Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[value]

We human are not in control. The Earth is.

The Earth doesn't make any political decisions like constructing nuclear weapons and declaring war.

Perhaps Sy Borg could be right. What is the source of the wisdom that might result in political decisions and war?

It seems to me that ultimately it is about serving the purpose of life in the best way possible. Bestiality and cruelty in history are no reasonable ground to fuel such practices in the future so in my opinion one is to look solely at philosophy, the intellectual striving to 'serve life in the most wise way possible', and then the idea that Earth is in control might be a valid idea.

I once hiked with someone with an European nationality who told me about his visit to Iran where he hiked the country and met with local people. He told me that the people were exceptionally kind and welcoming. If it were to be all about 'political decisions and nuclear weapons', how could that be explained?

Iranian People: Are They Really As Nice As Travellers Say?
https://www.goatsontheroad.com/iranian- ... eople-say/

I believe that the philosophy of Pattern-chaser (Gaian-daoism) might be a very good philosophy as it seeks to make humans adhere to a greater moral responsibility on an Earth level and the (philosophical) attempt to do so can nudge people on the right track for a Levinas style eschatological vision that I described in my previous post, that can result in actual peace (a sort of peace without a contextual ground).

Peace opposed to war is peace based on war. To overcome war fundamentally requires a Levinas style eschatological vision of peace.

An eschatological vision of peace is 'peace by itself' as it were, or "beyond the word peace". It isn't about peace but about what lays beyond.

[value]

We human are not in control. The Earth is.

The Earth doesn't make any political decisions like constructing nuclear weapons and declaring war.

In my previous reply I mentioned that philosophy is to be held responsible.

Besides the history that is discussed in this topic, a factor for consideration that might drive certain actors is philosophy. There appears to be 'interpretations of the Bible' that prophetised a catastrophic war.

Some argue that the war in Israel is related to Luke 21:24. The verse states that Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles (foreign nations and people) until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Some argue that the current conflict in Israel is a precursor to a future time of tribulation, as prophesied in Luke 21 and other parts of the Bible. They see the conflict as a sign of the end times and the return of Jesus.

(2023) War in Israel: A Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy?
https://harvest.org/resources/gregs-blo ... -prophecy/

Some quotes from Luke 21:24:

“Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

Then He said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven. 12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake."

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. ... And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (Gentiles = 'foreign nations and people')

"Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

"... it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass ...”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NKJV

With such ideas, which is vitally 'philosophy', people can be driven to acts of destruction and war while reason per se might not have motivated them to perform those acts.

People are capable of a lot for a belief or idea, as is evident from cults in which people collectively commit suicide.

The cited article states the following as a conclusion:

"The Bible tells us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6). We want to pray that they arrive at some kind of peace. We want to pray that this horrific terrorism stops."

Intention is where it all begins!

Therefore it is my opinion that philosophy can be a solution. The work of for example Emmanuel Levinas shows what the human is capable of intellectually and morally. That few people can understand his work, is a problem, but that problem can be overcome through cultural evolution. It would concern 'chewing out' the complexity of theoretical thought into bits of practical wisdom.

Emmanuel Levinas is one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth, but the complexity of his thought, as well as Heidegger’s, prevents a real spread / democratization of his work. One of his most important works is Totality and Infinity: An essay on exteriority. In the latter, Levinas, according to a phenomenological method, describes how subjectivity arises from the idea of ​​infinity, and how infinite is a product of the relationship of self to another.

Levinas' work and eschatological vision for peace can counter the ideas proposed by Luke 21:24 by emphasizing the importance of ethics, responsibility, and peace in the present moment, rather than waiting for a future event to bring about peace.

[Sy Borg]

We human are not in control. The Earth is.

The Earth doesn't make any political decisions like constructing nuclear weapons and declaring war.

Perhaps Sy Borg could be right. What is the source of the wisdom that might result in political decisions and war?

The Earth has been making political decisions like declaring war for many millions of years, and it has been constructing nuclear weapons for about 78 years.

