In conclusion to this discussion then: Philosophy have no defence against "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." — Pieter R van Wyk

As for the rest of the discussion, I can only give the following "two naive but fundamental logical statements:

1. Attempting to define or study any ambiguous notion by describing it in terms of other ambiguous words; is inevitably doomed to ambiguity. Adding more and more ambiguous words to this effort will never change this result.
2. Trying to define or study any ambiguous notion by defining and studying its perceived attributes is a self-referencing exercise. The only possible result of this exercise is that this specific notion ... is this specific notion." p5 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

In conclusion to this discussion then: Philosophy have no defence against "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." — Pieter R van Wyk

Are you blaming Analytical*1 Philosophy for all the problems of the world? If so, do you think Holistic/Systems philosophy will cure all the ills of incompletely-evolved human culture? That's a pretty big "if".

Karl Marx's sociological theory placed most of the blame for poverty, hunger, & war on the unbalanced economic System of Capitalism that ruled the world for at least 2600 years. That out-of-whack system placed almost all of the labor on the lower classes (98%), but allocated most of the rewards of labor to the upper classes (2%). His simple solution to the world's inequities was to allow Capitalism to eventually collapse due to its internal contradictions. Ironically, those inspired by his theory were not patient enough to wait for social evolution to do the job, and turned to violence & vengeance to do the job. So, can we now look back on Communism as a failed Grand Scheme, or perhaps a "pipe dream"?

Marx wrote that "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." His philosophy has changed the world positively in some ways : allowing liberal Labor Parties of the masses to compete on a slightly more level playing field with Conservative elites. But currently, a conservative backlash is set on erasing most of those gains in social equity.

With that historical record of "changing the world" via Philosophy, how do you envision your Systems Philosophy solving the 2600 year old Problem of "strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war" and also " to have peace, and to eradicate poverty and hunger." How will you convince the masses and the elites of the Logic of Existence? How can a theoretical philosophical revolution/transformation restore the balance of Justice & environmental Harmony? Can we fast-forward humanity to a Utopian stage of evolution? :cool:

PS___ Are these practical questions answered in detail in the book? If so, it might be worth the price of admission.

*1. I used "analytical" as a contrast to "holistic", not in the modern sense.


SEE-SAW OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, & ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE

No, I do not blame philosophy for all the problems of the world and no, I do not think some "holistic/systems philosophy" will cure any ills of we humans.

To my knowledge there does not exist any example of communism that has not failed OR is not failing.

Nowhere AND never, did I claimed to have any solution to the problems of the world. What I do claim is a better understanding of why the world is as it is. An understanding that just might succeed where 2,600 years of philosophy has not succeeded. And, NO, my understanding is NOT based on any philosophy. It is based on the conditional assumption of the existence of physical things, the things that consist of mass OR energy. You can either agree with this logical assumption OR not. If you do agree - my theory is built on this - read on, it might be worth the price. If you do not agree - sit back and watch the future unfold.

Life expectancy has gone up and your book sales have gone down. Is this why philosophy has falied, because you cannot sell your book!?

:D

Why you are still allowed to continue this I find strange. Have flagged several times now as at every opportunity you are trying to flog your book.

And, NO, my understanding is NOT based on any philosophy. It is based on the conditional assumption of the existence of physical things, the things that consist of mass OR energy. You can either agree with this logical assumption OR not. — Pieter R van Wyk

How are the "conditions" of your assumption different from the metaphysical philosophy of Materialism*1? As a pragmatic position, I do assume that physical objects exist in my environment. But I didn't arrive at that conclusion by logical reasoning. It's just the cultural default assumption for making your way in the world. From my reading of physics though, I also understand that the material substance of those objects is essentially a "frozen" or stabilized form of dynamic Energy. So, it seems that causal Energy is more fundamental*2 than malleable Matter. That's a concept, not a direct observation.

