I just take the philosophy behind democracy for granted, and your objection reminds me I should not do that. Let's see. I like the notion that we are all equal under the sun versus the notion that a god has favorite people. I like the idea that we establish government to protect our human rights and that includes the rights of women. I love the idea of rule by reason based on logos/ reason, the controlling force of the universe, versus the mentality of thousands of years ago when humans were pretty barbaric. I think the notion of conscience, coming out of science, is very important.

There is a start for why I think my sisters in Afghanistan deserve our assistance. To me, if they want to live as we do enough to put their lives on the line then it is just human decency that we continue to defend them, instead of leaving them to be slaughtered by religious people who do not have very good human values and treat women very badly.

I think there is a serious problem with thinking democracy is a political thing that started in the US. Democracy is a philosophical thing that may have officially been manifested as a political thing in Athens but the set of values certainly was not exclusive to Athenians.

The obvious question is "Why are you here?" — T Clark

Excellent question.

asians have created different models of the energy system of the body. and they generally feel that that energy should not just go to the brain. they indeed call that energy blockage. when I see obese people who are exhausted, I think: these people don't understand energy at all. — TaySan

That is an interesting thought worth pondering. I think education in the US could be improved with the benefit of improving mental and physical health for everyone.

A body-mind-spirit model in health: an Eastern approach
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › ...
by C Chan · ‎2001 · ‎Cited by 213 · ‎Related articles
In striking contrast, Eastern philosophies of Buddhism, Taoism and traditional Chinese medicine adopt a holistic conceptualization of an individual and his or her ... — C Chan

It is sad in the West we are so sure of ourselves and appear to know so little. In general, we don't even know what science has to do with philosophy and what that has to do with health.

Anyone saying science has made philosophy irrelevant doesn't seem to understand what philosophy is or how it works in academia. — Christoffer

Those who think that have technology confused with science. Philosophy and science deal with universals, technology does not.

It is sad in the West we are so sure of ourselves and appear to know so little. In general, we don't even know what science has to do with philosophy and what that has to do with health. — Athena

I think people know a lot in the West. Or anywhere on the planet for that matter. It's just that we sometimes don't apply that knowledge all too well. We're still human, after all.

And yes, the link between science and philosophy still seems obscure to me but I'm getting there

. To show you the futility of philosophy ... my friend ...

. I cannot show to a community that already despise it ... friend ...

On the other hand, I've met other people like you who were saved by philosophy. I must admit I don't get it, but I've come to respect it and accept that it works. For me, it's like jazz. It's not my music and I don't really get it, but enough people I respect value it that it would be silly and graceless to argue. — T Clark

Nicely put. I guess the real job of all of us is to consider ideas we are not necessarily drawn to and perhaps even repelled by (of course you wouldn't want to push this too far). This in itself probably requires a philosophical imagination.

I'm interested in your idea about philosophy being stony. Can you say more in concrete terms (no half-arsed pun intended) about why it doesn't work for you?

This failure of philosophy is a failure to see the whole picture and storytelling that excluded our wrongs. This is a new day and we need to value philosophy to move ahead without doing more damage. — Athena

I guess you have to make the case that moral statements like this are justifiable epistemologically in whatever philosophical/spiritual system you settle on. Should be easy to do if you are a Christian (although it doesn't stop the prosperity gospel folks and neo-liberals of faith from looking past injustice and disadvantage).

It also interests me what the role of morality or social justice might be in a world where where matter isn't real and only consciousness is true.

I'm interested in your idea about philosophy being stony. Can you say more in concrete terms (no half-arsed pun intended) about why it doesn't work for you? — Tom Storm

This is my favorite philosophical quote. It's from Franz Kafka:

There is no need for you to leave the house. Stay at your table and listen. Don’t even listen, just wait. Don’t even wait, be completely quiet and alone. The world will offer itself to you to be unmasked; it can’t do otherwise; in raptures it will writhe before you.

The world is simple and clear. It's right here in front of us. It's not hidden. We just need to pay more attention. Become more aware. The book of philosophy that has meant the most to me is the Tao Te Ching. It covers everything, all of existence, physical and moral, in 81 verses. You can read it in an hour.

Much western philosophy takes the simple world we live in and complicates it with convoluted explanations and arguments, self-deceptive explanations, jargon, nitpicky distinctions, dogmatic certainty. Dozens, hundreds, thousands of pages to describe some miniscule unimportant corner of reality. Example - justified true belief. I tripped over a blog post about this a few years ago. I couldn't believe people were arguing about it. Then I got to the Gettier problem and I had to stop.

I remember the first philosophy class I took 50 years ago. It was called the Mind Brain Identity Problem. It was about, well, the mind brain identity problem. I figured, well this should be interesting. There must be something deep and complicated about this. Getting to understand it will be fun. Nope - it turns out there are people who believe that the brain is the mind. The mind is the brain. What does that even mean?

No, I don't want to argue about the Gettier problem or whether or not the mind is the brain.

Thanks for your response. I was unable to get much out of the Tao Te Ching to be honest (decades ago) but I'll give it another look. I'm sure I can read it in an hour but I am also sure I will not understand it.

