the failure of philosophy.. so far...

[Peter Kropotkin]

so far, we have seen the failure of philosophy..
in 2500 years, philosophy hasn't gotten that far..
the exact same issues that plagued Socrates and Plato,
still plague us today..... and why is that?

for the Greeks thought that the universe was rational, logical
and was explainable... and today? yah, not so much.....
we can explain the universe scientifically, sort of,
but philosophically, not at all....but why?

I think the basic problem has been that philosophy hasn't come to grips
with a basic problem of the universe... which is the fact that the universe
is, in large part, random, probabilistic and a good deal of life is chance...
it is very hard to create a philosophy that has chance and randomness at
its heart.. the world/universe travels its path logically and with purpose
until it doesn't.... every life has to one extent or another, been
affected by chance, the randomness of existence... and if you
properly understand evolution, you can see that our very human existence,
came about due to the random nature of the universe... Life very
existence seems to have come about due to chance, random luck...
and human existence doesn't seem to be any different...

Now, how the hell are we to create a philosophy that can be rational,
like philosophy is supposed to be, when our very existence seems
to be random, due to chance?

it is the probabilistic nature of the universe that really prevents us from
being able to work out a rational, logical argument, or proof of existence...
to be able to work out a philosophy of existence that makes sense...
and that includes this random/chance nature of existence.....

think of all the human endeavors that has been knocked off course due to
some random, chance event.... it has been said, don't know if it's true,
but it has been said that the reason Napoleon lost at Waterloo was that
he had boils on his butt that prevented him from being on a horse..
and I can see it....entire battles have been won or lost because of
some random event that tilted the battle one way or another...
rain at the wrong/right time... the wind shifted and blew the smoke
back into someone's face... the very important battle of Gettysburg of
the Civil war happened because two scouting parties, one north and one
south, happened to run into each other....and historical events that
have dominated world's history can be said to come about due
to random or chance events.....

and the problem becomes, how do we create a philosophy that can
at least account for this randomness in existence?
(which is why we can't use history to determine future events,
we can't account for random events in history)

even if we decide that the role of randomness in existence accounts
for say, 10% of what happens (and I think it is a greater number, closer
to 25 or even 30% of existence is due to randomness/chance)
even if we could somehow account for that percentage, we are still
left with the problem of knowing where to apply that randomness
to? take for example a car... we know if we drive a car long enough,
at some point, something will go wrong.... the problem is knowing
which part or which system will go wrong... we can't know what
part will break first... there is no way of knowing...but we know
that something will break first, we just don't know which part...
and how do you create a "philosophy" of having a car if you can't
predict which part or system will break first?

philosophy can only become ''real'' or ''true'' if, if it understands
that chance plays a major role in life, in human existence....
we are unable to predict the exact event of chance, but
we can at least acknowledge the role of chance in our philosophies...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

we have seen well thought government policies that have
completely failed because one of the problems with existence
is the role of "unintended consequences".....
we think a policy is great until we see what the ''unintended consequences'' are
and every single government policy has "unintended consequences''...
policies that create new problems that the policy makers never saw
coming... and we can see this in our day to day life...
and we see this in the daily practice of businesses... I have
seen that a company policy meant to do one thing, has in reality
done something completely different...and I have seen this over and
over again in the company that I currently work for.... nation wide
company with stores everywhere...and inevitable, the company will
fuck up its own policies by some miscalculations it didn't take into account...

a few years ago, the company came out with a new policy about
rewarding customers... and it fucked it up so badly, that
the company had to hold meeting all over the country to
apologize for the complete fuck up....a well-intended policy
that people almost got fired over and it costs millions to fix..
that sort of thing happens in business, a lot... the law of
''unintended consequences" will get everyone at one time or another...
and how do we work out a philosophy that takes into account
the law of "unintended consequences?''