Be that as it may, the existence of Matter & Energy is not in question. But the "core argument" of your Logic of Existence remains to be derived from the bare fact of a material world. You seem to be denying the ability of philosophical concepts to produce useful answers to Ontological questions : " It challenges the idea that existence can be adequately captured by concepts, whether through rationalist or phenomenological approaches" If the essence of Existence cannot be encapsulated in concepts or words, what is the alternative : direct unmediated Experience via meditation or drug trips*3?

Anyway, I suppose your "conditional assumption" is what logicians call an Axiom, and is accepted as self-evidently true, without relying on empirical evidence. But obviously, your "understanding" goes beyond the bare existence of a material world. So, what does it say about the Ideal world of concepts? Does it deny the validity of Idealistic philosophy? Or does it explain how a material world could evolve creatures who engage with the physical world by means of metaphysical ideas & concepts, as mediators of ultimate ding an sich (noumenal) Reality? :smile:



*1. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism in metaphysics, according to which matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

*2. In modern physics, the concept of energy is often considered more fundamental than matter. While matter and energy are interconnected and can be converted into each other (as described by Einstein's famous equation E=mc²), energy is seen as the underlying principle that gives rise to all physical phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+more+fundamental+than+matter

*3. According to James Glattfelder in The Sapient Cosmos : "the psychedelic experience conveys 'unitary' knowledge". He's referring to direct access to a parallel reality, from which the conventional world of our physical senses emerges." Since I have no psychedelic experience, I cannot concur with that assertion.

Life expectancy has gone up and your book sales have gone down. Is this why philosophy has falied, because you cannot sell your book!? — I like sushi

Your logic is most impressive - a prime example of excellent philosophical reasoning.

I have stated, categorically, in my opening statement, that I am not au fait with the 'ism' and 'ology' languages - however, I am pretty convinced that no study of "metaphysical philosophy of materialism" would explain to me why the world is as it is; why we still have poverty and hunger, revolution and war.

You could consider the veracity of:

"We humans could argue about the existence of things until the cows come home. The only thing we have is a perception of things, albeit physical, abstract or imaginary things. Through perception, we gain information, glean knowledge, construct abstract things and conjure imaginary things - even play politics." p201 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

I have stated, categorically, in my opening statement, that I am not au fait with the 'ism' and 'ology' languages - however, I am pretty convinced that no study of "metaphysical philosophy of materialism" would explain to me why the world is as it is; why we still have poverty and hunger, revolution and war. — Pieter R van Wyk

I'm still playing along with your cryptic statement of "The Problem", hoping to get a glimpse of
The Solution without having to buy the book. But all I get is a statement of the obvious : that after 2600 years, linguistic Philosophy has not solved the problem of physical & social friction (discord, strife, conflict, discontent, dissention, antagonism). As far as I can see : nor have spiritualistic Religion and empirical Science brought an end to "poverty and hunger, revolution and war). All of those disciplines have attempted to explain "why the world is as it is" to no avail. And, so far, after 2.5 millennia of -isms, -ologies, & messiahs, Salvation remains firmly lodged in the prospective future.

Like you, the Buddha made no attempt to philosophize about the sad state of the world, and offered no magical rectification. He simply accepted the imperfect planet Earth as it is, and concluded that the world's problem is not your personal problem, but each person's emotional reaction to imperfection creates internal problems. So, his Stoic solution was not to change the world, but to change your mind. Of course, ignoring the general Problem will not make it go away, hence "we will still have poverty & hunger, revolution & war".

