I have sent a contact request to your academia link.

I can post a sentence or even a paragraph summary of any of my concepts - it will only be a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle OR a small part of a big painting, virtually useless.

I could say to you:

"System := Components (things that are) and the interactions between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose." p27, p135

and

"The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exist no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature" p69 Solving the demarcation problem.

and

"Law (of nature) := If the sum of mass, energy and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature." p34

and

...

I can even tell you that holism and reductionism is simply two sides of the same coin. "It (my systems theory) describes a logic of understanding any part of a whole and any whole as a part." p200

and

discriminating between Good & Evil — Gnomon

is simply philosophical musings used and misused by politicians in order to motivate the decisions they are selling to the hoi polloi.

Then ... I don't mind sideswipe's from the "TPF Inquisition"; the only utility from philosophy is that from time to time their musings coalesce into some new political movement. And, we all know where 'politics' are leading us - apparently a perpetuation of poverty and war. But then how do we make our world a better place to live our lives? A new political movement based on human consciousness? This 'consciousness' that nobody, not even philosophers, can define - thus simply a new religion:

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180

I can go on with such excerpts for as long as you like, it will still be only a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I am quite sure that my work would be quite within your range of understanding, the only question outstanding is:

if it is A> of interest to me — Gnomon

but that can only be determined by you yourself.

I will try my very best to respond encouraging enough - I don't meditate nor do drugs either - rather play chess.

Your *1 Thank you for putting this on this forum. The one issue I have is that the responses you quote (Core argument, Beyond conceptualisation, ...) is generated by artificial intelligence, which is (currently still) incapable of abstract thought. I will address your notes:

Note --- If we can't understand the world conceptually, and put it into words, do you think we can only explore the world system experientially, via meditation or drugs? — Gnomon

We can understand the world conceptually AND put it into words - this is exactly what I claim to have done - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

Note --- Again, this "argument" seems to dismiss rational Western Philosophy as incapable of dealing with the ontological problems of humanity. Are you recommending something like Sartre's "being-in-itself" or the spiritual awakening of Ram Dass : "Be Here Now"? — Gnomon

This is one of the big misunderstandings that I found from both some of the respondents in this whole preceding conversation AND from artificial intelligence's responses to my work. I do not dismiss rational Western Philosophy per se - I concede unequivocally to its contribution to where we are and what we have today - I merely state that 'philosophy' seems to be unable to solve some of the dire problems that we are facing: such as hunger, curable diseases that is not available to the poor, war, the dangers from artificial intelligence and an environmental disaster of cataclysmic proportion. THEN I propose an understanding that is NOT based on 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour BUT on a fundamental, deduced from 'first principles', definition of a system - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

Note --- My own amateur personal philosophy questions both "established" philosophical concepts, and "classical" concepts of Newtonian Physics. — Gnomon

Very valid questions, but easily resolved with a valid solution to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy. The only "solution" from philosophy is Popper's self-referencing definition: science is whatever is discovered from some scientific method. From my definition of a system and classes of systems I was able to solve this demarcation problem - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

Note --- I don't know if my Information-theoretic worldview provides a "more fundamental understanding of being", but it is certainly different from both traditional religious & scientific ideologies. If your responses seem encouraging, I may even attempt to read your book. — Gnomon

From my understanding there is certainly some utility in a "Information-theoretic worldview". Some years ago I had some very useful conversations with a savant mathematician on his information-theoretic worldview. He, unfortunately passed away, but I do honour him with my understanding of "consciousness" - he pointed me towards this understanding - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

I have started reading some of your musings on 'enformationism' - my first response is: be very careful of what I call a "philosophical trap", you only end up with oxymorons like "ethics of science". "The Laws of Nature have no morality, no honour nor any legal standing." p111 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

IF you decide to read my book THEN please read the whole book before you start shooting holes in my reasoning.

And again, thank you for your openminded response.

Who needs enlightenment when you’ve got freshly popped popcorn and a good seat in the cave. — praxis

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave." William Drummond
To which I would add; he that does reason just might gain understanding, perhaps even knowledge.

Thank you for this - yes it would seem some are still stuck in Plato's cave watching the shadows play out against an empty wall.

