Philosophical Thoughts Bred of Ignorance and Character

Philosophy and Science have shifted focus since Plato.

Philosophy deconstructs, and at most, synthesizes. Fresh ideas are not taught or debated in classrooms.

I romanticize Philosophy of having a much more productive past. Maybe the difficulty communicating ideas (in the time before the telephone, technology of internet and printing press) led people to think on their own, philosophizing without the limiting aid of prior works. Maybe then, philosophers with naïve minds, were closer to the truth of childhood, and able think free of culturally constructed framework of the debate. To some extent.

And science, appears to be about how to achieve a technological end. Society’s demands have already asked the questions, and payment for scientific exploration is already limited by the questions. If you accidentally learn something along the way to achieving a social/technical end, you may get a prize and some international recognition, but the school children won’t necessarily care and most intellectuals, including Philosophers, won’t care because they most likely will have no idea why your narrow little question was even asked in the first place.

My romanticized vision of science was of a more holistic world understanding. Investigation for knowledge. Understanding as an ends in itself. Simplicity was a fundamental part of the scientific method itself. With epicycles eventually replaced by the heliocentric model of the solar system.

Although school children learn the KISS principle of Keep It Simple Simon, the reality is that our definitions of the question are so exacting that any one person, is no closer to understanding any of the larger questions about how the world works.

True, as a species we may have more information, but have we really narrowed down the unknowable to a discrete and conquerable size?

True also, these ‘scientific’ or better yet, these technological advancements have helped with many of the problems facing humanity. And if there is some inherent value to having more people living longer while doing less manual labor, than I guess that’s good.

But maybe there is value inherent value in our evolving as a species, but through our technological advancements we have empowered humans to travel all around the world, destroying isolated pocket communities, and our agricultural advancements and medical advancements allow humans to survive and reproduce, regardless of the climate, or their physical disadvantages.

To the people who think I am some kind of racist, or have impure motives of denying medical attention from the sick, in order to foster an evolution that benefits from human death: I don’t think there is inherent value in evolution, or any better end achieved by it. But if you agree with me, you are conceding that humans are not the natural conclusion of evolution. Humans are more valuable than frogs, only to humans. To frogs, the amphibian life should be valued above human life. We cannot assume actual superiority, though we may act and think that we are more valuable in a world judged by men. Maybe there is even value in this perspective.

-----------------------------------------------

Statement: Character dictates philosophy

By this I mean that a philosopher’s experiences and formed character shape his philosophical ideas.

Character influences whether one is a skeptic or man of faith. What arguments does one find persuasive? Authority, Logic, Statistics, Analogies, Appeals to emotion, or maybe the turn of phrase in a clear an simple argument.

Maybe these are all questions about what one has faith in. Is there any difference in faith in a process verses faith in God?

The many different characters have many different perceptions. These differences lead to beliefs in different philosophies and a focus towards certain areas of interest to the philosopher.

But! Philosophy is a search for truth, or purpose, and usually assumes one universal truth or purpose, or at least an understanding about the world that can be applied to all humans. A more individualized approach to living one’s own life in a certain way is categorized as religion.

So if all the philosophers, and thinking people, are searching for universal truth (including the universally applicable idea that there are no universals,) then all these different characters, are striving to be connected to the world, and to each other. We want to think in our own way, and arrive at the conclusion that we are guided by the same truths and questions.

The human fear of being alone, misunderstood, and the want for love and connection, driving us to hope, that we are all the same… deep down, or guided by the same fundamental rules.

Philosophy should merge with religion, and allow each person’s perceptions to be a personal choice. Fundamentally altering philosophy classes that instill a sense of the best argument for a belief, through papers, which, even at Ivy League schools, apply and modify historical arguments to fit modern questions. What’s persuasive about philosophy is as personal as the philosophy itself. A thought, that is more appreciated as it applies to choices about religion. A belief in a process is not a second class belief.