Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Modern Philosophers

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Modern Philosophers

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Where are the Modern Philosophers? I scream at the top of my voice for 10 years, why are there no true modern philosophers, or at least why can I not find them. It is our responsibility and right to phlosophi beyond thous of the past. But! All I see is the same old thing going on. All I see are people debating the writings of the past. Religious people arguing that the word of God is the answer, and the philosophers arguing that logical thought is the only answer. Where in fact it is the combined thoughts of all that have thought, and wrote, or been written about, that is the combined truth. Or the truth as it be comprehended today.

By studying all the knowledge with a open, non emotional, non egotistical mind, is when you see that all the Great thinkers say the exact same thing. When you step back with the openness I just spoke of you see a "City" of thought, and not so much the individual "Buildings" of thought. When I come back on the Internet every so many years all I see is people arguing or supporting the buildings, with religious furiosity. Now there are those in this forum that I see as potential modern philosophers, and this gets my hopes up once again. I feel that if after hundreds of years debate on the teachings of the past, the debate is still going on, then they must be inherently flawed.

What is needed now is a combined Philosophy of all the Great teachings. This Philosophy must not in any way give homage or credit to the past thinkers, for their teachings are the property of humanity. Can you imagine if we had to give credit each time we write "tree", to the one who said it first. No one deserves worship or credit for stating the workings of reality.

Why not start a movement right here in this forum, that takes all that is Logical from the past teachings, and slowly over time built it into a work of Art that can be comprehended by the 90 plus percent of people on this planet that need it written in the simplest manor possible.

I ask you, do Elite thinkers only want to be heard by their peers, or would they want to be heard by all?

@PoPpAScience,

Good topic to get people thinking! Smile

PoPpAScience wrote:

All I see is the same old thing going on. All I see are people debating the writings of the past. Religious people arguing that the word of God is the answer, and the philosophers arguing that logical thought is the only answer. Where in fact it is the combined thoughts of all that have thought, and wrote, or been written about, that is the combined truth. Or the truth as it be comprehended today.

By studying all the knowledge with a open, non emotional, non egotistical mind, is when you see that all the Great thinkers say the exact same thing. When you step back with the openness I just spoke of you see a "City" of thought, and not so much the individual "Buildings" of thought. When I come back on the Internet every so many years all I see is people arguing or supporting the buildings, with religious furiosity.

I agree there seems to be a general lack of originality these days... It also seems to be a problem of humanity in general to study and learn, only to sit around and argue about details rather than use the knowlegde gained in an appropriate way. I'm new to philosophy, but I've seen this in theology (though I'm no expert there either). People get caught up on the big theories put for by the experts and fight and yell and scream and call names and divide and hate over whose theology is perfect, yet fail to live out the dictates of the theology they are defending. And this is not to point fingers at everyone else, I think in one way or another we are all guilty of this kind of thing...

PoPpAScience wrote:

I feel that if after hundreds of years debate on the teachings of the past, the debate is still going on, then they must be inherently flawed.

You'll probably realize, if you haven't already, that my resopnse to this idea is yes, the ideas are flawed, and this is because human ability to reason is flawed. It's kind of one of the cornerstones of my current understanding that the human ability to reason, use logice, and recognise truth is inherantly imperfect. At least imperfect in as much as it does not work correctly by itself... And I'm not sure that anyone can convince me otherwise. All the debating and disagreement of the geniuses throughout history seem to prove that idea as much as anything else.

PoPpAScience wrote:

Why not start a movement right here in this forum, that takes all that is Logical from the past teachings, and slowly over time built it into a work of Art that can be comprehended by the 90 plus percent of people on this planet that need it written in the simplest manor possible.

What about the 10 percent that need it writen in the most complicated manner possible? Very Happy

But seriously, I think you are right in that we need to have our thought meet the reality of the "real world" in such a way that they make a difference.

@PoPpAScience,

Hmm... I don't want to hijack this thread, but I think this will apply to the subject.

Lets say I am right, and the human mind is inherantly imperfect in it's ability to reason, use logic, and percieve truth. Isn't most of philosophy built on the unspoken belief of the exact opposite, that we in the end have the hope of cognitively understanding and validating all matters of importance? If so, philosophy as is can never lead to truth since it is based on a misconception. If, on the other hand, if the foundation for philosophy based on the idea that the mind is a tool that only works within certain limits, wouldn't we be much more likely to end up with something much closer to truth?