In fact, I would suggest that the law of ''intended consequences''
is so prevalent that we might think of it, as a certainty in our day to day lives..
we know it's going to happen, but its exact form will not be known until
the ''shit' hits the fan...

so, how do we create a philosophy of existence when the
''law of untended consequence" tells us something, somewhere will go wrong...
and that going wrong must include our own philosophies... for even
philosophy itself is not immune to the law of ''unintended consequences''...

and I quite often ask, now what?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and as philosophy itself has problems with this question of
''unintended consequences'' and the problem of chance and randomness,
so does other aspects that we daily engage with...

for example, religion.... the law of ''unintended consequences''
strikes hard in life and the use of religions and/or god to explain
that randomness or ''unintended consequence".. becomes harder
and harder to use....religious types have a hard time explaining
why god strikes little babies or children with stuff like brain cancer
or tumors... little innocent children who suffer immensely from such
diseases... how can a god of love be held accountable for that?

the religious simply say, that god is unknowable and his ways are unfathomable...
and what a cop out that is....how is it that when something bad happens,
it is humans that is the cause and when something good happens, that
is god.... either god is responsible for everything or he is not responsible for
anything... you can't pick and choose which events are god or which events
are human driven.. but that still leaves us with the problem of chance
and randomness in the universe... if a random event is not caused by
god, then how do we explain the randomness of the universe... is there
a third force in the universe that causes random events in the universe?
not human beings and not god, then what else?

if we accept the idea that our universe is a ''no-god'' universe,
that at least allows us to better explain those random events
that have no other explanation.... it was chance, randomness
that accounts for the universe instead of a god or human beings....

and the fact is that we have no control over this randomness..
and I think that is what bothers people the most about a
random universe... having no control over events....
if there is nothing else human beings want, it is having
control over events, people, actions..... and the fact is that
in a ''no-god'' universe, we have far less control than we want...
and that quite often drives people into a belief in god or religions....
to pretend to have some control.. but the fact is, much of what
happens, we have no control over.... and we have to learn
to accept that... existence is more about not having control
then it is about having control... and how do we create
a philosophy that understands and explains that?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so read the news today, and what do we see?

vast amounts of really terrible things going on.... world wide flooding
that has killed thousands and earthquakes doing the same and
the GOP/MAGA crowd trying to overthrow American democracy,
with violence and hatred all over the globe...

random events overflowing the world... and how do we make sense
of it? how do we explain this? with a recourse to god? Yikes,
that will some serious tap dancing to claim that god is the cause
of everything and not blame god for these vast crises in the world....
if there is a god as the religious claim there is, then god must
be held accountable for his actions, and if he isn't, then
we live in a ''no-god'' world.... and for many, that is a scary
proposition..... for how else are to make sense of our random,
full of chance universe? what philosophy can we create that
will explain the universe in a way, that still, somehow, allows
people to have control and still be able to explain away
the random nature of the universe?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, Kropotkin, what is your solution?

I have no idea because I am still working out the nature of the
problem...and that is always the first step... to work out
what the problem is, and then we can try to discover some
sort of solution....

so, given what I have said, I have clearly missed some aspect of this random
nature of existence... because that is a part of existence...we simple
cannot work out or explain every aspect of a problem...something will
be missing from our explanation and that something will be something
really important too....for we can never discover all aspects of a problem
or a solution...we can never include everything that is needed to work
out a problem to a solution....something will be missing.... which is
part of our general problem....

no matter how comprehensive or complete our explanation of the problem,
we will miss something very important that will make a huge difference in
any possible solution....no single explanation will ever cover all aspects
of a problem....and how do we work out an philosophy that
can cover all of this, when a complete working out of the problem
is not possible.... we will only get parts of a problem, never
an entire explanation of a problem, just different aspects of
a problem....

and what can philosophy do when faced with the fact that
it can never be able to explore all aspects of a problem...
philosophy will always be incomplete.. and how do we handle
this incompleteness?

