Yes, it is problematic, because I'm suggesting something very different from what isbso commonly assumed. i'm saying that, without consciousness being there from the beginning, things would simply exist. And, even beings with our mental abilities would not be conscious. We would be automatons. — Patterner

So you are looking at the univserse as a clockwork machine without the input of consciousness? I think when we are getting to such far flung thoughts we have very little to work with and even rational thought dissolves.

It is a bit like the whole issue of framing morality that is talked about often enough. The means of measuring may simply be impossible via material methods. Until there is a new paradigm I do not see things changing too much.

The best any of us can do is investigate the phenomenon of consciousness firsthand and inform ourselves about the work of physicists and cognitive neuroscientists (to name but two fields of interest!).

I am mostly of the mind that the very term consciousness is far too nebulous for current purposes. Until someone comes along and reconceptualises the broad phenonemon of consciousness I do not expect any real progress for quite some time. I personally believe Husserl was somewhat on the right track even though I am not really in agreement with what he believed could be achieved through his phenonemological approach.

One term always stuck out to me - I think Damasio or possibly Colin Renfrew mentioned it - the archiac term of 'ken'. I think utilising this kind of concept more universally in academia could lead to new approaches. The language within these sciences does certainly need clear delineations but often I find this can take away from a more wider-lens perspective on the matter under investigation.

Can you elaborate on this idea of consciousness morphing? — Patterner

I meant nothing more than Consciousness could be a to something else (Space-time or something) as Matter is to Energy. Was just speculation. It does nto seem we are much closer to understanding Consciousness as some fundamental form just yet and maybe it isn't. Maybe we will live to see a breakthrough.

Dogmatism, however, deprives the possibility of becoming and it may be good as a temporary solution, but in the long term it is unviable. For a neighbor will come and become your master due to greater development, which ensures pluralism. — Astorre

I do not understand what you mean by this within the context of the discussion?

An existential choice is possible precisely because humans do not know the ultimate purpose of life or the consequences of their decisions, and the awareness of mortality (finitude) spurs them to act. — Astorre

I am onboard with this generally speaking. Our ignorance leaves us somewhat at sea. This again I see as a reflection of responsibility. We bias positive outcomes over negative ones in terms of self-authorship. If things end up taking a worse turn we are more likely to deny responsibility, and in contrast when they go well we claim authorship where little or none exist.

Today, authenticity is going beyond the boundaries of today, but in the past, although these boundaries were narrower, going beyond them was also something authentic. — Astorre

My point is the exact opposite. Bruno lived in civilized society not the kind of Closed Society Popper was referring to, where the heirarchy is the foundation of existence not something 'enforced'. It is through humanities opposition to nature that led us into a world of 'choice' rather than left to the mercy of natures chaotic machinations.

I am taking this much further back to try and help you establish the human condition from a point where 'choice' was not even a concept. People just lived to survive without question of anything beyond their immediate physical bounds, because this was their Whole World (finite) not a modern world that has reasoned beyond the bounds of the mountain range, seas, oceans and stars.

Choice itself is the item that led to existential contemplation. Beyond the bounds of our primal natures we come to reflect on possibilities rather than immediate circumstances..

What if we view the premodern era as a time of faith in oracles, in contrast to modernity’s faith in objectivity? The belief in objectivity has undoubtedly led to significant advancements in comfort and safety, but, as you rightly noted, it has failed to deliver personal happiness. On the contrary, the expansion of the horizon of choice in modernity—from selecting weapons to adopting worldviews (religion or atheism)—has made life less predetermined but not necessarily more fulfilling. A premodern person didn’t choose between a spear and a rifle because rifles didn’t exist, nor did they contemplate atheism in the absence of that concept. This limitation narrowed the scope of choice but may have also reduced existential tension. — Astorre

I was thinking more along hte lines of Popper's Open and Closed societies in relation to your view on this too. As in the effects of rationality from prehistory into human civilization.

Returning to the topic of existential versus algorithmic choice, I would argue that existential choices existed in the premodern era, albeit within a narrower framework: choosing a partner, deciding whether to engage in or avoid conflict. — Astorre

Well, not necessarily. Just because we live as we do now it does not mean people used to consider their existence. We care more about simple survival first and foremost without any real consideration of anything beyond our immediate limits (speaking generally here for the development of the human race).