Start with a misconception and end with fallacy. Start with reality and end with truth.

Just a thought...

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

Lets say I am right, and the human mind is inherantly imperfect in it's ability to reason, use logic, and percieve truth. Isn't most of philosophy built on the unspoken belief of the exact opposite, that we in the end have the hope of cognitively understanding and validating all matters of importance? If so, philosophy as is can never lead to truth since it is based on a misconception. If, on the other hand, if the foundation for philosophy based on the idea that the mind is a tool that only works within certain limits, wouldn't we be much more likely to end up with something much closer to truth?

Start with a misconception and end with fallacy. Start with reality and end with truth.

Just a thought...

Lets say you are right. Then...
Consciousness has many tools (senses) to help our individualized mind conceptualize the environment it is in. This leaves our individualized mind limited to this fact. Limited in the way that consciousness is like a computer that analyzes all the information coming in from the senses. There are main programs that get downloaded while we are a child. These are the main experiences of our childhood, and we all know how different these can be. These childhood programs can be filled with all kinds of barriers, viruses, and faulty programing.

Most of our main programs are instituted when we are a child. But, there are the ones downloaded as an adult that can have great influence over the childhood ones, and dominate one's overall programing. Now even though the senses are experiencing the world as it really is, the information is entered into a computer (consciousness) that interprets it and passes it along to the "Individual Mind". So, unless you were raised with perfect programming, and lived as an adult with only perfect experiences, you are bound to have faulty programing. Thus the Individual Mind is only cognitive of the information passed on to it by consciousness, and consciousness seeks through faulty programming to understand that what the senses reflect upon it.

That is why I believe, except for a very few Philosophers of the past (Buddha, Jesus, ect... ), that there is little chance for modern Philosophers to give a totally new concept of Reality. All we can do, is take that which is "Logical" and "Good" from the past, mix it with present idealism's that are "Logical" and "Good", and come up with a Philosophy that can be absorbed by all.

@PoPpAScience,

I like the description of computer programing. Shows ability as well as limitation. Very lifelike in my opinion. Smile

I wonder though about the heart/soul/spirit/center/psyche/whatever side of us that seems so un-computer like. Do you think that it is just a very complicated program with code that can't be fully accsessed, or do you think we have another dimension to ouselves. If so, how do we incorporate this non-computer part of ouselves in decision making?

Speaking of decision making... what do we use to judge what is logical and good? :confused: And do you think that if someone found out what is logical and good that the majority of people would be inerested?

Another topic for thought, do you think that Very Few Philosophers of the past (you mentioned Jesus and Budha, and I'd interested who else would be on your list Smile

) taught us philosophies that can be believed simultaneously without contradictioin, or would we need to choose one over the others. Or would you sugest we just keep the pieces that we personally like, though that seems to me like it would be negating the idea that they were such great teachers.

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

I like the description of computer programing. Shows ability as well as limitation. Very lifelike in my opinion. I wonder though about the heart/soul/spirit/center/psyche/whatever side of us that seems so un-computer like. Do you think that it is just a very complicated program with code that can't be fully accsessed, or do you think we have another dimension to ouselves. If so, how do we incorporate this non-computer part of ouselves in decision making?

Speaking of decision making... what do we use to judge what is logical and good? :confused: And do you think that if someone found out what is logical and good that the majority of people would be inerested?

Another topic for thought, do you think that Very Few Philosophers of the past (you mentioned Jesus and Budha, and I'd interested who else would be on your list ) taught us philosophies that can be believed simultaneously without contradictioin, or would we need to choose one over the others. Or would you sugest we just keep the pieces that we personally like, though that seems to me like it would be negating the idea that they were such great teachers.

Let me answer your question the way I see it. Heart is influenced by soul, and soul is the persona of your spirit. So with using my previous linage of senses-consciousness-Individual Mind, you would say Heart-soul-spirit. The heart gives a true reading of your environment the soul interprets it with all the experiences of multiple existences and passes it on to your spirit. Your centre and psyche is your Individual Mind trying to by pass your faulty computer (consciousness). How do we incorporate it? Trust and Faith.

Would the majority of people be interested in what is Logical and Good. My heart says yes and my consciousness says no. I look at our society in the west and say there is hope or there would not be democracy.