Why do volcanoes blow or destructive storms form? Volcanoes blow due to a break in the Earth's crust due to pressure caused by magma and gas. Storms form due to a break in the thermal structure of the atmosphere, caused by large bodies of air. War is a break in civilisation caused by a buildup of pressure. Nuclear bombs were created due to a breakthrough in our understanding of the relationship between matter and energy and also due to a break in morality driven by fear.

Of course we aspire to do the best we can but, ultimately, humanity en masse has never been in control. If there was a world government strong enough to keep the interests and instincts of everyone in the world under strict and constant control, would you want live that way?

Maybe only Leto II, the worm god, can take such control? Or AI.

[Pattern-chaser]

In the context of reason there is just good because reason is an intellectual pursuit of good.

"An intellectual pursuit of good" what? "Good" is not something that can be pursued. "Good" is like "adequate" or "beautiful", or "disgusting", and so on. It is the result of a human subjective value judgement. So I ask, what is the 'good' of reason? I'm not asking for a justification of reason, I could come up with plenty of them on my own. I'm asking what is the 'good' of reason, that you can "pursue"?

[Pattern-chaser]

Culture is shaped by philosophy and therefore my conclusion is that philosophy should be held responsible.

And yet philosophy is shaped by culture, so perhaps we should conclude that culture is responsible? Science is shaped by culture, as is anything that humans have created or invented. Donald Trump, as we have all come to know him, is more a cultural artefact than a person. So perhaps we should be holding culture to account?

[Lagayascienza]

At the heart of this debacle are fanatics from two incompatible religions. Both sides think their gods want them rule this land and to oust the infidels on the other side. Maybe if they could let go of their gods, even briefly, they would be able to see that they are both, first and foremost, human beings with the same desires for themselves, their families and their societies to live in peace and security. Seeing themselves first and foremost as human being, and not religious beings, is the minimum requirement needed to fix this appalling state of affairs so that all people in the Middle East can live peacefully and prosper. A two state solution may be the answer. Maybe they could live together. But until they can stop thinking that their side alone has a god given right to this land, it's hard to see this never ending nightmare coming to a close.

[value]

Culture is shaped by philosophy and therefore my conclusion is that philosophy should be held responsible.

And yet philosophy is shaped by culture, so perhaps we should conclude that culture is responsible? Science is shaped by culture, as is anything that humans have created or invented. Donald Trump, as we have all come to know him, is more a cultural artefact than a person. So perhaps we should be holding culture to account?

When you would argue that philosophy is shaped by culture, it would need to be a cultural 'belief' as a bias (deviation) of what is pure philosophy, which is dogmatism. Pure philosophy has nothing to do with belief per se and is not 'shaped' by it. Pure philosophy is not about opinion.

At most one could argue that philosophy would 'reflect' on culture but that is not the shaping of philosophy other than how anything else in the world can inform philosophy.

The pioneering moral philosophy of Levinas describes a concept that has no foundational context. That is what philosophy is capable of. To transcend and overcome beliefs and dogma's in the pursuit of both truth and ought combined (the moral good wholly as it were that 'includes' the scientific truth, which philosophy actually invented itself).

Philosophy is a more whole pursuit than 'knitting science', as a user once remarked in the OP of one of the most profound and popular topics on this forum, "On the absurd hegemony of science", in which even prominent philosopher and well-known public figure Daniel C. Dennett appears to have actively participated with hundreds of replies (evidence here).

All this means that when science makes its moves to "say" what the world is, it is only right within the scope of its field. But philosophy, which is the most open field, has no business yielding to this any more than to knitting "science" or masonry. Philosophy is all inclusive theory, and the attempt to fit such a thing into a scientific paradigm is simply perverse.

Science: know your place! It is not philosophy.

So I would argue that your assertion would be incorrect. Culture is shaped by philosophy and not the other way around. Philosophy might even be considered the source of the world, of the Universe, where it all begins as it were.

[value]

In the context of reason there is just good because reason is an intellectual pursuit of good.

