• Pieter R van Wyk
    23
    You are confused and you think I am confused! I made two distinct statements:

    1. For more than 2,600 years philosophy has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding.
    2. We still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.

    Both statements are in plain English, understandable and in my opinion true statements. From this two statements one could deduce that philosophy has not been able to solve these problems - if these problems has been solved by philosophy we should not be still suffering from them.

    This then begs the question whether it is in the purview of philosophy to solve these problems. A valid question for sure. In my humble opinion, if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding we should be able to, at least, manage these problems better than we are at the moment. Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy.

    Another valid question is whether we should leave the possible solution (or abatement) of these problems to politicians. The same deduction that I made regarding the failure of philosophy to solve or at least abate these problems could be made about politics. Politicians have not been able to solve these problems either.

    Do we accept then that these problems are inherent to humanity - that strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is simply human nature? This, however, sounds like capitulation.

    Hope this has abated some of your confusion.
  • I like sushi
    4.9k
    You are using philosophical tools to say that philosophy does not do what it does.

    Deductive Reasoning is part of logical philosophical discourse.

    The same deduction that I made regarding the failure of philosophy to solve or at least abate these problems could be made about politics.Pieter R van Wyk

    This is just blatantly ignorant. We no longer burn people at the stake and even have free education and health care in many countries.

    Anyway, good luck. Hope you stick around and pick up a thing or two. This forum is pretty good for low level entry into this kind of subject matter.

    Have fun :)
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23
    If you read my book you will find I have NOT used philosophical tools to gain my understanding.

    You are quite correct, we no longer burn people at the stake, we are killing them much more efficiently.

    Thank you for the "good luck". You should also stick around - we engineers has been saving the world for much longer than 2,600 years - and helped extensively in this efficient killing.
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23


    Your hint at an alternative sounds suspiciously 'philosophical'.

    Surely, this would depends on a definition of what, exactly, is philosophy, not so? Which, in my understanding, is a philosophical question in itself.
  • I like sushi
    4.9k
    If you read my bookPieter R van Wyk

    Why would I. You have shown nothing of substance.
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23
    I was under the impression that philosophers are curious openminded people. The substance is in my book. I merely posted a question.
  • I like sushi
    4.9k
    1. For more than 2,600 years philosophy has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding.
    2. We still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.
    Pieter R van Wyk

    So?

    From this two statements one could deduce that philosophy has not been able to solve these problems - if these problems has been solved by philosophy we should not be still suffering from them.Pieter R van Wyk

    You can deduce many things from such. I repeat. So?

    This then begs the question whether it is in the purview of philosophy to solve these problems. A valid question for sure.Pieter R van Wyk

    One which has been discussed for centuries. SO?

    In my humble opinion, if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding we should be able to, at least, manage these problems better than we are at the moment.Pieter R van Wyk

    Opinion. So?

    Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy.Pieter R van Wyk

    Good for you! You have an opinion.

    In short, you are of the opinion that philosophy is meant to solve all humanities problems AND you think if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding that we should be able to manage humanities problems better.

    You then take these opinions as given, and follow up with a question based PURELY on these opinions. 'Why has philosophy not solved humanities problems?'

    Imagine someone saying to you the following:

    I believe science will solve all the mysteries of the universe. Science has not yet solved all the mysteries of the universe and has, if anything, multiplied them exponentially. So now I ask you a question: Why has science not solved the mysteries of the universe?

    This is basically what you have done. You are under the assumption that the purpose of something is what your opinion of it is, rather than what it does.
  • SophistiCat
    2.3k
    Just to make it clear where we stand, we have rules about self-promotion and SPAM:

    Advertisers, spammers, self-promoters: No links to personal websites. Instant deletion of post followed by a potential ban.

    Now, you didn't include a link, but that doesn't change the fact that you started a thread only to promote your book. That you did it under false pretenses only makes it worse, in my opinion. The only reason this thread has not been deleted is that there already was some discussion there. But keep this up and you will be banned.

    You can open a discussion where you outline your ideas at some length. You can even refer to your book there, but you can't just say "I have ideas, go buy my book," which is essentially what you did here.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.9k
    But then I realised your strawman is actually quite useful: Of course some pain is useful, it is how our bodies tells us that there might be a problem, a danger, something bad. So, if I transpose this strawman back to my statement it would read: strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is good because it tells us that there is a problem, a danger, something bad; not so?Pieter R van Wyk

    Right, this is what I meant by "something deeper". Now, how do you conclude that there is "a problem, a danger, something bad"?

    Consider my example of "no gain without pain", and the athletes who subject themselves to pain for the sake of a further goal. There is not a problem here, not a danger, nor something bad. It is just a matter of a person who wants to better oneself with respect to a specific goal, and this requires pain. Therefore the pain is good under these circumstances Why couldn't this be the case in some instances of strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war? Then it wouldn't necessarily be the case that these are telling us that there is a problem, a danger, or something bad, it could just as likely be the case that these are indicating to us that there is something good, a specific goal, and these 'pains' are required to achieve that end.

