Thoughts about philosophy today

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

So, we have in philosophy, several moving parts…
we have the areas of philosophy, epistemology,
metaphysics, political philosophy, logic, aesthetics,
ethics, and Axiology (the study of values)

and we have the Kantian questions, ''What am I/we to do?"
‘‘What can I/we know’’… ''What should I/we believe in?"
and these Kantian questions are an attempt to bring philosophy
down to earth…

and we have the last area of philosophy which is making
philosophy a ‘‘way of life’’…

So, we have the theoretical, the practical and the living of
philosophy… in philosophy itself, all three aspects play a
role in how we approach philosophy…for most people,
they approach philosophy as a theoretical science…
they study the theory behind philosophy… so Kant’s
ethical theories are not put into practice or lived as a
‘‘way of life’’ but Kant is studied as a theoretical philosopher…
and as such, easily forgotten 2 minutes after the class has
ended… but as a practical matter, or as ‘‘a way of life’’
can we in fact, engage in Kantian ethics, as a practical/
way of life, matter?

That no one takes Kant seriously as an ethical philosopher,
kinda answers that question…

and if we look at most philosophers, we can’t bring their
philosophies down to earth, we cannot use most
philosophers as models of a ‘‘way of life’’ or in turn
as a practical matter…

Take Hegel for example, can we use Hegelian philosophy
as a ‘‘way of life’’ or as a practical matter? Not as I understand
him… or perhaps, Plato… let us turn Plato into a ''way of life""
and what would that look like? I have no fraken idea what that
might entail…the only ancient philosophers that we might
want to emulate in terms of a ‘‘way of life’’ or in some practical
way, are the Stoics… but they reflect the hard nature of existence,
but what about the softer side of existence…what of love and
beauty and aesthetics that are part of our life?
Stoicism doesn’t seem to deal well with this important part
of life… am I to treat love the same way I treat death?
that is a harsh viewpoint… So, Stoicism seems to deal much
better with the hard elements of existence, with death and
the finality of existence and the suffering that makes up
much of existence, as being part and parcel of Stoicism…
Can not one philosophy take into account the harsher
elements of existence, like Stoicism and still be able
to handle the softer side of existence, love, beauty,
the allure of certain parts of existence…

But that runs us right into epistemology… the study of knowledge,
what we know and how do we know it, what are the limits
of knowledge and how do we know that? Many philosophical
problems have at their base, at least, epistemological questions…
once we grasp that our knowledge is limited, now what?
We human beings like to pretend that we have a great
deal of knowledge, but in fact, we are very limited in our
knowledge… depending on our answer to the question,
''what are the limits to our knowledge"
the very questions of philosophy, for example, aesthetics,
depends on the knowledge of the person asking the question…
one who is not very knowledgeable about ART, for example,
isn’t going to have a very good answer to the question
of aesthetics… their limitations of knowledge, of ART, prevents
a well-rounded answer about aesthetics…questions about
aesthetics requires some sort of knowledge of beauty and
ART… at its heart, aesthetics is a question of epistemology…
what do we know and how do we know it?

As of right now, today, we don’t have any sort of overall
understanding of psychology… at one point in time, it was
thought that the knowledge of Freud and his practices were
the knowledge needed to the understanding what makes
a human being tick…today, 2024, virtually no one defends
Freud right now…but what psychological theory do we have
that can explain what it means to be human? None that I can
see…and much of the sciences are in the exact same place,
physics, gravity, evolution, quantum mechanics, don’t
tell us a story of what it means to be human in 2024…
or even a very good story of the discipline in question…
several scientific disciplines are in crisis today…
physics to name just one… what is the connection between
the world of the small, the micro world and the world of the big,
galaxies and solar systems, the macro world… how do we connect
the two scales? the large and the small?
that is just one area of science that is in crisis…
how exactly does gravity work? what happens inside of a
black hole? once again, the questions of epistemology,
what can we know and how do we know we know it?
What are the limits of our knowledge of gravity or of the
quest to unite, ''The theory of everything" or ‘‘TOE’’…
is there even an answer to the ‘‘TOE’’ question…
and how does any of this relate to the questions of ethics,
or morality that seems to plague the human race?

