None of those are unanswerable. The question of whether god exists is answered, its just people who believe in god and certain types of fence sitters still carry on regardless, attached for whatever reason to the indefensible believer position.
Free will is a bit trickier I’ll grant you but I feel like its mostly a problem of definition of free will. If its defined as something outside deterministic forces, cause and effect but if the definition isnt magical and accounts for deterministic forces then sure, free will exists. As Hitchens used to say, we have free will becuase we have no choice
Lastly, life after death. Like god, this has been asked and answered. No, we have no good reasons to think there is life after death.
There is certainly things beyond human understanding, but none of the things you mentioned are. All understandable, all have fairly clear answers. Whether or not those answers can overcome indoctrinated belief or strong emotional bias is another matter. — DingoJones

What matters to me is what my children and their children and their children's children will experience. Socrates gave his life for a future better than the reality of his day. For me, there is no higher purpose.

And if I'm on the right track, then my question would be, how as a member of a civil society do you hold yourself superior to it? — tim wood

Socrates did not hold himself superior to civil society, but he did have a concept of a higher authority. We use the word "God" for the higher authority. We could use words like logos and Tao. I really like Socrates' reasoning, especially as things appear to be falling apart today, the breakdown of family order and the civil unrest that is violent and destructive.

The first argument Socrates makes about obeying law is that every citizen has an obligation to the society they live in to obey its laws. The laws are to be more honored than your mother or father (Crito 51a). He also argues that to bring violence or disobedience to your country is seen as more dishonor than disrespecting your patents (Crito 51c). Socrates believed that you were not only a product of your parents, but because you were raised in Athens, you were also a servant to Athens as were your parents and their parents before them (Crito 50e). — tunetown187

I think Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and rule by reason. He could have gotten out of trouble by agreeing to stop talking about the things he believed we should talk about. He could have fled as Martin Luther did. He gave his life for a higher cause than his own life.

How can virtue be found in metaethics?

Ancient systems like Early Buddhism are examples of virtue epistemology: they start with the premise that in order to know the truth, in order to know "how things really are", one needs to be virtuous. In such systems, moral behavior is a means to an end (the end being complete cessation of suffering). — baker

I really like your post. Confucius explains the importance of virtues and Tao is the way. I think it is unfortunate Western civilization became so separate from Eastern. It was not so separate in antiquity.

Founding fathers must have been reading Cicero. — James Riley

Absolutely and so did the philosophers and anyone who wanted to be educated. That would be an important part of liberal or classical education. Cicero is more responsible for our reality today than Jesus.

Among Cicero's admirers were Desiderius Erasmus, Martin Luther, and John Locke.[130] Following the invention of Johannes Gutenberg's printing press, De Officiis was the second book printed in Europe, after the Gutenberg Bible. Scholars note Cicero's influence on the rebirth of religious toleration in the 17th century.[131]

Cicero was especially popular with the Philosophes of the 18th century, including Edward Gibbon, Diderot, David Hume, Montesquieu, and Voltaire.[132] Gibbon wrote of his first experience reading the author's collective works thus: "I tasted the beauty of the language; I breathed the spirit of freedom; and I imbibed from his precepts and examples the public and private sense of a man...after finishing the great author, a library of eloquence and reason, I formed a more extensive plan of reviewing the Latin classics..."[133] Voltaire called Cicero "the greatest as well as the most elegant of Roman philosophers" and even staged a play based on Cicero's role in the Catilinarian conspiracy, called Rome Sauvée, ou Catilina, to "make young people who go to the theatre acquainted with Cicero."[134] Voltaire was spurred to pen the drama as a rebuff to his rival Claude Prosper Jolyot de Crébillon's own play Catilina, which had portrayed Cicero as a coward and villain who hypocritically married his own daughter to Catiline.[135] Montesquieu produced his "Discourse on Cicero" in 1717, in which he heaped praise on the author because he rescued "philosophy from the hands of scholars, and freed it from the confusion of a foreign language".[136] Montesquieu went on to declare that Cicero was "of all the ancients, the one who had the most personal merit, and whom I would prefer to resemble."[135][137]