What do we use to judge that which is Logical and Good? We use our heart. Now if you are a psychopath and disconnected from your Heart, well you can not judge. But any normal person knows what is good. My experience is that no matter how , say, angry I am at some one, I still no that it is bad to be so. Logical is another matter. Ones Logic is dictated by the programing of the consciousness. Me personally I use evidence like in a court case, to form my Logic. After all I have faulty programming also. The Good thing is I am Aware of it.

When it comes to eastern religions they are very compatible. Buddha refined his down to his Dharma ,The 12 Nirdanas, The Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Noble Path, ect..., for example. Now, I have personally gained great Philosophical incites from Christianity, but only through the help of Philosophical researchers, and study with an open mind of how and why it was written. As for Islam there was virtually no books on it in the library system when I was heavily into religious reading 15 years ago. Internet was not what it is today ether. But, I did study how Islam started.

Another Great Philosopher in my Heart, would be Ernest Holmes, the writer of, "The Science of Mind". Albert Einstein in my Heart was another Great Philosopher.

@PoPpAScience,

PoPpAScience wrote:

How do we incorporate it? Trust and Faith.

That, sir, is simple and beautiful. Smile

About how we can know what is good: I agree that there is something in a person that can sense what good is. But I don't think that it is a dominant feature of most people unless it is trained to be. Think of a child that is never disciplined. I've also come to the conlusion the the idea of "treat others the ways you would want to be treated" is not natural to humanity, but that might be another topic... Wink

About Einstein: that quote you put on another section of the forum prompted me to go look up a bunch of his quotes. VERY interesting stuff there... I don't agree with every conclusion he made, but I think he had many brilliant insights that went beyond just "science".

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

That, sir, is simple and beautiful.

About how we can know what is good: I agree that there is something in a person that can sense what good is. But I don't think that it is a dominant feature of most people unless it is trained to be. Think of a child that is never disciplined. I've also come to the conlusion the the idea of "treat others the ways you would want to be treated" is not natural to humanity, but that might be another topic...

I'd have to disagree with you on this one. I feel that the spirit of each of us is Good. And that being in a instinctual animal (humanoid) leads to bad and Evil. I believe that bad is learned as in your example of the undisciplined child. The child acts instictivly to "grasp" all it can. With direction, a child will control its instinctive nature and let Good shine through. What is natural to the "human" is survival of the fittest. But! Good and Love is natural to the spirit that dwells at the core of our Being.

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

About Einstein: that quote you put on another section of the forum prompted me to go look up a bunch of his quotes. VERY interesting stuff there... I don't agree with every conclusion he made, but I think he had many brilliant insights that went beyond just "science".

Einstein spent his must Important time in the Patent office he worked in. During this time he and his wife Philosophised about all his great theories. When you see how he come up with E=mc^2, you see that he Philosophised about it, then challenged others to prove him wrong. To me he was a Philosopher first and a Physicist second.

@NeitherExtreme,

I agree on this, professional philosophers write principally for scholarly peers, which is fine, but isn't knowledge meant to be transmitted out there to the general public and the community?, by the way, any thoughts on applied philosophy anyone?

@PoPpAScience,

I think that for those of us who are laypeople, modern philosophy is most accessible through literature and other cultural expressions, rather than through the writings of philosophers.

If you want to read great writings that illustrate (rather than systematically describe) some of the huge paradoxes of self-identity that modernity creates, try Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon, or Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut, or The Woman in the Dunes by Kobo Abe. Or, even better, read the astounding Notes from Underground by Dostoyevsky, which basically tears a hole in past thought and thrusts a modern man into the 19th century.

As for modern philosophy itself, it's hard for it to stand out in the same way as, say, Kant or Descartes, because it's either compulsively critical (like Derridas' deconstructionism, or Wittgenstein's and Russel's logic), or it chooses to divorce itself entirely from metaphysical projects that seem pointless (like existentialism).

The most insightful idea of modern philosophy in my mind comes from Camus, because it's so pragmatic and honest. To sum up his view, the first principal is that life is absurd, and the only important philosophical question that remains is how we can go on living once the meaninglessness of life is fully realized.

It sure makes metaphysical constructs seem sort of artificial.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Modern Philosophers

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Modern Philosophers

Quick Links

My Account

able2know