That’s why postmodern ideas, while not yet fully assimilated and still resisted, seem to be gradually becoming more influential — Tom Storm

In my recent exchange with @Quk, above, I convinced myself that I’m being too definitive in my statement. As I noted, Marx certainly had a big influence and led to a lot of social and political change.

As I think about it more, it probably makes sense to include scientific philosophers in with them. Descartes is a good example. Of course, that was back when philosophers were still scientists too. Perhaps more recently, Popper.

Social philosophy, such as postmodernism as you mention, strikes me as exactly the kind of philosophy I’m talking about. Society changes and philosophy tries to explain it, often badly. As far as I can see, postmodernism just regurgitates ideas that have been around for a long time and tries to apply them to modern life and politics. Strikes me that to the extent it is influential, it’s primarily influential among philosophers, not the public at large.

I would have thought that the best candidates for philosophers who actually lead would be political philosophers such as Marx. — T Clark

I forgot to say that I consider the gentlemen I mentioned -- Popper, Russell, Kant, Epikouros, Sokrates -- in some of their works political too. Popper wrote about Marx. German chancellor Schmidt sought advice from Popper. Or think about Russell's pacifism and the moment when he gave up his pacifism in order to stop the nazis. And so on.

I forgot to say that I consider the gentlemen I mentioned -- Popper, Russell, Kant, Epikouros, Sokrates -- in some of their works political too. Popper wrote about Marx. German chancellor Schmidt sought advice from Popper. Or think about Russell's pacifism and the moment when he gave up his pacifism in order to stop the nazis. And so on. — Quk

"The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

Is this? We exist. Existence means there is some form of balance.

Daily life is Peaceful enough for the vast majority. Example, I cannot recall having to fight anyone physically for any reason - at least since adolescence!

"The Logic of Existence". A bold claim to make that existence is logical.

Purpose? Utility? You understand what these terms mean? Explain please.

Get the idea now. Perspectives help. Alternative perspective offer different views of 'purpose,' 'war' and many other terms we throw around with gay abandon. The mistake we all make is assuming we know what we mean simply by using the authority of 'words'.

Philosophy started on one simple question: How should I live my life?

Everything else is basically a branch of this one question.

Probably the largest of the numerous issues with the OP is the reference to "philosophy", as if it is a single entity. Obviously there are numerous schools of philosophical thought that propose radically differing optimal behavior characteristics. Most folks I know who consider philosophy cherry pick various strong points of numerous Philosophies, while glossing over the weak bits to "justify" their behavior. Essentially we all have custom made personal codes of conduct shaped by a balance of what we aspire to be and what drives us, psychologically.

As far as I can see, postmodernism just regurgitates ideas that have been around for a long time and tries to apply them to modern life and politics. Strikes me that to the extent it is influential, it’s primarily influential among philosophers, not the public at large. — T Clark

I’m not smart enough to get the most out of po-mo but our mutual friend here - Streetlight - was right into it and gave me some insight into the brilliance of it with a personal tour. And he was smart as fuck. The fashionable view is that PM is derivative and relativistic flap doodle which suggests to me there might be something to it. It may still be too early…

As far as I can see, postmodernism just regurgitates ideas that have been around for a long time and tries to apply them to modern life and politics — T Clark

This is probably a digression, but I think it's far more than that. The term 'post-' is significant - similar to the sense conveyed by 'post Christian'. A post-Christian society may no longer identify as Christian, but it relies on many fundamental terms and ideas which were originally part of the Christian ethos. They have a shared understanding of what it is they no longer believe - which you couldn't have had, had you never been Christian. Similarly with post-modernism. The modern period I put between the Trial of Galileo and the 1920’s, characterized by belief in progress, the normativity of reason and objective fact. Post modernism is characterized by relativism, the contextual nature of truth, and the rejection of meta-narrative. (And yes, @Tom Storm, I learned a lot from Street, but his vituperation was pretty hard to take at times.)

I took a look at your forum profile where you list Donald Trump Jr. as one of your favourite philosophers, hehe. What "reflect/lead" ratio would you diagnose in his case? I'm asking to find out whether a further dimension needs to be considered apart from the "reflect/lead" axis.