Internationally, Cicero the republican inspired the Founding Fathers of the United States and the revolutionaries of the French Revolution.[138] John Adams said, "As all the ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher united than Cicero, his authority should have great weight."[139] Jefferson names Cicero as one of a handful of major figures who contributed to a tradition "of public right" that informed his draft of the Declaration of Independence and shaped American understandings of "the common sense" basis for the right of revolution.[140] Camille Desmoulins said of the French republicans in 1789 that they were "mostly young people who, nourished by the reading of Cicero at school, had become passionate enthusiasts for liberty".[141 — Wikipedia

I find myself unable to accept the proposition that the law is whatever each of us thinks is not stupid, or not wrong. — Ciceronianus the White

I was impressed by what Cicero had to say about the law. This quote refers to "God" so I need to say he predates Christianity. A better word for his concept of God might be "logos".

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and at all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero — Cicero

Even without the sensory faculties, your ability to experience hunger & thirst, emotions, your hormonal operations would not be compromised and so on. — Judaka

That is a good point. Our bodies know a lot that we are not aware of. On top of that, most of our driving is done automatically. Our brains take a lot of shortcuts to reduce the amount of thinking we do. So now we have information without awareness of that information. This goes with self-talk and healing and the placebo effect. Then there are people with apparently no self-awareness. I think we are questioning our consciousness? We can perceive information without being fully aware of it and we can use our thoughts to influence our bodily functions and the direction our thoughts take.

This may sound like a ridiculous scenario but bare with me. I understand I am transitioning away from the topic of spirituality to more like science fiction but “When in Rome” right?

I disagree with that statement due to the possibility of telepathic communication and how it may exist now through nature. This presumption was brought on because scientists discovered evidence of its existence through there research.

This discovery or potential of this discovery may change how we perceive reality.

If telepathic communication is possible then sensory input may become obsolete or not necessary to perceive reality.


“Scientists Prove That Telepathic Communication Is Within Reach“ — SteveMinjares

I totally welcome creative thinking, we could not land on the moon or explore Mars without it. Right now too many people behave like the church of old when it tried to be the sole authority over what we think. What fools these people are to restrict discussions to technological correctness as they know all that is important to know. Not only is that an excessively high opinion of what we know, but it would stop any further advancement if people didn't dare to think beyond the limits of common thought.

I believe we call telepathy a 5th sense? I am not sure how different thought waves are from sound waves and all the wireless digital information our computers and cell phones receive? I think there are so many mysteries we are better off enjoying them than we would be if some idiots had the power to restrict what we think about. And when it comes to telepathy there is a lot that indicates we should give it more attention.

The belief that the law must conform to an "assumed standard" of some kind, and isn't the law if it does not, ignores the law; it doesn't explain it. It leads to a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the law and its operation.

What say you to that, if anything?

I say: There is no Law but the Law! — Ciceronianus the White

There are laws of nature and then there are man-made laws. I think it can be argued many human laws are just stupid ideas and not really laws. Democracy is about getting rid of stupid ideas and having rule by reason. That is laws must be proven good reasoning and do not stand if they are just stupid ideas. Such as outlawing interracial marriages or homosexual relationships is just stupid and has nothing to do with laws of nature. Whereas laws about actions to prevent the spread of disease are based on the laws of nature and to reject them is being stupid.

The answer to the question is no. No sensation, no reasoning of any kind is possible. Rocks do not reason. No reasoning no argument for validation is possible.

A school is a kind of social institute, but in this case I was referring to a government, though I do draw parallels between education and governance in my overall philosophy. — Pfhorrest

Well, Pfhorrest, it is my understanding there are two ways to have social order, law and authority over the people, or culture. All mythologies give people cultures for conduct. Culture a good person behaves this way and not that way. With culture, it is social pressure that keeps people in line.