What does it mean to be ethical, to be moral? where is
the source of that knowledge? and what are the limits to
knowing ethical questions? and once again, epistemology
seems to be a key or primary question within a field of
philosophy… How do we know if an action is ethical?

Ethics is as much about the exceptions as it is about the
rule the exception disproves… Murder is wrong…
unless and there are plenty of exceptions to this rule
that Murder is wrong… Murder is allowed in the
defense of the state… thus the Armed forces are allowed
to murder and this gives us the basis for the murder of
civilians by the police… self-defense… but how do
we prove this? what knowledge allows us to know
that self-defense is acceptable under certain conditions…
and how do we know those conditions are the right
conditions in which to murder in self-defense?

and these questions are theoretical questions, not practical
questions… of questions of ''What am I/we to do?
or what part of this can be used as a ''way of life",
can the question of self-defense be used as a practical matter?

that philosophy covers the theoretical side of existence,
but fails to cover the practical or ‘‘way of life’’ side of
existence is fairly clear…

We have several moving parts to philosophy
and they fail to adequately cover both sides of
the equation… the practical/way of life and
the theoretical side… right now, philosophy
is engaged in the theory side of existence,
and not in the practical/way of life side of
existence… what does it mean to be human
in regard to philosophy as a ''way of life?"

In a review of philosophy, as mentioned, most
if not all philosophers engage in the theory of
philosophy, not in the practical or philosophy
as a ‘‘way of life’’ From Descartes to Spinoza to
Leibniz and unto Kant and Hegel… we are dealing with
philosophers who engaged in the theory of philosophy,
not in philosophy as ''way of life""

Philosophers as a whole, aren’t very good in the
‘‘day to day’’ existence of life…but most people,
most, are engaged in the day to day aspect of
existence and philosophers are not…this is
why philosophy has lost its place as the
‘‘Queen of the Sciences’’… it no longer
engages in the day to day existence of people…
it engages in theoretical questions that don’t
matter to the vast majority of people…

and given all of this, I still haven’t even begun to
place philosophy and existence, human existence
in its right place…

Kropotkin

2

let us continue to work this out…
Christians and others who hold that the point of
existence is to get to heaven or to get to the void
from where we all came from, are engaged in
nihilism… and what is nihilism? the negation
of human beings and their values…
if, if the goal of existence is to get to heaven,
then that negates the point of this existence…
for this existence leads us to the next existence…
it is the means to an end, the end is to get to
heaven… and what are the means of getting there?
in this life, it means to follow the rules of god…
and that means you negate this existence in favor
of the next existence…if the goal is the next existence,
then this existence doesn’t mean much outside of
reaching the next existence… it negates our current
existence in favor of the next…

Just like big business uses people, as a means, to
gain profits… the goal is profits, not people,
and as such, this is a practice of negation…
it negates people and their values for profits,
which is nihilism…and is the same as any religion
that makes the next existence the goal or point of
existence… if the next existence is the goal, then
this existence is negated… nihilism…

So, given this context, can you think of what current
aspect of existence that doesn’t negate us in this lifetime?
Every aspect of our current existence is meant to negate us
in terms of some future goal… we are told to sacrifice the
present in order to gain some future goal… and that is
nihilism… the negation of human beings and their values…
sacrifice the present for the future… thus working our lives
for a retirement is such a negation… it sacrifices the present
for the future… and that is nihilism…
and what other aspect of human living asked for, in fact demands
that we sacrifice the present for the future?