I suggest you stay in your cave and watch the shadows play out against the empty wall.
From the "troll spammer."

Frankly, it appears that you're looking for an 'obtuse buyer' of your book and that's why you avoid openly discussing its contents. — praxis

No. I am looking for a reader that can think outside the box, who reads and understand my theory then helps me find a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

"If I show you a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are the only things that you will see - a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I had to build the puzzle to the extend that the picture starts to appear for you to understand the picture that I see." p232 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

Thus - there is absolutely no utility to try and explain a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I got the answer I was looking for from my opening statement - my problem statement in Chapter 1 is a valid problem and philosophy is unable tp solve it.

... and good luck with your endeavours.

Thank you for your welcome, I do appreciate it.

I do not have any issue with the substantial contribution that philosophy has made on the progress of humanity - there is no denying this. My problem is with the established fact that through this 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, philosophy was unable to solve the most pressing problems of humanity. Problems like poverty and war. Nor can philosophy suggest any solution to the more modern problems like the danger posed by artificial intelligence and human's efforts to destroy our planet with a self inflicted environmental disaster. "The bottom line is if we cannot find an agreed upon answer to the question: Why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable? Then systems of artificial intelligence will surpass humanity, and our human ideals of Liberte, egalite, fraternite will not exist anymore. It will only be the history of humankind." p2 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles, but then; in a quest that lasted more than 100 years, such a general systems theory has not been found.

I claim:

"Unless a fatal flaw is uncovered, this understanding (fully described in this discourse) is not only a valid systems theory but also a valid theory of everything." p227 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

I neither have a problem with an initial response to this claim that I must be smoking some really good s#@t or be totally off my rocker. All I am looking for is one fatal flaw in my reasoning - a flaw that would render my theory inconsistent or without utility. Also, If I am merely daydreaming under the influence of some really good s#@t, then surely a fatal flaw will stand out like a sore thumb.

The only thing that I ask from any "astute reader" is an agreement on the perception of the conditional truth that physical things (the things consisting of mass or energy) exist. All my understanding follows from this assumption.

With all due respect to philosophy and the members of this forum: If philosophy could not arrive at a better understanding of "human nature", an understanding that would render a better chance for solving humanity's problems, then it is high time that we consider a different understanding. An understanding that provides a valid speculation on the existence of God, a valid definition of knowledge, an understanding that: ethics, justice, human rights, value, human action, ... are merely political rhetoric and art is simply "A deliberate transformation of the feelings and emotions of the artist (the life form making the art) into a physical form." p96 How I understand Things. The Logic of Existence

... which frankly I would not read even if you paid me at this point ... — I like sushi

No problem - I am trying to find a reader that could think outside the box and with the capability of understanding what I have written and (most importantly) assist me to find a possible "fatal flaw" in my reasoning.

A Bedouin was caught in a box canyon by a desert lion. He started to pray: Allah, if you are on the side of the lion, let him kill me quickly so that I do not suffer too much. If you are on my side let me kill the lion quickly before he hurts me too much. But if you are on no one's side - stand aside because here is a big fight on its way.

I am like this Bedouin.

Don’t you believe that it would be good if I did understand it? — praxis

It would be awesome if you could understand it - I am looking for the "fatal flaw" in my understanding.

Is it that only an elite class of people are capable of understand (sic) it? — praxis

I am not sure what you mean by "elite class", but if my editor could understand it - although she had some difficulty with the metamathematics - I am pretty sure most members on this forum is capable of understanding it.

Also, you say that solutions might be found from this foundation. Aren’t humanity’s problems important enough to present a foundation that you have more confidence in? — praxis

Absolutely!

I have confidence in my work but it needs to be stress-tested. That is why I am looking for an "astute reader" that could help me find a possible "fatal flaw" in my reasoning. The statement that I posted in my introduction is only part of my problem statement, in an effort to solicit some stress-testing of my work.

From the responses I received in this conversation I conclude that my problem statement is a valid problem - unsolved by 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour.