If the Buddha's fatalism is not to your liking, other more sanguine thinkers have posited aggressive positive action to deal with The Problem. For example, Transhumanists depend on science & technology to fix what's wrong with the hand we've been dealt. Extropy*1 is essentially an optimistic reliance on Science, instead of God, to solve the world's perplexing predicament*2 . But I have concluded that the world may have a built-in long-term solution to the thermodynamic & socio-dynamic problem of Entropy & dissipation & devolution. I coined the term "Enformy"*3 to suggest that Nature is not passively going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket. And without human husbandry, things could get worse. What's your verbal or actionable resolution to The Problem? :joke:


*1. Extropy, in the context of transhumanism and futurism, is a concept that represents the potential for positive change, growth, and the enhancement of life. It's often viewed as the opposite of entropy, emphasizing increasing order, complexity, and intelligence. Extropy is a guiding principle for those seeking to optimize human existence and societal structures through technology and innovation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=extropy

*2. The Human Dilemma :
Entropy, Extropy or Enformy?
In his recent book, Heavens on Earth, Michael Shermer said, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics leads to the First Law of Life, which is to get your life in order". For that purpose, he proposed the philosophy of Extropianism, which is a key concept from the ideology of Transhumanism. In a Skeptic Magazine article, Shermer offered the technological optimism of Extropy as an alternative to Jordan Peterson's more tragic heroic stance in 12 Rules For Life, An Antidote to Chaos. The human dilemma ackowledged by both authors is the same : if humanity were to passively acquiesce to Fate, the world would soon revert to a state of nature, "red in tooth and claw". Some people think that would be preferable to the mess that human intervention has gotten us into. But when God created his earthly Paradise, he made a man from clay "and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." [Gen. 2:9,10,15] That's because the pastoral environment that humans find pleasant tends to revert to tangled jungle or thorny wilderness in the absence of human husbandry.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page16.html

*3. Enformy, was defined as the organizing principle of the universe. Now I wish to build on that foundation to construct a philosophical, scientific, and religious paradigm suitable for our current level of understanding. But first I have coined another new label to distinguish this fledgling worldview from other old and new conceptions of physical and metaphysical reality. Enformity is a salient quality of our universe which has been overlooked by materialistic science, and taken for granted by spiritualistic theologies.
https://www.enformity.enformationism.info/page2%20welcome.html

Here is a glimpse - recognising that this post could be construed as "self promotion" that might lead to me being banned from this forum: — Pieter R van Wyk

I think "self-promotion" on the forum is a problem only if you make money from clicks or book sales. I frequently provide links to my own website. But there is no pay-wall, so the information is free . . . . and worth every penny. :joke:

Geodesic of Knowledge where any point on this geodesic is some assumed truth and the lines are inferences to deduced truths. This geodesic is unnavigable — Pieter R van Wyk

I know what a "geodesic" is in non-Euclidean geometry. But I have no idea how or why it would apply to universal human problems. So, right off-the-bat, your Problem Statement is over my head, and above my pay grade . . . . hence "un-navigable. :wink:

Zeroth Argument of Understanding — Pieter R van Wyk

This "beyond first principles" concept is not in my amateur philosopher vocabulary. It seems to open the door to "to radical innovation and a deeper, more expansive understanding of reality". But not for my little untrained pea brain. Perhaps there is a website for Mathematical or Meta-mathematical Philosophy, where someone could communicate on your level. :nerd:

Here I argue that the Geodesic of Understanding and Knowledge, I proposed in my first chapter – my problem statement, is in fact a viable alternative to 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour. It does not provide answers to all problems but it does provide a fundamental structure for a better understanding of life, the Universe and anything. — Pieter R van Wyk

That is indeed a bold statement. But I am not qualified to accept or deny it. I have my own notion of a "fundamental structure" --- Holism --- that points toward an answer to Douglas Adam's query about : "Life, the Universe, and Everything". But I don't think the final answer is "42". Good luck with your attempt to root-out any possible "Fatal Flaw" in your non-philosophical reasoning. :smile:


PS___ In your OP, you quoted Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow : "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.
So, it seems that you are trying to communicate with philosophical zombies. :joke:

