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
If you read my book — Pieter R van Wyk
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
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
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
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
Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy. — Pieter R van Wyk
Advertisers, spammers, self-promoters: No links to personal websites. Instant deletion of post followed by a potential ban.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Please, what other things could be deduced from the two fundamentally true statements? — Pieter R van Wyk
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
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
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
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
, why after 2,600 years of philosophical guidance we humans are still killing each other by the millions?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
"The Logic of Existence". A bold claim to make that existence is logical. — I like sushi
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 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
I maintain that all war is evil. — Pieter R van Wyk
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
By your assertion then: All war is good. — Pieter R van Wyk
Do you think it's possible for a side in a war to be fighting "the good fight"? — RogueAI
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
So, you continue to demonstrate that the fatal flaw in your reasoning is faulty generalizing. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think both sides, in any war, think they are fighting "the good fight". — Pieter R van Wyk
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.