    Also, I never suggested that philosophy should put an end to these bad things - this is exactly my point: after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, we humans has not been able to put an end to these bad things and because of THAT I do not expect any useful solution to these bad things from philosophy. So, thank you for your agreement that my question is a valid one.Pieter R van Wyk

    Again, I reject your premise that these things are necessarily "bad" things, by the reasoning presented. Philosophy may be useful in helping us to understand the difference between bad things and good things. A little bit of philosophy could help you to understand that your premise that these things are necessarily bad is false. I suggest that you read some Plato, he's very educational toward understanding the difference between, as well as the various relations between, good, bad, pleasure, and pain.
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23


    From this two statements one could deduce that philosophy has not been able to solve these problems - if these problems has been solved by philosophy we should not be still suffering from them.
    — Pieter R van Wyk

    You can deduce many things from such. I repeat. So?
    I like sushi

    Please, what other things could be deduced from the two fundamentally true statements?

    This then begs the question whether it is in the purview of philosophy to solve these problems. A valid question for sure.
    — Pieter R van Wyk

    One which has been discussed for centuries. SO?
    I like sushi

    These discussions included the input from philosophers, not so?

    In my humble opinion, if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding we should be able to, at least, manage these problems better than we are at the moment.
    — Pieter R van Wyk

    Opinion. So?
    I like sushi

    So, in your opinion, is my opinion wrong?
    OR In your opinion, would it never be possible to manage these problems better?

    Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy.
    — Pieter R van Wyk

    Good for you! You have an opinion.
    I like sushi

    So, is it your opinion that these problems should not be under the purview of philosophy?

    I believe science will solve all the mysteries of the universe. Science has not yet solved all the mysteries of the universe and has, if anything, multiplied them exponentially. So now I ask you a question: Why has science not solved the mysteries of the universe?I like sushi

    According to Stephen Hawking the physicists are getting close to solve the mysteries of the universe. In fact he categorically stated that philosophy is dead and that the torch of knowledge is now carried by physicists (The Grand Design 2010 with Leonard Mlodinow. Since I am not a scientist, I do not have an answer to this question.
  • I like sushi
    4.9k
    Please, what other things could be deduced from the two fundamentally true statements?Pieter R van Wyk

    You did it yourself here:

    According to Stephen Hawking the physicists are getting close to solve the mysteries of the universe. In fact he categorically stated that philosophy is dead and that the torch of knowledge is now carried by physicists (The Grand Design 2010 with Leonard Mlodinow. Since I am not a scientist, I do not have an answer to this question.Pieter R van Wyk

    So, you can just as easily state that philosophy is moving us in the right direction.

    Note: I do not at all believe any of that was meant in the manner you frame Hawking's as saying it. More likely he was more inclined towards Feynmann's view of physics (not assuming it can or will give a completely detailed description of the universe).

    Honestly, I think you are better off addressing other people who are engaging with you rather than me.

    Have fun :)
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23
    In my problem statement I made the following two statements:

    1. For more than 2,600 years philosophers have studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding.
    2. We still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war.

    To my knowledge both statements are patently true, what might be called historical facts.
    From these two statements I made the following deduction:

    1. 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.

    A deduction that certainly is: belligerent, antagonistic, contentious, perhaps even hostile; certainly provoking - but is this not how a useful debate is generated?

    The philosophical answer to this problem seems to be, these problems are due to the 'human condition', the fundamental dispositions and characteristics that are said to be innate to humans - human nature - this cannot be regarded as a failure of philosophy.

    This, however, begs two questions:

    1. Why is human nature like this - simply due to evolution?
    2. If philosophy cannot be blamed for this (which concedes to a failure in philosophy), who is to blame? Or do we stick to the excuse of 'evolution', this evolution which is regarded by philosophy as an elaborate tautology?

    Then on to the reason for me stirring up this debate, getting to my fundamental question: Why is the world as it is? One of the questions that has been bugging philosophers for as long as humans have had the capability of abstract thought. Leading to the question whether I have a solution to this problem?

    The short answer to this is a most emphatic No! What I do have is a theory, or at least an idea of a theory, that just might provide a better understanding of why the world is as it is. What I am looking for is someone that could help me find a fatal flaw in my reasoning, a reasoning that is not based on a 'truth' as professed by any philosopher but on the assumption of a singular, conditional 'truth', that physical things, things with mass or energy, exist. If you regard this assumption as false, please do not bother any further - perhaps you have escaped Plato's cave, but consider the possibility that you are still stuck in some philosopher's cave. If you consider the possibility that this assumption might be valid and could, perhaps lead to some better understanding, please continue.