I am reading a book that might say hedonism before the time of Socrates would be different than after the period of Socrates, because of how people, in general, thought, fundamentally changed. When the god Apollo became part of Athenian consciousness, culturally there was much more reasoning. This demand for reasoning followed a period that was chaotic and with much uncertainty.

Without the word generosity, we can not exactly have the virtue of generosity. We might be moved to give but it is not with a perceived idea that we should be giving. With reasoning, hedonism is the result of reasoning, not just impulsive reactions.

Well, if labor creates all wealth, the guy who taps the computer at the central bank and creates a few billion dollars with a few keystrokes must be the most laborious. — ssu

:lol: Anyone who works that hard will need a vacation to recover.

Didn't people have a lot more free time back in the day? It seems like to me that the machines that we use in agriculture (etc) require a more complex society, with everyone working more. Or perhaps rather, just more people. Instead of most everyone working the fields, there is a minority of farmers who use equipment, which is manufactured in a factory the employs many people, which gets materials from other factories, etc. — darthbarracuda

Oh ouch, labor-intense societies do not enjoy a lot of free time. Before we perfected our machinery, people, including children, worked 12 to 14 hour days, 7 days a week, for poverty wages, forcing the family to put their children into dangerous mines and factories.

:lol: Try growing a garden large enough to feed a family for a year and after harvesting it, preserve the food so it will last a year. This fun experiment is even better if you are a woman with children because then you must attend to them and clean the house and make the clothes by hand and make your own soap and do laundry by hand. Try that for about a year and then tell us about your free time.

So your example is only true if society demanded the labor for both T-shirt making and hat making equally. — FlaccidDoor

I want to see if I understand you correctly. When millions of people want T-shirts that increase the value of the T-shirt. If only a few people wear hats, they don't have much value. Is that right according to the theory?

When Russia was coming out of communism I thought they didn't get things exactly right. Potatoes should be very cheap so everyone can afford them. However, when the potatoes are processed to be instant potatoes or potato chips, you can charge as much as the market can handle without hurting the need to feed people. Changing the raw potato is value-added. Is that right?

Except the US government can buy the potatoes and turn them into instant potatoes increasing their shelf life and this surplus of potatoes reduces the cost. That is supply and demand, right?

When 500 people in a factory can produce many times more product than individuals working alone n small shops, the cost of labor is low and so the price of the product. Some products would be unaffordable without factories making mass production possible. How does Marx handle that?

Just because machines do the labor doesn't mean that labor isn't the source of wealth. — Pfhorrest

You summed that up very efficiently. What needs to follow is taxing this labor, because when machines replace humans who must pay income taxes, the government loses revenue, right?.

The social institutes responsible for resolving conflicts about the above process should be non-authoritarian and non-hierarchical, a global cooperation of independent people working together voluntarily; basically a form of anarchism, or libertarian socialism. — Pfhorrest

What is a social institute? Would that be a school?

Maslow's pyramid of needs comes to mind. Unsatisfied needs to the extreme are painful. — god must be atheist

Okay, and people don't just naturally know how to get to the top. They may never get off the bottom. What needs to be done for people to move up the pyramid?

Except knowing what will bring pleasure and what will bring pain may be a matter of maturity and may depend on education for good moral judgment.

Are there correct answers (opinions) for all meaningful questions? If Man is a tripartite soul lacking inner unity, what is the correct opinion of love? The scientist sees it intellectually, the artist sees it emotionally, while the mechanic just wants to get to it. Yet if there is a correct opinion, how can these three attributes agree if they don't understand each other? How can they evolve from previously formed opinions into knowledge? — Nikolas

By communicating with each other. The gods argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Democracy is an imitation of the gods.

The love issue is very much helped by reading books and articles about it. People who have children might want to begin with reading books and articles about child-rearing. In the past we didn't have near the science we have today, and it might seem cold and counter to emotional love to become well informed, but for centuries poets and theater have expanded our awareness.