and that become ''another brick in the wall''.. we will always face
incomplete knowledge about a problem... we can never have
all the information necessary to work out a problem...
the very nature of information means that we will never
get all the information we need to solve a problem...
some information we will never get ahold of, no matter
how hard we try....so, in addition to the ''law of ''unintended consequences''
and the random nature of the universe, we will never be able
to get all the knowledge we need to solve a problem.... there
will always information missing that we cannot ever get...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

the next question become that of "meaning"

what is the ''meaning'' of life? what is the point of, the purpose of
our individual existence? and there has been a lot of answers to
that question... but the very fact that a whole lot of answers
have been offered but nothing seems to really answer that question,
seems to suggest that an answer is not possible....
and after thousands of years wondering, it may be possible that
answering the question of existence is not possible....

so, in addition the points I have already raised, we are faced
with being unable to offer up or create a solution to the problem,
what is the point of existence? can a philosophy be found that
deals with all of these points, without being a fake or phony
solution? Like the answer of existence being to ''worship'' god
forever... a fate worse than death....

many questions and no real obvious answers... and that is
what philosophy seems to be, many questions with no real
answers....and how do we learn to deal with this?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and given the problems facing philosophy right now,
the various issues that makes philosophy, well frankly, a failure,
we might want to seek alternatives to how we think about
philosophy..... not to dump philosophy, but to reframe the
question.....

So, instead of a logical, deeply thought out position.. which has problems
of its own because of the randomness of existence, we reframe the
problem as philosophy being a ''way of life" as opposed to a coherent
logical theory....which is missing vital information and has questions
about the ''law of unintended consequences''... to name a few problems
that historical philosophy faces....

to reframe philosophy as a '''way of life" means we aren't faced with
critical questions about what is missing, and the random nature of existence.....

to work out philosophy as a ''way of life" means we simply accept
life ''as it is'' instead of how might be or how it should be....
we know that we will be missing key information about
what it means to be human, and that is fine, if we accept
the idea that philosophy is about a ''way of life" and not
a rigorous examination of existence...

if we accept the idea that existence is meant to be a
experiment, as Nietzsche thought of it, then we don't need
to have all the information that necessary to create
a rigorous examination of existence....nor do we need to
think about ''unintended consequences'' nor do we need to
think about all that missing information necessary to create
a comprehensive understanding of existence...

if I commit my existence to the concept of justice, and living every
moment in pursuit of justice, then I don't have to worry about
the finer details of philosophy...I am living my life as a means
to gain justice, not just for me, but for everyone....
In practicing justice as a ''way of life" I am avoiding some major philosophical
problems... and in seeking out justice, I not only seek out justice, but
I personally engage with justice, every moment of every day...
to act just, become my focus in existence...
I don't need to know all the facts in hand, I just need to seek out
and practice justice... and I don't need to explain myself in an
engagement with the concept of justice... to practice justice, as
a ''way of life'' becomes its own explanation....

to convert philosophy as a means of explanation into a ''way of life'',
allow us to, to hopefully, become who we are..... and in this ''way of life""
we achieve a couple of things... first of all, we answer the question,
what is the meaning of existence? we find that in our quest for
a value in which we work out to be a ''way of life''...we create purpose...
and secondly, we regain some reason for existence that seems to elude us
right now... we lack goals, both individually and collectively...
and converting existence into a ''way of life" solves that issue...

so, take a value and make that your reason for existence, be it
love or hope or charity or as I have done, justice.....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and in taking a value as a ''way of life'' means that
we can work out both sides of the ''eastern' and
''western'' philosophy problem....

eastern philosophy seems to be geared more towards inwards
looking, and more about being part of the state and society...
eastern philosophy puts a greater emphasis on being part of
the state, part of the society then western philosophy..
which is about looking outwards and solving the problems of
existence by outside measures like god or religions.. and not
by being part of the state, as in eastern philosophies....

