what we already do know.
The next step in philosophy isn’t based in excesses of doubt. Disbelief in an objective reality is just retarded. But it comes up surprisingly often.
Using philosophy to win games, make good decisions, narrow down how to make the most accurate possible prediction, or avoid being poisoned is always beneficial.
Does life exist only to perpetuate or continue life? If so, are we nothing other than baby-making machines securing the continuation of our species by overwhelming, in numbers, all other species of sentient life? I really don’t think so.
Couldn’t we be building a platform–a base–for the next species of Homosapien?
Humans somehow think themselves separate, outside of planet earth,
not animal like other animals but this is wrong.
we are animals, we are of the earth, we exist in nature not separate from
nature and we must play by nature’s rules, as we are no different then bears,
or bee’s or cats, or any other species that lives on earth. Look at all the other
species on earth, they simply live to procreate and then raise the young for
them to procreate. We are no different. This knowledge means we
now look at our role and place in the universe. WE are a species that
procreates and perpetuate the species. We are also in position to either save
other species or destroy them. We are of planet earth, not apart so we in order
to ensure our survival must protect and save other species. Failure to do so threatens
our survival. The conservation movement of the last 30 years has understood the point
that the earth and its animals and plants and humans are all interconnected.
The continuation of life is the primary goal of life and we must act on that or
face extinction. every action we now take must take into account its impact on
the life around us. Jobs, the mantra of humans, no longer takes front and center stage.
It must take its place besides the needs of other species. we exist along side, not above or
below other life forms. This means we also now know our next actions which is the active and
aggressive movement into outer space regardless of the financial cost. The preservation and
continuation of the species of earth is best served by not having all the species of earth actual
on earth due to the risk of large scale catastrophe. There have been several extinction events on
earth (we are in one right now due to humans activity) and we must act to best protect
the species, the life of earth right now. The pretend pro-life of conservatives is replaced by
the actual pro-life actions which means we are pro-life, all life, not just humans. The next step then
is to reduce the number of humans living on planet earth. either we can do this by choice or we can wait
for the coming ecological disasters or the plagues that will come and we will have a vastly reduced human
population. Thomas Malthus wrote that population grows until it can no longer feed itself and it
then it has a massive die off. We are facing a massive die off of humans in the near future.
I would think by 2030, we will see the signs of it.
so the next step in philosophy will be the creation of a naturalistic philosophy that
places humans into their right place of being part of earth instead of above or outside
of earth’s other species.
How so? I consider myself to be an existentialist and I continually learn about and refine it. It’s a work of understanding that is forever in progress. Existentialism is actually a very happy and uplifting philosophy in my opinion once you really understand it and get past the nihilism that is in the way. My life is so full of meaning and possibility now that I removed all the weight that was on me before and I don’t think I’d go back to how I was even if it were possible to. The only way it is a “dead end” is if you only look at the many people with an incomplete understanding who think they know what there is to know about it. It’s pretty rare I meet someone I’d consider to have a good full understanding of it and understandably so because of the absurdity of having to extract meaning from meaninglessness. Also that true rationality doesn’t exist, so the most rational position is knowing that you will forever be doomed to be irrational in everything you do and there is nothing you can do to stop it entirely. That logical hurdle can be a doozy.
I’d argue that existentialism is the philosophy of the coming age if things keep going as they are. With the continued progress of social justice and collective knowledge and understanding of those issues, the collective philosophy of people seems to be shifting that direction already. It’s very useful there for both activism and helping people overcome abusive situations and experiences. Nietzsche and others were just ahead of their time and maybe not correct on some specifics.
Good/evil has been increasingly non-existent for a while in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Also, last I checked it’s certainly not a given that quantum mechanics presents a strong enough effect to have a noticeable impact on events in the macroscopic scale that is our bodies. The combination of DNA you have is not random in the quantum mechanical sense.
I’m not really convinced that Camus was saying that whether to commit suicide or not was your only real choice, but that suicide is the primary philosophical problem that must be actually logically faced and solved before all others. I don’t think I’d say that that is technically correct, but it’s a really good start if you want to try to get the point across in a shortish statement. I’d be more inclined to state it as generally having to reconcile the actual non-existence of the premises of one’s valuation logic with one’s emotions, valuation habits and other subconscious impulses that resist acknowledging that because of the great amounts of moral pain and guilt that can, at first, be inspired from objectively thinking about one’s actions and choices and what one can do about one’s own actions, choices, thoughts, etc.