I was unable to get much out of the Tao Te Ching — Tom Storm

I wouldn't try too hard. If it doesn't grab you, it doesn't. I'm seems like it is the same for those who prefer western philosophy. It grabs them. They recognize it. It's something they didn't know they already knew.

I'm seems like it is the same for those who prefer western philosophy. It grabs them. They recognize it. It's something they didn't know they already knew. — T Clark

I just had a quick scan on line. It certainly is striking - it reads like poetry and the reader needs to have a particular personality or imagination (I suspect) to get the most from it.

I'm not a big Western philosophy guy so I feel like I should resonate with other modes of expression. But I am a product of my culture and I can't see a way past most of my own presuppositions.

I just had a quick scan on line. It certainly is striking - it reads like poetry and the reader needs to have a particular personality or imagination (I suspect) to get the most from it. — Tom Storm

I think you're right. I'll will say one thing more - It may seem flowery, but it is every bit as down-home and hard-headed as any western philosophy. Its view of reality is poetic, but it's not romantic or dewy-eyed. No fluffy bunnies.

That's just a reflection of how you feel. How do you know if the community despises it? How do you know if I think philosophy is futile?

And science is applied philosophy. — T Clark

I do understand better what this means. In my understanding it is philosophy that paved the way for science by undermining fixed religious beliefs. Do you agree?

. One more time ...

. Read with attention and meditatively what I said ...

. Thats the problem of the so-called philosophers ... They project their own prejudices on reality ... They're not simple, ordinary ... they pretend to know ... they don't have eyes to see ... what it is ...

. See what I said attentively ... don't think about it ... And you'll know that behind your so-called intellectuality hides loads of ignorance and borrowed knowledge ...

.

. One more time ...

. Read with attention and meditatively what I said ...

. Thats the problem of the so-called philosophers ... They project their own prejudices on reality ... They're not simple, ordinary ... they pretend to know ... they don't have eyes ... to see ... what it is ...

. See what I said attentively ... don't think about it ... And you'll know that behind your so-called intellectuality hides loads of ignorance and borrowed knowledge ...

. You did not understand what I said ...

So the question is: Would you rather feel at home or live in a place you know is scientifically "better" than where you did last? — Outlander

Of course you'd always rather feel at home. Feelings or emotions are the determining factor for happiness.

Now we're talking. Why do you use such an outdated mystical symbol as your avatar? Mysticism in the 21st century has moved way beyond that. Dragons don't exist

. I answer you just if you answer me this ... my friend ...

. Why are you still asleep in Life ...

Read with attention and meditatively what I said ... — Anand-Haqq

You did not understand what I said ... — Anand-Haqq

The average statements of someone who don’t even understand what is typing in the internet. Just empty ideas.

. The average sleepy mediocre being ... dragging himself in Life ...

. Otherwise, why the comment ...

probably because I'm dreaming that I'm awake? I don't know

I disagree with the principle contention. The idea that philosophy has failed to create a better world is false. We face challenges in the coming years; but it's been my philosophical purpose to show that it's possible to overcome those challenges. Scientifically and technologically it's well within the bounds of possibility to secure a long term prosperous and sustainable future - starting by tapping into the massive heat energy of the planet on a mega-industrial scale. Then we could sequester carbon industrially, desalinate water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, recycle everything and continue to grow into the future - sustainably.

That so, we must conclude that neither capitalism nor over-population are the problem. The earth can support a large human population going forward given a rational application of technology. The population problem is a consequence of failing to apply the right technologies for the right reasons; which are a) the sum of scientific knowledge, and b) sustainability as a value; as might have ultimately transpired had the Church embraced Galileo, and embraced science as the means to decode the Creation.

That's not what happened. Science was deprived of recognition with accusations of heresy. Science has created a better world, nonetheless. We are surrounded by technological miracles. Technology is misapplied for the most part, but in its functionality there's a glimpse of a world that works - a world in which the truth value of scientific knowledge directs the application of technology to secure the greater good.

In my understanding it is philosophy that paved the way for science by undermining fixed religious beliefs. Do you agree? — TaySan

No, I don't see it that way. Religion, philosophy, and science are all ways of understanding the world. They developed out of each other and are all mixed up together. That's not a bad thing.

Your answer is the reason I started this discussion. Thank you. It means the world to me.

science wouldn't be where it is if Rousseau hadn't inspired the French revolution, if Giordano Bruno, Voltaire or the skeptics hadn't existed we would still be venerating some wicked concept of the divine without regards to science. i could go on but my insomnia is wearing off.

then we'll continue another time :)

I will struggle against insomnia for a while but I am doing so in order to see what develops from my question on how to make protophilosophers appealing to young kids... But my point is that freedom of thought, ethics and politics, well, polethics, they are something philosophy has conquered, not science, science is great, but so is philosophy.

Your answer is the reason I started this discussion. Thank you. It means the world to me. — TaySan

Then you will indulge me to repeat this:

a world in which the truth value of scientific knowledge directs the application of technology to secure the greater good. — counterpunch

If you like my ideas, feel free to copy and share them.