Thanks for your wishes! And I hope that your pain was not produced by my writing! :smile:

I think the most accurate descriptor for me is "intellectual." — T Clark

I don't know if you use the word "intelectual" in general or from a philosophical view. Because it is too general and it includes writers, artists, etc., as well as just people with a highly developed intellect.

My philosophy must be consistent with my understanding of science — T Clark

Interesting! Is this why most of the people in here --from what I have undestood in discussing with them-- are scientifically oriented? No wonder that all of them are physicalists!

I value philosophy for very practical reasons — T Clark

Right. Myself too.

"limited time" is a very important concern for me. — FalseIdentity

I understand and thanks for your reply. So I will not take more of your time.

Re: "You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher"
Everyone has a philosophy of life and about various subjects in life. In the same way that everyone knows and is more or less good in math, in some sport, etc. But these don't make someone an actual philosopher, a mathematician or an athlete. (Oxford LEXICO defines "philosopher" as "A person engaged or learned in philosophy, especially as an academic discipline.")

I had studied philosophy as an auxiliary subject in college and read quite a few philosophy books before I of thought of myself as someone who is "philosophizing". Until today I have read a couple of hundred philosophy books, I love philosophy (that's why I am here! :smile:) and all that, but I cannot call myself a "philosopher". I call myself a "philosophical thinker", as I think the majority of people in here are also.

I don’t need no stinking Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Kneechee, or any of those guys — T Clark

I don't know if you have read about them and you don't need them anymore or if you have never read anything about them. Whatever is the case, I agree that one does not need to stick to some philosopher and esp. quoting him every now and then in these pages and elsewhere. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is so widespread that it annoys me! I use to say to people "Think for yourself and let X [philosopher] think for himself!"

I believe that reading philosophy books and about a lot of philosophers is vital to be able to establish a strong reality and have interesting and strong philosophical views in a lot of subjects. It's exactly what philosophy reading can and must do for everyone, even if he is not involved in philosophizing, i.e. call himself a "philosophical thinker", participating in philosophical discussions, etc.

***

Now, about professional philosophers ... We all know about a lot of persons who are writing philosophy books and giving lectures on philosopical subjects but who never mention any known (or not) philosopher in their work or speeches. I don't know what's their background regarding philosophy. Neither do I care. The important thing is that they have something valuable to say to each of us individually (it's a personal think).

On the other hand, I believe that it is totally impossible for someone to have an academic career as a philosopher, not only if he has not read a lot of philosophy books or he does not know well the work (and even the life) of dozens of philosophers.

You said that one can proof that logic discovers the truth by the success of science — FalseIdentity

I don't quite understand the phrase "by the success of science". Also, I didn't mention anything about "proving" anything or about what you are conveying here.. More specifically, I said that "Logic, combined with data (evidence) and experiment is how science comes up with new discoveries", and "It is itself used to establish truths", not discover truths. Truths cannot be discovered. As facts can't either.

this does not mean it can solve non-survival related questions — FalseIdentity

I didn't say or mean anything like that or even closely. More specifically, The only thing I said about survivel is "I wonder how

***

Thank you for getting into the trouble of replying to me. But, I am not sure if this reply should be actually addressed to me or to someone else, since I don't recognize the things you have brought up here as being said by myself.

To avoid misunderstandings, in general, please use the "Quote" feature, or copy-paste a text using quotes --as I did myself here-- to quote exactly what other people say.

can it be considered legitimate wisdom? — Bret Bernhoft

Good that you defined "wisdom". But I think the key word and "unknown" here is "legitimate". It mainly means conforming to the law or to rules. Letting aside laws, what kind of rules do you have in mind? That is, legitimate for whom?

can personally revealed wisdom be considered truthful and authoritative? — Bret Bernhoft

Again, truthful and authoritative for whom?

I sent a reply 3 days ago: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/609499

physicalist(s) believe the mind is caused/emerges from matter but do they believe the mind is non spatial. — Quickquestion1233457

Physicalists, by definition, and also according to my experience in discussing with them, believe that mind is totally a material thing, "spatial" and everything. They don't move an inch from that belief. They don't have room in their ... minds, for anything non-physical and don't dare or try to make any "allowances". Otherwise,, they would stop being physicalists and they will lose either their job or their mind or both!

