Yes, but is one side objectively right? To use the archetypical example of "the good war", WW2, wouldn't you agree the Nazi's were the "bad guys" and UK was fighting "the good fight"? — RogueAI

My agreement, or not; whether the WW2 Nazi's were the "bad guys", or not; is irrelevant to my problem statement. Please consider:

'Any decision on what is good and what is evil is made on whatever is politically expedient. There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good or evil could be made. It is therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man. Examples of the political determination between good and evil are abundant. A salient example is the Second World War:

1. For millions of people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were good.
2. For millions of other people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were evil.
3. For millions of people Joseph Stalin and Communist Russia were evil.
4. However, for the Allied forces, Joseph Stalin, and Communist Russia were good, at least until the end of the war - a salient example of political expedience by itself.
5. To the very large number of private citizens killed in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, the Allied Forces were patently evil.

All five of these statements are quite valid, actually patently true, but in clear contradiction to each other, giving evidence of my original statement. So, after about 3% of the world population perished due to a single war - the war after 'the war to end all wars' - no determination can yet be made on what is good and what is evil.' p123 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

This will answer your question. — Metaphysician Undercover

Another unanswered question, yet you maintain that my generalisation that war is a problem that has not been solved by 2,600 years of philosophical effort is a fatal flaw to my theory - but you do not know what is my theory. I have stated, categorically, that my opening statement to this forum is a problem statement, it is not my theory nor is it part of my theory.

You maintain that some wars are good, yet you cannot tell who or how a determination can be made which wars are 'good' and which wars are 'evil'. As for philosophical principles - perhaps you could try the Principle of Sufficient Reason: '[A principle] of sufficient reason [obtain] in virtue of which we consider that no fact could be true or actual, and no proposition true without there being sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although most often these reason cannot be known by us.' Godfriedt Wilhelm Leibniz as quoted by Nicholas Rescher - and tell me what would be a sufficient reason for any war to be good. Then tell me by who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true; a scientist or politician, a religious leader or a philosopher?

My suggestion would be that you stay in your ivory tower and watch the world, with your strawman, burn - from a safe distance.

You might consult some good philosophy to get to the bottom of this issue. If you are truly interested, then I assume that is what you will do. Happy reading! — Metaphysician Undercover

You did not answer my questions, why? Then, why would I consult philosophy to get to the bottom of this issue; after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, philosophy was unable to get to the bottom of this issue. Perhaps it is time to consider some different understanding.

So, you continue to demonstrate that the fatal flaw in your reasoning is faulty generalizing. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, by your submissions then, some wars are good and some wars are evil. Then, please tell me, by who or on what authority can a decision be made that any specific war is good but another war is evil?

Do you think it's possible for a side in a war to be fighting "the good fight"? — RogueAI

I think both sides, in any war, think they are fighting "the good fight".

From you assertion:

The authority who declares war on any particular occasion, obviously, decides that this particular war is necessary, and the right thing, therefore good thing, to do. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since no rational person, even with the necessary authority, will declare any war on any particular occasion, unless he/she believes it is necessary and the right thing. Thus, whenever a war is declared by a rational person it must be a good thing to do and whenever a war is declared by an irrational person it must be an evil war, obviously. Surely, any person declaring an unnecessary war must be irrational.

But then, who or on what authority, can a decision be made that any person, with authority to declares any war, is in fact rational or irrational? Surely, any person that declares any war would regard himself to be rational. Also, the people that has given the authority to the person declaring this war, will regard this person rational, not so?

By your assertion then: All war is good. And this I reject with contempt.

And no matter how many times you promote your Strawman fallacy, that some wars are 'good' because some pain is 'good', you have not convinced me, nor the millions of war casualties, nor the families of the millions of war casualties.

I maintain that all war is evil.

Please tell me, who or on what authority, can a decision be made that any particular war is good?

"The Logic of Existence". A bold claim to make that existence is logical. — I like sushi

Perhaps a bold claim:

"Existence := Defined by the Argument of Existence. The argument that things includes mass or energy or that a thing is perceived to exist or that there is some change in a thing."

