thank you. I will

I think people know a lot in the West. Or anywhere on the planet for that matter. It's just that we sometimes don't apply that knowledge all too well. We're still human, after all.

And yes, the link between science and philosophy still seems obscure to me but I'm getting there — TaySan

I do not have so much faith in what the West knows. We have been specialized and our knowledge seems very limited to our specialty and our personal lives. In the US we are much more apt to be Christian and to know nothing of philosophy! So we know our specialty, our personal lives, and how our own particular church interprets the Bible. That is not knowing a lot. But instead leads to a lot of conflicts because individually, we know so little.

I guess you have to make the case that moral statements like this are justifiable epistemologically in whatever philosophical/spiritual system you settle on. Should be easy to do if you are a Christian (although it doesn't stop the prosperity gospel folks and neo-liberals of faith from looking past injustice and disadvantage).

It also interests me what the role of morality or social justice might be in a world where where matter isn't real and only consciousness is true. — Tom Storm

My thinking is based on Cicero and the notion that we choose the right thing when we know what that is. If you disagree, it would help me form an argument if you say why you do not agree.

Why bother with considering a world without matter? I don't think I would like a world without matter.

perhaps you could explain to me what protophilosophers and polethics are? :)

I understand the dilemma. Perhaps there is a certain beauty to the way Americans are ignorant. And I wish the word didn't have such a negative connotation. Personally I still feel ignorance is bliss. And it's certainly not something to judge or criticise. And knowledge can be bliss too. If you know the right things. I'm hopeful :)

If you know the right things. I'm hopeful :) — TaySan

How do you know you know the right things?

My thinking is based on Cicero and the notion that we choose the right thing when we know what that is. If you disagree, it would help me form an argument if you say why you do not agree.

Why bother with considering a world without matter? I don't think I would like a world without matter. — Athena

The idea that we 'choose the right thing when we know what it is' strikes me as problematic. I don't understand why someone would say this unless there is a vast scaffolding of philosophy underpinning the phrase 'when we know what it is'.

My understanding of human behavior is that we consistently choose short term pleasures and strong tribal positions and junk food along with junk ideas when we know there are better options and even know most of the time what these better options are.

I've worked with former prisoners over the years - hard core criminals - almost all of them knew the right thing to do. The consistent theme is that they did what they did because something mysterious came over them or 'the knife just went in' or 'before I knew it my fists were hitting her' or 'I snapped'. Their more righteous self temporarily went 'off line'.

I am not big on making all encompassing conclusions from this, but I will say that the difference between choosing to do the right thing and choosing to do the wrong thing is often located in person's sense of self rather than the nature of the action.

protophilosophers are the founders of philosophy, few of them learnt from any other protophilosophers and none of them learnt from philsoophers, they are the presocratics, Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, etc
polethics is a colexification I propose, one of politics and ethics taken as a single subject.

I've worked with former prisoners over the years - hard core criminals - almost all of them knew the right thing to do. The consistent theme is that they did what they did because something mysterious came over them or 'the knife just went in' or 'before I knew it my fists were hitting her' or 'I snapped'. Their more righteous self temporarily went 'off line'.

I am not big on making all encompassing conclusions from this, but I will say that the difference between choosing to do the right thing and choosing to do the wrong thing is often located in person's sense of self rather than the nature of the action. — Tom Storm

Yes, our sense of self and our emotions and addictions do become a complicating factor. We do not have to go to the extreme of convicts. Obese people and addicts feel compelled to do what they do. Shoplifting is associated with youthful "catch me if you can" thinking (monkey thinking) and with grief. How about speeding when we drive? :grin: It is hard to be good all the time.

Back to the convict example, I engaged with convicts and I would say at least some of them were confused. One young man was really looking forward to being in the correction system because he thought it meant real correction through education and he knew he was not prepared for life. It really upsets me when an abused woman finally kills her abuser and is put in prison. I don't think that is right.

Can philosophy help these people? I think it can but it has to be learned because this thinking does not come naturally and we all need support from others especially when we are trying to make a personal change. This is why the classics and philosophy or religion are important. Because we can learn to use our minds to live intentionally, to let go of the past and create ourselves as new people. In religion, this called born again. Religion has the benefit of a support group and not so much philosophy, but it is all about learning.

AA groups speak of our higher selves- that part of us that knows better. Well, it might not actually know what philosophy can teach us, but it has a desire to make the right choice. We may lack the strength at first. We may have really bad thinking habits that hold us down. But we all have a higher self that wants to get things right.

Late to the discourse but here's my two kobo. Philosophy can't create a better world; it's the effort of a few to look at the past and the present and think about both things together. The point of philosophy in my opinion is to provide an alternative to religion, a way of viewing the world as a priest/god rather than an adherent.