But God knows the young people don't want to hear what the old people have to say. We seem to be compelled to rush into life without getting informed. :lol: However, as all civilizations have more and more long-lived people, I am rather excited about how this might change civilizations. If we return to education in the humanities, really exciting things could happen. I hope we return to family values and I am afraid of what might happen as more and more children grow up with single parents and do not have role models for successful, long-lasting relationships, while education grooms them to be products for industry.

I have thought a bit about how you say that I do not speak 'with education for democracy.' I think that is partly because I don't really have much sense of being in a democracy. I am not really sure that I feel that people in society are listened to by leaders and politicians. I realise that we are not free to do exactly as we please and do believe that we need certain laws, but I do find the implementation of law a bit abstract in some ways. I don't really have much sense of any involvement in the creation of laws and social policies. Having a vote in England seems to be the only involvement, but I am speaking of English politics. I have been on a few marches, but don't feel that the politicians are very interested in those at all. — Jack Cummins

Your experience is true for everyone.

Coming from my family and the political talk at our dining table, my sister and I were groomed to be political activists. Also in the 1960s most of us were socially moved to be politically active. We chanted things like "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". It was a really different time in history. Now we are old and President Biden is doing the social things we thought should be done in the 60ties. That might have something to do with having a lot of seniors voting right now.

I was radicalized when the state took my grandchildren. At that time Grandparents were starting to organize in a fight for their grandchildren and the governor of the state wanted to change things. I joined the grandparents and helped them get media attention and to do a conference, and I was at every meeting with the officials. The result of this activity was a complete change in the policy, putting grandparents first when the state had to take children, then extended family and not a paid foster parent unless there is no family. I was fighting for family and therefore far more motivated than normal.

I also was the leading advocate for homeless people, and in my city, the response to homeless people radically changed. I organized the homeless men, we got media attention, we attended public hearings, and spoke whenever possible. I was so glad when others realized something needed to be done and took over. :rofl: That is not exactly how my professors expected a student to use education, but two of them knew I would take a different path and I regret what I have to say about bureaucratic organization is ignored. So much of our power, or the lack of it, is about organization. Here is where philosophy has a problem- it tends to be head stuff, not practical stuff.

Anyway, you speak for most people and a lot of them don't even vote. We have a city council and a county council and of course, state legislature and our nightly news says nothing about what they are doing. :rage: This problem is far worse than it was when I participated in a hunger strike on the steps of the state capital building. We have a serious media problem and a lack of political interest problem. This kicks back to the education problem. Anyway, what I am saying is not philosophy so I will stop. :zip:

One more thing, the US Constitution as about agency

the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power — Merriam Webster dictionary

A democracy is about everyone being a part of this. Philosophically do we support this or not?

I was interested to see your links, which go back a bit before I joined the site. I think that your project sounds great. The one thing that I am not sure about, however, is your suggestion that we can find 'correct' answers to many questions. I am not just saying that I disagree with it, but that it is a complete contrast to what so many other people on this thread are saying. I know that you are suggesting backing this up with 'common experience,' but many dispute this. Personally, I don't come from the point of view that knowledge is not possible at all, and I do believe in systemic ways of seeing, but it does all seem to be a very careful art of juggling and there are so many competing perspectives. — Jack Cummins

:gasp: You do not speak with education for democracy. Liberty is not the freedom to do anything we please. It is only the freedom to decide what is right or wrong. Now we may not agree with a law but we protect our liberty by obeying the law. Second, we must take action to change a law or a policy if we believe it is wrong. Democracy is important because we participate in making our laws. They are our laws, not laws imposed on us by a king (or a Military Industrial Complex). Our laws and policies are supposed to be a consensus of the people. Not Homeland Security and being tracked through education, banking, and medical care, federal government control of education, closing schools that do not comply with federal government standards.

:gasp: The education for technology the US has had since 1958 is not education for democracy so we are destroying our democracy. From what you have said this is not just a problem in the US.

I started reading your links and I am favorably impressed. Actually, I am delighted with your timely effort. We are in a bit of crisis right now because education for a technological society with unknown values ended the transmission of culture in the US. Now we have no agreements, and worse, no shared method for forming agreements. Nothing could be more important than correcting this problem.