Kropotkin

3

part of the crisis today lies in the changing of the
guard… that the old isms and ideologies are no
longer effective or has just been plainly lost…
the idea or isms of the centuries before our ‘‘modern age’’
were about tradition, the rights of monarchy, the
absolutism of church and state, that there was an
hierarchy that was set and fixed about where human
beings were… and of course, the absolute faith
of the state and church, leading to faith in god in
every section of the society… each of these isms
held sway for over a thousand years…

Part of the newer modern isms was nationality…
In 1400, ask a citizen of France who he was, and his first
response was not "I am a Frenchman, but I am
a citizen of the ‘‘Duche D’Aquitaine’’‘’’ which was one of the
(one of many) local kingdoms of France… the idea of
belonging to a country as we imagine it, didn’t exist
until the beginning of the Modern age, say 1500…
it was basic tribalism… my own local tribe, not
a nation as we see it today… and true nationalism,
as we know it, didn’t come into being until after
the ‘‘French Revolution’’… Nationalism is a relatively
recent development… and it was fairly strong in
the U.S until the Vietnam War, Watergate, the
the cynicism of Raygun and the outright lies
of Bush Jr. and of course, the single worse president
in American history, IQ45…

It is very hard to hold faith in a country that would have
a convicted rapist as president…and someone who is
out on bail on 36 felony counts…

the point is that many of the isms that drove human for
generations now are being lost… we have lost faith in
isms and have not replaced them with other isms…
therein lies much of the crisis of our modern times…
we have lost faith in the isms of yesteryear and we
have no replacements…

this loss of faith in the isms has been a long time coming,
with every revolution, the scientific revolution to
the political revolution (the American and French Revolution)
to the social revolutions of the expansion of rights for everyone,
civil rights like gay marriage, and women no longer being the
property of men… but we also have the political revolution
whereas we have expanded the voting rights to include millions…
that were, at one time, ineligible to vote… women, blacks,
poor men, with each expansion of voting rights, we brought
millions into becoming part of the American dream… by
inclusion, we give everyone a stake in making America
great… and within limits, we have increased the economic
rights too… the equality that has manifested itself in
the gaining of rights, voting, social, political have not
happened in the economic world… over half the world’s
wealth exists with 500 people… over half… meaning that
half the world fight over the scraps that fall off
the wealthy one’s table…

one of the myths that still exists is that human beings are
‘‘Homo economicus’’ economic man… where the human
experience is an economic one… and I hold that ism
to be false… for it leads us nowhere… it has no
value beyond the gaining of wealth… there is no future
in being an ‘‘economic man’’… for all wealth can do is
bring in more wealth… and nothing else… and wealth
is temporary… it comes and goes with a speed unmatched
in our modern world… and it seems evident that millions
of people are beginning to see that the pursuit of
wealth has no value nor any worth…and thus another
ism has begun to being forsaken…

and the question arises, if we are losing faith in our isms,
what ism or isms are replacing them? and therein lies the 64,000
dollar question… we are losing our values, but not
replacing them with anything right now…

and that is the crisis of the modern age… we have lost
our isms but not having replaced them with anything…

Kropotkin

4

Well, you’ve been calling for a return to Enlighenment values, and while that word doesn’t end in an ism, it’s an ism or really a batch of isms.
Rationalism
Empiricism
Humanism
Secularism
Liberalism
Scientific Naturalism
One of the products of which is…dum, dum, dum…The American Empire.

5

as I have noted, isms of the past, Catholoism for example,
(which is a stand in for all religions) no longer have any
value for us today… and why? isms that served a purpose
in that environment, does not and cannot not serve a
purpose in our current environment… Isms work best
in the environments that they are suited for… the
ism of Monarchies, no longer fit into our current
situation, our current environment…

isms must suit their environments…

thus an ism like Transhumanism, which didn’t even exist
50 years ago, is now coming into its own with the rise of
technology… for example, hopefully, I will be operated on
to give me a cochlear implant… as I really am no longer
able to hear, even with a hearing aid… I will have technology
implanted into my head, a magnet… and that will allow
communication between a processor implanted by surgery
and a cable from the processor down to the cochlear,
which bypasses the entire normal hearing process…
all my hearing will be done electronically…
thus, I am a walking version of transhumanism…

