1. What, exactly, do you mean by 'system'? — Pieter R van Wyk
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? — Pieter R van Wyk
Your contribution is appreciated and thank you for the plain english but I do not find myself closer to an answer to my question. — Pieter R van Wyk
Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk
For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. — Pieter R van Wyk
"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 pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk
Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk
My answer is simple: the world is as it is because that is how the world and we humans evolved. — Pieter R van Wyk
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? — Pieter R van Wyk
This question has no utility - it think it is called a rhetorical 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
If philosophy cannot end the diversity of viewpoints, what exactly is the purpose and utility in studying philosophy? — Pieter R van Wyk
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. — Pieter R van Wyk
Perhaps you should say my book, since you are the author :wink: — Heracloitus
It wasn't philosophers that contributed to our knowledge. It was scientists and inventors of technology. It is through science that we have been able to feed more people and increase their lifespans. Are there people still starving and still dying at young ages? Yes, but it seems we are heading in the right direction unless one makes the argument that more humans is the problem. We don't have enough resources to go around equally so is philosophy/science telling us that a Logan's Run society where everyone dies at 30 to maintain a steady population so scarce resources can be equally distributed is the way to go?For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "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 pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk
"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 pipedream!" — Pieter R van Wyk
If philosophy cannot end the diversity of viewpoints, what exactly is the purpose and utility in studying philosophy? — Pieter R van Wyk
If philosophy cannot end the diversity of viewpoints, what exactly is the purpose and utility in studying philosophy? — Pieter R van Wyk
The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, — Pieter R van Wyk
"...the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder ..." — Pieter R van Wyk
That if more people actually comported themselves as philosophers, in a spirit of rational self-knowledge and temperance, then there would be correspondingly less strife. But then that can’t really be imposed, it is something that has to be taken up voluntarily. And besides, philosophy itself is generally regarded as a bookish and irrelevant subject by a lot of people.
So - why blame philosophy? Don’t the problems you’re lamenting characterise unruly human nature? — Wayfarer
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? — Pieter R van Wyk
I think there are some philosophers that reflect and then lead. Popper, Russell, Kant, Epikouros, Sokrates — Quk
This question has no utility - it think it is called a rhetorical question. — Pieter R van Wyk
No, I don't think so. As I see it, philosophy usually reflects rather than leads. It's generally a couple of steps behind. — T Clark
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.