Philosophy can't help Co2 quotas but it can help understand the nonchalance surrounding it, it may even, when stretched, provide possible scenarios that could come out of the squable but a true solution can only be achieved through a collective effort.
Both in the sciences and in humanity in general.

To harp on the climate change theme-I know there are other problems but permit my narrow focus- climates always change, that's natural and has been dealt with by either changing cultural habits or removing humanity from the equation for as long as it takes for the climate to balance; the problem is that the climate is changing all over the world, a progressive nation can't stop this, a progressive continent can't stop it, only a progrressive humanity can. To solve a global problem you need global cooperation.

That is a good thought. I do not know of philosophies that speak directly to the problem of climate change, but the Bible tells us to be good stewards of the land and Islam is very supportive of learning. Perhaps we should make a group effort to bring together all the philosophy and religious notions we can to address the climate change problem. This might make a good thread that stands alone to focus on the one problem we really do need to resolve FAST.

Can philosophy help these people? — Athena

Not sure what that would look like but I would say that for many people it would not. Quality counselling might help.

AA groups speak of our higher selves — Athena

Not a big fan of AA based on what I have seen, but obviously social support groups do work and AA does work for some people. I prefer SMART Recovery. I am not crazy about hierarchical ideas like 'higher self' but some people find the frame useful.

I want to thank everyone for your responses. It has filled my heart with hope. From now on I won't be commenting on this post anymore. I'm moving on to more loving things.

Philosophy is the foundational questioning that ideas are built upon. Much of moral philosophy and modern politics are based upon philosophical ideas, questions and solutions. Philosophy is playing the long game, it shapes society over time. — Christoffer

Yep :up: I think the OP might could reflect on what kinds of philosophy are relevant here. For instance, as you so well pointed out, whether it's political philosophy, scientific philosophy, Christian philosophy (the golden rule) or any other kind of general philosophy, the important point is that philosophy lives in words. And we all use words to convey or communicate meaning, usually in order to advance the subject matter. Accordingly, we use reason and common sense (treating like cases likely and different cases differently) to discover and uncover new ways of Being.

Otherwise, conversely, I say, slay your Gilligan's; ask not what philosophy can do for you-ask what you can do for philosophy!

LOL Happy Friday!!!

I want to thank everyone for your responses. It has filled my heart with hope. From now on I won't be commenting on this post anymore. I'm moving on to more loving things. — TaySan

In case you check in with us, I have enjoyed your post.

Ataraxia & aponia (Epicurus) + scientia intuitiva (Spinoza) + amor fati / defiance / beatitude (Nietzsche / Camus / Rosset) ... in other words, momentary lapses in "boredom & pain" which (more often than not) accompany some daily form of play... — 180 Proof

My thoughts of happiness come from Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Thomas Jefferson

What is Plato's definition of happiness?
Like most other ancient philosophers, Plato maintains a virtue-based eudaemonistic conception of ethics. That is to say, happiness or well-being (eudaimonia) is the highest aim of moral thought and conduct, and the virtues (aretê: 'excellence') are the requisite skills and dispositions needed to attain it.Sep 16, 2003

Plato's Ethics: An Overview (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu › entries › plato-ethics
Search for: What is Plato's definition of happiness?
What is Aristotle's concept of happiness?
According to Aristotle, happiness consists in achieving, through the course of a whole lifetime, all the goods — health, wealth, knowledge, friends, etc. — that lead to the perfection of human nature and to the enrichment of human life. This requires us to make choices, some of which may be very difficult. — Stanford

When I was young and trying to figure life out, I realized my idea of happiness was temporary amusements that really were not satisfying and often left me dissatisfied and wanting more. Then I began gardening and realized accomplishments give us an enduring happiness. I stopped chasing after the temporary happiness and began seeking achievements that become enduring happiness.

I want to reply to here because of doubting how much philosophy can help rehabilitate convicts. My reply to him goes with my understanding of happiness and is the same as my belief that education and philosophy can redeem convicts or anyone struggling with life.

Without education in philosophy, I think most people misunderstand the US Declaration of Independence and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson based that statement on Plato and Aristotle's understanding of happiness. And those who don't know that, do think happiness is a temporary thing, like seeing a good movie, enjoying ice cream, getting drunk and other things that can lead to suffering. Until we understand happiness as these men did, we do have enduring happiness and good judgment.

I want to reply to ↪Tom Storm here because of doubting how much philosophy can help rehabilitate convicts. My reply to him goes with my understanding of happiness and is the same as my belief that education and philosophy can redeem convicts or anyone struggling with life. — Athena

Not crazy about the word 'redeem' for me it has some awkward religious/conversion overtones - but let's place that to one side. My point was just that some people know very well what they ought not to do and why - they lack the capacity to regulate their emotions based on a fractured sense of self. Many will need to acquire some basic interpersonal skills first just to be in a position to sit still respectfully to listen to anything else.