and the past isms of religions or monarchism has no
bearing or effect on the new ism of transhumanism…
the isms must keep up with the new environment that
our society/state creates… in fact, given what I know
about the bible, I would guess that transhumanism, such
as mine is forbidden by the bible as against gods commands/will…

as our new technologies and new environments create
the need for new isms and new ideologies to help
work out the implications of the new environments…
we must adapt our isms to meet the needs of our
new environments… and holding onto the old
isms and ideologies isn’t keeping up with the current
environment…

as for the modern ism, secularism, liberalism, conservatism,
rationalism, scientific nationalism… for example, they
will have their day in the sun and because of the
changing environments, they too will fade away…
but given our current environment, these modern day
isms are valid and needed… until they aren’t…

The point about the Enlightenment is this, the battle of
the Enlightenment was to remove superstitions and
irrationality of the age… to remove age old faiths
that no longer fit the age, the environment…

The entire idea was to examine one’s ‘‘faiths’’
and isms and see if those isms are actually your isms
or are they the indoctrinations of the age, of the state
or the church… for those isms are really superstitions
because they are blindly accepted without any type
of scrutiny… and that is what the Enlightenment was about…
to scrutinize one’s isms and values… to see if they are
based on what the current environment, the current
reality…to combat the irrationality of the age of
Enlightenment, the new philosophies were about being
rational and logical and expose/ attack one’s beliefs
and values…to remove superstitions from our beliefs
and values… done rationally…
that is the point of the Enlightenment… to reevaluate
ones values and beliefs and see if they are valid in
the current environment… and today, secularism is
a valid belief system given our current environment…

but perhaps, perhaps it won’t be tomorrow… again,
it could be the forces of repression and superstition will
win the day and we return to the ''Middle Ages""
it is never assumed that the path is always toward progress,
often the path of our lives takes steps backwards before
going forwards… today, isms like secularism and liberalism
work, and given our current environment, it will continue to
work, but there maybe a time when, because of our
environment, we have to take isms like secularism
and liberalism off the table…

I cannot predict the future isms and what isms will
work in what environments… but as for today,
I hold to the isms of liberalism and secularism,
along with transhumanism… for I will be the walking
definition of transhumanism…

Kropotkin

1 Like
6

religious isms work, at least in the past, because
the environment… the accepted practices of the day
allowed religious concepts to continue to exist…
add the fact that from a state perspective, religions
help keep the citizens quiet and acquiesce to
the powers to be… religions help keep order
within the state… religions worked hand in hand
with the state to keep its citizens silent and
reticent…and in return the religions got power
and money… it was a fruitful relationship between
the state and the state’s religion…
one that benefited both of them…

but that is the practical application of religion
in the state, it doesn’t answer the question of
the value of god in one’s own life…

what role can god possibly play in a technological world
such as ours? a world where science has shown us that
we have enough scientific answers to discard god
as a thesis… as a possibility…

the things that frighten human beings before, lighting
and thunder and earthquakes and violent storms…
we can answer scienficially… we don’t need a religious
answer to the questions that frighten people in the world…

we can even answer how the universe began…
and what it looked like for billions of years, as we
can answer the questions of how the earth began and even
to the point of the history of life… we just can’t answer,
right now anyway, how life got started… and we might not
ever get than answer, but that doesn’t mean that a religious
answer is called for, it just means that we don’t have an answer
for it right now… and to be honest, we don’t actually need
an answer for how life began… it is and that is all we
really need to know…how it began and how it will end,
are questions that we don’t have the answer to… and that
is no big deal…

rationality and science are, in this day and age, enough to
secure us answers to some of the basic questions of
existence… but some answers, may need a little help…
just not religions answers…

to my way of thinking, the religious answers are played out,
have no value in our modern world… the environment
we live in doesn’t need religious answers for us to
successfully navigate our existence… I can go about
my day-to-day existence without any need for any religious
answers… as can you… we can get by our day with
the answers we already have given to us by science
and rationality…

