I seem to have the feeling that as the super-ego or some moral tendency defined as a good conscious concerned with truth or whatnot must find that they ought to reduce suffering in the world if they are to feel good with themselves as a philosopher. — Shawn
In what way could we do more to reduce suffering without sacrificing the will of individual? I'd like to know. — Caldwell
... must find that they ought to reduce suffering in the world if they are to feel good with themselves — Shawn
The problem of evil must be common knowledge to any regular visitor on this forum; and, this seemingly states that God allows evil to happen, so how does this mesh with Him or Her being all good? — Shawn
...one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good? — Shawn
What is your take? How do you feel about being a philosopher, perhaps even a futility affirming pessimist that there is a gratuitous and incomprehensible amount of suffering in the world that leads to a miserable state of affairs for others, that one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good? — Shawn
How do you feel about being a philosopher, perhaps even a futility affirming pessimist that there is a gratuitous and incomprehensible amount of suffering in the world that leads to a miserable state of affairs for others, that one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good?
Is this something philosophy is most knowledgeable about or seemingly speaks about it as if it were a trite truth about living? — Shawn
Some other thoughts is that if philosophers want to feel good about themselves then shouldn't or ought they not to concern themselves with the need of the many; yet, at what point as to entertain the need of the few vs. many?
I seem to have the feeling that as the super-ego or some moral tendency defined as a good conscious concerned with truth or whatnot must find that they ought to reduce suffering in the world if they are to feel good with themselves as a philosopher. — Shawn
Coming as the average Westerner it would be mostly through the political process mostly at the moment. — Shawn
If one seeks to be(come) "a good person", then one ought to do good (via right conduct^ & just practices^^) whenever it's possible to do so effectively. Negative utilitarianism^ & negative consequentialism^^, respectively. Why 'negative'? Minimize suffering: because suffering, in contrast to "happiness", is objective in so far as it is factual what deprivations & harms, fears & losses render (almost) every individual of a / our species dysfunctional or dead, that is, whatever is not good for a / our kind, and, therefore, that it can be known whether or not "gratuitous suffering" is foreseen and, if so, prevented or mitigated or reduced.How do you feel about [ ... ] gratuitous and incomprehensible amount of suffering in the world that leads to a miserable state of affairs for others, that one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good? — Shawn
No. Philosophy, perhaps, is most reflective on – makes explicit, or problematizes – our rationalized evasions from, or denials of, the difficulties & exigencies of living, especially those of the lives of others (i.e. the less we identify with 'them', and the farther away 'they' are, the more incorrigible our evasions), which is a mode of socialized, or indoctrinated, meta-ignorance (i.e. not wanting to know which culminates in the blissful state of not knowing that one does not know). I understand philosophy to be only "most knowledgeable" of the gaps or inconsistences in 'what we (make)believe we know', and thereby creatively-critically proposes heuristic work-arounds for such epistemic defects (e.g. dialectical revisions).Is this something philosophy is most knowledgeable about or seemingly speaks about it as if it were a trite truth about living?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.