The US traditionally relied on religion for a culture. This worked fine when it went with liberal education and the transmission of culture for democracy. Religion does not produce a culture for democracy. Disney "Lion King" is not wonderful values for our children! No way would Jefferson and Ben Franklin be taking their children to that movie and leave talking about the wonderful value lesson. A lion king and associating the mass with hyenas is not a movie for democracy. Religion without the transmission of the culture based on liberal/classical education is a disaster! As the author of the book "Eat the Rich" said the US one-parent family policy is not working any better than China's one-child families. In so many ways we are in crisis and we need your book to pull us out of this crisis.

To answer the question in the title of this thread- the essence of philosophy is to have a civilization that does not self-destruct. We need to understand, in a democracy, everyone needs to be prepared to manifest a civilization that does not self-destruct. That is the only way to have liberty, not anarchy, and police state authority over the people.


.

I agree completely, and it's no mere coincidence that my political philosophy is modeled on my philosophy of academics, and in both I treat governance as analogous to education. In my view, governance properly understood is basically a form of moral education, and it therefore needs to be founded in a properly conducted form of moral research; and in contrast, states declaring by fiat (even majoritarian fiat, i.e. democracy) that something must be just because they say so and don't you dare question it, is as backward a way of doing things as religion. States and religions both operate on the principle of "because ___ says so", and that's no way to do anything; yet we still need governance and education. We've mostly solved the question of how to educate without ever falling back on "because ___ says so"; and my project is to come up with a way to govern likewise. — Pfhorrest

As I understand, the US modeled its education after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth. It prepared everyone for good moral judgment and for civic and political leadership. This education relied strongly on literature, the Greek and Roman classics, and hero stories from around the world. It was called a liberal education or classical education. My examination of a small selection of old textbooks indicates the classical education was Americanized. For sure American heroes replaced Greek and Roman heroes. We created an American mythology for the purpose of preparing the young, and their immigrant parents, to be good citizens. In 1958 this was replaced with the German model of education for technology, and some have seen a similarity between the past 4 years and Germany's period of the Nazi, with Hitler in power. For sure we now have the reactionary politics that Germany had and we are no longer united.

Some of us find the result of education for a technological society with unknown values; destroying the American heroes and mythology; leaving moral education to the church, very damaging to democracy in the US. So I really want to know what you are up to and what you are thinking about.

I am impressed that we are thinking of ourselves as powerful nations that have international responsibility. This demands a new philosophy because it is not equal to the personal drive for morality and personal concern for entering heaven. Our abundance today is demanding government provide us with a higher morality and we want to know our international moral role.

Science brought us into a new age. Now the power of technology and our abundance is pushing us to enter another new age.

There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people, or culture. It is only through education for a civil culture that we can have liberty.

The opinions concerning the economic situation are all well known and part of cave life. The value of real philosophy is exposing the human condition for what it is and opening one to the possibility for leaving the cave. — Nikolas

Now that would be worthy of a great civilization! Poverty does not have to mean ignorance. With libraries and other resources, we can educate ourselves for free and with relatively little money we can get even more. If I am traveling, I like to read about the history of the place I will be visiting. It is really fun if the traveling is done by train and takes a few days giving me time for the reading broken with the experience of the adventure.

It is appalling that the US stopped funding public broadcasting and the stations must beg for money. This has resulted in many hours of cooking shows instead of programs that could be more worthy of our time. The mass ignorance in the US is inexcusable. I am sure we could do better. Living in the sunshine has to be better than living in the cave. Wanting to be enlightened is better than wanting to remain ignorant.

I do think that it is debatable how much thinking is good for us. One model which I think is useful is Jung's one on the four functions: feeling, sensation, intuition and thinking. He sees the development of these as being varied in individuals, with most people having one more dominant and one or more less developed. He suggests that the ideal is to have all four developed. I do believe that my most developed function is thinking and Jung suggests that it is often that if that is dominant, feeling is the less developed. I am aware that I am more likely to say 'I think' rather than 'I feel.' But, I do try to work on my emotional side and have read a few books on emotional intelligence with this aim in mind.

