What does such a redundant modifer even mean? As compared to 'not really real' or 'unreally real'' :roll: — 180 Proof

It means to emphasize that something is "real", especially when one doesn't know what "real" means.

I think a more important question is "What are philosophy is true are?"

Well but I was referring to logically possible (consistent) worlds, not ideal ones. — litewave

Well if " more ideal/improved" realities or worlds are connected to the real/currently possible one (which is consistent), does that not mean that a truly ideal world would also be consistent? On an ethical and logical basis.

You can say your ideal world is where you can fly in the sky.
In the 1800s this is a logically impossible ideal and inconsistent with reality. Just a dream.
Now, we have several dozen versions of flying available to people: planes, helicopters, wing suits, powersailing, kites, balloons etc.

So it seems like the ideal is only referential to the real. When something new is realised, someone's ideal has been established (the inventors, the entrepreneurs, the author etc). Otherwise they wouldnt have chased it down/pursued that goal.

All goals are ideals. Some goals are not ethically consistent (having slaves) and some are not logically consistent (time travel backwards), but some are both logically and ethically consistent or becoming so (vaccinating impoverished people against malaria).

What has philosophy answered for use in the previous 100 years? — TiredThinker

What about the modern concept of Holism? Since the golden age of Greece, philosophy had become somewhat moribund. And since the Enlightenment rejection of religious authority on secular questions, philosophy once again went underground, and basked in the shadow of empirical Science.

In 1926 though, as "quantum mechanics" was found to be surprisingly non-mechanistic, a new light was focused on the "scientific method". Lawyer Jan Smuts was concerned about the inherent limitations of the analytical/reductive trend in science since the Renaissance. His practical yet evocative philosophical concept soon led to the emergence of Systems Science & Cybernetics & Quantum Holism. It also spurred interest in Eastern philosophy. The notion that whole systems are fundamentally different from isolated parts changed the direction of modern culture. What question did it answer? Perhaps "why are complex systems so hard to make sense of via analytical methods?" :smile:


Holism :
Although the concept of holism has been discussed by many, the term holism in academic terminology was first introduced and publicly shared in print by Smuts in the early twentieth century.

Although Smuts' concept of holism is grounded in the natural sciences, he claimed that it has a relevance in philosophy, ethics, sociology, and psychology.[19] In Holism and Evolution, he argued that the concept of holism is "grounded in evolution and is also an ideal that guides human development and one's level of personality actualization." Smuts stated in the book that "personality is the highest form of holism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts

Quantum Holism :
The essence of quantum holism lies in translating the idea of wholeness into the fundamental property of the finite indivisibility of quantum systems into any kind of elements or sets.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/

A century ago, the Newtonian/Euclidean conception of the universe was shattered. And set theory finally enabled us to be certain that 1 + 1 = 2. Doesn't get much more fundamental.

What paradigms have been broken, altered, or introduced by philosophers in that time period? No fair citing physicists or other scientists who have speculated about their subjects, just philosophers known for their contributions, those ideas familiar to the general public. — jgill

A century ago, the Newtonian/Euclidean conception of the universe was shattered. And set theory finally enabled us to be certain that 1 + 1 = 2. Doesn't get much more fundamental. — alan1000

Nice try. :cool: Set theory for the general public is arranging dinner plates and counting silverware.

:up:

philosophers did that? :smile:

https://monoskop.org/images/c/c2/Millett_Kate_Sexual_Politics_1970.pdf

For me, and my limited span of knowledge, I would go for Phenomenology.

I am also a particular ‘fan’ of absurdism for the average person.