"An intellectual pursuit of good" what? "Good" is not something that can be pursued. "Good" is like "adequate" or "beautiful", or "disgusting", and so on. It is the result of a human subjective value judgement. So I ask, what is the 'good' of reason? I'm not asking for a justification of reason, I could come up with plenty of them on my own. I'm asking what is the 'good' of reason, that you can "pursue"?

The evidence for good can be found in the simple question "What is good?". Because it is a valid question, good is not just a subjective concept. Nor is good objective, because if that were to be so the question wouldn't have meaning and wouldn't be a valid question.

Good can only be found in the question and not in the answer.

Reasoning is the eternal process of fulfilment of the question and therefore it can be described as an intellectual pursuit of good.

Levinas concluded his major philosophical work with the following assertion:

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness." (Levinas in film Absent God 1:06:22)

I would disagree with this assertion since it refers good as a retro-perspective origin of the world while in reality, signification isn't foundationally bound by a biased concept such as 'written down' good and instead finds Good in the process of finding it, and not in the context of 'having found it'.

The intellectual pursuit of Good would be like an eternal process, like an ouroboros. The beginning of the world is also the purpose of the world.

My primary assertion is: it is philosophy! Philosophy (the process of reasoning in pursuit of 'what can be considered' good) is a direct exponent of the signification that fundamentally underlays the world. And therefore pure philosophy can overcome cultural bias and dogma's and secure an optimal moral path for humanity and beyond.

In the context of reason there is no place for evil.

Kant wrote in "Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason,": "pure reason is the faculty of concepts, and concepts are not concerned with the inclinations, but only with the understanding and its object"

Therefore, according to Kant (who authored one of the most profound works on reason), pure reason cannot be the source of evil, which arises from the inclinations and desires of the human will. Kant believed that every human being has the capacity to resist evil and choose the moral path, which is the path of reason.

Scientific evidence can be found in the topic Nature vs nurture or beyond... ?.

To return to the topic.

On Twitter I wrote:

Please don't forget people like Jewish #philosopher #Levinas (peace movement). Choose your own path. Don't become like the evil doers. To be brave is to do good in the face of evil.

Make the decision: break the cycle of violence. Just get it done.

My assertion: "Barbarians reflect on cruelty in nature to fuel cruelty. Moral beings reflect on reason to become reasonable. The potential for philosophy shows what path is right to choose."

The cited potential is the same potential that is described by Levinas in his work Totality and Infinity, of which he asserts that it is the only ground for 'actual peace'.

Peace opposed to war is peace based on war. To overcome war fundamentally requires a Levinas style eschatological vision of peace.

A Levinas style eschatological vision of peace is 'peace by itself' as it were, or "beyond the word peace". It isn't about peace but about what lays beyond. And that is what philosophy can provide and therefore my conclusion is that philosophy should be held responsible.

[Pattern-chaser]

Culture is shaped by philosophy and therefore my conclusion is that philosophy should be held responsible.

And yet philosophy is shaped by culture, so perhaps we should conclude that culture is responsible? Science is shaped by culture, as is anything that humans have created or invented. Donald Trump, as we have all come to know him, is more a cultural artefact than a person. So perhaps we should be holding culture to account?

When you would argue that philosophy is shaped by culture, it would need to be a cultural 'belief' as a bias (deviation) of what is pure philosophy, which is dogmatism. Pure philosophy has nothing to do with belief per se and is not 'shaped' by it. Pure philosophy is not about opinion.

At most one could argue that philosophy would 'reflect' on culture but that is not the shaping of philosophy other than how anything else in the world can inform philosophy.

[...]

So I would argue that your assertion would be incorrect. Culture is shaped by philosophy and not the other way around. Philosophy might even be considered the source of the world, of the Universe, where it all begins as it were.

OK, I withdraw my comment. It wasn't really an arguable position, on reflection. I was (over-)reacting to your statement that "culture is shaped by philosophy", which I believe to be a misunderstanding. Philosophy is part of human culture, as are science, maths, politics, history, geography, art, fashion, and any other human invention/creation we can think of. Culture is the parent; philosophy is the 'child'.