You are absolutely on the right track:

"Our reality consist of systems:

1. Real systems - consisting of perceived, measurable mass or energy.
2. Abstract systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (a real system) - perceived by analysis of real systems.
3. Imaginary systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (still a real system) - that cannot be perceived by analysis of any real system." p178 How I Understand Things. The logic of Existence

Please observe that there is no consciousness necessary in this encompassing statement. "... consciousness is the ability of a functional brain, capable of abstract thought, to manage itself." p195 How I Understand Things. The logic of Existence

You claim to offer a foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved and then proceed to describe this foundation in an obfuscating manner. — praxis

You certainly seem to be obfuscated, my foundation is an understanding of systems (something, it would seem, you have no understanding of), defined from first principles - founded on the "... basic, seminal, fundamental, primordial truth of the existence of physical things ... If we cannot agree on this, that physical things exist in fact; our only option would be somewhere between the philosophical areas ... called nihilism and fatalism. And, for sure, solutions to our problems cannot and will not be found in these areas." p9 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence - words in italic (from the quote) is defined unambiguously!

Snake oil salesmen have always been part and parcel of humanity's problems. — praxis

So for philosophers with their heads in the sand

I agree with you:
"Who am 'I' and what is the relation between mind and body? According to my understanding, there exists a specific, changeable state of some components in my brain. The perception of this specific component is called by some, my mind. This mind provides a perception that I am me. Conversely, my body, as well as its being, is perceived by some component in my brain. So, my body is telling my mind that I am, in fact me. As a result of evolution, I have this wonderful capability of having a perception of the states of some of my components and a few other capabilities as well." p185 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

"... consciousness is the ability of a functional brain, capable of abstract thought, to manage itself. We could agree that the human brain manages the human homeostatic processes, organs and all sensory functions of the human body. This human brain also has the ability to manage all our responses to our environment. These responses include our responses to our physical environment (our understanding and response to the effects of the Laws of Nature) as well as our political environment (our understanding and response to the Rules of Man perceived). Surely, all of this requires some self-management from the brain itself." p195. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

In conclusion to this discussion then: Philosophy have no defence against "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipe dream."

Perhaps it is simply due to the "human condition", the allusive 'nature of man' - a condition or nature that philosophy can do nothing about. But, surely, this human condition, this nature of man, has changed in the last 2,600 years - during the time philosophy has contributed to human understanding and knowledge - and if it can change it could change to a better world, not so?

Perhaps it is unfair or wrong to blame philosophy for these long standing problems. It would make more sense to blame politics - "The only result I see from politics are a world in which ..." But then, is politics not a result of philosophy? Case in point, the philosophy of Karl Marx that lead to the most devastating politics in our world. Who nows where post-modernism or meta-modernism will end up? A better world? Not if one consider the track record of philosophy.

Then, perhaps, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have a valid point:"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." But if I look in the light of the torch of the scientists, into the future, I see at least two major dangers: The environmental disaster we humans are bringing over ourselves, fuelled by the consequential efforts of science => engineering => technology => wealth and The danger posed by artificial intelligence. This artificial intelligence that only require two more capabilities in order to take over our world, abstract thought and survival.

What then? If neither philosophy nor politics nor science could solve this human condition, this nature of man, who can? Surely not religion - this human endeavour has been around even longer than philosophy!

Please consider an alternative foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved. A foundation that is not based on philosophy, religion, politics or science. A foundation based on a fundamental understanding of systems, a definition of a system from first principles. A definition that provides for a classifications of systems that provides a theory of evolution without any tautologies and which solve the demarcation problem. An understanding that clearly shows that the emergence of wealth preceded the evolution of modern Homo sapiens.

If I understand your prose correctly, you agree with my problem statement.

'Please consider the following two naive but fundamentally logical statements:

1. Attempting to define or study any ambiguous notion by describing it in terms of other ambiguous words; is inevitably doomed to ambiguity. Adding more and more ambiguous words to this effort will never change this result.
2. Trying to define or study any ambiguous notion be defining and studying its perceived attributes is a self-referencing exercise. The only possible result of this exercise is that this specific notion ... is this specific notion.