I imagine that people who are drawn to philosophy are probably the thinking type. I know some people who don't enjoy thinking at all, and engaging in conversations which is analytical is not something they wish to do. I find thinking enjoyable, but sometimes find it hard to switch off and I am inclined to overthink at times. I also often find it hard to get off to sleep because I can't switch off my thoughts and worries. So, it is probably about getting balance. I listen to music and, try to meditate sometimes, to try to switch off thoughts. I do think that meditation is particularly helpful, but I don't do it as often as I probably need to do it. I tend to put it off and have not really incorporated it into my regular routine. — Jack Cummins

I like the four aspects offered by Jung. Self-awareness seems very important to me and thinking of the four aspects can help us develop self-awareness. You appear to be emotionally calm and I am not sure why you would need to work your emotions? Now if you were excitable that could be something you would want to change. But contemplative and calm is a good thing.

Meditation is something we might all benefit from because our brains chatter so much and can be very fickle! But it can be hard for me to be still and meditate so I like walking or swimming while meditating. I have also found doing math helps settle my brain down and helps me focus. Sometimes I get too excited while reading and that is when turning to math is most helpful. I might go back and further between math and reading.

Personally, I use college lectures and other audio explanations of life to calm my mind and fall asleep. It has to be something interesting enough to hold my attention, especially if I am upset about something. Also, the quality of the speaker's voice is very important. I have heard so many professors who are bad speakers, that I think voice training should be mandatory for professors. I really want to know what they have to say but if their voices are irritating I can not listen for long. Long ago, a sociology professor put me to sleep every day in his class. I really wanted to hear what he had to say, so I was totally focused on his words, but his voice was so monotone it was hypnotic and I could not stay awake. :rofl: That is why I use lectures for falling asleep.

The answer to that last question might depend on everyone's education. Ideally, in a democracy we argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning, this is because, not only can it be the best way to get the best reasoning, but it is also how to get everyone to buy into that reasoning. However, the pilgrims on the MayFlower were not sailors. They were land people totally dependent on others for a safe Atlantic crossing. Under such conditions, everyone participating in the decisions is not desirable. In fact, if they had better information they probably would have refused the late-in-the-year passage to the new land. In hindsight, anyone could see the chances of their survival were made much worse by the delay in the passage. To make good decisions people need to be well informed and that is why mass education is essential to democracy. (and that is not education for technology making the young to be useful products for the industry).

Philosophy was written before mass education or it was based on the Bible and the earlier philosophies and it did not include women. I am so accustomed to males saying my posts have no value I just ignore them. It would be wonderful to replay history, with women always having equality and being as respected as males. :lol: I am sure when speaking of philosopher-kings, people are thinking of strong males who do not listen to those foolish women. I am quite sure that sends my alarms off much more than a man would be alarmed by the notion of philosopher-kings. Maybe a hundred years from now men will find value in what a woman says? It is a cultural thing. Not all cultures are so patriarchal.

.

The only thing in your post I have experience with is developing public policy. The year I took public policy classes was the most depressing year of my life. The focus on being cost-effective is of course a government concern, but I did not see how it included the cost of ignoring problems, such as ignoring the drug problem as long as it stayed in the racially created ghettos. And then there is the problem of social research. By the time a problem is narrowed down enough to become a question that can be studied, the result symbols reality as much as a plastic-wrapped steak resembles the animal it came from. Like so much was missing that I lost hope of government fixing anything.

Then came the realization only those properly processed through college education would get a bureaucratic job or sit in the seats of power. Their vision of the world is their college education and that education was so lacking it wasn't teaching them about life. Or it could have just my professor who would only accept information that came from the abstracts in the last ten years.

I have to run- bottom line, I saw a lot wrong with education and the preparation of students. Your book sounds very interesting!

