Philosophy Now Forum

Please join me in using a thinking method on the topic of solving the major problems of society.

I would like to start the discussion by attending to the difference between debate and systematically seeking the truth. In debate, each participant seeks to prove his own point of view to be correct and all others to be incorrect. Alternately, when we seek the truth without bias, we must never presume to know the answer already nor must we ever assume that anyone else does not know the answer in whole or in part. Debate is good for convincing others after the claim has already been verified, but it seems to me to be the wrong tool for the verification. Debate is not what Socrates did. That was dialectic.

If you insist on debating, then I would ask that you please refrain from participating in this particular topic/thread. If you wish to debate about anything on this topic/thread—even whether debate is a good way to find the truth, then please post it in another topic/thread.

I will now move on to describing the thinking method that I want us to use and the metacognition behind it.

Step 1: Select an important topic. The purpose of the step should be obvious when you consider what would result from its opposite.

Step 2: Make several statements within the confines of that important topic. This step is used to get the process of thinking started. This step may be skipped in many cases, but it is generally where people start reflexively when you give them a topic.

Step 3: Ask questions that would would be answered by the several statements from Step 2. It is generally narrow-minded to assume that you already know the answer.

Step 4: Ask more enlightened questions in place of the questions from Step 3. The purpose of this step should be obvious. We want to answer enlightened questions in order to get enlightened answers.

Step 5: List as many answers to the enlightened questions as you can think of. Since we don't know which answers to our questions are actually true we need to examine all of them.

Step 6: Expand each answer as if it were true. Often answers will be blocked by intuition. Step 6 is an attempt to give each answer a chance.

Step 7: Prove or disprove each answer to the enlightened question logically. There is no knowledge without proof.

Step 8: If you cannot prove or disprove an answer, then do your best to speculate. Although using speculation is often dangerous, it is still usually a better option than randomly picking something to believe.

Step 9: Put it into practice or into a format where it can be put into practice by others. If we do nothing with our knowledge and speculation, then we do not reap the benefits.


I will now describe my plan for this particular thinking session:
As per Step 1, the topic has been chosen—solving the major problems of society.
We skip steps 2 and 3.
As per Step 4 and Step 9, I have selected two successive questions: What are the root causes of the major problems of society? How do we best solve the root causes of the major problems of society?
That leaves steps 5 through 8. Let's apply them to the two questions.

So let's get started with Step 5 applied to Question 1: List as many possible answers to the following question. What are the root causes of the major problems of society?

Systematic wrote:What are the root causes of the major problems of society?

People insisting others do things their way.

lack of nuclear bombs

-Imp

Lack of any cogent answers apart from 1 word sentences, and a proclivity to think you are fucking Jesus 'cause you exist. Maybe?

The major problems in society are probably caused by idiots, who like being idiotic and vote for idiots. Get rid of them and the rest will follow I think.

uwot wrote:

Systematic wrote:What are the root causes of the major problems of society?

People insisting others do things their way.

That was actually a valid response to the question. I intuitively sense that you are arguing against the thinking procedure which I have requested that people use. If that is the case, then I would ask that you consider that I am doing it to get to the truth—not just rules for the sake of rules.

L. O. L.. I thought philosophy already had rules for that?

Scarce and unevenly distributed resources.

jimmy cricket wrote:L. O. L.. I thought philosophy already had rules for that?

I think that the thinking method that I am using is unique, but I would like to hear what the rules for philosophy are. Perhaps you could throw in what the reasoning behind the rules are too. I know about the Socratic method, but it seemed a little inadequate to me. It tears ideas down without giving them a chance. "Reductio ad absurdum means the idea is wrong, so let's move on." It doesn't save time and maintain a good focus by stipulating that only important, relevant topics and questions should be used as the basis of thought. It doesn't require going through all of the possible answers before determining the truth.

And debate is worse. Debate is for cases like law. You don't know whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, but he will certainly not admit to committing the crime. So you must debate it.

You wanna solve the major (and minor) problems of society?

Easy: insist that each and every one 'mind your own bee's wax' and that each and every one 'keep your your mitts offa other folks’.

If folks just left each other alone then all those pesky problems (major and minor) would evaporate.

Name one societal problem (major or minor) where my idea of 'mind your business and keep your hands to yourself' is not applicable and I'll...uh...I'll...hmmm...I'll...er...well, I probably won't do anything, but mebbe stew in my own juices.

"Scarce and unevenly distributed resources."

Mebbe so. Certainly 'getting what the other guy has' motivates a lot of 'minding the other guy's biz' and 'putting hands on him and his stuff'.

But mebbe that squabble for resources is just a symptom, not the disease.

Seems to me: folks, communities, nations with plenty still go rootin' around for more.

uwot wrote:

Systematic wrote:What are the root causes of the major problems of society?

People insisting others do things their way.

People not doing things the best ways possible...

So the opposite of what you said.

"People not doing things the best ways possible..."

And they never will.

Leave 'em alone to fail (or succeed).

"People not doing things the best ways possible (for society)"

Mebbe, however, many are doing things in ways that are best for them (as individuals).

If this is so: then -- yeah -- a big problem is 'people insisting others do things their way'.

Systematic wrote:I intuitively sense that you are arguing against the thinking procedure which I have requested that people use.

Two birds, one stone.

Systematic wrote:If that is the case, then I would ask that you consider that I am doing it to get to the truth—not just rules for the sake of rules.

Best of luck. I think it's a fools errand, because it is demonstrably the case that different people have different interests and this will lead to competition. It would be lovely if everyone was nice to each other, but perhaps the biggest problem society faces is that people are so poorly educated they cannot see the value in alternative points of view. If you refuse any challenges, you will not end up with The Truth, you will create a truth that you haven't the reasoning, debating or Socratic skills to defend. That is the sort of truth that some contributors defend with hissy fits or that ISIL is currently defending with insane violence. We really don't need another.

uwot wrote:

Systematic wrote:If that is the case, then I would ask that you consider that I am doing it to get to the truth—not just rules for the sake of rules.

Best of luck. I think it's a fools errand, because it is demonstrably the case that different people have different interests and this will lead to competition. It would be lovely if everyone was nice to each other, but perhaps the biggest problem society faces is that people are so poorly educated they cannot see the value in alternative points of view. If you refuse any challenges, you will not end up with The Truth, you will create a truth that you haven't the reasoning, debating or Socratic skills to defend. That is the sort of truth that some contributors defend with hissy fits or that ISIL is currently defending with insane violence. We really don't need another.

[/quote]

I'll take it. Those sound like good root causes. People don't listen to the points of view of others, and they don't challenge their own point of view. And so they become fed up with other people "not listening to them", and hence we have terrorism, coercion, etc.

As much as I am itching to debate you, I will merely wait and use my method to see if you are right. I have no proof that my method is inferior to debate, and I don't think that I should abandon the thinking method without trial.