The weight of responsibility for these choices was no less significant, as a wrong decision could lead to death or exile. — Astorre

There was no choice. People knew their place and did not abscond from it. The 'choice' was in the hands of nature. The ruler of the tribe was sacred not democratically voted for. It is with the advent of civilization that Open society began to develop in sedentary life.

Belief in an oracle might have alleviated some doubts by prescribing a “righteous” path, but it did not negate the nature of choice itself. — Astorre

Most Roman's paid tribute to 'Fortune' when things went their way. 'Choice' was in their society often seen as something in fates hands rather than their own.

I agree with you that modernity has broadened the range of options, but I disagree that the nature of existential choice has changed. It remains rooted in uncertainty and finitude, not in the number of available options. It is this uncertainty, rather than the illusion of control, that continues to fuel the authenticity of our decisions. — Astorre

People do not want freedom. They want something that contradicts freedom - no responsibility. Closed Society gave them this. In Closed Society choice is avoided.

Interesting thoughts that seem in line with some anthropological views.

Prehistoric humans lived in a finite world bounded by the horizon. Any 'beyond' was likely considered unimportant. Today we see something like th eopposite in effect, with our knowledge of the cosmos appreciated as a definite object given through the physical sciences.

Therefore, it is perhaps more likley that this acquanitance with the infinite is what has led to an existential crisis rather than with the prehistoric finitude of existence, which held us in place. We were fated in ancient times by the gods and oracles of the times, yet now we deem to see beyond this veil it is likley this belief in 'seeing beyond' that is the problem of 'choice' over 'acceptance'.

Honestly, prayer to some fundamental and unobtainable 'entity' does seem practical in dealing with misfortune. Just because we call it 'luck' today it does not take away from the fact that some things are beyond us even though we envision our appreciate of the cosmos as more complete today in a phsyical sense.

He is a sensible cookie! His position does parallel that of Richard Feynman and his view of physics. A sense of humility and understanding, in our lack of understanding, would benefit many commentators in every field of interest. Too often it is more common to see people espousing their perspectives or field of research as the be all and end all of all.

To do this, a basic training in the fields of science and art is required. — MoK

I lived life is not something one can learn though. Not everyone gains much wisdom with age but I doubt no one gain any whatsoever.

A basic education can easily lead someone down a blind alley just as it can broaden horizons. Awareness of this is knowledge, whilst understanding it is ourselves who are certainly succumbing to blind alleys or overreaching beyond the horizon is where wisdom lies.

Ironically it seems tha failiure is the only way to make any kind of progress in life. Bravery is learning to keep on keeping on. I believe this is why Sisyphus was regarded as the wisest of all.

Before that there is an issue with naturalism. We do not know what Gravity is, yet we have become able to measure its effects overtime. Morality is much more difficult but, nevertheless, we can see the effects actions that are deemed 'good' and 'bad' and adjust our positions as experience dictates.

So while our current understanding of morality seems absent of naturalistic causes presently it need not be so in the future.

As for branches of Emotivism we see no denial of morality only a reframing of what is actually going on. It explains the subjective nature of 'good' and 'bad' and it is reasonable that communities will come to common understandings of what is good on an evolutionary trajectory too.

There is something to be said for this, but hard to do so without entering realms you wish to steer clear of.

In some sense we can frame those that say consciousness is emergent as being onboard with the idea of universal consciousness as the 'property' of consciousness exists by some means it is just that they cannot elaborate on the how or why to any significant extent. Perhaps they would be willing to talk of a latent consciousness sitting and waiting for a certain amalgam of mundane matter through which to flourish?

I think where you could come to meet the more common expression of 'consciousness' is to understand it as 'emerging'/'awakening'.

However, all things, living and non, experience. — Patterner

This is going to be problematic in expressing your thoughts I feel. The word we have for this is 'exist' not 'experience'. I think if you expressed your thoughts more along the lines of reestablishing what we mean by 'exist' it would get your view point across more clearly.

I think you may also need to address some problems of reductionism here when expressing these ideas. What I mean is we are all, as is everything, made up of parts and these parts are all 'experiencing'/'existing' items. The problem herein is that you say 'rock' or 'person,' but are we then to say that this or that molecule, wavefunction or organ is 'experiencing'/'existing' separate from or entangled with the experiencing of a mental subject?

It could be that consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe that can morph from one form to another. We know this is the case with Energy and Matter so I see no reason to assume that there are no other key elements that make up all we know of given our limited scope of the entire existence of the universe.

This is certainly an interesting and rich landscape to explore but due to this it is also prone to blind speculation - a large reason I stay clear of discussions on consciousness.