İf yes than how is that monism? Tere are still 2 “substances”. The only main difference is that spatial matter(brain) is primary and the non spatial mind(mental states) is secondary — Quickquestion1233457

So, there's no question about of dualism. It's only monism. No "primary" and "secondary". It's all one.

And all this makes me become a fully fledged anti-physicalist! :grin:
(... Never used this term before!)

I lost interest in my thread, sorry — Wheatley

OK. Good to know, anyway.

By "live" I assume that you mean on a constant basis, persistently. (Otherwise, it's not a big deal, right?)l

We all live in doubt, about certain things. The question is if these things are just a few, a lot or most of them! The last case can be of course characterized as a severe mental condition. It also matters how important in our life these doubts are.

Doubt means uncertainly and conflict. Conflict can exist "on the surface", i.e. on an intellectual basis, rationally or "deeply" on an emotional basis, pathologically. The first case is normal and sometimes or necessary, e.g. you doubt about a person's intentions, if something that is said is actually true etc. But is shouldn't last forever about the same things, otherwise it might develop to an obsession and possibly to a mental condition. You cannot doubt for too long, that is "live with the doubt" of whether your partner (wife, husband, associate, etc.) cheats on you or not. You should better find out soon and get out of that doubt.

On the other hand, when a conflict takes emotional dimensions and is very important for the individual, i.e. if one's life is worth living, it even lead to suicide.

a person unable to distinguish between right or wrong has a voice in his head that tells him to, let's say, give all of his fortune to charity. Can we evaluate his actions ? — Hello Human

An act as the above will certaily appear as one of charity. What we have to evaluate is not the act itself --which is easy, it it's a good by itself, under any moral rules-- but rather the motivations for it, the intentions behind it, the reasons why it was done. This will characterize it as a moral act of just an act. If it is done on free will and with the intention to help, it will certainly be an act of charity, i.e. a moral act. Otherwise, there are hundreds of reasons why someone could do that: he might have a mental condition (hearing voices in his head that are telling him what to do), he might done it under threat, he might have decided to give away everything and live as monk (some have done that), etc. In that case we can't talk about charity, of course.

If he was a billionaire, and his money allowed to save 1 million lives from war and disease, can we say that he acted morally? — Hello Human

Billionare or not, the main thing is that the person gave away all his money and he's left with none. The ony diference is that a rich man can do that easier because he most probably will be able to make money more easily than someone with a low income. But anyway, the morality of his action will be judged according to what I said above.

we must first make a distinction between a good action and commendable action — Hello Human

I can't see a big difference between them, although there may be some nuances. I consider both of them ethical (moral). But again, as long as they are done on free will and with the intention to help.

Thank you for repsonding.

And when they know the difference they are judged for their responsibility. — Hello Human

Right.

keep objecting, it will help me see the flaws and the good in the argument. — Hello Human

This is a very sane thinking and attitude. I have met it in only very few philosophical discussions!

...a logic developed through evolution will never seek to understand the truth — FalseIdentity

Logic --actually the human beings using it-- basically does exactly that! Logic, combined with data (evidence) and experiment is how science comes up with new discoveries, how the truth of hypotheses is proven, how persons are found guilty or innocent in courts, and how knowledge is created in humans in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY&t=997s — FalseIdentity

I started watching the video with a real interest to find out something new and valuable, but unfortunately I heard the guy talking about "interacting with reality"! What reality? Whose reality? He most probably means the "physical universe"! I stopped watching the video after that. If he doesn't know what reality is, which is the subject itself of that discussion, well, he doesn't seem quite wise ...
(BTW, yourself are talking about "interacting with the universe". Indeed, physical universe and reality are two totally different things.)

So my first complaint is that logic pretends to be something that it is not. — FalseIdentity

In what way can logic do that? Some example(s)?
In fact, I don't think that logic --even figuritavely speaking-- can pretend anything. Logic is general a system of thought, of reasoning in particular. It is people who pretend things, and in fact, usually at the expense of logic!

My second complaint relates to the discovery that logic is developed mainly for hunting and is hence predatory in nature — FalseIdentity

I tried to figure out what do you mean by "hunting". What I read is too theoretical and I cannot be sure I got it right. Can you give any example(s)?

An evolved predatory logic must be by its nature remain incapable to:
1. Understand truths that cannot be chased and exploited in a physical sense (which come to mind?)
2. Understand things that are not relevant to survival such as what is "the good". — FalseIdentity

1. Logic is not used by humans to understand truths. It is itself used to establish truths, with the help of data (evidence).
2. I'm not sure what do you mean by "the good", so I assume just "good", and I wonder how can good be irrelevant to survival? Doesn't good health, doing good to someone, etc. help survival?