I have addressed the point you made. I am patiently waiting for you to explain to the thousands killed in the Gaza war that their deaths was for a good cause. They died for something good, something deeper.

But then I realised your strawman is actually quite useful: Of course some pain is useful, it is how our bodies tells us that there might be a problem, a danger, something bad. So, if I transpose this strawman back to my statement it would read: strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is good because it tells us that there is a problem, a danger, something bad; not so?
— Pieter R van Wyk

Right, this is what I meant by "something deeper". — Metaphysician Undercover

Also, I am waiting patiently for you to explain to the millions that have been killed in the Ukrainian war that the world is intrinsically good. that their deaths is not a problem that needs to be addressed - there is no urgency to understand why war takes place - why the world is as it is.

If, on the other hand, we approach the question of "why is the world as it is", with the attitude that the world is intrinsically good, then the question is merely a curiousity, a point of interest, which philosophers may address in their spare time. It is not a "problem", so there is no urgency to find an answer. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would submit the following argument: "Any decision on what is good and what is evil is made based on what is politically expedient. There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good and evil could be made. It is, therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man."

If

The human condition is fundamentally good, not bad as you assume. And the effects of philosophy have guided the human condition even further toward good, and away from bad. — Metaphysician Undercover

, why after 2,600 years of philosophical guidance we humans are still killing each other by the millions?

In my problem statement I made the following two statements:

1. For more than 2,600 years philosophers have studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding.
2. We still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war.

To my knowledge both statements are patently true, what might be called historical facts.
From these two statements I made the following deduction:

1. The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipe dream.

A deduction that certainly is: belligerent, antagonistic, contentious, perhaps even hostile; certainly provoking - but is this not how a useful debate is generated?

The philosophical answer to this problem seems to be, these problems are due to the 'human condition', the fundamental dispositions and characteristics that are said to be innate to humans - human nature - this cannot be regarded as a failure of philosophy.

This, however, begs two questions:

1. Why is human nature like this - simply due to evolution?
2. If philosophy cannot be blamed for this (which concedes to a failure in philosophy), who is to blame? Or do we stick to the excuse of 'evolution', this evolution which is regarded by philosophy as an elaborate tautology?

Then on to the reason for me stirring up this debate, getting to my fundamental question: Why is the world as it is? One of the questions that has been bugging philosophers for as long as humans have had the capability of abstract thought. Leading to the question whether I have a solution to this problem?

The short answer to this is a most emphatic No! What I do have is a theory, or at least an idea of a theory, that just might provide a better understanding of why the world is as it is. What I am looking for is someone that could help me find a fatal flaw in my reasoning, a reasoning that is not based on a 'truth' as professed by any philosopher but on the assumption of a singular, conditional 'truth', that physical things, things with mass or energy, exist. If you regard this assumption as false, please do not bother any further - perhaps you have escaped Plato's cave, but consider the possibility that you are still stuck in some philosopher's cave. If you consider the possibility that this assumption might be valid and could, perhaps lead to some better understanding, please continue.

And no, it is not possible to present my theory on this forum, to use another analogy: "If I show you a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are the only things that you will see - a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I had to build the puzzle to the extent that the picture starts to appear for you to understand the picture that I see."

And yes, this quote is from my book, the one that I am not allowed to promote. But my theory is out there and I am trying to find the fatal flaw in it. Wasn't it Schopenhauer that stated: "All 'truth' passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." And yes, I have put the word truth in inverted commas because I do not know how or on what authority a decision can be made that that any true statement is in fact the truth.

"Decision (making) := The capability of some systems that could perceive their own state as well as the state of other systems and change their state accordingly. Thus, systems with a perception of the state of systems."

From this two statements one could deduce that philosophy has not been able to solve these problems - if these problems has been solved by philosophy we should not be still suffering from them.
— Pieter R van Wyk

You can deduce many things from such. I repeat. So? — I like sushi

Please, what other things could be deduced from the two fundamentally true statements?

This then begs the question whether it is in the purview of philosophy to solve these problems. A valid question for sure.
— Pieter R van Wyk

One which has been discussed for centuries. SO? — I like sushi

These discussions included the input from philosophers, not so?