What have you read on this subject? I have just started reading Ian McGilchrist's 'The Matter With Things' and feel you may find some useful discussions in this. If short of time I recommend watching an interview or two with him or reading Philosophy Now Issue 164 (which focuses on him and other sin this area; although I confess I have not read the articles in this issue yet).

Ehen I die, there will still be consciousness. But there will no longer be any mental activity to experience. Just the physical body. No more interesting than a rock's consciousness. At least in my opinion. Others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's. In there timeframes of human life, there is certainly nore going on in a dead body than there is in a rock. A typical body will decompose much faster than a typical rock will erode. Both will experience their deconstruction, but neither will have any thoughts or feelings about, or awareness of, it. — Patterner

Understood.

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. I have heard that wording more than any other, but I prefer Annaka Harris' "felt experience". I think feeling is what it all means. When Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?", the question is really: "What does it feel like to be a bat?" Not how does it feel physically, although that may be a part of it. Not how does it feel emotionally, although that may be a part of it. It's the overall feeling of being.

Really, that's it. If you want detail, then you don't understand this idea. There is no detail to consciousness. The consciousness of different things is not different. Not different kinds of consciousness, and not different degrees of consciousness. There's no such thing as higher consciousness. — Patterner

I am having real trouble here in distinguishing what you are trying to say and exactly how it is different from panpsychism? I cannot seem to find a way to divide the two.

I believe how you are trying to define 'experience' and 'feeling' on different terms here might lead me to understand this better perhaps?

Isn't this the Frankfurt school response, meaning we should impose ways to disrupt the capitalist takeover of technology for its malevolent purposes as opposed to traditional Marxists who would advocate removal of technology from private ownership and placing it back into the hands of the citizens? — Hanover

It is Han's 'Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power'. For whatever reason Baden forgot to cite the main contributing source for this essay. His ideas are basically the bones holding this essay together.

And he has read Han:

This really resonates with my recent readings (Schiller on aesthetics, Byung-Chul Han on technocapitalism, and John Gray on Utopian engineering), and it represents just the type of thinking we need now with the gap between ideological "freedom" and actual freedom becoming ever wider. — Baden

There are more than strong echoes from The Burnout Society too, of which Psychopolitics was a follow up.

Of course, we are as much physical objects as rocks are. — Patterner

How so? I find this analogy strange as a rock is not actually a rock to anything other than that which consciously adheres to it as an object. To an ant, assuming some minimal form of consciousness, the rock is likely nothing more than a surface. A rock cannot 'be' it is the 'beings' that frame a rock as a rock.

These things are not human consciousness. Rather, these things are what humans are conscious of. — Patterner

The feelings-of are consciousness-of.

I would like to try to explore the idea that consciousness is fundamental. — Patterner

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. — Patterner

Okay. But you then talk about a 'rock' as conscious? Or was that merely an analogy of an analogy.

I would like to know in more detail - where possible - what you mean by consciousness being "fundamental" please.

@Showmee I should also add that Error Theory is only negative (destructive), yet you move away from non-cognitivism because you claim it is also only capable of negation. Can you explain why or is it just a case of having to choose one to write about over the other?

Approaching ethics from my own perspective, I find the field deeply problematic. Unlike other branches of philosophy, a systematic and formal treatment of ethics seems impossible. — Showmee

Agreed. In principle the possibility of there being an underlying objective morality is neither here nor there as we would likely never come to realise it fully. If you really think about it if you reduce all moral dilemmas into formulaic structures then you are not doing anything moral, merely you are calculating the 'good' in any given action.

If, in a branch of knowledge, being intuitive is more significant than being logical, then such a branch is substantially flawed, especially if it seeks to describe objective facts. Quantum physics is unimaginably more counterintuitive than Newtonian physics; this does not affect the former’s dominance over the latter. Similarly, in the field of mathematics, Gabriel’s Horn, which states that a shape (formed by rotating y = 1/x, for all x≥1, around the x-axis) could have infinite area yet finite volume, is not rendered invalid due to its counterintuitive nature. — Showmee

I am not really sure we can really think about ethics in terms of a kind of Knowledge. Certainly, knowledge can alter our ethical stance in this or that situation but at the end of the day the choice remains a burden on us not on some formula we use to avoid responsibility for the actions we take.