Probably the largest of the numerous issues with the OP is the reference to "philosophy", as if it is a single entity. — LuckyR

I agree; I had the same thought and wanted to post a similar comment. It's a generalization of all thoughts that have ever occured. As if philosophy were a creature with a phone number: "Hello, philosophy! What have you done?" -- On the other hand, poetry is allowed as well. So why not talk about "all thoughts of the world" in a poetic way and name it philo-sophy -- "the love of wisdom"? There we are again: Language is based on metaphors. We're running in circles.

I took a look at your forum profile where you list Donald Trump Jr. as one of your favourite philosophers, hehe. What "reflect/lead" ratio would you diagnose in his case? I'm asking to find out whether a further dimension needs to be considered apart from the "reflect/lead" axis. — Quk

Don’t think too hard about this. I generally include Donald Trump Jr. on every list I make, including my weekly grocery list. You’ve probably heard of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. I have been diagnosed with TJDS, Trump Jr. Derangement Syndrome.

I see. Just checked Wikipedia. Hadn't heard of this "syndrome" before; I live outside the USA, haha.

I see. Just checked Wikipedia. Hadn't heard of this "syndrome" before; I live outside the USA, haha. — Quk

There’s a good chance I’m the only person yet who has been formally diagnosed.

I meant the "[Bush/DT/...] Derangement Syndrome" in general. Did you get your diagnosis on this forum? Is it an inside joke?

Did you get your diagnosis on this forum? Is it an inside joke? — Quk

It was a self diagnosis. Yes it is an inside joke - it came from inside me, although I have shared it here on the forum before.

The modern period I put between the Trial of Galileo and the 1920’s, characterized by belief in progress, the normativity of reason and objective fact. — Wayfarer

I have always understood that the modern period was dated between the early and mid 1900s.

Hard to put markers on it, but the late nineteenth and early 20th c were the culmination of processes which arguably started with the Italian Renaissance. Descartes (1596 - 1650) was presented to me in undergraduate philosophy as ‘the first modern philosopher.’ Newton’s Principia was published 1687. They are two of the main architects of modern science (along with Galileo who was an approximate contemporary with Descartes.)

I’m pretty sure that’s how E A Burtt would see it also.

My answer is simple: the world is as it is because that is how the world and we humans evolved. Which then begs the question, how did this evolution took place? — Pieter R van Wyk

This seems to be your real question. You see fault in human nature, and you are inclined to ask how (or why) is it the case that evolution produced this.

I believe that one can take two very distinct approaches toward answering this, and they are distinguished by the way that one understands "intention". One is to position intention as pre-evolution, and the other positions it as post-evolution.

The latter restricts "intention" to a property of human beings, and something which was produced, or emerged from evolutionary processes. If this is the case, then we cannot place blame or fault on the evolutionary process which produced human beings. Human beings were produced by some random process and it is inappropriate to judge that activity as good or bad, which are properties of intentional acts. This renders 'there is fault in human nature' as a categorical mistake. We cannot direct any blame toward the evolutionary actions which produced human nature, we simply make subjective, fallible human judgements about that nature.

On the other hand, if intention is apprehended as prior to evolution, then it may be involved in evolution, and we have the premise required for judging these acts which have led to the current state of human nature as good or bad. This produces the common question about how good could God be, if He allows evil in the world.

I wasn’t trying to be a nitpicker. It’s just that I’ve always understood postmodernism to be a reaction to the stark and dour minimalist rationalism of modern art and architecture from the early 1900s on.

I find postmodernism one of the vaguest isms. It's so vague; one could actually drop the idea entirely.

Thank you for welcoming me to your forum and thank you for your contributions. Although it seems to me there EXISTS some digression from the original question - perhaps still relevant though. I must confess, I was not completely transparent in my request for an invitation to this forum; I have written a book, and publish it independently. It is published through Kindle Direct Publishing and available through Amazon. The reason why I joined this forum is to generate debate on the content of my book. To answer 'unenlightened's question: I contemplated some questions for a long time (at least from the time I was working towards a master's in engineering management, circa 1995). In 2019 I started to order my thoughts into some cohesive reasoning. This morphed into a manuscript that is now published - which is why I wrote it. Could not find any publishing house with the chutzpah to publish it. I invite anyone to obtain my book - and then I challenge you to find the fatal flaw in my reasoning.

By my understanding, until such time as a fatal flaw has been confirmed in my reasoning, my theory stands.