In my humble opinion, if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding we should be able to, at least, manage these problems better than we are at the moment.
— Pieter R van Wyk

Opinion. So? — I like sushi

So, in your opinion, is my opinion wrong?
OR In your opinion, would it never be possible to manage these problems better?

Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy.
— Pieter R van Wyk

Good for you! You have an opinion. — I like sushi

So, is it your opinion that these problems should not be under the purview of philosophy?

I believe science will solve all the mysteries of the universe. Science has not yet solved all the mysteries of the universe and has, if anything, multiplied them exponentially. So now I ask you a question: Why has science not solved the mysteries of the universe? — I like sushi

According to Stephen Hawking the physicists are getting close to solve the mysteries of the universe. In fact he categorically stated that philosophy is dead and that the torch of knowledge is now carried by physicists (The Grand Design 2010 with Leonard Mlodinow. Since I am not a scientist, I do not have an answer to this question.

So noted, thank you.

I was under the impression that philosophers are curious openminded people. The substance is in my book. I merely posted a question.

Your hint at an alternative sounds suspiciously 'philosophical'.

Surely, this would depends on a definition of what, exactly, is philosophy, not so? Which, in my understanding, is a philosophical question in itself.

If you read my book you will find I have NOT used philosophical tools to gain my understanding.

You are quite correct, we no longer burn people at the stake, we are killing them much more efficiently.

Thank you for the "good luck". You should also stick around - we engineers has been saving the world for much longer than 2,600 years - and helped extensively in this efficient killing.

You are confused and you think I am confused! I made two distinct statements:

1. For more than 2,600 years philosophy has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding.
2. We still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.

Both statements are in plain English, understandable and in my opinion true statements. From this two statements one could deduce that philosophy has not been able to solve these problems - if these problems has been solved by philosophy we should not be still suffering from them.

This then begs the question whether it is in the purview of philosophy to solve these problems. A valid question for sure. In my humble opinion, if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding we should be able to, at least, manage these problems better than we are at the moment. Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy.

Another valid question is whether we should leave the possible solution (or abatement) of these problems to politicians. The same deduction that I made regarding the failure of philosophy to solve or at least abate these problems could be made about politics. Politicians have not been able to solve these problems either.

Do we accept then that these problems are inherent to humanity - that strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is simply human nature? This, however, sounds like capitulation.

Hope this has abated some of your confusion.

There is only one of your statements that I do not agree with, that my excpectations of philosophy is naive. I do not have any expectations from philosophy - it did not solved the problems that I mentioned and I do not expect these problems to be solved in the foreseeable future.

I do not have a definitive solution to these problems either - what I do have is an additional (to philosophy) way that these problems could be tackled. My theory (that I explain in my book) is not based on philosophy but based on a fundamental definition of a system, deduced from first principles.

I did indeed understood what you wrote, you provided what is commonly known as a strawman:

"The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man"), instead of the opponent's proposition."

But then I realised your strawman is actually quite useful: Of course some pain is useful, it is how our bodies tells us that there might be a problem, a danger, something bad. So, if I transpose this strawman back to my statement it would read: strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is good because it tells us that there is a problem, a danger, something bad; not so?

Also, I never suggested that philosophy should put an end to these bad things - this is exactly my point: after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, we humans has not been able to put an end to these bad things and because of THAT I do not expect any useful solution to these bad things from philosophy. So, thank you for your agreement that my question is a valid one.

No, I did not know. But I am pretty sure I will not spend any time on your suggestion.
The only reason why I check my book sales is because each book sold indicates a person that actually bought a book, which indicates the possibility that someone might engage with some sense on its content.

Dear Metaphysician Undercover, I would like to ask you a big favour: please explain your understanding of "something deeper" to the more than 1,400 Israelis that was killed and abducted on 7 October 2023 and the 56,000 Palestinians killed as a consequence of this. Also, please explain this "something deeper" to the thousands that die every day due to hunger and preventable diseases. Please explain to all of them that their deaths are, in fact, "for the sake of a higher good."