To me these two statements make sense, and they seem to be consistent, perhaps even seminal.' p5 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Yes, but is one side objectively right? To use the archetypical example of "the good war", WW2, wouldn't you agree the Nazi's were the "bad guys" and UK was fighting "the good fight"? — RogueAI

My agreement, or not; whether the WW2 Nazi's were the "bad guys", or not; is irrelevant to my problem statement. Please consider:

'Any decision on what is good and what is evil is made on whatever is politically expedient. There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good or evil could be made. It is therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man. Examples of the political determination between good and evil are abundant. A salient example is the Second World War:

1. For millions of people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were good.
2. For millions of other people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were evil.
3. For millions of people Joseph Stalin and Communist Russia were evil.
4. However, for the Allied forces, Joseph Stalin, and Communist Russia were good, at least until the end of the war - a salient example of political expedience by itself.
5. To the very large number of private citizens killed in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, the Allied Forces were patently evil.

All five of these statements are quite valid, actually patently true, but in clear contradiction to each other, giving evidence of my original statement. So, after about 3% of the world population perished due to a single war - the war after 'the war to end all wars' - no determination can yet be made on what is good and what is evil.' p123 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

This will answer your question. — Metaphysician Undercover

Another unanswered question, yet you maintain that my generalisation that war is a problem that has not been solved by 2,600 years of philosophical effort is a fatal flaw to my theory - but you do not know what is my theory. I have stated, categorically, that my opening statement to this forum is a problem statement, it is not my theory nor is it part of my theory.

You maintain that some wars are good, yet you cannot tell who or how a determination can be made which wars are 'good' and which wars are 'evil'. As for philosophical principles - perhaps you could try the Principle of Sufficient Reason: '[A principle] of sufficient reason [obtain] in virtue of which we consider that no fact could be true or actual, and no proposition true without there being sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although most often these reason cannot be known by us.' Godfriedt Wilhelm Leibniz as quoted by Nicholas Rescher - and tell me what would be a sufficient reason for any war to be good. Then tell me by who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true; a scientist or politician, a religious leader or a philosopher?

My suggestion would be that you stay in your ivory tower and watch the world, with your strawman, burn - from a safe distance.

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

You did not answer my questions, why? Then, why would I consult philosophy to get to the bottom of this issue; after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, philosophy was unable to get to the bottom of this issue. Perhaps it is time to consider some different understanding.

So, you continue to demonstrate that the fatal flaw in your reasoning is faulty generalizing. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, by your submissions then, some wars are good and some wars are evil. Then, please tell me, by who or on what authority can a decision be made that any specific war is good but another war is evil?

Do you think it's possible for a side in a war to be fighting "the good fight"? — RogueAI

I think both sides, in any war, think they are fighting "the good fight".

From you assertion:

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

Since no rational person, even with the necessary authority, will declare any war on any particular occasion, unless he/she believes it is necessary and the right thing. Thus, whenever a war is declared by a rational person it must be a good thing to do and whenever a war is declared by an irrational person it must be an evil war, obviously. Surely, any person declaring an unnecessary war must be irrational.

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?

By your assertion then: All war is good. And this I reject with contempt.

And no matter how many times you promote your Strawman fallacy, that some wars are 'good' because some pain is 'good', you have not convinced me, nor the millions of war casualties, nor the families of the millions of war casualties.

I maintain that all war is evil.

Please tell me, who or on what authority, can a decision be made that any particular war is good?

"The Logic of Existence". A bold claim to make that existence is logical. — I like sushi

Perhaps a bold claim:

"Existence := Defined by the Argument of Existence. The argument that things includes mass or energy or that a thing is perceived to exist or that there is some change in a thing."

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.

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

Also, I am waiting patiently for you to explain to the millions that have been killed in the Ukrainian war that the world is intrinsically good. that their deaths is not a problem that needs to be addressed - there is no urgency to understand why war takes place - why the world is as it is.

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

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."

If

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

, why after 2,600 years of philosophical guidance we humans are still killing each other by the millions?

In my problem statement I made the following two statements:

1. For more than 2,600 years philosophers have studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding.
2. We still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war.

To my knowledge both statements are patently true, what might be called historical facts.
From these two statements I made the following deduction:

1. The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipe dream.

A deduction that certainly is: belligerent, antagonistic, contentious, perhaps even hostile; certainly provoking - but is this not how a useful debate is generated?