---

I have used the term "logic" as a system of reasoning based on strict principles of validity. Based on this, and all the things I said above, I can't imagine "logic being evil"! Do you have something totally different in mind about what logic is?

What are your thoughts. — Wheatley

Why do you ask, if you are not responding to replies?
I sent you my reply more than a week ago ...
(https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/605997)

Anyway, what do you think ? — Hello Human

Why do you ask, if you are not responding to replies?
I have sent you my reply almost a week ago ... (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/607088)

My view is that hard determinism does not make ethics irrelevant, because right and wrong are also about justification, more specifically, justification of an action, that is, ethics is also about whether an action is justified or not, and free will is irrelevant to justification, therefore we can continue asking moral questions. — Hello Human

Re "hard determinism does not make ethics irrelevant": "hard determinism", by definition, is incompatible with free will. Changing that, tying to "sweeten" it, "adding water to the wine", etc. doesn't change it. Better talk directly about "soft determinism" and other "-isms". Using such terms, however, are only good for academic discussions. The essence follows ...

Re "right and wrong are also about justification": Of course. One must always judge whether an act was justified or not before condemning the person who committed it.

Re "free will is irrelevant to justification": Justification is a way of showing that an act was right or reasonable. But not only free will is relevant, it is actually a prerequisite! If someone who commits a crime is proved --by medical examination or just opinion-- not to be able to distinguish between right or wrong, he is sent to a mental hospital instead of a prison. In that case, we cannot talk about either justification or free will. Justification and free will are inseparable. Free will is a prerequisite for ethics, responsibility and control.

Take free will out of the human equation and you get criminality, insanity, anarchy and chaos.

not bringing more people into the unjust situation is the main thin — schopenhauer1

I see. Stop reproducing ... But there will always be rich people who could find means to make people reproduce and governments who could force people to reproduce or forbid the use of contraceptives and abortion, as it was done in Nazi Germany ...

Besides, our world might be totally destroyed or the conditions for life on Earth cease to exist in one way or the other, before reaching such a state ...

OK. What solution do you propose for all that?

Like in the way of apparatus.
— Caldwell
Science decaying in the way an apparatus is decaying? :confused:
— Alkis Piskas
Er, no. — Caldwell

Great explanation! :grin:

So the default position for the modern person is to think that to be anti-work is to be anti-social — schopenhauer1

"Antisocial" is someone who is against the laws and/or customs of a society and also who is considered an annoyance to and is disapproved by the society. So, if someone fits these criteria, he can be certainly called antisocial.

Now, about what kind of people's position are you talking? Young or old? The first ones, have not worked yet a lot or not at all and are still carefree and in their period of controversy against society, and have not yet met the difficulties of life. The second ones have been thrown in the arena of life where they have to work, often hard, to earn a living. Also, are you talking about poor, middle class or rich people?

As for the term or subject of "anti-work", I have never met it or even heard people talking about it. So I assumed it means "refusal of work" and I looked it up in Wikipedia: " behavior in which a person refuses regular employment.". Much better than what I thought, which was "refusal to work in general" and which of course lacks any logic! Although, in reality, the two of them don't differ much.

I don't know though how exactly yourself see "anti-work", except that you are talking "an economic system that runs on work" and as a "condition of life".

"... entering the economic system itself was a forced game ..."
"... we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizing slow death ..." — schopenhauer1

I can see that you mean that from the moment we are born we are forced to play this game. And that no one asks us if we wanted to. So, maybe your question is not really about "anti-work" --since there are a lot of things in our society and economic system that one can object to-- but our choice about living. I remember we have talked about that (Re: your topic "Is never having the option for no option just?")

Like the happy slave, the laborer has no other choice — schopenhauer1

The slave has no choice: he cannot choose his job or be on strike or refuse to work.
The laborer has: he can do all of them! :smile:

Like in the way of apparatus. — Caldwell

Science decaying in the way an apparatus is decaying? :confused:

We're in the exploratory mode. — Caldwell

OK.

That's one way of looking at it but there are other possibilities, possibilities that are non-Darwinian in character. — TheMadFool

Like what?