But if you study the "Ship of Fools" with a little humility it becomes obvious that humanity as a whole does not know how to escape Plato's cave or the eventual catastrophe of arguing over which way the ship should go. Opinions lead to conflicting opinions until society falls apart. Then the cycle begins again. Is that our only alternative? must humanity remain not human and trapped in animalistic binary thought? Can philosophy of a certain quality reveal the way out? — Nikolas

I believe we made life much better than it once was. Most civilizations have advanced so much they name their children at birth and the people expect to live to old age and die before their children do. But we have too much inequality and too much avoidable human suffering, so we still have a lot to do and I am glad we still have big challenges! Those challenges can give our lives purpose and give us a reason to get up in the morning. I would rather have this than a heaven where I am not needed.

Until this thread, I did not question the importance of studying past philosophers and getting a college's stamp of approval validating we are philosophers. While participating in the thread I have come to wonder if a lot of that past philosophy taught in college classes has relevance to us today? We have serious global problems and what value does philosophy have if it does not help us resolve those problems? But perhaps we need to ask new questions that are relevant to today? What are the best economic choices we can make? What political choices should we make about working with the rest of the world? Should we mind our business when people are being killed or should we get involved? If we should get involved, how should we get involved? What are the best philosophers we can read to answer today's questions?

I am not sure that everyone in the world enjoys thinking. — Jack Cummins

My father who was an engineer on the Apollo that went to the moon said we avoid thinking as much as we can. I think I would love knowing nothing and worshipping a pharaoh as a god, with full faith he would take good care of us. My thoughts torment me and yet, I do not want to sink into senility and be a body without a functioning brain.

Philosophers are just confused.

There's no glory in confusion. — Banno

Now that is perfect! I will 100% agree with Banno.

Those were some very interesting questions! I think if we don't take radical measures to reverse global warming, we are all on a sinking ship.

↪Athena
I agree with all that. What I meant was that it would be great to actually have a leader who is wise, to be able to rely on a truly wise person for direction and guidance. The rest of what I wrote that you didn’t quote was about the difficulties of being sure that that’s what we’re really going to get from someone. — Pfhorrest

I was hoping you would say that. I am a little nervous about some people's apparent preference for a strong authoritarian leader.

I am watching the report of the people's struggle with the regime in Myanmar and the Rohingya refugees. In so many places the government and the people are not at peace. Leaders are trying to stay in power with violence. Where there are not good leaders, people are starving their economy is too poor to meet their needs. How can people live like this? Are the fine, educated people who are arguing philosophy here, thinking about the things that really matter? Is arguing against using the word "God" the best we can do? Do we really need to find fault with what someone for not knowing enough about the philosophy taught in college classes when millions of people have serious life-threatening problems? Should we be doing anything about "those people" or is it okay to ignore them their sufferening?

"What is a 'real' philosopher and what is the true essence of philosophy ?"

Let me be very clear, I could not pass a philosophy exam and most people here would argue I am not a philosopher, but philosophy means a love of knowledge and perhaps the best thing we can do with our ability to learn and think is to find ways to stop suffering and empower people to stop the suffering. Is what Nietzsche thinks about that important?

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great, — Pfhorrest

Maybe and maybe not. That is why we have democracy. We attempt to choose the best leader and we agree to follow while standing ready to take on the responsibility of leadership.

It is very important to realize we are all limited and I don't think we should look for kings, but should submit to leadership. Not depend on the leadership as a child depends on a parent, but submit to the leadership we choose, while also standing ready to argue for what is right or take over the role of leadership if need be.

We all need to be philosophers so we can recognize good philosophy and put that above us, not a man.

I do agree that it is better to define someone else as a philosopher than oneself. If a person chose to adopt the label without a socially negotiated reason for doing so it would seem rather vain. I know of people who describe themselves as being an artist or a writer, and this seems to be based not on work but on their self perceptions. Of course, anyone is entitled to define themselves subjectively, However, there is more glamour or romance in choosing to call oneself as a writer or a philosopher. — Jack Cummins

Surely a person who enjoys singing is a singer, just as a bird is a singer if it has a song to sing. But this does not mean the person sings well, nor that the bird has a pretty song to sing.