This is primarily where I see the meaning of Ethics being rooted in conscious authorship, in claiming responsibility for actions, rather than absconding from such by relying only on a logical map. That said, what makes this harder to appreciate is just how logical knowledge can influence how we shape our decisions.

Note: Newtonian Mechanics works perfectly well when applied to certain scenarios. It is not a defunct method of calculating.

Establishing a robust non-cognitivist stance requires not only destructive arguments, but also constructive ones—something current accounts fail to deliver satisfactorily. — Showmee

Well, not really. This is like saying neither Newton nor Einstein explained what gravity is fundamentally. It seems to me that infinite reductionism is not particularly handy when it comes to broadening our understanding of the human condition. This is something Ian McGilchrist articulates well in his work.

What I mean by that is one's taste in philosophy. — Moliere

I guess we are all drawn more or less towards one area for numerous reasons. This will hopefully change for most people throughout their lives; which brings us to the additional question of 'good' or 'bad' choices.

I think anyone unwilling to look seriously at opposing arguments is making a mistake. I think anyone unable to see a flaw in their own interpretation of the world is making an even greater mistake.

As for styles, I think it is incumbent on the reader to understand the historical and relational contexts of a piece of writing. For the historical context, when reading Hobbes, Rousseau or Machiavelli, there are occasions when the spirit of the time these people lived in needs to be understood so we can sift out the relevance for our current circumstances. It is absurd to critique any of their thoughts and positions as if they had written their work for the world we find ourselves in. For the relational context, reading a modern philosophical text that attempts to replicate the style of Hegel, Nietzsche or Kant is deeply misguided as they were written for people in well-established circles not for mass consumption.

There are faulty approaches. Individually we must aim to be honest with ourselves as much as possible.

Personally, I opt for a Fox approach above the Hedgehog one (Berlin). Meaning, I am a Fox looking for connections rather than myopic specialisations of the Hedgehog - not to say these people are not needed!

Do you have a sense of your own taste? — Moliere

I have a distaste for philosophy as a be all and end all. I have the same distaste for holding rigidly to any particular field of study or interest. I appreciate that those who have amore rigid grip on certain areas at the cost of others are invaluable, but that just isn't for me. An example of this can be seen in the inability for people like Dawkins and Peterson to understand where each other is coming from. Both provide perspectives that are worthy of consideration, yet both (maybe not equally) all bound within their own interests.

I always look to figures like Richard Feynman who, whilst being a brilliant physicist, went out of his way to take an interest in other people's passions such as kite making or drawing.

Why are you more drawn to particular philosophers, schools, styles, or problems? — Moliere

I do not believe I am. What I read is usually determined by seeking out oppositional views or areas I know little about. Quality/Content overrides style. This goes for science, art, history, etc.,.

Do you think about how to choose which philosopher to read? — Moliere

If I am looking into something particular I think very carefully about who to read and try to find extreme ends of the argument and also someone in the middle ground (philosophy or otherwise). When looking into anthropology I chose Geertz, Eliade and Levi-Strauss specifically because they wrote in different styles, possessed different approaches, and were able to give me a broad perspective of what I was interested in learning more about.

While this could include the prose -- is it elegant or turgid? -- what I want to focus on is the aesthetic judgment of the philosophy itself. — Moliere

In short, I think anyone looking at philosophical choices as 'aesthetic' is more focused on political philosophy. If we asked the same question about a scientist choosing a field of study I think you would find the answer being more or less about intrigue. Only some of the Hedgehog scientists would call their choice of field 'more worthy' and then we are effectively back into social politics and weighing ourselves against others rather than against the nature of being.

One small mistake (in terms of concise writing) that stuck out was the repetition of the quote from Mackie refer to universality. Other than that my main criticism of this piece would have to be you tried to cram in too much with too few words.

All that said, I found it a pretty decent read. I have more to ask and discuss but for the mean time I have a couple of reading suggestions.

1) Bernard Williams, 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy'

2) Ian McGilchrist, 'The Matter With Things' - something I have just started reading.

Note: I am also reading Shelly Kegan's 'Answering Moral Skepticism' and paying particular attention to his views against non-cognitivism.

I will defo get around to this. Reading something at the moment by Shelly Kagan that will probably relate to this.

Sure as hell did! Not good enough though.

Read Byung Chul-Han's 'Psychopolitics,' it is almost like he wrote a commentary of Baden's work - only more legible.

Frankly I am at a loss for words. I say these words with disbelief because I cannot fathom WHY anyone would do such a thing.