I humbly suggest that you read my book before you venture to a fatal flaw in my REASONING.

And while you are waiting for the delivery of my book, you might contemplate the following question: What, exactly, is the difference between philosophy and politics - or is the one merely a consequence of the other? You know, like the philosophy of Karl Marx and the one million people killed by Stalin's Great Purge.

Thank you for welcoming me to your forum and thank you for your contributions. Although it seems to me there EXISTS some digression from the original question - perhaps still relevant though. I must confess, I was not completely transparent in my request for an invitation to this forum; I have written a book, and publish it independently. It is published through Kindle Direct Publishing and available through Amazon. The reason why I joined this forum is to generate debate on the content of my book. To answer 'unenlightened's question: I contemplated some questions for a long time (at least from the time I was working towards a master's in engineering management, circa 1995). In 2019 I started to order my thoughts into some cohesive reasoning. This morphed into a manuscript that is now published - which is why I wrote it. Could not find any publishing house with the chutzpah to publish it. I invite anyone to obtain my book - and then I challenge you to find the fatal flaw in my reasoning.

By my understanding, until such time as a fatal flaw has been confirmed in my reasoning, my theory stands.

The 'logic' to my first question is actually very simple:
1. For thousands of years we humans have suffered under strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.
2. Philosophy (by my understanding and as per the Oxford dictionary's definition) includes "3 a theory or attitude that guides one's behaviour. Also, 1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
3. For at least 2,600 years of philosophical effort, philosophy could not find a theory or attitude that could eradicate strife, civil disobedience, revolution or war. Nor did philosophy find the knowledge that could eradicate these problems.

I, most definitely, do not blame philosophy or philosophers for the woes of the world - merely pointing out the 'fact' that these problems have not been solved. Not by philosophy nor by politics, science, religion or any other human endeavour. And this is where my book comes in: I ask, is it not time that we rethink the very foundation of our perceptions, our understanding, and the basis of our knowledge - or do we 'pray' that somewhere along the line philosophers ( or: politicians, scientists, religious leaders ...) might find the solution(s) to our problems - before AI becomes the "next class of systems" and the human dream of 'Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity' becomes only the history of humanity.

I, also, do not disregard the positive contributions of philosophy. My book does not purport to replace this 2,600 years of philosophy - just an additional basis from which these problems might be addressed.

A next question that could be considered is: By who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true? A question that I also contemplate and address in my book.

If philosophy cannot end the diversity of viewpoints, what exactly is the purpose and utility in studying philosophy?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that my question does not have an answer?
As to your question: "

would you rather live in today's world or in any point in the past? (and if the later please tell me what time) — Red Sky

This question has no utility - it think it is called a rhetorical question.

I am not blaming, merely asking a question. According to the Oxford Dictionary, philosophy is:
1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
2. the study of the theoretical basis of a branch of knowledge or experience.
3. a theory or attitude that guides one's behaviour.
So, after 2,600 years of this study we still have armed conflict, poverty and hunger, we are destroying our own environment and we are somehow on the verge of being taken over by artificial intelligence. Why is that?
You mention "unruly human nature" - so, do we accept that the "human nature" that has been studied for this 2,600 years is in fact strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war?

So your answer to my question is: Because some people are selfish when they can get away with it. Somebody must only make better rules and instill better discipline. This answer, however, only begs the questions: why are some people like that, who, exactly should make these rules and how should these rules be enforced?
My answer is simple: the world is as it is because that is how the world and we humans evolved. Which then begs the question, how did this evolution took place?
The answer to this question is a bit more involved but is spelled out unambiguously in the book, How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

Thank you for the response, but I think you have opened a can of worms:
1. What, exactly, do you mean by 'system'?
2. You mention unwritten rules that were followed and then not followed - is that not the basis of any political change and if so, we humans has been doing that for as long as philosophy has been studied, not so?
3. You show negative comments on "a couple of people jump the queue", is that not the basis of our human innovation and progress? The same goes for "people wishing to get more than they have".
Your contribution is appreciated and thank you for the plain english but I do not find myself closer to an answer to my question.