Philosophy Now Forum

we have, philosophically, existentialism and we have Marxism,
and we have Thomism... but what philosophical "school" or
thought do we hold today? What is the philosophy of our time?
earlier, someone, (can't remember who) argued that capitalism
is not a creed or an ism.... it is a loosely held set of beliefs....
and if this is true?, then what now? if we cannot hold capitalism
as the primary philosophy of our time, then what philosophy is the
primary philosophy of our time?
do we even have a set of values that we adhere to or
do we have a very loose, very loose, set of values we bring up
when we need to justify something... in other words, is even
our values "ad hoc", of the moment?

as for me, I can't see any sort of comprehensive set of values that
we follow, either individually or collectively...

that there are attempts, to be sure, like nationalism or white supremacy,
transhumanism, but each and every one of these fail for a simple reason,
they are small slices of being human, but only small slices.. we don't have
an overall, universal set of values or beliefs that we can hold onto to
carry us into the future... but Kropotkin, you have argued against this,
that there is no overall, universal set of values... but the problem is
that people still act upon the idea that there is a set of values that
is universal, and applicable to all.....

we can't have it both ways, either we do have a universal set of values
or we don't.... and if we don't, and I have argued that we don't, then
what now? is there a possibility for us to work out a universal set
of values worth living for, or even dying for? or is it every man/human being
for themselves... and if that is true, there is no universal set of values,
then we can have the ism of capitalism, the seeking of those values,
of greed, lust, envy, of money, of fame, of power, of material possessions,
can be our values of choice.. which means we have some values that
can lead us into the future... even if, if those values are values
that dehumanizes and negates as human beings... at least we have
values, something that can hold us until we are able to create
values that are universal and applicable to all...

this question of values, what are they and which values should be ours,
is a question that we have wonder about since the beginning of time..

the bible says to hold these values and Hinduism says to hold these
values and Buddhism says hold these values and Plato says hold these
values..... but, what values should we be holding?

and how should we even think about values? for what are values, exactly?
I suspect that values are really a guide for us to know how to act in
a civilization or state/society.... values, they are really just rules of behavior..

so in the Kantian questions, "what am I to do?" is really a question of what
values am I going to exist under?... or perhaps the Kantian question of,
"what should we hope for?" is another question about what rules/values
should we have? and the Kantian question, "what can we know?".. is just
a question of epistemology.. what can we know and how do we know it..
and the epistemological question of values, the limit of and the scope of
values is a question worth pondering, for all our lives...

so, is there an ism, or a school of thought that leads us to the promised
land today? well, that depends on what one thinks is the promised land?
again, all questions worth pondering must have some context for that
question to, A. to make sense, and B. to be able to answer....

the question might be, ''why is man so evil?'' so worthless?
because it lacks context.. we have to give the word ''evil'' some
context for the question to make sense... and therein lays part
of the failure for many of today's questions.. they lack context to make
any sense... "democrats are evil" that question lacks any context and
so it becomes meaningless... so, we have to have some context in
the questions we ask...

so, what values should we be seeking? and to give that statement context,
we need to think about the starting point of that question and, and
the type of results we are looking for.. if we give the final answer to
the question, then the question makes far more sense....

so, the question.. ''why does god consider man to be inherently evil"?
has a final answer within it, god, and we might be, might be able to
answer this question...

or to say this a different way, we need to consider our questions in
a different light? we need to think about what answers are we looking for
in our question? if we ask about god, are we really asking about what values
are we seeking? or are we asking about the meaning of life? where the question
comes from, suggests as to how we are to answer that question...

we need to spend more time on our considerations of the questions,
and what is the point of those/that questions.. what are we trying to do with
those questions?

Kropotkin

but Kropotkin, you didn't mention the two
main ism's or ideologies of our time, conservatism and
liberalism... no, no I did not.. and that was on purpose...

as I have to leave for work shortly, I shall engage with Liberalism
first and hopefully tomorrow conservatism..

one of the problems that the right has is this, they assume
that all liberals are, by being on the left, are communist/Marxist..
and that is simply not true... there was a whole thing in America
during the years after 1930, of the left that was not communist..
and it was the biggest faction of liberalism in America... left, but
not communist... and I would like to bring that particular ism back..

My denying communism, which I have done several times, in several posts,
is basically about all aspects of communism/marxism...
I reject the Marxist idea of classes.. I don't see any class identification
going on it America... and I reject the final aspect of Marxism,
the end of history by the workers overthrowing the capitalist and
creating a "worker state"... and I reject the idea of the government
''owning" all the means of production... I reject the idea of
there being but one state of man/human beings and that being
is in the sphere of the economics.. or that we derive meaning from
being producers/workers/or even consumers...we don't....
so several base tenets of Marxism, I reject... but what does
Marxism and Liberalism have in common?

the idea that we are communal/social beings, we seek out
and find meaning within the group, the community,
the collective of human beings.. that is something that
liberalism and communism have in common....and in that,
we follow Darwin in our understanding of what it means to b
be human... that we find our meaning with meeting our needs,
which can only be found in our interactions with other human beings...
we cannot meet our physical needs and we cannot meet our
psychological needs without being in connection with other human beings...

we meet our needs in our interactions with other human beings,
both our physical and psychological needs can only be met
with other human beings.. not alone or apart from contact with
other human beings.. we cannot find love or food or esteem,
or safety/security or health care or shelter without other human beings..
only other human beings can help us meet our needs..
and this point, is the start of both communism and liberalism...

in order to survive, I need others... and the best way to
meet both this physical and psychological need is within
a state/society.. again, a point of contact within both
communism and liberalism...

so the question becomes, how do we organize a state/society
that will best met our needs, both physical and psychological..
the state/society that best meet our needs of a strong, robust
society/state... whereas the conservative beliefs that a weak
state/society best serves our needs... remember the mantra
of conservatives has pretty much been about lower taxes
and smaller government....so who is right?

clearly the liberal is right because a person cannot, cannot survive alone
without a society or state to support them...
but we can do this support without the "benefits'' of marxism or communism...
where the state owns all the means of production...

alas, my time to go... work calls my name...

Kropotkin