Kropotkin

7

the types of superstitions that don’t seem
to fit our modern age of science and technology is
the superstitions of god, an eternal soul, of heaven
and hell, the devil, the absolute truth of the bible…
these superstitions, along with others, no longer
match the age we live in…

Take the idea of the ''eternal soul"… where is the proof,
the evidence that the soul is eternal? How do we know,
epistemologically, that the soul is eternal?
I have seen no evidence or facts that support this belief…
how are we to take seriously a belief that has no
evidence of any kind supporting it?
May as well say the moon is made of green cheese…

the entire point of religions is take matters on faith…
to trust they are true even if, even if there is no facts
or evidence supporting it…and in our modern age,
we cannot live in this fashion… there must be
facts and evidence supporting our values and
beliefs… but why Kropotkin? why must our values
and beliefs have some sort of evidence and/or facts
supporting it?

values and beliefs that exists without proof or evidence,
are not tethered to the ground… they exist in the air,
weightless and without any weight to bring them some
validity… one may as well believe in Santa Claus or
the Easter Bunny… facts that are connected to the truth,
that have some evidence, are a means of holding one
to the earth… the beliefs we hold, also hold us to
reality, to the truth… my values and beliefs must tie
me to the reality I live in… my values as a liberal mean
that I hold that people are essentially good and decent…
and for the most part, I find this to be true… that people
are essentially good and decent… thus my values and beliefs
are supported by the facts as I come across them in my reality…
the values and beliefs we hold must conform to the reality
we encounter in the world… the values and beliefs we hold,
must be met by the conditions on the ground…
that is why I hold to liberalism… the facts on the ground
seems to support liberalism rather than conservatism…
and my values and beliefs are best acted upon when
they are matched by the reality on the ground…

People who hold to beliefs and values that run counter to
the facts on the ground, are often the ones who we might
want to steer clear of…one definition of mental illness is
that people’s vision, their values and beliefs, don’t match
the realities on the ground… mental illness is often
signaled by holding to beliefs that have no reality or basis
in truth… for example, MAGA types who believe that
the leading Democrats had a secret pedophile market
place beneath a Pizza place in New Jersey… that belief
had no reality to it… and it cause some people to act upon
that false belief… attacking the pizza place in question…
which didn’t even have a basement, a key part of this MAGA
fanatasy… this is what happens when your belief and value
systems have no relationship with what is true or real…
the reason we need to hold to values and beliefs that
are connected to reality… that have some basis in facts
and evidence… thus we discard as true, the faith in god,
the faith in an eternal soul, our faith in hell or heave or the devil…

our beliefs and values must correspond to the reality we
have on the ground… our values and beliefs must exist
within some facts or evidence… and not just in wishful
thinking… like the belief in god…

Kropotkin

8

Transhumanism, while a fuzzy noun, generally means the combination of human and machine/tech to create something that transcends the human. For example, chips in brains creating computer brain interfaces where we can have cloud memories and processing power in areas way beyond what humans can have. A cochlear implant is trying to return health that was lost or wasn’t present at birth to normal levels.

Then why would the isms of the Enlightenment be relevant today?
The Enlightenment (c. 1685–1815)
There’re even intervening isms in the Romantic period (c. 1790–1850)

It was in part that, but it was also a set of values in and of itself: individualism for example. It also had ontological leanings, epistemological beliefs. The isms in the Enlightenment are nor merely critical but have set of metaphysical, moral and value judgments in a positive sense - by positive mean as assertions and assumptions. And these for example were reacted to by the Romantics who had their own isms, and chronologically more recent ones.

Isn’t it possible that, for example, secularism was a flawed by undertandible response to the dominant organized religions, but in fact dangerous in it own way, and that it need not be a regression or negative thing if secularism and its assumptions get relegated to the past?