You have mentioned at least 3 frameworks in which the subject of "soul" is studies and treated: religion, philosophy and existential psychology. In each of them we can find different views about the existence and nature of soul. Even different religions view soul in different ways. So, what's the use of bring all this up, since your message, as I understood it, is that there is no need to think and talk about soul and what that entails, but instead what we should be concerned with is how to have happier lives? That is, all we should be concerned and talk about is our existence, our problems our feelings, and so on. Well, I don't remember well my existential philosophy, but what remained in my mind is discussions and thoughts about the anxiety that our existence produces. I also remember Sartre talking about "the hell is the other people" and all that nonsense. Existential thinking itself produces anxiety and unhappiness.

Indeed, today rational thinking is reduced to a minimum and we are left with bias, superstition, compulsive behavior, obsessions, psychosis, neurosis, and all that stuff governing our lives. We are not concerned about knowing ourselves and how to live better and be happier. We leave this task to shrinks and psychologists. Is this what you mean by "having a life"?

Well, taking soul out of the equation in our lives and believing that we are just bodies, is the root of all unhappiness because it creates a huge conflict in us, since we actually know well that we are not just bodies but something more ...

Then, in what sense or way do you see the decay of Science? "Decay" can be "a state or process of rotting or decomposition" or it can be "a gradual decline in strength, soundness, or prosperity or in degree of excellence". Other kinds of decay may also exist but I believe that you have in mind the second of the ones I mentioned.
— Alkis Piskas
None of the above. — Caldwell

In what way then? :brow:

I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this insane sentiment that science will someday decay. — Caldwell

Aha! Didn't see that coming! I thought that yourself believed in the deacy of science!
OK then, let others believe that! :smile:

Yes, but WHY? — TheMadFool

Why is vision the strongest sense? I have not that kind of knowledge but I guess that the human body structure is such that it relies basically on vision for purposes of survival, and thus this is the dominant sense. But I think that this holds for most animals, except a few ones in which other senses are stronger. Although there exist some water creatures that are blind ...

I found the following ref just now: Why Vision Is the Most Important Sense Organ
(https://www.smartvisionlabs.com/blog/why-vision-is-the-most-important-sense-organ/) but I heve not read it yet. (There are many though ...)

A webage I found claims that those who are congenitally blind dream in sounds and surely their imagination can't be in images - they lack sight. — TheMadFool

It makes sense. It's a common knowledge that persons who are deprived of a sense substitute it with one or more other senses. Blind persons develop audio and touch to a much higher degree than normal. Deaf persons develop a lips reading skill (to an extent that they can almost "hear" the person who is speaking), a skill in sensing vibrations, etc.

It's all a question of survival.

Anyway, I believe neurobiologists must have the answers!

I can see the golden sand, I can see the rock I told you about, I can also see myself touch it BUT I can't feel the rock. — TheMadFool

Imagining is a kind of thinking and thoughts are mainly mental images. That's why your vision is the strongest sense.

Your other senses may be present but on a much lower intensity or even not at all. However, imagining is a kind of thinking and it resembles a lot to remembering. That's why sometimes we are not sure whether what seems as a factual memory of the past or created by our imagination. So, to make imagination stronger for other senses than vision, we can "borrow" from actually experienced sounds, smells, tastes and touches. E.g. you can taste the sand in your imagined stay in the desert, by remembering e.g. the disgusting taste and/or feeling you had once eating sand in a beach. You can also hear the sound of the wind that blows and the sand that moves by it, by remembering some experience you had on a beach. And so on. BTW, most often this happens automatically and w/o effort.

Have you tried that?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/604459 (3 days ago)

You described the problem of objectivity well. — Yohan

Thanks. It's good to have an audience. Even of a single person!
But ... what about subjectively? It wasn't as good? :smile:

Still, in everyday use, we talk about real vs unreal. — Yohan

Certainly. The word "real" has a lot of meanings and it can be used in a lot of different contexts. But here, I believe the word "reality" has to be taken in a philosophical context, i.e., as a philosophical term, even if there are almost as many definitions of it as there are people who try to define it!

Yet, what one must first do in examining all these different definitions and views about reality is to divide them into two main categories: those in which it is considered as something absolute and/or objective and those in which it is considered as something subjective. This is very important since we are talking about two very different "worlds". The difference is so huge and the views diverge so much in each case, that any comparison and discussion between them is impossible. I tell this based on my own experience from a lot of discussions on the subject.

