Philosophy Now Forum

PieterR wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:16 pm Consider two historical facts:

• 1. The study of philosophy is at least 2,600 years old. Re: Thales of Miletus (born c. 625 BCE, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha, c. 525 BCE), Confucius (born 551 BCE).
  2. For more than 2,600 years humanity has failed to solve their fundamental problems: World peace, the eradication of poverty and a well balanced coexistence between ourselves and our environment.

Thus, the study of philosophy, with all its contributions to knowledge, has not been able to solve the most fundamental problems of humanity.

Does this then indicate a fatal flaw in the study of philosophy?

someone once whispered "to err is human..."

-Imp

Luckily God is Selfless, so is unborn and therefore cannot die.

Humans on the other hand are SELF ish. They are mischievous with a self to defend, they are identified and bound by their own self made syntax that they believe to be real, since unreality is nonsensical to them. Humans strive for rationality, not irrationality.

Who wins the failsafe contest here? The answer is clear, God wins every time. Humans lose, because they believe they will die, and they fear it.
Where there's fear, there's discord, and so expecting human beings to be failproof is like expecting the devil to make the earth a better place, it's impossible.

The answer to the problem of humanity is to let go, surrender, and just be God. Are we willing? the evidence is clearly, not yet.

PieterR wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 9:21 am That the problem cannot be solved by philosophy is proved by my two, de facto, opening statements.

Uhm, are you hoping to argue that...

• 1. The study of philosophy is at least 2,600 years old. Re: Thales of Miletus (born c. 625 BCE, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha, c. 525 BCE), Confucius (born 551 BCE).

• 2. For more than 2,600 years humanity has failed to solve their fundamental problems: World peace, the eradication of poverty and a well balanced coexistence between ourselves and our environment

• Therefore the problem cannot be solved by philosophy

Because that definitely doesn't work.

Your argument is incorrectly structured to substantiate any of the overblown outcomes you are attempting with it. It is a mere argument of insinuation and you should tone down your expectations for what can be acheived with one of those.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 1:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 12:36 pm
Also, have you not yet noticed how much you are 'trying to' defend 'your own position/s', here?

Yes, and that's the cosmic joke. There is no position to defend, except delusion, and then simultaneously fights to defend itself from the very delusion it's trying to escape from. The butt of the joke is that Nothing is ever in opposition with itself.

Reality / existence is a smooth seamless driverless operator, which is the mother of all assumptions and oxymorons. I mean how does one talk about ''unity wholeness'' without splitting it into infinite parts of itself. In the same context how does one talk about a 'doughnut hole' without making it all about the doughnut.

If

"Everything := The combined collection of, the collection of all human knowledge and its complement - the collection of things that have not been discovered or invented yet."

Then

"Nothing := The compliment of everything"

From How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Thus, Nothing is ever, not in opposition with itself!

Moreover, a valid understanding of systems can easily accommodate "unity wholeness" without splitting it into infinite parts of itself.

PieterR wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 6:55 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 1:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 12:36 pm
Also, have you not yet noticed how much you are 'trying to' defend 'your own position/s', here?

Yes, and that's the cosmic joke. There is no position to defend, except delusion, and then simultaneously fights to defend itself from the very delusion it's trying to escape from. The butt of the joke is that Nothing is ever in opposition with itself.

Reality / existence is a smooth seamless driverless operator, which is the mother of all assumptions and oxymorons. I mean how does one talk about ''unity wholeness'' without splitting it into infinite parts of itself. In the same context how does one talk about a 'doughnut hole' without making it all about the doughnut.

If

"Everything := The combined collection of, the collection of all human knowledge and its complement - the collection of things that have not been discovered or invented yet."

Then

"Nothing := The compliment of everything"

From How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Thus, Nothing is ever, not in opposition with itself!

Moreover, a valid understanding of systems can easily accommodate "unity wholeness" without splitting it into infinite parts of itself.

That’s good P

Very good.

Complimentary opposites, I like that.

PieterR wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:16 pm Consider two historical facts:

• 1. The study of philosophy is at least 2,600 years old. Re: Thales of Miletus (born c. 625 BCE, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha, c. 525 BCE), Confucius (born 551 BCE).
  2. For more than 2,600 years humanity has failed to solve their fundamental problems: World peace, the eradication of poverty and a well balanced coexistence between ourselves and our environment.

Thus, the study of philosophy, with all its contributions to knowledge, has not been able to solve the most fundamental problems of humanity.

Does this then indicate a fatal flaw in the study of philosophy?

No human endeavour is 100% okay.
Pieter, or Belinda, may benefit more from the study of the great philosophers than do some others. What matters is that every man, woman, and child ask questions of their lives.

PieterR wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:16 pm Consider two historical facts:

• 1. The study of philosophy is at least 2,600 years old. Re: Thales of Miletus (born c. 625 BCE, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha, c. 525 BCE), Confucius (born 551 BCE).
  2. For more than 2,600 years humanity has failed to solve their fundamental problems: World peace, the eradication of poverty and a well balanced coexistence between ourselves and our environment.

Thus, the study of philosophy, with all its contributions to knowledge, has not been able to solve the most fundamental problems of humanity.

Does this then indicate a fatal flaw in the study of philosophy?

I think you failed to see all forms of knowledge and intuition/mysticism and physical action are subject to this argument as neither have they provided peace either.

You are under the false assumption that peace is required for existence....but you have no proof for this.

You argument is emotionally driven.

You see philosophy does not require peace.

PieterR wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:16 pm Consider two historical facts:

• 1. The study of philosophy is at least 2,600 years old. Re: Thales of Miletus (born c. 625 BCE, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha, c. 525 BCE), Confucius (born 551 BCE).
  2. For more than 2,600 years humanity has failed to solve their fundamental problems: World peace, the eradication of poverty and a well balanced coexistence between ourselves and our environment.

Thus, the study of philosophy, with all its contributions to knowledge, has not been able to solve the most fundamental problems of humanity.

Does this then indicate a fatal flaw in the study of philosophy?

Let us do a mind experiment, which if you had a mind, would answer that question for a person with an acceptable IQ.

You take a living human being. They have a ball in their hand. They throw the ball.
Now what determines where the ball was thrown? Did the ball throw the ball, or did the human?
Do we blame the ball for being thrown?

Now this is what is called Facts of the Moment.
Number 1. Define your topic, What is Philosophy.
Is the topic of philosophy responsible for the standards of behavior used to make the grammar systems it is written in?
Is an intelligible that which is able to produce a perceptible result? Can you wave a knife in the air an infinite number of times in order to make a meal?
Does passing our eyes over words define the word study?
We have a Grammar Matrix in order to produce any literate work, therefore, if a work exist in only one member of the matrix, is it even possible to study it?

Rule Number One, do not assume you have the intelligence to ask a simple question. Or, if you do, be prepared to be named idiot of the moment.