"Do you think philosophy can help people learn to respect truth, facts, reality, and one another, and to reject falsehood, superstition, selfishness, polarization, partisanship, and mutual hostility based on differences of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, belief, etc.? If so, how? If not, why not?”
“Even if we can perceive reality unframed by concepts, it will still be framed by our perceptual and cognitive apparatus. You can take off the glasses of language, but our experiences of the world still have to come through the lends of human nature. To escape human perspective altogether would be to cease to be human and thus cease to exist not only as we know it, but as we could know it.” (Baggini, 33)
“Could we shed our
outlook on the world as we have it today? We could alter our perspectives with
time and effort, but would all humanity deem it a good lesson to learn? From
where would our school of thought come from? Western, Eastern, combination? Who
would choose what is moral, good, worth altering our “rose-tinted spectacles”
(Warburton, 110) as Kant believed we wore? Social reproduction is a powerful
force in this world, the study of philosophy alone won’t curb the hostility in
the world; merely open ways in communication. In this way, I see your point of
view as plausible if a little disheartening.” Baggini
“If there is something comforting- religious, if you want- about
paranoia, there is still also anti-paranoia, where nothing is connected to
anything, a condition not many of us can bear for long.” Thomas Pynchon
Gravity’s Rainbow (Andersen, 171)
“People want to live and live how they want. For every single
something, you’ll have the opposite/anti-whatever. You can temper with
knowledge, communicate more effectively but people don’t want to escape their
fantasy lands. The world must still seem to resolve around them individually or
culturally. As you have said, people must work together to advance but people
can be “study” philosophy but fail the test of application” stated Andersen.
“Philosophy has been described as the Queen of the Sciences in days past but as more knowledge of the world around us has become readily available, advances made by philosophical inquiry has taken the back seat to mathematics, chemistry, and technology. The pupil has surpassed the master.
“It liiiives!!!” 
Dr.
Frankenstein yelled as his monster came to life, so too has other sciences been
brought to life by philosophy but now they overshadow their creator. If you
could pick philosopher’s out from their times and place them all in a colosseum,
locked the doors and gave them a single problem: perhaps, “Describe this apple,”
and the general consensus would be that there is no consensus. While the hope
would be that no bloodshed would occur, and they’d be able to communicate among
their peers effectively; it seems likely that it would descend into madness.”
Warburton
Richard Rorty likened philosophy to critics interpreting a Shakespeare play believing, “there’s no single ‘correct” way of reading it…Different people at different times interpret the text differently.” (LH 170) So philosophy can be used throughout time but different people will use, see, interpret, analyze with it in decidedly unique ways. As a tool, it can be an effective one but does not make up an overall cure.
How would you
answer William James's "really vital question for us all: What is this
world going to be? What is life eventually to make of itself?"
The world may
not be around very much longer if we continue to be consumed by our own
cultural stagnation and can’t make the changes we need to save the very planet
that we live on. In my belief human life on Earth is not finite, we don’t have
forever. Eventually, Mother Nature, God, Gaia, whatever may be out there or
maybe just the planet itself will strike back and destroy us just as surely as
we have been destroying our world. The planet will resume its normal rhythm but
I doubt humans, if still around, will be the dominate force. *Cue intro for
‘Life After People.”
Baggini, “The
world must come together and remember that we are all human. The world will
march along and advance and humans will retain their lenses. Humans will
evolve, perhaps for the better but in that evolution must retain our humanity. Progress
must be matched with growth and betterment.”
Warburton, “The
future is uncertain, we have the philosophy of those that came before us and
must learn to apply it to the future. The world must come together to stop
ourselves from stagnating in our own flaws. Life will go on with or without
humans but humanity doesn’t have to perish in flames if we would refrain from playing
with the torch.”
Andersen:
As I was driving home one day, pondering my blog past the song below came on and it really hit home with what are world is becoming.
https://www.pcgamer.com/filosofighters-takes-the-phrase-battle-of-ideas-rather-literally/ If you want to "choose your character" and battle it out with other philosophers and perhaps even conquer yourself...here's a game.
 |
| #forreal |
"I don’t believe humans could ever come to the same conclusion on what the world should be" - And that's fine, isn't it? Diversity makes life rich and interesting.
ReplyDelete"...nor how to define what is truth, facts, reality, superstition, so on and so forth" - Definitely not fine, but until fairly recently in our country people fundamentally DID agree of truth, facts, and reality. So isn't it premature to say they never can again?
"Who would choose what is moral, good, worth altering our “rose-tinted spectacles”... If Kant is right, we all wear the same prescription and have recourse to the same Categorical Imperative etc., so we shouldn't have to choose. We just have to be rational.
"anti-paranoia, where nothing is connected to anything" - I never did understand Pynchon, maybe you can explain this?
"the general consensus would be that there is no consensus" - paradoxically stated, but in fact isn't this exactly how inquiry succeeds: by aggregating all the relevant perspectives, not rejecting all but one. The "consensus" then is the view that we need all those perspectives to fill out our descriptions and explanations (of apples and everything else). That's pluralism. It's also what Rorty means. Why isn't that a "cure"?
Is that last Warburton quote real?
I don't understand what Andersen is "saying" in that last illustration.
Did they agree on truth, facts, and reality or did they hide what they truly believed behind that veil so as to not "rock the boat"? Is that only focusing on the ruling class? Looking at the LGBT+ community, people of color, those with disabilities, those with mental disorders: I doubt they had the same belief system on what was truth, fact, and reality. The connection of the world via technology has thrown the windows open into everyone's world, challenging preconceived notions, beliefs and everything else. Now people are stepping out and rocking that boat like it's a hurricane. A lot of it I find strange, distressing and makes me question a lot of people but it also has brought positive changes. The problem is that most people don't want to be challenged, to change, to be proven wrong, to even admit it. We like our fantasylands but most people turn them into Neverlands and they never grow up.
ReplyDeleteJust like with any lenses, your prescription is different depending on what is wrong with your eyes/how you see. Same with your perspective lens, what your mind says puts the coating on them. Merely liked Kant's description on how we were lens, not that he was necessarily right.
Pynchon's world consisted of two types of choices for people: paranoia and nihilism. Paranoia that everything is controlled by the unseen (God if you will) and there is some time of plan. Nihilism was anti-paranoia: it all means nothing. You have one group of people you have the reverse.
It can be a cure but not one you can make all people adhere to. The need to be on the right side of whatever argument, discussion has gone to the wayside. The decision to agree to disagree.
No real, my own words.
Dexter Labs: "there's gloom and doom when things go boom..." Anderson is saying, it's not looking good.