    And no, it is not possible to present my theory on this forum, to use another analogy: "If I show you a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are the only things that you will see - a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I had to build the puzzle to the extent that the picture starts to appear for you to understand the picture that I see."

    And yes, this quote is from my book, the one that I am not allowed to promote. But my theory is out there and I am trying to find the fatal flaw in it. Wasn't it Schopenhauer that stated: "All 'truth' passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." And yes, I have put the word truth in inverted commas because I do not know how or on what authority a decision can be made that that any true statement is in fact the truth.

    "Decision (making) := The capability of some systems that could perceive their own state as well as the state of other systems and change their state accordingly. Thus, systems with a perception of the state of systems."
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.9k

    You still haven't addressed the points I made. The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is your generalization, that "strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war" are always bad, and therefore blameworthy.

    In some circumstances, the suffering of "strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war" may be good, as I've demonstrated. If specific instances of these are apprehended as good by philosophers, then these will be promoted by philosophers, and philosophers will see no reason to eradicate them, as you believe they ought to.

    This provides a completely different approach to "the human condition". The human condition is fundamentally good, not bad as you assume. And the effects of philosophy have guided the human condition even further toward good, and away from bad. Since the human condition is good, there is no need to assign "blame", as you do, and your project is misguided.

    Then on to the reason for me stirring up this debate, getting to my fundamental question: Why is the world as it is? One of the questions that has been bugging philosophers for as long as humans have had the capability of abstract thought. Leading to the question whether I have a solution to this problem?Pieter R van Wyk

    See, you present the basic goodness of the world as a "problem". "Problem" implies that resolution is necessary, because failing to resolve the problem would leave people in a bad condition. This attitude, of the need for a resolution to this question "why is the world as it is?" will create stress and anxiety, if the question cannot be answered. That is bad. The 'bad' is created by you classing the question "why is the world as it is?" as a "problem" which therefore needs to be resolved.

    If, on the other hand, we approach the question of "why is the world as it is", with the attitude that the world is intrinsically good, then the question is merely a curiousity, a point of interest, which philosophers may address in their spare time. It is not a "problem", so there is no urgency to find an answer. Then, there is no stress or anxiety created by this question, which is more like a rhetorical question now, and the 'bad' that supports your desire to blame, which you have created intentionally, with your will to debate, is completely annihilated.
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23


    I have addressed the point you made. I am patiently waiting for you to explain to the thousands killed in the Gaza war that their deaths was for a good cause. They died for something good, something deeper.

    But then I realised your strawman is actually quite useful: Of course some pain is useful, it is how our bodies tells us that there might be a problem, a danger, something bad. So, if I transpose this strawman back to my statement it would read: strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is good because it tells us that there is a problem, a danger, something bad; not so?
    — Pieter R van Wyk

    Right, this is what I meant by "something deeper".
    Metaphysician Undercover

    Also, I am waiting patiently for you to explain to the millions that have been killed in the Ukrainian war that the world is intrinsically good. that their deaths is not a problem that needs to be addressed - there is no urgency to understand why war takes place - why the world is as it is.

    If, on the other hand, we approach the question of "why is the world as it is", with the attitude that the world is intrinsically good, then the question is merely a curiousity, a point of interest, which philosophers may address in their spare time. It is not a "problem", so there is no urgency to find an answer.Metaphysician Undercover

    I would submit the following argument: "Any decision on what is good and what is evil is made based on what is politically expedient. There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good and evil could be made. It is, therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man."

    If
    The human condition is fundamentally good, not bad as you assume. And the effects of philosophy have guided the human condition even further toward good, and away from bad.Metaphysician Undercover
    , why after 2,600 years of philosophical guidance we humans are still killing each other by the millions?
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23
    "The Logic of Existence". A bold claim to make that existence is logical.I like sushi

    Perhaps a bold claim:

    "Existence := Defined by the Argument of Existence. The argument that things includes mass or energy or that a thing is perceived to exist or that there is some change in a thing."
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.9k
    I have addressed the point you made. I am patiently waiting for you to explain to the thousands killed in the Gaza war that their deaths was for a good cause. They died for something good, something deeper.Pieter R van Wyk

    I don't see how one particular case is relevant. Your faulty generalization implies that all instances of war and revolution are bad. I gave a clear explanation why your generalization is faulty. No matter how many examples you provide, and claim that they are consistent with your generalization, this does not address the problem I pointed out.

    Citing particular instances which support your generalization does not prove that the generalization is correct. All you are doing is providing further demonstration of the flaw in your reasoning. You seem to believe that finding particular examples which support your generalization is all that is required to prove it correct. To prove such a generalization requires demonstrating that it is impossible for things to be other than as described by the generalization. But I have already demonstrated to you how it is possible for things to be otherwise. Yet you continue with your insistence.