Made me want to climb a mountain ... sadly, I still haven't :( More fool me!

It was criticism. Stop complaining! You didn't write it :D I am sure Baden can answer if he sees fit. If not, no bother.

So the complaints are just anti-intellectualism, or laziness, or both. — Jamal

No, just honest criticism not really a 'complaint'. If it shows I am not sufficiently intellectual enough so be it.

Others seem to think this is well written so I am willing to bite the bullet and give it another go, but was hoping for some discussion as to how this relates to Byung Chul-Han's work that appear to follow a very similar theme @Baden?

I am not at all ashamed to be flummoxed by it. Something come easily to some and not to others. Such is life :)

Taking the Forum as an example, it seems to me that much of the writing is neither one thing nor another. Neither creative, in the sense of Nietzsche, nor analytic, in the sense of the philosophical essay, where claims are made and then defended. I am including myself. — RussellA

It is a common symptom on an informal site. The biggest issue I see on this forum is how quickly threads can go off topic. There are often some interesting OPs but by the time a page is full it has often morphed into something else entirely.

My hope was to elicit both kinds of writing, at least, if with more effort than we usually put into OP's and responses. — Moliere

I would argue against the more 'creative' styles as such is only worth reading if you have faith in the author. I have no reason to have any faith in any authors on this site. I would be very interested to see BOTH forms used in parallel as I do fully understand the use of analogies to help a well-reasoned point hit home more readily.

My own view is that generally I see more attempts to be original that tend to do the exact opposite. It seems that there are some serious ideas being put forwards, but a lot of them are based on more nebulous ideas and in what I will call pop-philosophy there has certainly been a growing tendency to present 'new views' that are in fact narrow views or poor reiterations of older philosophical works.

The kind of thing I am talking about is someone looking at all of history being shaped by Capitalism or Tea or Psychedelics or Racism etc.,. It is these kind of myopic perspectives, generalised so broadly, that I find disconcerting/disappointing.

I really enjoyed that one. What did you think?

@Baden Did you say you have read 'Psycho Politics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power (Byung Chul-Han)? If not this appears to be basically the same theme.

@RussellA Do you prefer more analytic writing yourself or do you find something like what Nietzsche does equally worthy of attention (regardless of content, talking purely stylistically here!)?

Please, what other things could be deduced from the two fundamentally true statements? — Pieter R van Wyk

You did it yourself here:

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

So, you can just as easily state that philosophy is moving us in the right direction.

Note: I do not at all believe any of that was meant in the manner you frame Hawking's as saying it. More likely he was more inclined towards Feynmann's view of physics (not assuming it can or will give a completely detailed description of the universe).

Honestly, I think you are better off addressing other people who are engaging with you rather than me.

Have fun :)

Answering Moral Skepticism - Shelly Kegan

Finally!

Purpose. Do we make it, are we drawn along by it, or are we the substance of purpose itself?

Whatever purpose means to us it seems to be inextricably the primary feature of human life lived rather than existed.

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

So?

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?

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?

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?

Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy. — Pieter R van Wyk

Good for you! You have an opinion.

In short, you are of the opinion that philosophy is meant to solve all humanities problems AND you think if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding that we should be able to manage humanities problems better.

You then take these opinions as given, and follow up with a question based PURELY on these opinions. 'Why has philosophy not solved humanities problems?'

Imagine someone saying to you the following:

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?

This is basically what you have done. You are under the assumption that the purpose of something is what your opinion of it is, rather than what it does.

If you read my book — Pieter R van Wyk

Why would I. You have shown nothing of substance.

You are using philosophical tools to say that philosophy does not do what it does.

Deductive Reasoning is part of logical philosophical discourse.

The same deduction that I made regarding the failure of philosophy to solve or at least abate these problems could be made about politics. — Pieter R van Wyk

This is just blatantly ignorant. We no longer burn people at the stake and even have free education and health care in many countries.

Anyway, good luck. Hope you stick around and pick up a thing or two. This forum is pretty good for low level entry into this kind of subject matter.

Have fun :)

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

Contradicts:

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

Your hint at an alternative sounds suspiciously 'philosophical'.

I invite anyone to obtain my book - and then I challenge you to find the fatal flaw in my reasoning. — Pieter R van Wyk

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

You think they can be 'solved' or even need 'solving'? I am confused. You sound confused.

You assume there is some ethical absolute? On what foundation are you posing this question.

