Philosophical societies as a way to solve world peace and suffering

[Anonymous No.18681259]

Still not disproved

>Philosophy is the requirement for every civilization as no civilization can be created without symbols that unite its citizens to partake in the very same civilization, such that could be described as an ideology. Today we also use philosophy, although unknowingly to entertain a meaning of our life. For an example, a popular philosophy is that of authenticity which is derived from Existentialism. The problem is that philosophies are taken for granted and are not withstanding any scrutiny by it’s believers. That’s where the distinction begins. Philosophy, as it’s translation from ancient Greek is defined as love of wisdom. Following the meaning of the definition we come to the conclusion that you don’t actually love wisdom if you refuse to put everything through all forms of scrutiny as it exposes your unwillingness to find the truth and thus love of wisdom. This is the reason why we need to live in world wide philosophical societies, such that every human is able and required to fully contemplate their actions and it’s consequences. Without philosophy we cannot live in a coherent way in this construct we have as of now unless we have reached an objective truth or something absolute that can show us the perfect way to live. I label it as incoherent because in a society that doesn’t embrace philosophy instead forces us to rely on random cultural influence and biological determinism that accepts only basic emotions as truth which leads to chaotic, irrational and deadly actions. This is why we need to embrace living in a civilization and understand our duty of being philosophers. The only way to achieve this is by racially segregating people in the best climate for them. The very idea of ethnic diversity is flawed because it tries to mix people with very different features which creates unforeseen results and low trust societies. Through racial segregation people can become self-aware of their positive and negative ethnical and environmental qualities that prevent them from being philosophers, prevent unexpected behavior and strive to negate all negative qualities. For now, this sounds like the most reasonable and humane way to achieve world peace. In a world where people love wisdom and find their meaning of life by being philosophers who investigate the meaning of life and their problems while sharing it globally looks closer to virtuous living than in such that refuses to acknowledge it. Mandatory philosophical education for all ages that is focused on understanding and criticism is the most reasonable choice we can make in this age.

https://newmanleary.wordpress.com/2021/02/14/philosophy-as-a-mandatory-way-of-living-search-for-an-immediate-response-in-help-of-civilizations-world-peace-and-meaning/

[Anonymous No.18681295]

>>18681259
Thats great and all but it doesnt factor in the JQ.

[Anonymous No.18681319]

>>18681295
>race segregation, high culture and philosophy mandatory
>doesn't factor the jq
You obviously didn't read the text...

[Anonymous No.18682045]

>>18681259
>Following the meaning of the definition we come to the conclusion that you don’t actually love wisdom if you refuse to put everything through all forms of scrutiny as it exposes your unwillingness to find the truth and thus love of wisdom. This is the reason why we need to live in world wide philosophical societies, such that every human is able and required to fully contemplate their actions and it’s consequences.
While the first statement about love of wisdom is true, the conclusion isn't necessary; the example of the philosopher par excellence is Socrates, a man who except for the few occasions ge was required withdrew from political life, and whose way of questioning everything results in either paralysis (Meno) or the temptation to tyrannize (Critias, Charmides, Alcibiades) for everyone else. One of the truths of Plato and Aristotle is that there are no permanent political solutions; the best city of the Republic necessarily devolves and the adequacy of Aristotle's proposed orders depend on the character of a people and still see no permanence besides (cf. Rhetoric bk.2 ch.13 on the regular predominant characteristics of the old at any time).

[Anonymous No.18682083]

Peace is achievable. Ending suffering is not, and why peace is improbable.

[Anonymous No.18682109]

Peace is achievable, though improbable, because ending suffering is impossible.

[Anonymous No.18682426]

>>18682045
Because you can't comprehend what the difference is going to be when everyone is a philosopher. This is what we have genetically evolved for.
>>18682109
It is, humans can die without suffering, it's nothing novel.

[Anonymous No.18682461]

>>18681259
>I label it as incoherent because in a society that doesn’t embrace philosophy instead forces us to rely on random cultural influence and biological determinism that accepts only basic emotions as truth which leads to chaotic, irrational and deadly actions.
Sounds like Platonism. Old as fuck, anon. And controversial, I don't think there is ever going to be an stable state of anything, not even a method of finding truth. Every attempt to assert a truth lead to bad overall results. What works now will probably not work tomorrow, that is the main strength of democracy (with all flaws contained with its current form). That it is probably the best system to embrace that reality is chaotic and still manage to improve people's lives in general.

[Anonymous No.18682493]

>>18682461
>I don't think there is ever going to be an stable state of anything, not even a method of finding truth
We can't know, you just assume. And you obviously didn't even bother to read the very short text to see I never said it would quickly help us find the absolute truth.
>Every attempt to assert a truth lead to bad overall results
So you prefer to live in a world where rape and murder is subjective?
>democracy
Philosophy is democratic until we find an absolute truth. I don't know where you get these ideas from.