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

FWIW : Ervin Laszlo was a child prodigy in classical music, who eventually became a non-academic philosopher of science, with a focus on Consciousness. He is now described as a Systems Theorist and Integral Theorist. Obviously, an autodidact genius, and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Since his "new paradigm" & Integral Systems worldview seems to be similar in some ways to your own Logic of Existence, maybe he, or someone in his orbit, would be capable of discovering a Fatal Error, if any, in your theory. Unfortunately, I am not in his orbit, or in his intellectual class. :cool:


Ervin Laszlo identifies a convergence of crises, including environmental degradation, social instability, and economic challenges, as major world problems. He argues these issues stem from a fragmented, ego-driven worldview and call for a shift towards a holistic, interconnected perspective. Laszlo emphasizes the need for a collective awakening and a move towards unity and compassion to navigate these turbulent times
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ervin+laszlo+world+problems

Ervin Laszlo --- Home Page
"We have reached a historic turning point - a "point of bifurcation" - at which we must find new ways to upshift our individual and collective consciousness to ensure the desired resolution of these crises."
https://ervinlaszlobooks.com/

So, right off-the-bat, your Problem Statement is over my head, and above my pay grade . . . . hence "un-navigable. :wink: — Gnomon

Methinks you are short-selling yourself. Moreover, giving up without trying will bring you nowhere.

So, it seems that you are trying to communicate with philosophical zombies. :joke: — Gnomon

Yes, it would seem that my definition of philosophy is spot-on:

"Philosophy := The study of questions without answers." p3 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

What I do find peculiar about this is the apparent disinterest in any utility:

I'm not sure what philosophy has to do with world peace or orderly behaviour. — Tom Storm

Philosophy is not really equipped to solve the problems you’ve identified. — T Clark

It wasn't philosophers that contributed to our knowledge. It was scientists and inventors of technology. — Harry Hindu

But the philosopher has yet to provide an answer, and many philosophers do not think it possible. — Fire Ologist

Ervin Laszlo identifies a convergence of crises, including environmental degradation, social instability, and economic challenges, as major world problems. He argues these issues stem from a fragmented, ego-driven worldview and call for a shift towards a holistic, interconnected perspective. Laszlo emphasizes the need for a collective awakening and a move towards unity and compassion to navigate these turbulent times — Gnomon

I have no issue with Ervin Laszlo's problem identification. I've had some communications with the Laszlo family (Erwin and Alexander) - they seem to be working hard on their Upshift Movement, which is just a new religion claiming human 'consciousness' as the latest saviour. The do not seem to be interested in a better understanding of the very foundation on which 'consciousness' is built.

What I do find peculiar about this is the apparent disinterest in any utility: — Pieter R van Wyk

It's obvious you find this peculiar or hard to fathom. The real question is, why?

But you’ve chosen the word 'disinterest', and that’s not the correct word. Disinterest makes an assumption we’re avoiding something that you’ve already decided is obvious and valuable. We (or at least I) don't share this presupposition. I would simply doubt that philosophy holds the power of wrapping up all problems neatly into a single, unified solution that solves all problems. That sounds more like the promise of Marxism or some kind of immature notion of philosophy as a kind of magic spell you cast so the jagged, messy parts of human life (your poverty, hunger, revolution and war) vanish.

Why would you think philosophy has this purpose? Is it because you believe philosophy (as some see religion) uncovers capital-T Truth, and that this will set us free? I don't see how philosophy is a guide to perfect living or a pathway to ultimate truth. Help me see what you see. I think the difference between us is that perhaps you see philosophy as a kind of blueprint for healing the world, while I see more as an attempt to ask better questions.

Yes, it would seem that my definition of philosophy is spot-on:
"Philosophy := The study of questions without answers." p3 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence — Pieter R van Wyk

Since feckless Philosophy has not solved all the world's problems in 2600 years, would you characterize your alternative program --- to achieve "a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves" --- as Science or Politics or Religion, or perhaps a fusion of all of the above? Working independently, none of those problem-solving procedures has come close to a real-world solution.