I am a writer. I have given much time to writing for most of my life. I have not published a book but I still consider myself to be a writer because that is what I do.

I think we want to encourage people to read philosophy and to think philosophically, and cutting them out of thinking of themselves as philosophers may not be the best way to promote philosophy. I don't think anyone has the right to exclude anyone from the group of philosophers. I think looking down on people and acting superior to others, excluding the other, is a bad behavior. Hum, makes me think of Christianity. The religion is known for being inclusive, but not all Christians are inclusive.

That was nice.

You want to talk about understanding all life and what that might mean then great but why call that a god question? — DingoJones

Eisenstein spent his last years seeking the unified force. If he thought that was worth his time it might be worth our time. I gave my answer to why I think it is important to speak of God and I am not going to repeat it. However, I will forfeit all the wins to you and 180 Proof because I stopped having fun and want to drop out.

Ok, but I’m not asking why someone might use the term “god”. I’m being more specific, I want to know why you, a person who recognises that the term “god” is being used to describe not the usual characteristics of “god” but to describe something else for which we already have a name for yet instead of using that name still insist on calling it “god”. — DingoJones

:chin: Some people believe science can be applied to the god question and some do not. But certainly, we can apply philosophy to the god question.

Now, what boundaries do you think we should set for the god question and why? Or, instead of boundaries, should we expand our understanding of the god question? Does not it begin with a desire to understand all of life? I certainly prefer expanding our understanding of the god question. I absolutely what to avoid the futile argument of if god exists or not because that is so repetitive and boring after several years of the same arguments again and again.

I want new arguments. What is the unified force?

So... you knew Julius Caesar personally?

And who was Miltiades? I mean, the REAL Miltiades? — god must be atheist

Well, Miltiades was certainly good-looking.

His daughter had more wisdom than Pericles and he should have respected her! :rage: Those men's egos got a little out of control and they needed to be taught a lesson. The temple they built for me was flattering but I suspect it was more about their egos than me. I think as the US today, they came to think they could manage just fine without the gods and they needed to be taught without the gods they are nothing. So the plague gave Sparta the victory in war.

Perhaps this thread should address the gods and war? :wink:

I'm not sure musical composers or choreographers are fantasizing as much as 'thinking'. — Bitter Crank

What an interesting thing to say! I never gave that thought but it is certainly worthy of thought.

Can you verbalize more about that thought?

Absolutely! As a horse is created to run and a bird is created to fly, we are created to think. I think it is totally sad to go through life without being delighted in exploring what life is all about. From the day a child enters school, the child should learn books and reading make our lives rich. We need to turn our focus from materialism that is not sustainable to a quest for knowledge and wisdom.

We are not addressing the reality of living on a finite planet. We are running out of resources and our way of life is not sustainable, but we can be abundantly happy if we focus on knowledge and our relationship. I worry that society is not supporting you as you should be supported, so just keep it mind what you are doing with reading and sharing, and starting conversations is one of the most important things that can be done right now.

"(unless by "God" you mean just a referentless, or philosophical, concept and not a 'providential entity' of Abrahamic, Vedic or pantheonic religions). — 180 Proof

You worded that very well. Yes, and what is philosophy about if it is not about asking the questions that are impossible to answer and attempting to answer them anyway. That is what humans do and hopefully, we enjoy the doing. :grin:

IOW, you have knowledge of God? First-hand, certain knowledge of God? — baker

:lol: No one has first-hand knowledge of god. And I am NOT certain of anything.

This is the third time I ask this question (paraphrased) and I get ignored deeply, soundly, and unanimously, by those who have made actual claims about god.

I guess the silence I encounter to my question is an answer in a way. A very telling answer. — god must be atheist

And whose problem is that?
Do you believe in God?

If there is a problem it is attitude. We are taking ourselves way too seriously.

Well, there are a few more problems like famine and pandemics and wars and global warming, but we are not going to come together and resolve those problems if we don't lighten up and stop thinking that what we want is what God wants for us.