The philosophical answer to this problem seems to be, these problems are due to the 'human condition', the fundamental dispositions and characteristics that are said to be innate to humans - human nature - this cannot be regarded as a failure of philosophy.

This, however, begs two questions:

1. Why is human nature like this - simply due to evolution?
2. If philosophy cannot be blamed for this (which concedes to a failure in philosophy), who is to blame? Or do we stick to the excuse of 'evolution', this evolution which is regarded by philosophy as an elaborate tautology?

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?

The short answer to this is a most emphatic No! What I do have is a theory, or at least an idea of a theory, that just might provide a better understanding of why the world is as it is. What I am looking for is someone that could help me find a fatal flaw in my reasoning, a reasoning that is not based on a 'truth' as professed by any philosopher but on the assumption of a singular, conditional 'truth', that physical things, things with mass or energy, exist. If you regard this assumption as false, please do not bother any further - perhaps you have escaped Plato's cave, but consider the possibility that you are still stuck in some philosopher's cave. If you consider the possibility that this assumption might be valid and could, perhaps lead to some better understanding, please continue.

And no, it is not possible to present my theory on this forum, to use another analogy: "If I show you a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are the only things that you will see - a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I had to build the puzzle to the extent that the picture starts to appear for you to understand the picture that I see."

And yes, this quote is from my book, the one that I am not allowed to promote. But my theory is out there and I am trying to find the fatal flaw in it. Wasn't it Schopenhauer that stated: "All 'truth' passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." And yes, I have put the word truth in inverted commas because I do not know how or on what authority a decision can be made that that any true statement is in fact the truth.

"Decision (making) := The capability of some systems that could perceive their own state as well as the state of other systems and change their state accordingly. Thus, systems with a perception of the state of systems."

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

Please, what other things could be deduced from the two fundamentally true statements?

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

These discussions included the input from philosophers, not so?

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

So, in your opinion, is my opinion wrong?
OR In your opinion, would it never be possible to manage these problems better?

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

So, is it your opinion that these problems should not be under the purview of philosophy?

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

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.

So noted, thank you.

I was under the impression that philosophers are curious openminded people. The substance is in my book. I merely posted a question.

Your hint at an alternative sounds suspiciously 'philosophical'.

Surely, this would depends on a definition of what, exactly, is philosophy, not so? Which, in my understanding, is a philosophical question in itself.

If you read my book you will find I have NOT used philosophical tools to gain my understanding.

You are quite correct, we no longer burn people at the stake, we are killing them much more efficiently.

Thank you for the "good luck". You should also stick around - we engineers has been saving the world for much longer than 2,600 years - and helped extensively in this efficient killing.

You are confused and you think I am confused! I made two distinct statements:

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.

Both statements are in plain English, understandable and in my opinion true statements. 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.

This then begs the question whether it is in the purview of philosophy to solve these problems. A valid question for sure. 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. Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy.

Another valid question is whether we should leave the possible solution (or abatement) of these problems to politicians. The same deduction that I made regarding the failure of philosophy to solve or at least abate these problems could be made about politics. Politicians have not been able to solve these problems either.

Do we accept then that these problems are inherent to humanity - that strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is simply human nature? This, however, sounds like capitulation.

Hope this has abated some of your confusion.

There is only one of your statements that I do not agree with, that my excpectations of philosophy is naive. I do not have any expectations from philosophy - it did not solved the problems that I mentioned and I do not expect these problems to be solved in the foreseeable future.

I do not have a definitive solution to these problems either - what I do have is an additional (to philosophy) way that these problems could be tackled. My theory (that I explain in my book) is not based on philosophy but based on a fundamental definition of a system, deduced from first principles.

I did indeed understood what you wrote, you provided what is commonly known as a strawman:

"The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man"), instead of the opponent's proposition."

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?

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.

No, I did not know. But I am pretty sure I will not spend any time on your suggestion.
The only reason why I check my book sales is because each book sold indicates a person that actually bought a book, which indicates the possibility that someone might engage with some sense on its content.

Dear Metaphysician Undercover, I would like to ask you a big favour: please explain your understanding of "something deeper" to the more than 1,400 Israelis that was killed and abducted on 7 October 2023 and the 56,000 Palestinians killed as a consequence of this. Also, please explain this "something deeper" to the thousands that die every day due to hunger and preventable diseases. Please explain to all of them that their deaths are, in fact, "for the sake of a higher good."