Can 'real vs unreal' make sense without objectivity? — Yohan

Actually, I believe that it can't make sense without subjectivity! :smile:

anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science — Caldwell

I don't think that there's such a thing as an "anti-scientific movement". If you can provide some references ...
Likewise about "anti-scientific sentiments". In fact, I can't think that the characterization "anti-scientific" sounds too dramatic, heavy and, most importantly if is unreal. Who can be against Science? (I will use a capital "S" to mean Science as an institution, in contrast, e.g. to "science" as a field of knowledge.) Our whole lives are based 99% on or affecte by Science.

Then, in what sense or way do you see the decay of Science? "Decay" can be "a state or process of rotting or decomposition" or it can be "a gradual decline in strength, soundness, or prosperity or in degree of excellence". Other kinds of decay may also exist but I believe that you have in mind the second of the ones I mentioned.

Then, what are the indications of such a decay that you see in Science? Is it that it has not made important breakthroughs or has advanced significantly in the last let's say 5, 10 or 50 years, comparing to its past achievements? Is it that it is not that important in our lives these days as in the past? Is it that it fails to provide answers to vital human problems? And so on.

Now, whatever of the above views matches your own, it will be still very difficult to judge, evaluate the evolution of the Science as a whole. Why? Because there are fields in it that advance faster and/or in a more impressive way than others. And of course it is impossible to talk about Science in average.

:up:

I think I was more trying to be inspiring than offering solid logic. I am more an artist than a philosopher. Maybe I should confine myself to the Lounge. — Yohan

Ha, ha! Nice! :grin:

What is the "apparent" thing in your example-question?
— Alkis Piskas
My lawyer tells me I shouldn't answer this question. — Yohan

:grin: ... This place desperately needs this kind of stuff!!

What counts as a statement? Clearly not just any sentence — Michael

Well, a statement is a definite or clear expression of something. And this is too general. So a complete sentence that expresses something may qualify. Anyway, this is besides the point, since the topic means about "things", which is even more general!

My coffee is neither true nor false. The word "hello" is neither true nor false. — Michael

Good point. I assume you mean that these are "thigns" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them. Right, @TiredThinker made a mistake in not specifying what kind "things" he is talking about. Most probably he meant "statements" ...

If it's not paradoxical it's not true — Yohan

Interesting. Can you give a practical example of that?
(I read about contradictions in your description but could not actually find any paradoxicality ...)

An apparent thing must be one thing or the other. Do I turn left or right to get to this specific destination? — Yohan

What is the "apparent" thing in your example-question? That there's a fork on the road? What if there's a cross on the road and you have to select from among three roads? Where would the contradiction be? Yet, the problem is very similar in both cases ...

If x is a cat, it can't be not a cat. — TheMadFool

Right. This statement applies to a fact as I myself indicated. But @TiredThinker has not cleeared this up. He referred to "things" in general. Which is a mistake.
Because, I could paraphrase slightly your statement and say "x looks like a cat". This is not a fact and we cannot ask if it is true or false, can we? No contradiction, no anything. We cannot even say that it can be either true or false: it would just have no meaning, since "looks like" is not something that can be proved, anyway.

Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time? — TiredThinker

First of all, I believe you should specify what "things" you are talking about. Because "apples" are "things" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them! Therefore, I have to assume that you mean "statements" (or something similar).

Then, I'm afraid you have not exhausted all the possible cases of "true" and/or "false"! :smile:
In order for any of these options to have any meaning, the "thing" that they apply to must be a fact or a hypothesis or something similar. That is, something that can be proved true or false. All other "things", which are not facts and which form the vast majority, cannot be answered as "true" or "false": preferences, opinions, beliefs, etc. "Apples are tasty", "This movie is good", "You should see his face!", etc. etc. There's no meaning in asking "True or false" to any of these statements, is there?

So, there's at least one more possibility: cases where "neither true nor false makes sense!" :grin:

Do Brussels sprouts taste good? True or false? — SolarWind

Good point.
BTW, your question "Do Brussels sprouts taste good?" calls for a "Yes or no" answer. "True or false?" is asked on statements, not questions. So. you should say e.g. "Brussels sprouts taste good. True or false?" And, of course, there's no meaning in asking such a thing in this case, as you let it be understood.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/603345

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/602937

:clap: — Wayfarer

Thanks.
I'm always glad and encouraged to see people in this place with views diverging from the well established path! :smile:

Because of the intense emphasis on 'correct belief' (orthodoxy) and the terrible consequences of having opinions deemed to be false (heresy) ... — Wayfarer

BTW, Buddhism is considered a "heresy" (sect) by the Greek Orthodox Church! (It is part of a long list created by an insane Greek priest about 50 years ago, but it is still supported by the Church.)
Dogmatism, insanity and irrationality have no place in philosophy, even in religious philosophy.