here is where ancient Greece philosophy has something in common
with the philosophy of the east... in Athens, part of the way
man redeems his own nature is by existing within the polis,
the state.... that is one way we become fully human... by
existing within the polis/state...and for say, Socrates,
he clearly states that.... and why he won't flee Athens
when charged with a crime.... the human being can only become
human when part of the city/state... it is our community that
makes us human.... as evolution is clearly about human beings
being social creatures... we cannot, must not, exist alone,
without other human beings... without a state/society, we cannot
become fully human... we cannot travel that journey from
animal to animal/human to finally becoming fully human without
a state/city/civilization........

philosophy as a ''way of life'' is a way of life within a city/state..
with other human beings..... we aren't not able to reach being human,
by the practice within religions... of asceticism.... that separates us
from other human beings.... we can and must find our inner self as part
of being within a state or society.... as suggested by eastern religions....

Kropotkin

[promethean75]

"It can be seen how subjectivism and objectivism, spiritualism and materialism, activity and passivity, lose their antithetical character, and hence their existence as such antitheses, only in the social condition; it can be seen how the resolution of the theoretical antitheses themselves is possible only in a practical way, only through the practical energy of man, and how their resolution is for that reason by no means only a problem of knowledge, but a real problem of life, a problem which philosophy was unable to solve precisely because it treated it as a purely theoretical problem." - Marx, Karl

[LuckyR]

so far, we have seen the failure of philosophy..
in 2500 years, philosophy hasn't gotten that far..
the exact same issues that plagued Socrates and Plato,
still plague us today..... and why is that?

for the Greeks thought that the universe was rational, logical
and was explainable... and today? yah, not so much.....
we can explain the universe scientifically, sort of,
but philosophically, not at all....but why?

I think the basic problem has been that philosophy hasn't come to grips
with a basic problem of the universe... which is the fact that the universe
is, in large part, random, probabilistic and a good deal of life is chance...
it is very hard to create a philosophy that has chance and randomness at
its heart.. the world/universe travels its path logically and with purpose
until it doesn't.... every life has to one extent or another, been
affected by chance, the randomness of existence... and if you
properly understand evolution, you can see that our very human existence,
came about due to the random nature of the universe... Life very
existence seems to have come about due to chance, random luck...
and human existence doesn't seem to be any different...

Now, how the hell are we to create a philosophy that can be rational,
like philosophy is supposed to be, when our very existence seems
to be random, due to chance?

it is the probabilistic nature of the universe that really prevents us from
being able to work out a rational, logical argument, or proof of existence...
to be able to work out a philosophy of existence that makes sense...
and that includes this random/chance nature of existence.....

think of all the human endeavors that has been knocked off course due to
some random, chance event.... it has been said, don't know if it's true,
but it has been said that the reason Napoleon lost at Waterloo was that
he had boils on his butt that prevented him from being on a horse..
and I can see it....entire battles have been won or lost because of
some random event that tilted the battle one way or another...
rain at the wrong/right time... the wind shifted and blew the smoke
back into someone's face... the very important battle of Gettysburg of
the Civil war happened because two scouting parties, one north and one
south, happened to run into each other....and historical events that
have dominated world's history can be said to come about due
to random or chance events.....

and the problem becomes, how do we create a philosophy that can
at least account for this randomness in existence?
(which is why we can't use history to determine future events,
we can't account for random events in history)

even if we decide that the role of randomness in existence accounts
for say, 10% of what happens (and I think it is a greater number, closer
to 25 or even 30% of existence is due to randomness/chance)
even if we could somehow account for that percentage, we are still
left with the problem of knowing where to apply that randomness
to? take for example a car... we know if we drive a car long enough,
at some point, something will go wrong.... the problem is knowing
which part or which system will go wrong... we can't know what
part will break first... there is no way of knowing...but we know
that something will break first, we just don't know which part...
and how do you create a "philosophy" of having a car if you can't
predict which part or system will break first?

philosophy can only become ''real'' or ''true'' if, if it understands
that chance plays a major role in life, in human existence....
we are unable to predict the exact event of chance, but
we can at least acknowledge the role of chance in our philosophies...