I humbly suggest that you read my book before you venture to a fatal flaw in my REASONING.

And while you are waiting for the delivery of my book, you might contemplate the following question: What, exactly, is the difference between philosophy and politics - or is the one merely a consequence of the other? You know, like the philosophy of Karl Marx and the one million people killed by Stalin's Great Purge.

Thank you for welcoming me to your forum and thank you for your contributions. Although it seems to me there EXISTS some digression from the original question - perhaps still relevant though. I must confess, I was not completely transparent in my request for an invitation to this forum; I have written a book, and publish it independently. It is published through Kindle Direct Publishing and available through Amazon. The reason why I joined this forum is to generate debate on the content of my book. To answer 'unenlightened's question: I contemplated some questions for a long time (at least from the time I was working towards a master's in engineering management, circa 1995). In 2019 I started to order my thoughts into some cohesive reasoning. This morphed into a manuscript that is now published - which is why I wrote it. Could not find any publishing house with the chutzpah to publish it. I invite anyone to obtain my book - and then I challenge you to find the fatal flaw in my reasoning.

By my understanding, until such time as a fatal flaw has been confirmed in my reasoning, my theory stands.

The 'logic' to my first question is actually very simple:
1. For thousands of years we humans have suffered under strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.
2. Philosophy (by my understanding and as per the Oxford dictionary's definition) includes "3 a theory or attitude that guides one's behaviour. Also, 1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
3. For at least 2,600 years of philosophical effort, philosophy could not find a theory or attitude that could eradicate strife, civil disobedience, revolution or war. Nor did philosophy find the knowledge that could eradicate these problems.

I, most definitely, do not blame philosophy or philosophers for the woes of the world - merely pointing out the 'fact' that these problems have not been solved. Not by philosophy nor by politics, science, religion or any other human endeavour. And this is where my book comes in: I ask, is it not time that we rethink the very foundation of our perceptions, our understanding, and the basis of our knowledge - or do we 'pray' that somewhere along the line philosophers ( or: politicians, scientists, religious leaders ...) might find the solution(s) to our problems - before AI becomes the "next class of systems" and the human dream of 'Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity' becomes only the history of humanity.

I, also, do not disregard the positive contributions of philosophy. My book does not purport to replace this 2,600 years of philosophy - just an additional basis from which these problems might be addressed.

A next question that could be considered is: By who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true? A question that I also contemplate and address in my book.

If philosophy cannot end the diversity of viewpoints, what exactly is the purpose and utility in studying philosophy?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that my question does not have an answer?
As to your question: "

would you rather live in today's world or in any point in the past? (and if the later please tell me what time) — Red Sky

This question has no utility - it think it is called a rhetorical question.

I am not blaming, merely asking a question. According to the Oxford Dictionary, philosophy is:
1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
2. the study of the theoretical basis of a branch of knowledge or experience.
3. a theory or attitude that guides one's behaviour.
So, after 2,600 years of this study we still have armed conflict, poverty and hunger, we are destroying our own environment and we are somehow on the verge of being taken over by artificial intelligence. Why is that?
You mention "unruly human nature" - so, do we accept that the "human nature" that has been studied for this 2,600 years is in fact strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war?

So your answer to my question is: Because some people are selfish when they can get away with it. Somebody must only make better rules and instill better discipline. This answer, however, only begs the questions: why are some people like that, who, exactly should make these rules and how should these rules be enforced?
My answer is simple: the world is as it is because that is how the world and we humans evolved. Which then begs the question, how did this evolution took place?
The answer to this question is a bit more involved but is spelled out unambiguously in the book, How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

Thank you for the response, but I think you have opened a can of worms:
1. What, exactly, do you mean by 'system'?
2. You mention unwritten rules that were followed and then not followed - is that not the basis of any political change and if so, we humans has been doing that for as long as philosophy has been studied, not so?
3. You show negative comments on "a couple of people jump the queue", is that not the basis of our human innovation and progress? The same goes for "people wishing to get more than they have".
Your contribution is appreciated and thank you for the plain english but I do not find myself closer to an answer to my question.