[Anonymous No.18682526]

>>18682493
>We can't know, you just assume. And you obviously didn't even bother to read the very short text to see I never said it would quickly help us find the absolute truth.
That would probably be related to creating a model of our world, anon. That is near a impossible thing to happen, specially if you consider that we would need a bunch of 'initial states', so to reach anything good enough to be called a method of finding truth would require thousands of big enough copies of our world.
>So you prefer to live in a world where rape and murder is subjective?
Dunno about rape, but murder definitely is. That is why police officers are allowed to carry guns on the first place.
>Philosophy is democratic until we find an absolute truth. I don't know where you get these ideas from.
There doesn't look like there will ever be an absolute truth, anon. That is what I'm getting into, our environment is changing by itself (despite our influence). And anything static won't ever be able to adapt to the chaotic nature of reality. Maybe if we master it to a point that we will be what we think as God, but I don't think that will ever be a thing.

[Anonymous No.18682595]

>>18682526
>so to reach anything good enough to be called a method of finding truth would require thousands of big enough copies of our world.
This is not just an assumption but it doesn't make sense at all, we simply can't know yet. Things like existence precede other concepts in the logical realm and if you bothered to read Hegel you will understand why there is a chance we could find the truth as a statement in a single sentence.
>That is why police officers are allowed to carry guns on the first place
Another interesting point. Maybe they shouldn't for people like you so natural selection can do it's work? See your logic now?
>I don't think and don't see
We are getting so far and soon we will have supercomputers solving problems that were seen as impossible. You're just very uneducated and emotional.

[Anonymous No.18682620]

>>18682109
>because ending evil* is impossible.

[Anonymous No.18682622]

>>18682595
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Enjoy. And I'm not saying that police officers who end up killing people should be punished regardless of the circumstances. You are too affect by this.

[Anonymous No.18682669]

>>18682622
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
We can't know, determinism is exists. You obviously don't pay attention and just reply to whatever you feel like with zero effort.
>And I'm not saying that police officers who end up killing people should be punished regardless of the circumstances
So what is your point again?

[Anonymous No.18682686]

>>18682669
There are controversies around police action, anon. I don't know in the US, but that is definitely a thing in Brazil. Of course we do have laws but they are subject to interpretation, so even the formal interpretation of it has subjective factors taken into account. If you consider the public opinion, then it gets a mess.

[Anonymous No.18682697]

>>18682686
Of course there are, especially in developing countries. I don't understand your point...

[Anonymous No.18682704]

>>18682669
And determinism is a superstition. I hope that it is a thing, but it is not like I don't think it is probably not.

[Anonymous No.18682714]

>>18681259
>implying suffering is a problem needing to be solved

[Anonymous No.18682726]

>>18682697
Consider the same fact, people will have different opinions of it. What are you taking about? That is a thing even with judges, there are different ways of interpreting the law. Judges are bound by it, but they still have to interpret it. That is the reason why there are judges on the first place, if it was that simple we would simply use computers to judge cases.

[Anonymous No.18682729]

>>18682704
Lol, denying determinism is superstition. You don't even know basic physics. The copest of copes.

[Anonymous No.18682736]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
?

[Anonymous No.18682737]

>>18682726
There is a choice that is superior to all else. Also to prevent such things you're supposed to live in a better way. No surprise you don't comprehend responsibility.

[Anonymous No.18682740]

>>18682737
And who gets to choose the superior choice? You? The Philosopher king?

[Anonymous No.18682746]

>>18682740
The debate.

[Anonymous No.18682749]

>>18682746
And do you think people will always reach the same conclusions?

[Anonymous No.18682760]

>>18682749
We can't know.

[Anonymous No.18682771]

>>18682760
How is that there are basically two parties alternative power in the US? Does that seem like almost the same people reaching the same conclusions?

[Anonymous No.18682792]

>>18682426
There is no "when everyone is a philosopher"; Socrates inew it, Plato knew it, Aristotle knew it, Nietzsche knew it, Heidegger knew it. There's a hierarchy of human types and philosophers make up a small number, and no project will change that. This was an explicit goal of the Enlightenment philosophers and the result can only be called a failure. The appeal to genetics sidesteps Socrates' argument about the children of the virtuous in the Meno; Socrates' own children aren't known for anything.

[Anonymous No.18682870]

>>18682792
Socrates' children are his disciples. Plato was more like Socrates' son than his own father. That is a somewhat an argument for that nature/nurture thing, but whatever, it has nothing to do with this thread.

[Anonymous No.18682920]

>>18682870
Socrates had three literal children sharing his genetics, and they turned out nothing like him.

>>18682870
>but whatever, it has nothing to do with this thread.
See >>18682426
>Because you can't comprehend what the difference is going to be when everyone is a philosopher. This is what we have genetically evolved for.
>This is what we have genetically evolved for.
Socrates can't pass on his love of wisdom to his own kids, you think we're getting anything like a genetic evolution towards being philosophers?

[Anonymous No.18682941]

>>18682920
>Socrates' 'children' are his disciples. Plato was more like Socrates' son than his own father. That is a somewhat an argument for that nature/nurture thing, but whatever, it has nothing to do with this thread.

