about the magazine
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:41 pm
I think this entry is about the magazine because many of the ideas here I have gained and developed from my reading Philosophy Now.
I'm imaging to myself writing an article for Philosophy Now. My imaginary article starts: I was wonder how to characterize my philosophy — what I philosophize about?
I found it very difficult to pinpoint what exactly I philosophize about but it has to do with human interaction. I have always been impressed by the fact that we, being such a pluralistic and multifaceted world, have managed relativity well to co-exist and reconcile our differences, in relative terms. I think the one thing that has made it possible is the evolutionary pragmatic nature of Civilization, such as that occurring in globalization.
One explanation as to why the world is becoming more pragmatic in its relations is that the world is becoming more alike. This phenomenon has been attributed to two dynamics, entropy and dialectic. Simply put, entropy breaks down and blends cultures and human systems, making them more similar. The dialectic, through the process of synthesis, enlightens and spreads Reason and common sense among the world's inhabitants.
The idea that human interaction has been enabled and enhanced through the dynamics of entropy and dialectic is perverse, perverse because the prevailing wisdom has been that initially we should have known how to conduct and behave ourselves, through some 'golden rule' (issue 74), which was laid down long ago. However, what this shows is the reverse, that we learn, truly and convincingly, through experience and going through the motions on how to be nice to each other, such as acting out and on the golden rule and not just by merely accepting its ideology or dictates.
Although on its own it's a good start, the golden rule has no teeth. It is just a piece of paper. It's as toothless as the idea that all men are created equal. However, the golden rule has become meaningful to us when put into action, has been processed and litigated over. That's why I believe its litigation and experience that creates civilization - human interaction writ large, not some nice, fuzzy ideas from on high.
I'm imaging to myself writing an article for Philosophy Now. My imaginary article starts: I was wonder how to characterize my philosophy — what I philosophize about?
I found it very difficult to pinpoint what exactly I philosophize about but it has to do with human interaction. I have always been impressed by the fact that we, being such a pluralistic and multifaceted world, have managed relativity well to co-exist and reconcile our differences, in relative terms. I think the one thing that has made it possible is the evolutionary pragmatic nature of Civilization, such as that occurring in globalization.
One explanation as to why the world is becoming more pragmatic in its relations is that the world is becoming more alike. This phenomenon has been attributed to two dynamics, entropy and dialectic. Simply put, entropy breaks down and blends cultures and human systems, making them more similar. The dialectic, through the process of synthesis, enlightens and spreads Reason and common sense among the world's inhabitants.
The idea that human interaction has been enabled and enhanced through the dynamics of entropy and dialectic is perverse, perverse because the prevailing wisdom has been that initially we should have known how to conduct and behave ourselves, through some 'golden rule' (issue 74), which was laid down long ago. However, what this shows is the reverse, that we learn, truly and convincingly, through experience and going through the motions on how to be nice to each other, such as acting out and on the golden rule and not just by merely accepting its ideology or dictates.
Although on its own it's a good start, the golden rule has no teeth. It is just a piece of paper. It's as toothless as the idea that all men are created equal. However, the golden rule has become meaningful to us when put into action, has been processed and litigated over. That's why I believe its litigation and experience that creates civilization - human interaction writ large, not some nice, fuzzy ideas from on high.