Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:22 pm**

lancek4 wrote:How is 'previous' situated ?

OK, a tentative response to great questions...
I previously talked of 'the stripping away of style and substance of previous philosophies'. The question I can first try to answer is 'where' past philosophies are situated. Voice offered specific quotes - so, mainly books or writings. How the writings came to be so situated - publication, prestige of philos and their thoughts. So, missing from this would be ordinary folks musings.
Another way is to see 'previous' phil as already in-built into the social structure and ways of thinking...

How do you strip away this ?
With great difficulty.
Book-wise - by careful reading of the substance ( but then not all philo writings can be accessed) and critical analysis reaching own conclusions as to relevance or value. The stripping away of style - hmmm, well - that is what it is. However, difficulties can be overcome either by persevering by self or group-work, reading up-dated translations or simplified versions.

How do you get to the 'present'?
Ah, the 'present' is now but will be the past as soon as I type this. So, the 'present' philosophies are already in the past. They are reached by including and excluding previous theories, either all or in part.

Against what are you assessing 'antiquated'?
'Antiquated' : 'obsolete' or 'old-fashioned'. Voice I think was assessing them against own knowledge or experience; his world and context.

If there are different problems now then I submit you are not addressing them with philosophy but with a methodology of epistemology.
As previously discussed, the philosophical topics/problems are core issues but can be addressed philosophically in a different context and using different approaches.

Voice highlighted the problem of philosophy itself - what it is - he said it was everywhere - it orders our thoughts - he mentioned applied ethics - he questioned whether past philosophy made a difference. This is metaphilosophy - the study of the nature, aims and methods of philosophy.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:35 pm**

LuvPimpinYou wrote: You got it

I did ?

Wow !

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:26 am**

Philosophy is a primal impulse that is more fundamental than 'to know' (science).
I agree with 'love of wisdom' = efficiency use of knowledge, i.e. using knowledge from Science, philosophy as a subject itself, and other fields.

IMO, past philosophies can still be useful in the following perspectives;

1. Philosophy per-se, i.e. efficiency use of knowledge, is constant through time as long as humans are around.
2. Philosophical knowledge arising from;
..2a - Generic human elements, qualities, etc.
..2b - Specific Time, cultural, location, historical based elements.

1 and 2a will be valid even if the philosophical knowledge had been raised in the past. Note some the fundamental principles raised by Parmides, Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.

Re Generic human elements, qualities, the questions and issues of what happen after death, the soul, meaning of life, the fundamental substance, etc. that were raised by the ancients are still valid today.

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am**

I can rephrase your question in a simple manner:

What is common to past, present and future?
Is nothing common to past, present and future?

Please see the document entitled "Knowledge Growth" in this link: http://www.munnarivu.tk/kg.pdf
It lets one to see the universe in a very different perspective.

Philosophy Now Forum

Past Philosophy Still Useful?

Re: Past Philosophy Still Useful?

Re: Past Philosophy Still Useful?

Re: Past Philosophy Still Useful?

Re: Past Philosophy Still Useful?