Thank you for the warm welcome.

"Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
— Bitter Crank

...and that was in 1848. So where's the change? We can't change the world. Only the few people (the "1%") who own it can change it. Of course now they're in the process of speeding up their change a bit. — Michael Ossipoff

What if then, the point of philosophy, was to devise a way to change it?

"Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
— Bitter Crank

" ...and that was in 1848. So where's the change? We can't change the world. Only the few people (the "1%") who own it can change it. Of course now they're in the process of speeding up their change a bit. "— Michael Ossipoff


What if then, the point of philosophy, was to devise a way to change it? — leo

What if there isn't a way to change it? I suggest that there isn't a way to change it.

But this is only one life in one of infinitely-many possibility-worlds.

What can we do then? Live out our lives as quietly and peacefully as possible while we're here, and be beneficial to others in some ways, to the extent feasible.

Life is for play ("Lila")

Michael Ossipoff

What if there isn't a way to change it? I suggest that there isn't a way to change it. — Michael Ossipoff

But what if there is a way to change it, and that to find it we first have to believe there is?

But what if there is a way to change it, and that to find it we first have to believe there is? — leo

People have believed in it for a long time, and what has all that belief and effort culminated in?

Michael Ossipoff

People have believed in it for a long time, and what has all that belief and effort culminated in? — Michael Ossipoff

It's easy to get discouraged when most people believe we can't change the world, and because of all the resistance you are faced with when you attempt to change it. But I believe that people are waking up more and more, and that thanks to the internet we can spread that belief to others and make it become a reality. It won't be easy, but I truly believe in a profound way that we can change it.

@leo Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are glad you are here~

@VMF
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Love your nickname!

Maybe, but those things have been said for a very long time, and look where all that effort has culminated.

Michael Ossipoff

Thanks!

I want to change my name on the forum. How can i delete my account so I can create a new one with the same email address?

PM a moderator and they may change it for you. (a one-time deal, so choose wisely)

Welcome to the forum!

Considering you've just made one post, you could probably ask to be deleted then make a new account. Summoning admins to see if this is possible @Baden @jamalrob

You can just PM me your preferred name and I'll change it.

Those remarks were meant to be ironic, right? There have been colossal changes since Marx made that comment in 1848. There have been multiple successful revolutions inspired by Marx. Marx has almost without a doubt been one of the biggest influences in 20th century politics. There were successful revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, there was the Vietnam War, the Cold War... Those changes weren't brought about by the 1%. These are strong real-world examples of what people are capable of. It's quite absurd to say that change isn't possible. Remember that capitalism is a very modern phenomenon and hasn't been around for anywhere near as long as political systems of the past. Ask yourself, how many of those political systems were eventually overthrown? Where is Feudalism now? Where are all of the absolute monarchies?

If history is anything to go by, there will likely be big changes ahead.

“Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." “— Bitter Crank
.
“...and that was in 1848. So where's the change? We can't change the world. Only the few people (the "1%") who own it can change it. Of course now they're in the process of speeding up their change a bit.”
.
Those remarks were meant to be ironic, right?

.
No.
Irony? There’s plenty of that in topics like this, but don’t get me started. :D
.

There have been colossal changes since Marx made that comment in 1848.

.
Yes science has bettered our lives in some ways. Explain that to the victims. As I said, after those colossal changes, where are we now? A runaway dystopia that’s rapidly getting worse.
.

There have been multiple successful revolutions inspired by Marx. Marx has almost without a doubt been one of the biggest influences in 20th century politics.

.
I didn’t say anything critical or disparaging about Marx. I don’t blame Marx for the current state of the societal world.
.

There were successful revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, there was the Vietnam War, the Cold War...

.
The Cold War and the Vietnam war are hardly examples that show our societal world to be a good one.
.
Of course the same can be said for current events.
.

Those changes weren't brought about by the 1%. These are strong real-world examples of what people are capable of.

I’m not saying that the road has been completely unidirectional all the time, or that the 1% (more like .01% or less) who rule are responsible for every detail of what happens. They just own the eventual results.
.

It's quite absurd to say that change isn't possible.