Kropotkin

It seems to me you're asking philosophy to address the wrong issues, so no wonder you find it wanting. Philosophy addresses the means, not the ends, thus while conclusions are truly influenced by chance (ie are not absolutely predictable) philosophy ignores that reality and addresses the portion of the process that are able to be influenced by human decision making. What the final outcome ends up being is (you're right) not completely controllable.

[Peter Kropotkin]

so far, we have seen the failure of philosophy..
in 2500 years, philosophy hasn't gotten that far..
the exact same issues that plagued Socrates and Plato,
still plague us today..... and why is that?

for the Greeks thought that the universe was rational, logical
and was explainable... and today? yah, not so much.....
we can explain the universe scientifically, sort of,
but philosophically, not at all....but why?

I think the basic problem has been that philosophy hasn't come to grips
with a basic problem of the universe... which is the fact that the universe
is, in large part, random, probabilistic and a good deal of life is chance...
it is very hard to create a philosophy that has chance and randomness at
its heart.. the world/universe travels its path logically and with purpose
until it doesn't.... every life has to one extent or another, been
affected by chance, the randomness of existence... and if you
properly understand evolution, you can see that our very human existence,
came about due to the random nature of the universe... Life very
existence seems to have come about due to chance, random luck...
and human existence doesn't seem to be any different...

Now, how the hell are we to create a philosophy that can be rational,
like philosophy is supposed to be, when our very existence seems
to be random, due to chance?

it is the probabilistic nature of the universe that really prevents us from
being able to work out a rational, logical argument, or proof of existence...
to be able to work out a philosophy of existence that makes sense...
and that includes this random/chance nature of existence.....

think of all the human endeavors that has been knocked off course due to
some random, chance event.... it has been said, don't know if it's true,
but it has been said that the reason Napoleon lost at Waterloo was that
he had boils on his butt that prevented him from being on a horse..
and I can see it....entire battles have been won or lost because of
some random event that tilted the battle one way or another...
rain at the wrong/right time... the wind shifted and blew the smoke
back into someone's face... the very important battle of Gettysburg of
the Civil war happened because two scouting parties, one north and one
south, happened to run into each other....and historical events that
have dominated world's history can be said to come about due
to random or chance events.....

and the problem becomes, how do we create a philosophy that can
at least account for this randomness in existence?
(which is why we can't use history to determine future events,
we can't account for random events in history)

even if we decide that the role of randomness in existence accounts
for say, 10% of what happens (and I think it is a greater number, closer
to 25 or even 30% of existence is due to randomness/chance)
even if we could somehow account for that percentage, we are still
left with the problem of knowing where to apply that randomness
to? take for example a car... we know if we drive a car long enough,
at some point, something will go wrong.... the problem is knowing
which part or which system will go wrong... we can't know what
part will break first... there is no way of knowing...but we know
that something will break first, we just don't know which part...
and how do you create a "philosophy" of having a car if you can't
predict which part or system will break first?

philosophy can only become ''real'' or ''true'' if, if it understands
that chance plays a major role in life, in human existence....
we are unable to predict the exact event of chance, but
we can at least acknowledge the role of chance in our philosophies...

Kropotkin

It seems to me you're asking philosophy to address the wrong issues, so no wonder you find it wanting. Philosophy addresses the means, not the ends, thus while conclusions are truly influenced by chance (ie are not absolutely predictable) philosophy ignores that reality and addresses the portion of the process that are able to be influenced by human decision making. What the final outcome ends up being is (you're right) not completely controllable.

K: in fact, I am pointing out that philosophy, as it currently is, is a failure
because it cannot, cannot account for chance or randomness in our lives...
but the question of ends vs means is an important one... just not my point
at this moment.. and I had plan to address this question of ends vs means
in either another post here or another thread all together...

Kropotkin

[LuckyR]

so far, we have seen the failure of philosophy..
in 2500 years, philosophy hasn't gotten that far..
the exact same issues that plagued Socrates and Plato,
still plague us today..... and why is that?

for the Greeks thought that the universe was rational, logical
and was explainable... and today? yah, not so much.....
we can explain the universe scientifically, sort of,
but philosophically, not at all....but why?