The 'logic' to my first question is actually very simple:
1. For thousands of years we humans have suffered under strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.
2. Philosophy (by my understanding and as per the Oxford dictionary's definition) includes "3 a theory or attitude that guides one's behaviour. Also, 1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
3. For at least 2,600 years of philosophical effort, philosophy could not find a theory or attitude that could eradicate strife, civil disobedience, revolution or war. Nor did philosophy find the knowledge that could eradicate these problems.

I, most definitely, do not blame philosophy or philosophers for the woes of the world - merely pointing out the 'fact' that these problems have not been solved. Not by philosophy nor by politics, science, religion or any other human endeavour. And this is where my book comes in: I ask, is it not time that we rethink the very foundation of our perceptions, our understanding, and the basis of our knowledge - or do we 'pray' that somewhere along the line philosophers ( or: politicians, scientists, religious leaders ...) might find the solution(s) to our problems - before AI becomes the "next class of systems" and the human dream of 'Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity' becomes only the history of humanity.

I, also, do not disregard the positive contributions of philosophy. My book does not purport to replace this 2,600 years of philosophy - just an additional basis from which these problems might be addressed.

A next question that could be considered is: By who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true? A question that I also contemplate and address in my book.

, most definitely, do not blame philosophy or philosophers for the woes of the world - merely pointing out the 'fact' that these problems have not been solved. — Pieter R van Wyk

I think you need to justify your assumption that "strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war" are "problems". These may also be understood as the means of overcoming problems. From this perspective, the real problems are something deeper, more significant, and these activities which you name as problems, are actually the way in which we free ourselves from those deeper problems.

Accordingly, I believe the "fatal flaw in your thinking" is a faulty generalization, and categorization. You place all "suffering" in the same category as "bad", not recognizing that some suffering is good, according to the saying "no gain without pain". Then you fault philosophers for not eradicating suffering, when in fact the good and proper goal of many philosophers, and philosophies, is to encourage us to endure some form of suffering for the sake of a higher good.

Dear Metaphysician Undercover, I would like to ask you a big favour: please explain your understanding of "something deeper" to the more than 1,400 Israelis that was killed and abducted on 7 October 2023 and the 56,000 Palestinians killed as a consequence of this. Also, please explain this "something deeper" to the thousands that die every day due to hunger and preventable diseases. Please explain to all of them that their deaths are, in fact, "for the sake of a higher good."

I humbly suggest that you read my book before you venture to a fatal flaw in my REASONING.

And while you are waiting for the delivery of my book, you might contemplate the following question: What, exactly, is the difference between philosophy and politics - or is the one merely a consequence of the other? You know, like the philosophy of Karl Marx and the one million people killed by Stalin's Great Purge.

I invite anyone to obtain my book - and then I challenge you to find the fatal flaw in my reasoning.

By my understanding, until such time as a fatal flaw has been confirmed in my reasoning, my theory stands. — Pieter R van Wyk

You know, there was not so long ago another cr..., er, thinker on this forum who challenged all comers to refute his theories. He made his (also self-published) paper freely available on the internet and offered a four- or five-figure sum as a reward to anyone who would meet the challenge to his satisfaction.

Just something to think about as you eagerly check on your Amazon sales stats...

Dear Metaphysician Undercover, I would like to ask you a big favour: please explain your understanding of "something deeper" to the more than 1,400 Israelis that was killed and abducted on 7 October 2023 and the 56,000 Palestinians killed as a consequence of this. Also, please explain this "something deeper" to the thousands that die every day due to hunger and preventable diseases. Please explain to all of them that their deaths are, in fact, "for the sake of a higher good." — Pieter R van Wyk

Did you not understand what I wrote? I suggested that you need to separate good pain from bad pain, and not class all different forms of suffering together as bad.

I don't care how many examples of pain you provide, and insist that the pain in your examples is bad pain, that still does not prove that there is no such thing as pain which is good. As the saying "no gain without pain" suggests, many athletes subject themselves to pain, in their training exercises, for the sake of a higher goal. That pain is good pain. In other words, we often understand that we must put ourselves through pain and sometimes even suffer, to get to where we want to be.