Philosophy is a hobby practised by a small minority of humans. It does not have the position or influence that you ascribe to it, IMO. And I am not clear even on whether philosophy *should* have the position and influence you ascribe to it.

[Lagayascienza]

Philosophy is a hobby practised by a small minority of humans. It does not have the position or influence that you ascribe to it, IMO. And I am not clear even on whether philosophy *should* have the position and influence you ascribe to it.

That's true. Philosophy as a pursuit for those who have an armchair and lots of quiet time. Most folks are too busy trying to earn enough to pay the rent and still eat. In Gaza right now, most are not even concerned with that. Their main worry is how to remain alive until tomorrow. Philosophical questions would be the last things on their minds.

[Pattern-chaser]

Philosophy is a hobby practised by a small minority of humans. It does not have the position or influence that you ascribe to it, IMO. And I am not clear even on whether philosophy *should* have the position and influence you ascribe to it.

That's true. Philosophy as a pursuit for those who have an armchair and lots of quiet time. Most folks are too busy trying to earn enough to pay the rent and still eat. In Gaza right now, most are not even concerned with that. Their main worry is how to remain alive until tomorrow. Philosophical questions would be the last things on their minds.

Yes, and in the context of what I said before, the people of Gaza have no time for philosophy, just at the moment, but they are up to their eyeballs in the 'no-go' areas of human culture (using "culture" in the widest possible sense, as I described earlier).

[Good_Egg]

A cynic might say that there has never been peace in the particular corner of the Middle East that we're talking about. Only periods of posturing between periods of fighting....

It's clearly possible (but not necessarily desirable) to take a cynical attitude. More violence in the Middle East ? Nothing newsworthy there then..

It's also possible (but not necessarily desirable) to take sides. To lament the suffering of side A and condemn the violence of side B but play down the violence of A and the suffering of B.

I believe that there is a Christian heresy best described as "victim culture". Which at its most extreme approaches every question by asking "who are the victims?" and then adopting the attitude that the identified victim-group can do no wrong.

Is there another way ? A way that is non-partisan, disinterested, without being dismissive and uninterested ?

A way that holds to an impartial ethic of how people should behave, and attempts to hold both sides to it ? That sympathizes with the legitimate aims on both sides whilst condemning any and all ethically-illegitimate means ?

Is that not what philosophy is for ? To hold to the hope that humans will do better, even while acknowledging that the cynics seem to have a large part of the truth ? Seeking clarity as to what "better" is.

[Lagayascienza]

Philosophy is a hobby practised by a small minority of humans. It does not have the position or influence that you ascribe to it, IMO. And I am not clear even on whether philosophy *should* have the position and influence you ascribe to it.

That's true. Philosophy as a pursuit for those who have an armchair and lots of quiet time. Most folks are too busy trying to earn enough to pay the rent and still eat. In Gaza right now, most are not even concerned with that. Their main worry is how to remain alive until tomorrow. Philosophical questions would be the last things on their minds.

Yes, and in the context of what I said before, the people of Gaza have no time for philosophy, just at the moment, but they are up to their eyeballs in the 'no-go' areas of human culture (using "culture" in the widest possible sense, as I described earlier).

I understand the thrust of what you said earlier about culture. We can philosophize about culture and science can study it. But why do you say culture a "no go" area?

[Pattern-chaser]

I understand the thrust of what you said earlier about culture. We can philosophize about culture and science can study it. But why do you say culture a "no go" area?

Not here; too far off-topic. We don't have to stick rigidly to the exact wording of the topic or its OP, but in fairness and courtesy, we shouldn't stray too far...

[Lagayascienza]

Ok, so let's it bring it back to the topic at hand? Why can the clear thinking of philosophy and science not be brought to bare on understanding this longstanding conflict? People are behaving in irrational ways in Israel/Gaza. What might be the reasons for that? Might a better understanding of their motives help them to resolve their differences?