.
Allow me to quote from the movie “Red Riding-Hood”, in which Father Solomon said:
.
“With no disrespect, you have no idea what you’re dealing with.”
.
Today’s technology makes it a whole ‘nother ball-game.
.

Remember that capitalism is a very modern phenomenon and hasn't been around for anywhere near as long as political systems of the past. Ask yourself, how many of those political systems were eventually overthrown? Where is Feudalism now? Where are all of the absolute monarchies?

.
At first the justification was that the ruler claimed to be divine. Then it was just that he and his were just better. Thien, as science and technology advanced, the story had to keep changing. Different stories, same scam.
.

If history is anything to go by, there will likely be big changes ahead.

.
That’s right. And those changes are rapidly happening, and have recently been accelerating hard.

My advice was good advice:
.

So, what can we do? Stay out of the rulers' way, and quietly live out our lives as well and as safely as possible.

.
A famous person once said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

Michael Ossipoff
.
2019 January 18th (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
2019-W04-5 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
2019, Month 1, Week 4, Friday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)

Hi, CurlyHairedCobbler here. I'm a member of an interfaith family containing Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, and Christians. Having been exposed to so many interesting and conflicting views, I've developed an interest in theology. I believe that reason is the best tool for answering questions about the being and the nature of the divine. I am a rationalist not only in the common language sense of believing in the power of reason to uncover truths, but also in the philosophical sense of believing that some truths can be known a priori, regardless of sense experience.

In college, I majored in psychology and minored in philosophy. I have always been very interested in both topics. My name is a reference to the section of the Republic, where Plato likens men and women fit to guard to bald and long-haired people fit to be cobblers: both are different in one sense, but alike in the sense relevant to their profession. I am a woman with curly hair, so I chose the name Curly Haired Cobbler for this site.

I pray that my reason lead me to the truth.

I'm surprised that having studied both psychology and philosophy you are using simplistic concepts like 'reason' and 'truth'.

Hi, CurlyHairedCobbler here. I'm a member of an interfaith family containing Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, and Christians. Having been exposed to so many interesting and conflicting views, I've developed an interest in theology. I believe that reason is the best tool for answering questions about the being and the nature of the divine. I am a rationalist not only in the common language sense of believing in the power of reason to uncover truths, but also in the philosophical sense of believing that some truths can be known a priori, regardless of sense experience. — CurlyHairedCobbler

What do you mean by "the divine"? Does this phrase indicate anything different from the "theos" in "theology"?

On what grounds do you claim that "reason is the best tool for answering questions about the being and the nature of the divine"? Would you also say reason is the best tool for formulating questions about those same subjects, and for criticizing questions about those same subjects without answering the questions per se?

How can we tell when reason is the best tool for formulating, criticizing, and answering a range of questions on a given subject matter? When is reason not among the best tools for formulating, criticizing, and answering a range of questions on a given subject matter? Or is the point rather that in some cases we proceed in the light of reason as well as the senses, and in other cases we proceed in the light of reason alone, without any evidence whatsoever to inform our speeches?

By "questions about the being of the divine", do you mean questions about whether it makes sense to speak of something called "the deity" or "the divine" as a thing that "exists"? Do we likewise inquire about the being, which is to say the existence, of stones, and plants, and animals, and human animals, and the bombs and bread produced and consumed by human animals? And similarly we ask about number and magnitude, about justice and morality, about electrons and observable phenomena explainable in terms of electrons... asking ourselves and each other whether and in what sense it makes sense to say such things "exist" or "do not exist"?


What do you mean by "questions about the nature of the divine"? How do we inform our conceptions and resolve doubts and disputes concerning the "nature" of a thing? Would you agree the answer to this question may be approached at least in part by considering the "bases" on which we, who speak together here, are informed about the relevant objects?

It seems each of us, in acquiring knowledge of the empirical world, for instance, acquires conceptions of various sorts of object and conceptions of particular objects of various sorts; conceptions informed on the basis of sense-perception in various modes; and each of us refines these conceptions against the grindstone of his own experience as a participant in a cultural context inhabited and produced by human animals.