So, I suggested that the things of your examples "civil disobedience, revolution and war" are sometimes like this, good. Sometimes we must put ourselves through the pain and suffering of civil disobedience, revolution, or war, intentionally, for the sake of getting where we want to be. One form of suffering for what is good is known as martyrdom.

I admit that I have not read your book, but you seem to class all pain and suffering together as bad. Therefore you imply that philosophy ought to be trying to put an end to it, and has not been able to do this. I think that this is a faulty premise which amounts to a fatal flaw in your reasoning, making that reasoning unsound. As the saying "no gain without pain" indicates, pain is necessary for us to achieve what we believe is good.

For at least 2,600 years of philosophical effort, philosophy could not find a theory or attitude that could eradicate strife, civil disobedience, revolution or war. Nor did philosophy find the knowledge that could eradicate these problems. — Pieter R van Wyk

Maybe your expectations of philosophy are as naive as a young friend of mine who says medicine is useless since it can’t cure cancer. At least with medicine it’s clear what it sets out to do. Philosophy, by contrast, is an umbrella term for many (sometimes conflicting) approaches. The notion that a couple of thousand years of evolving schools of thought should result in an approach that will resolve all of humanity’s problems is wild.

The other problem is the gap between a useful approach and actual human behaviour. This line of thought assumes that if we have a way to "eradicate these problems," people will agree and put it into practice.

But surely there's a difference between (1) having a philosophical solution and (2) implementing it. What if the philosophy in question can only be understood or enacted by a small percentage of people? What if it depends on a particular level of education or sophistication to be effective? There could be any number of great philosophical models for ending human suffering out there, but perhaps the real problem lies in human practice, not the theory.

No, I did not know. But I am pretty sure I will not spend any time on your suggestion.
The only reason why I check my book sales is because each book sold indicates a person that actually bought a book, which indicates the possibility that someone might engage with some sense on its content.

I did indeed understood what you wrote, you provided what is commonly known as a strawman:

"The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man"), instead of the opponent's proposition."

But then I realised your strawman is actually quite useful: Of course some pain is useful, it is how our bodies tells us that there might be a problem, a danger, something bad. So, if I transpose this strawman back to my statement it would read: strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war is good because it tells us that there is a problem, a danger, something bad; not so?

Also, I never suggested that philosophy should put an end to these bad things - this is exactly my point: after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, we humans has not been able to put an end to these bad things and because of THAT I do not expect any useful solution to these bad things from philosophy. So, thank you for your agreement that my question is a valid one.

I invite anyone to obtain my book - and then I challenge you to find the fatal flaw in my reasoning. — Pieter R van Wyk

I, most definitely, do not blame philosophy or philosophers for the woes of the world - merely pointing out the 'fact' that these problems have not been solved. Not by philosophy nor by politics, science, religion or any other human endeavour. And this is where my book comes in: I ask, is it not time that we rethink the very foundation of our perceptions, our understanding, and the basis of our knowledge - or do we 'pray' that somewhere along the line philosophers ( or: politicians, scientists, religious leaders ...) might find the solution(s) to our problems - before AI becomes the "next class of systems" and the human dream of 'Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity' becomes only the history of humanity. — Pieter R van Wyk

You think they can be 'solved' or even need 'solving'? I am confused. You sound confused.

You assume there is some ethical absolute? On what foundation are you posing this question.

If there were a perfect political ideology it would require perfect adhesion to it by every single individual. Frankly, I would be more worried if everyone followed one singular path! The very basis of existence appears based on the necessity of open-ended approaches rather than absolute ones - those end in annihilation.

In short, what are you talking about?

There is only one of your statements that I do not agree with, that my excpectations of philosophy is naive. I do not have any expectations from philosophy - it did not solved the problems that I mentioned and I do not expect these problems to be solved in the foreseeable future.

I do not have a definitive solution to these problems either - what I do have is an additional (to philosophy) way that these problems could be tackled. My theory (that I explain in my book) is not based on philosophy but based on a fundamental definition of a system, deduced from first principles.

My theory (that I explain in my book) is not based on philosophy but based on a fundamental definition of a system, deduced from first principles. — Pieter R van Wyk

Contradicts:

I do not have a definitive solution to these problems either - what I do have is an additional (to philosophy) way that these problems could be tackled. — Pieter R van Wyk

Your hint at an alternative sounds suspiciously 'philosophical'.