Philosophical Perfection

 
James Sirois
 
Avatar
 
 
James Sirois
Total Posts:  75
Joined  28-10-2017
 
 
 
29 October 2017 15:53
 

  My thought process when philosophizing works the same way humanity’s thought process works as a collective for making discoveries. I start by encompassing the macrocosm of an idea through the accumulation of available information and from that position, I deduce a path inwards towards the microcosm until I reach what my perception can possibly reason to be the starting point of my idea.

  It is from that axiom that I can deduce a path back outwards again, while under the parameters of my philosophical question to then come to a conclusion that applies to the consensus reality of humanity itself.

  The key word is consensus. When you philosophize any question you are always returned to the first and only important philosophical question to begin with: What is existence? To philosophize the very fabric of reality itself like this brings you to the conclusion that reality is created by every other human being external to yourself because if you were the only human in existence, would you really exist in the first place? The answer is both yes and no: It would be possible to exist, but not as a human being.
Therefore you know that reality is created by other human beings whom need to agree on what that reality is or to use the keyword: consensus.

  This is why all philosophy within the realm of consensus is fundamentally meaningless because there are many different consensus realities divided by a plethora of conditions such as cultural, social, economic and more. Even for the most basic of ideas such as “Love”, those conditions make it impossible for humanity to reach the same consensus. The one and only consensus reality that is shared by humanity is existence itself, which is once again, based on the plurality of humans, whom are flawed by the need for consensus in order to exist to begin with therefore to return full circle we now realize that any philosophical questions other than the question of existence are also flawed, making them meaningless.

I prove my point with the question: If humanity’s consensus reality was that humans have the ability to fly like a bird, would we not fly like the birds? This in itself means that belief itself is the most powerful thing in the universe and that the only goal of a philosopher should really only be to bring humanity awareness of it’s consensus reality.

Your thoughts, comments, emotions, reactions and constructive criticisms are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

James

 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3184
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
06 November 2017 20:10
 

So, have you managed to pick up any chicas with that spiel?

wink

Kidding aside, I think that you are mushing together a lot of notions that should be separated better. The big-ticket words you use, like reality, are subject to lots of interpretations; at least some of them will agree with what you said, but not all of them will fit without generating paradox, or even worse, vacuousness. For a specific example, you speak of humans creating reality by consensus. I don’t think of that as reality, per se, but as a shared model of reality. It is in fact a worthwhile goal of philosophy to hold up humanity’s shared models of reality, but that should not be its only goal. Critiquing those shared models, pushing them to test their limits, even to the extent of refuting them, should also be a goal.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4763
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
09 November 2017 01:17
 

I think philosophy is best defined by a specific question. In the western tradition we have a familiar set of questions that define a familiar set of topics.
Of course there are philosophical traditions from other points but I think the principle holds. There is a structure that is defined by inquiry. Another way to frame the concept is that philosophy is the meta-analysis of some more specific human endeavor. The question, in this case is defined by a discipline. There are semantic difficulties that sometimes obscure the distinction (politics, for instance) but I think an understanding of the structure clarifies cases where one word does double duty. I like the idea that philosophy and theology are queens of the sciences which is to say that all of our organized efforts to understand the world can be organized by our basic world view.

I agree with you that philosophy encompasses fundamental questions of being (if that’s what you mean) but I would disagree that all philosophical inquiries reduce to this. Many are not concerned with this question at all.