I think the basic problem has been that philosophy hasn't come to grips
with a basic problem of the universe... which is the fact that the universe
is, in large part, random, probabilistic and a good deal of life is chance...
it is very hard to create a philosophy that has chance and randomness at
its heart.. the world/universe travels its path logically and with purpose
until it doesn't.... every life has to one extent or another, been
affected by chance, the randomness of existence... and if you
properly understand evolution, you can see that our very human existence,
came about due to the random nature of the universe... Life very
existence seems to have come about due to chance, random luck...
and human existence doesn't seem to be any different...

Now, how the hell are we to create a philosophy that can be rational,
like philosophy is supposed to be, when our very existence seems
to be random, due to chance?

it is the probabilistic nature of the universe that really prevents us from
being able to work out a rational, logical argument, or proof of existence...
to be able to work out a philosophy of existence that makes sense...
and that includes this random/chance nature of existence.....

think of all the human endeavors that has been knocked off course due to
some random, chance event.... it has been said, don't know if it's true,
but it has been said that the reason Napoleon lost at Waterloo was that
he had boils on his butt that prevented him from being on a horse..
and I can see it....entire battles have been won or lost because of
some random event that tilted the battle one way or another...
rain at the wrong/right time... the wind shifted and blew the smoke
back into someone's face... the very important battle of Gettysburg of
the Civil war happened because two scouting parties, one north and one
south, happened to run into each other....and historical events that
have dominated world's history can be said to come about due
to random or chance events.....

and the problem becomes, how do we create a philosophy that can
at least account for this randomness in existence?
(which is why we can't use history to determine future events,
we can't account for random events in history)

even if we decide that the role of randomness in existence accounts
for say, 10% of what happens (and I think it is a greater number, closer
to 25 or even 30% of existence is due to randomness/chance)
even if we could somehow account for that percentage, we are still
left with the problem of knowing where to apply that randomness
to? take for example a car... we know if we drive a car long enough,
at some point, something will go wrong.... the problem is knowing
which part or which system will go wrong... we can't know what
part will break first... there is no way of knowing...but we know
that something will break first, we just don't know which part...
and how do you create a "philosophy" of having a car if you can't
predict which part or system will break first?

philosophy can only become ''real'' or ''true'' if, if it understands
that chance plays a major role in life, in human existence....
we are unable to predict the exact event of chance, but
we can at least acknowledge the role of chance in our philosophies...

Kropotkin

It seems to me you're asking philosophy to address the wrong issues, so no wonder you find it wanting. Philosophy addresses the means, not the ends, thus while conclusions are truly influenced by chance (ie are not absolutely predictable) philosophy ignores that reality and addresses the portion of the process that are able to be influenced by human decision making. What the final outcome ends up being is (you're right) not completely controllable.

K: in fact, I am pointing out that philosophy, as it currently is, is a failure
because it cannot, cannot account for chance or randomness in our lives...
but the question of ends vs means is an important one... just not my point
at this moment.. and I had plan to address this question of ends vs means
in either another post here or another thread all together...

Kropotkin

Well Eastern philosophies, seem to account for randomness.

[Peter Kropotkin]

and thus I am currently studying eastern philosophy..
to see what I have missed by my exclusive studying of western
philosophy...

Kropotkin

[LuckyR]

and thus I am currently studying eastern philosophy..
to see what I have missed by my exclusive studying of western
philosophy...

Kropotkin

Can't wait to see your ends vs means thread, though to be honest, IMO it is germane in this one (as stated).

[Walker]

so far, we have seen the failure of philosophy..
in 2500 years, philosophy hasn't gotten that far..
the exact same issues that plagued Socrates and Plato,
still plague us today..... and why is that?

Because the verb “plague,” is like the verb mistake. Both words describe an apprehension of reality made subjective by hope, planning and choice*.

* Choice: a process to discover what one must do.