Yet, modern day man seems comfortable inside the cave. — Shawn

Since you talk about "comfortability", the people in the cave most probably felt "comfortable" too, since they didn't know another world, neither was anyone to tell them that the world they were seeing was naccurate or something lik that. In fact, with this rationale, we can say that man always felt comfortable "inside the cave".

However, I don't find the word "comfortable" correct, since people, as a general principle, don't feel comfortable with the world and their lives. Anxiety, fear, grief and all sort of negative emotions are the main dish of the day for a lot of people. Most people feel that life is not fair. They feel that something is not OK at all. Very few, relatively, feel happy or really feel comfortable on a more or less stable basis, independently of conditions.

Indeed, nowadays man has a tendency to resolve one's issues in the cave, conversing with a psychologist about the shadows ... — Shawn

If they have to go to a shrink to resolve their problems, why then you say the people seem to be comfortable inside the cave? That's a contradiction, isn't it? But iby inverting the comfort into discomfort, the visits to shrinks can then make more sense! :smile:

Why is this so? Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? — Shawn

I suppose that the first question by now refers to the discomfort. Otherwise, why would he need to unshackle and free himself, right?
The primary factor why people are in that state is conflicts. Their reality, i.e. what they think and believe as true and fact, is in conflict with what actually happens to them and the world, in general. "Life is unfair" to them and to all people in general. They have and keep feeding an illusion about life and the world. This produces anxiety, stress, fear, grief and apathy (giving up), in short all kind of negative emotions. Negative emotions are produced by conflicts. Like every problem. A problem consist of an action and a counter-action. Effort and counter-effort. Intention and counter-intention. Purpose and counter-purpose. And the problem gets worse when the opposed things come from ourselves: We create thoughts and counter-thoughts, i.e., thoughts that are against other thoughts of ours. The mildest case is simple indecision: not neing able to select among two actions. But this indecision can develop into a conflict that tears us apart. It can result to suicide. The tendency to suicide is produced by unresolved problems that exist for too long or are too hard to handle, the burden is too heavy to carry.

So, the reason why the prisoner cannot "unshackle and free himself" is that he just doesn’t know how to resolve these conflicts.

Why is philosophy still associated with no inherent value, or even more practically, valued so little? — Shawn

I assume that you mean that philosophy doesn't seem to be able to solve these problems and that is why it is considered of little value. And of course, you are talking wbout the Western philosophy

Unfortunately, it is true that our (Western) philosophy, not only today but in that past too, was consumed mainly in talking about and analyzing concepts, sometimes following too complicated paths to be even understood by most people. People cannot handle their conflicts by just reading or hearing words, as logical and useful these may be. If experience (direct experiencing) the ideas and messages these words are conveying, little substantial improvement can be achieved. For example, analyzing the "self" in order to discover one's nature ends up either in confusion or an illusion. One must experience the "self". One must get aware of being aware. In that moment all words and concepts disappear and what remains is the realization, the reality of one's nature. This is the way Eastern philosophy works. Eastern philosophy has little talk and more practice, training, experiencing, realization. This is why people in the West started to turn to Eastern philosophies, esp. Buddhism: they were either disappointed or just couldn't find solutions to their problems with the Western philosophy. Indeed, the need to turn to East for help has grown enormously in the last century and continues to grow. The Eastern philosophies show people their true self, the spiritual part of the human being, whereas the Western philosophy is stuck obstinately to its materialistic foundations. So the more you promote the idea that human beings are just bodies with brains and ignore their spiritual side, the more confusion and conflicts you create in them. This is "why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself" and neither (Western) philosophy nor psychology can do anything about it! This is really sad and very stupid.

So, the more you get stuck with the belief that you are a body, the less chances you have to free yourself. Because it's a trap. It's a lie. It creates a huge conflict between what you believe you are and what your real nature is!

These are the reasons I think why philosophy in the West has failed. But if we want to evaluate the imporance and impact of the philosophy in general, we have to look at all parts in the world. Because philosophy has no borders.