I would argue that some objective judgments -- for instance judgments of quantity, magnitude, and number, judgments of modality, judgments of existence, judgments of truth-value, judgments of similarity and difference; judgments of observational modality, judgments of phenomenal qualities such as color and pitch -- seem to entail generic conceptions that touch upon the very form of the experience of minds like ours, and likewise seem grounded in our being as animal organisms.

Are those fair examples of the sort of deep-rooted concept you call "a priori"? And would you claim that at least some of our conceptions of "the divine" and of "the deity" indicate deep-rooted concepts of this sort?

Hi, CurlyHairedCobbler here. — CurlyHairedCobbler

Hi, @CurlyHairedCobbler. @Galuchat, here.

I'm surprised that having studied both psychology and philosophy you are using simplistic concepts like 'reason' and 'truth'. — fresco

I'm surprised you would admit to having simplistic conceptions of 'reason' and 'truth'.


Maybe if you returned a greeting and brief introduction to @CurlyHairedCobbler, she may be more inclined to answer one of your 15 questions in a new thread.

I admitted nothing. On the contrary my implication was that the usage of those concepts was simplistic which an academic ought to have realised.

Maybe if you returned a greeting and brief introduction to CurlyHairedCobbler, she may be more inclined to answer one of your 15 questions in a new thread. — Galuchat

Do you mean to suggest this thread is a place reserved for introductions and brief salutations, and that here we should refrain from philosophical remarks prompted by otherwise relevant statements made in the course of such niceties?

If so, is this a generally accepted formality among us or a matter of personal taste? If the former, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

CHC did start one other thread, on the topic of 'necessary being', where I think many of the questions you raise here might be suitably addressed. However I also note that she's only entered two posts.

CHC did start one other thread, on the topic of 'necessary being', where I think many of the questions you raise here might be suitably addressed. However I also note that she's only entered two posts. — Wayfarer

Thanks, Wayfarer. I noticed that post and have begun a reply to it along the same lines. I hope to find time for finishing it off.

Hello all. I'm new, but I detest all nonsensical wordplay. They're destructive, childish and polluting. Thank you.

Hello. I'm new to the forum, so I'll first introduce myself. I'm very interested in philosophy, especially political philosophy and ethics. I enjoy exploring different perspectives and schools of thought, some that seem to align more with my current worldview and others that challenge it. I also love to explore different cultures and how people in societies interact with one another. I look forward to having thought-provoking discussions and learning from you all!

My screen name comes from some Enid Blyton characters, in the variation proposed by one of the other characters.

My interests: mainly philosophy of science, also a bit of philosophy of mind, philosophy of history and philosophy of religion.

Welcome. Hope you enjoy the place.

Hi everyone. My name's Forrest and I'm looking for a place to discuss philosophical topics since my usual source for such discussion, the xkcd forums, have recently died. Also I'm getting close to finishing a diminished form of a philosophy project I've been working on since I finished my BA in philosophy just over a decade ago, and I'd like a place to get some input on it when it's done. (The work-in-progress is being posted online continually but I figure I probably shouldn't include a link in my first post).

ETA: Looking at some other introductions here I should probably say more about my philosophical views and interests.

My interests are broad and varied, ranging from language, the arts, logic and mathematics, through "core" philosophical topics like ontology, epistemology, and philosophy of mind, education, on to ethics, free will, political philosophy, and more Continental "meaning of life" stuff like existentialism.

My views I would broadly characterize as "objective criticism", meaning anti-fideism + anti-nihilism. More specific views include universal prescriptivism, mathematicism, empirical realism / physicalism / phenomenalism / neutral monism, a weird mix of both presentism and eternalism, modal realism, functionalism, panpsychism, critical rationalism / falsificationism, freethought, hedonistic altruism, compatibilism, deontology, libertarian socialism, philosophical anarchism, pragmatism, and something akin to absurdism.

Hello all. I have arrived here after discarding many forums. I see many interesting threads and I think this can be a good place to be.

I am an eternal student, mainly because of my inability to pass the exams of the degree of Philosophy, and that I have been trying intermittently for more than 20 years. I'm here more to read than to write, since English is not my language and I do not feel very comfortable expressing myself in it. The only thing that I have clear is that I only know that I know nothing, but in my case it's true, not like Mr.Socrates who said it by pose or to look cool.