Empirical Science has made some progress in dealing with Natural Evils, mostly by isolating humans from Nature. Which has introduced some problems of its own. Spiritual Religion has addressed the world's problems primarily by promising salvation in another life, or a parallel world, or in drug-fueled dreams. But most philosophical solutions --- Stoicism, Buddhism, Taoism --- deal with "The Problem", not by perfecting Nature, but by making an attitude adjustment in the mind of the sufferer.

I tend to view Nature (Universe) as an ongoing holistic program/system that is made creative & dynamic*2 by its internal conflicts & contradictions*3, and by having open options (freewill) at decision points. That's not a paradox, but a necessity for any living & evolving system. So, the only way to fix our careering Cosmos may be to go back to the beginning and work from the top-down, perhaps with Pre-destination. :wink:


*1. Questions Without Answers :
While philosophy certainly grapples with fundamental and enduring questions, the idea that it's solely "the study of questions without answers" is an oversimplification. Philosophy involves rigorous inquiry into fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language, often with the aim of finding answers or at least deeper understanding, even if definitive solutions remain elusive. . . . . .
Philosophy explores complex, abstract questions that often lack easy or universally accepted answers. These questions challenge our assumptions and push us to think critically about the world and our place in it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Philosophy+%3A%3D+The+study+of+questions+without+answers

*2. Creativity often thrives on internal conflicts and contradictions, rather than being hindered by them. These tensions can be a source of inspiration and drive innovation, forcing individuals to reconcile opposing ideas or navigate complex emotions. . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=creativity+internal+conflicts+%26+contradictions

*3. Good vs Evil : in physical terms, boils down to the conflict between constructive Energy/Forces and destructive Entropy. The universe so far seems to have negotiated a compromise or stand-off between those positive & negative powers. But the emergence of Life & Mind may indicate a slight balance-tipping advantage toward order & organization & complexity & harmony.

@Tom Storm & @Gnomon

I can provide snippets and quotes from my work as much as I like, you will not see the 'full picture' from this quotes, thus you will not understand the picture that I have AND fully described.

"So, my arguments will not be based on some truth according to: Aristotle, Jean Baudrillard, Georg Cantor, Charles Darwin, Kurt Godel, Douglas Kellner, Nicholas Reschar, Bertrand Russel, Ernst Zermelo or any other name one could add to this list. My arguments are based on the (conditional) truth of the existence of physical things - the valid Pole of Existence (on my Geodesic of Knowledge). It is thus a basic requirement that you, the reader, must also apply your intelligence and not merely your memory." p12 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

Thank you for the interest you have shown thus far - I do appreciate it. I have confirmed my problem statement and will conclude with that.

Help me make the connection between what I said about philosophy and your response.

My arguments are based on the (conditional) truth of the existence of physical things - the valid Pole of Existence (on my Geodesic of Knowledge). — Pieter R van Wyk

Perhaps you could sketch out in a few dot points how this relates to the point that philosophy should have solved all the world's problems. If it's too hard to adapt your complicated ideas to this request, we can move on.

Below is a summary of my work, surely you could glean my line of thought from it:

Chapter 1 - The Problem
The basic problem is that after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour we are still suffering from strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war. I introduce the concept of a Geodesic of Knowledge where any point on this geodesic is some assumed truth and the lines are inferences to deduced truths. This geodesic is unnavigable so I define a pole, the Pole of Existence, based on the conditional assumption of the existence of physical things.

Chapter 2 – Human Perception
In this chapter I solve the philosophical problem of discernment from two fundamental arguments on existence and understanding. Defining the words: everything, nothing, something, anything, sometime, somewhere, consequential, unique, equivalence, time invariant, perception of data and collections. Collections is defined by ten axioms.