    I would submit the following argument: "Any decision on what is good and what is evil is made based on what is politically expedient. There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good and evil could be made. It is, therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man."Pieter R van Wyk

    This definition of "good" does not support your generalization that all war and revolution is bad. In fact it supports what I've been trying to explain to you. Such things are sometimes "politically expedient".
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23
    And no matter how many times you promote your Strawman fallacy, that some wars are 'good' because some pain is 'good', you have not convinced me, nor the millions of war casualties, nor the families of the millions of war casualties.

    I maintain that all war is evil.

    Please tell me, who or on what authority, can a decision be made that any particular war is good?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.9k
    I maintain that all war is evil.Pieter R van Wyk

    That's a completely unjustified, and I will add unreasonable, assertion.

    Please tell me, who or on what authority, can a decision be made that any particular war is good?Pieter R van Wyk

    The authority who declares war on any particular occasion, obviously, decides that this particular war is necessary, and the right thing, therefore good thing, to do.

    You may, from a perspective other than the authority who declares the war, decide that that particular decision for war, is a bad decision, and evil, but what would make your decision more authoritative and correct than the other decision that the war is necessary?
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23

    From you assertion:

    The authority who declares war on any particular occasion, obviously, decides that this particular war is necessary, and the right thing, therefore good thing, to do.Metaphysician Undercover

    Since no rational person, even with the necessary authority, will declare any war on any particular occasion, unless he/she believes it is necessary and the right thing. Thus, whenever a war is declared by a rational person it must be a good thing to do and whenever a war is declared by an irrational person it must be an evil war, obviously. Surely, any person declaring an unnecessary war must be irrational.

    But then, who or on what authority, can a decision be made that any person, with authority to declares any war, is in fact rational or irrational? Surely, any person that declares any war would regard himself to be rational. Also, the people that has given the authority to the person declaring this war, will regard this person rational, not so?

    By your assertion then: All war is good. And this I reject with contempt.
  • RogueAI
    3.2k
    Do you think it's possible for a side in a war to be fighting "the good fight"?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.9k
    But then, who or on what authority, can a decision be made that any person, with authority to declares any war, is in fact rational or irrational? Surely, any person that declares any war would regard himself to be rational. Also, the people that has given the authority to the person declaring this war, will regard this person rational, not so?Pieter R van Wyk

    You might consult some good philosophy to get to the bottom of this issue. If you are truly interested, then I assume that is what you will do. Happy reading!

    By your assertion then: All war is good.Pieter R van Wyk

    Why would you conclude this? Just because you may find a person, or persons, in every instance of war, who would say this particular war is good, doesn't mean that all war is good. Such a conclusion would require equivocation. because these different people calling different wars good, and the wars that others called good, bad, would have conflicting ideas as to what defines "good".

    So, you continue to demonstrate that the fatal flaw in your reasoning is faulty generalizing.
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23

    Do you think it's possible for a side in a war to be fighting "the good fight"?
    RogueAI

    I think both sides, in any war, think they are fighting "the good fight".
  • Pieter R van Wyk
    23


    You might consult some good philosophy to get to the bottom of this issue. If you are truly interested, then I assume that is what you will do. Happy reading!Metaphysician Undercover

    You did not answer my questions, why? Then, why would I consult philosophy to get to the bottom of this issue; after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, philosophy was unable to get to the bottom of this issue. Perhaps it is time to consider some different understanding.

    So, you continue to demonstrate that the fatal flaw in your reasoning is faulty generalizing.Metaphysician Undercover

    So, by your submissions then, some wars are good and some wars are evil. Then, please tell me, by who or on what authority can a decision be made that any specific war is good but another war is evil?
  • RogueAI
    3.2k
    I think both sides, in any war, think they are fighting "the good fight".Pieter R van Wyk

    Yes, but is one side objectively right? To use the archetypical example of "the good war", WW2, wouldn't you agree the Nazi's were the "bad guys" and UK was fighting "the good fight"?
  • NOS4A2
    9.9k


    Language, laws, government, and other products of the imagination change with the rise and fall of custom and usage, but the biology from which they are derived has hardly evolved since anyone started speaking them into existence. So it’s a matter of what it is we’re looking at, the people or their artifacts. The shifting veil of the artificial and abstract gives the impression of progress, or to some, of decadence and decay; but beneath the thread-bare language under which human history attempts to disguise itself is the same superstitious and tribalistic mammal that was there since the beginning.

    I also mean that ideals such as “peace” or “prosperity” are so empty that we wouldn’t even know it if they manifested. Unfortunately, that is one of philosophy’s problems: it is often an exercise in multiplying nouns or playing with synonyms. Abstractions are a necessary fixture of language and thought, but when they cannot be tethered to the world by way of concrete example, or are stuffed solid with equally floaty terms, it becomes impossible to know what we are speaking about, let alone to know how to reach them.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.