[Anonymous No.18682969]

>>18682941
Then it's not genetic and there's no point in imagining a "when everyone's a philosopher" solution to modern problems.

[Anonymous No.18682970]

>>18682920
And what are you talking about? People reason about things all the time. If anything, more people will end up getting into Philosophy because of the nature of social media, but everyone is a overstatement, there will be people who will feel like doing something else.

[Anonymous No.18682991]

>>18682969
It is somewhat genetic, we can't do things if we don't have genes for it. Not solely genetic, but that is a pre-requisite for it to happen. You won't do things you don't have genes for it. If someone can't reason properly because of some genetic problem, then they won't be able to engage in such activities, that is basically it. I do get what you are talking about, that nature isn't exactly selecting philosophers or whatever.

[Anonymous No.18683022]

>>18682970
There's either a difference between interrogating common opinions ruthlessly like Socrates and reasoning up to a point and stopping [insert whatever reason why, i.e. boredom, discomfort, particular circumstance needful of reasoning, etc.] or there isn't. If there isn't, then philosophy isn't love of wisdom, and if there is, then the latter can't be called philosophizing, it's just another instance of local reasoning out, not truth-seeking as such.

No one's getting into philosophizing as in love of wisdom via social media, but rather philosophy as a formal subject and discipline that exists within the establishment, securing grant money for its institutions and acting in accord with certain political projects that were rolling out before it had a chance to question them.

Anyone who feels like philosophy is an activity that can be picked up and put down like casually learning an instrument isn't likely to be philosophizing in the sense of loving wisdom. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.18683035]

>>18682991
It probably is by nature, but how is more mystery than anything, for precisely the reasons Socrates gives in the Meno (how come none of the children of great Greeks ever turned out anything like their fathers?).

[Anonymous No.18683045]

>>18683022
Nah, you are too pessimistic about it. Philosophy is just another thing. And, nowadays, it probably has more to do with social media than anything else.

[Anonymous No.18683058]

>>18683035
That is because genes are just part of it. A good part of being 'great' comes to being at the right place at the right time (and somewhat being prepared to take the chance). All the great ones got lucky, they would probably just be ok in different circumstances.

[Anonymous No.18683063]

>>18683045
I don't take it as pessimism, I don't feel one way or the other about it, it just *is*. Just as Socrates etc. took it.

The only way true philosophy will ever be related to social media is in taking it as a source of opinions to examine.

[Anonymous No.18683066]

>>18683058
I'm not diminishing people's achievements, but consider if Socrates were born today. What would be of him? Would he be "Socrates" or just another person doing his own thing?

[Anonymous No.18683076]

>>18683058
The place of chance and circumstance seems right. I think that highlights the accidental character of becoming a philosopher. Just as there's periods of certain cultures wherein the possibility is either not there are extraordinarily small.

If it's by genes, they don't seem the kind to be passed on readily or widely.

[Anonymous No.18683077]

>>18683063
People are talking about things that were somewhat taboo. And that is an improvement, this is what I'm saying that you are too pessimistic. They will end up turning into Philosophy some time. Or whatever turns out to be its successor in this kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.18683087]

>>18683077
As in, this might end up taking a proportion that is great enough to branch out of Philosophy and be its own thing.

[Anonymous No.18683103]

>>18683077
Talking about taboos more openly doesn't give the conversation any depth of understanding though, just on account of the subject being taboo, right? So that's one issue, but isn't another that it's become commonplace to discuss taboos openly, i.e., it's become another part of common opinion taken for granted?

[Anonymous No.18683107]

>>18681259
This sounds based but I'm afraid most "people" would disagree.

[Anonymous No.18683115]

>>18683103
They will get there, people are unironically open to the kind of thing Socrates' started bothering the Greeks, anon. Because if they are just opinions taken for granted, eventually they will contradict reality. Then you are either crazy delusional or change and learn something new.

[Anonymous No.18683145]

>>18683115
I think you underestimate the extent to which people broadly need lies of greater and lesser kinds to operate. Very few people respect "real" philosophers and the kinds of intellectuals most do respect just have clever ways of reinforcing or articulating opinions that are already held, in the first place. But isn't also the case that great deal of what we look to for unity (either nationally or cosmopolitanly), like dignity or rights, are at bottom, to philosophical interrogation, phantasms?

[Anonymous No.18683171]

>>18683145
If it is bad and gets too widespread, shit will hit the fan, people will notice it and change. I'm a Leibnizian, so I believe that things will unfold to the best possible result given enough time. This is probably the part you will call me crazy or whatever, but I don't care.

[Anonymous No.18683176]

>>18683171
It is a superstition, but it is the fucking future, how is someone supposed to know what will happen?

[Anonymous No.18683213]

>>18683171
That sometimes can be the case, though that phenomena also looks cyclical from our vantage point, with access to historical accounts we can inspect. Conflicts like those between the plebs and patricians have happened a good long time and don't look to be ending soon, absent nuclear holocaust.

>This is probably the part you will call me crazy or whatever, but I don't care.
Kek, Leibniz is worth taking seriously, even in disagreement.