Chapter 3 – Systems of Things
A system is defined cognitively and then, with a valid perception of the collections of things and the arguments that make the Zeroth Argument of Understanding valid, the following is mathematically defined: components, interactions and the Laws of Nature, the purpose of a system, duplicate systems and equal systems. Recognising that in general, systems do not come into being in any algebraic manner, they evolve, the fundamental algebra of the properties (mass or energy and information belonging to) of systems is defined. From this, the fundamental and universal boundaries of all systems can be defined. This, however, leads to the Paradox of the Universe: If anything that is something has a purpose (is a system), then everything must have a purpose (be a system). But if everything has a purpose then this purpose is something else than everything. This paradox is resolved.

Chapter 4 – Evolution of Classes and the Demarcation Meridian
At least two system attributes could be used to understand different classes of systems: a classification based on the interaction between a system and a collection of data and a classification based on the interaction between a system and its purpose. When the two classifications are combined the following, consequential and subsequential, classes of systems can be identified: The foundational class, a class capable of decision-making, a class that could survive, a class that could communicate, a class that could reason, a class that could create and a class with the capability of abstraction. This classification provides a theory of evolution without any tautologies (a long standing philosophical problem) and solve the demarcation problem (an even longer standing philosophical problem). This classification also provides for a speculation on the fundamental function for systems science.

Chapter 5 – General Results, a Mathematical Definition, and More Defined Words
First some results from this understanding, giving evidence that this definition of a system solve a number of problems encountered with current definitions. Then I provide evidence that my definition of a system is, in fact, a mathematical definition. This chapter concludes with some word-definitions based on the definition and understanding of a system: Causality, analysis and synthesis, complexity, technology, economics and jurisprudence, science, engineering, art and war.

Chapter 6 – Universe-View of Systems
Using the philosophical notion of a world-view, I give evidence that this theory of systems provides a universe-view of reality. Amongst some other views, it also provides a definitive understanding of the dangers of artificial intelligence.

Chapter 7 – A Discussion on Salient Results
A discussion on the cognitive understanding of a system, the systems theory of evolution (defined in chapters 3 and 4), a systems theory of wealth, human phenomena, reality in itself and the reality of abstract systems. This chapter concludes with a speculation on the existence of a God.

Chapter 8 – Now What?
A discussion on how this systems theory provides answers to some other philosophical questions: the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and whether mathematics was discovered or invented, also a systems perspective on prejudice and how this effects politics and its use of the fallacy of human rights as an entitlement. This chapter concludes with a speculation on what, exactly, is consciousness.

Chapter 9 – In Defence
In anticipation to some possible criticisms to this systems theory, I offer four different defences: arguing that this theory is not just plain reductionism, neither incomplete nor inconsistent, a valid systems theory in comparison to a definition proposed by an article published in the IEEE Systems Journal and finally a valid theory of everything – although I would rather name it a Theory of All Human Understanding. I regard two of these defences seminal: the defence that it is neither incomplete nor inconsistent – in contradiction to Gödel’s theorem and that it provides a valid theory of everything – in spite of the philosophical view that such a theory is not possible.

Chapter 10 – The Answer
Here I argue that the Geodesic of Understanding and Knowledge, I proposed in my first chapter – my problem statement, is in fact a viable alternative to 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour. It does not provide answers to all problems but it does provide a fundamental structure for a better understanding of life, the Universe and anything.

Post Scriptum
Not only do I provide the standard nomenclature, a reference list, and a thesaurus of the words I defined in the text. I also provide a list of 13 projects of enquiry that could be contemplated based on my theory

Sorry, I appreciate your efforts and good luck to you, but if I’m going to attempt something complex, it’ll be Heidegger. I have absolutely no idea what most of your sentences mean.

"You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore."
... and good luck to you.

:up: No worries. You have no idea what oceans I have already crossed.

And, did you discovered a new world? I did!. For example: The emergence of wealth <=> technology predate the emergence of modern Homo sapiens. Thus all human systems is fully embedded in the systems whose purpose is to increase their wealth. That is why the 'human condition' includes strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.