If there were a perfect political ideology it would require perfect adhesion to it by every single individual. Frankly, I would be more worried if everyone followed one singular path! The very basis of existence appears based on the necessity of open-ended approaches rather than absolute ones - those end in annihilation.

In short, what are you talking about?

On the difficulty of the text: I didn't deliberately try to complexify it, but I tried to prioritize theoretical preciseness which involved employing a lot of technical vocabulary that, understandably, the vast majority of readers were unlikely to be familiar with. In retrospect, a glossary would probably have been helpful, but I wrote most of this in the last week before the deadline and was still proofreading the above when I sent it (there even remain a few typos). — Baden

It shows. Any chance of a rewrite that is accessible? I can see there is something in this that is of interest to me and so I reckon we could have a pretty good discussion about this. The issue is as it stands it is asking more of me than I am willing to give.

I suffer with obtuse writing too sometimes. I feel like a lot of this would make more sense by just getting to the point early on and cutting out a lot of the technical jargon.

What we have outlined above is a warning that situates human subjects in a diachronic hierarchy between biological and social reality and a synchronic relationship with other subjects that both potentializes and creates their status as free agents. — Moliere

That can be said with much simpler wording right? If translated it actually says not much at all. I was hopeful that the following sentences would parse this in simpler terms but it just layered on the words and lost any thread of meaning it may of had.

I least it gives me hope for my own clarity in writing :)

Seriously, I am interested in what your point is here. I am not going to play a guessing game. It feels like you have a lot you want to say and tried it cram it all into a couple of thousand words when more likely a couple of hundred pages would've served better.

Is this being deliberately engineered? Yes, it would seem so. — Amity

I would have to disagree here. The concept of the 'invisible hand' is something Nozick uses to highlight how ineffective it can be to point at deliberate authorship. Psychologically, people will also claim authorship if the outcome is good and deny it when it is bad. I think much caution is needed here.

I see Schiller's main thrust being about the use of 'the playful impulse' as a means of using reason and morality in combination, rather than as separate. He looks at the playful impulse as being the only means by which both can come together.

Personally, when I hear someone say "aesthetic judgement" I see this as somewhat contradictory even though I understand what they mean by this. I say this because I do not see it as 'judgement' at all. Aesthetic taste can be honed but I fail to see how we pass 'judgement' as we simply express, rather than judge, our taste. It is this fuller sense of subjectivity that I see as a perfect means to reconcile differences and come to understand and forge new paths - morally and rationally.

The difficulty I find in expressing this is due to the medium. Philosophy looks to cut into 'Aesthetics' yet it will always resist such analytic brutality. It is non-quantifiable only felt. This 'useless' nature (as I believe Wilde pointed to) is what makes it of importance.

"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 pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

Is this? We exist. Existence means there is some form of balance.

Daily life is Peaceful enough for the vast majority. Example, I cannot recall having to fight anyone physically for any reason - at least since adolescence!

"The Logic of Existence". A bold claim to make that existence is logical.

Purpose? Utility? You understand what these terms mean? Explain please.

Get the idea now. Perspectives help. Alternative perspective offer different views of 'purpose,' 'war' and many other terms we throw around with gay abandon. The mistake we all make is assuming we know what we mean simply by using the authority of 'words'.

Philosophy started on one simple question: How should I live my life?

Everything else is basically a branch of this one question.

To add, what I found most relevant about Berlin was his pluralism. The piecemeal engineering Popper backed was shown as wanting by Berlin due to how this or that agenda can clash with others.

That said, I have to confess: I don't like Popper as a political philosopher. While his falsification theory of science was groundbreaking, his reading of Plato is a caricature. — Benkei

I think that is more than a little unfair. In the preface he makes clear his critique is aimed at nuances, but I can see how you and others may read this as a 'caricature'. I find this harsh judgement though. His attack is on social engineering, so perhaps it is more or less to do with a particular stance you have on social engineering that lies at the heart of your position?

I do not wish to create a strawman argument here, but I think it may help if you explain from exactly what social position problems arise, what is meant by justice in your eyes, and how the law and enforcement plays its part too. The 'strawman' I am trying to avoid here is the idea of a blank slate/equal society. I do not think you are asking for that but I am just trying to read between the lines. I assume you understand that some people are better than others at different things and that this is part and parcel of human life.

I think Italian theorist Franco Berardi with his idea of poesis and rhythm as paths of resistance forms a useful bridge between Schiller and Byung-Chul Han. — Baden

Can you elaborate please?