What is the Correct Philosophy?

Post Reply New Topic

The sentence "No philosophy at all is best" is false no matter how you read it.

One mistake is the same as "All Martians are Green" and "No Martians are Green", (as if necessarily)
because there are no Martians.

Another mistake is the self-denying paradox, as versions of "This statement is false".

Besides, behaviourism is the correct philosophy, as it defines itself as correct, and it's embeddable.

I'm still looking for better examples of the correct answer to:

"If you visit Lake Disappointment, in Australia, to substantiate your belief that it is the world's most aptly named landmark, will you be disappointed?"

Tadzio

There is no correct philosophy. Different approaches work for different people and it is too big of a target to knock down anyways.

Scientism.

Look, unlike so many others, I actually gave an answer.

The term "scientism" has historically been a pejorative term in the history of philosophy, and usually is used by figures who believe that a particular person is overstating either the power of science itself, or the power of certain aspects of science. However, when I use the term "scientism", I am basically referring to a philosophical position that the general best path to truth about reality is science and scientific thinking.

For example, if we are curious about the workings of language, while it is correct that we could attempt a philosophical inquiry, my claim is that we would probably really be better off engaging in an anthropological and psychological inquiry into how people use words, and how the human language is generated by the human mind, instead of introspection and intuition.

Basically, to give a rough overview of the underpinning assumptions involved here:
1) Many of our intuitions and introspections are a terrible guide to truth. We've seen this over the past throughout the history of philosophy. Despite thousands of years of arguments, in many cases, the growth of knowledge is not that powerful. Instead, we see philosophers going in a broad variety of very different directions across time, and very little resolution or hope for that, which leads outsiders to the field to dismiss it, and even leads some insiders to suggest that philosophy really doesn't progress. Even further, just as an empirical fact, both intuitions and introspections are unreliable when put under scientific study, as we see variation across the population in both factors, and even that intuitions and introspections can easily be modified by other thought experiments and experiences, etc.

2) Anything we know about the world is going to generally be a matter of empirics, or reason, and possibly a few approximations, and most things that would appear to be otherwise, like revelations, etc, are generally in unreliable categories.

3) Science, or math and science(if you really need the distinction) are sufficient to study most of the facts we know empirically or via reason about the perceived world. So, as the example I gave language. However, really any set of data can be explored scientifically if we have enough data, such as revelations, morality, culture, etc, etc.

The consequences of scientism are generally the following:
a) Hard-core naturalism. Scientific answers generally strongly tend to be strictly naturalistic answers. The reason for this is not necessarily clear, as there are many different views on why this is the case. One view is that science is strictly methodologically naturalist. Another is the science is loosely methodologically naturalist as a regard of no good supernatural answers being plausible. The last is that science is not methodologically naturalist, it's just that supernatural answers are generally implausible. Most people holding to scientism have no problem with this conclusion though, and a good number of them are in the second and third interpretation of science and naturalism, where they simply believe that an unpacked supernatural theory would fail by one or more explanatory metrics.

b) Certain lines of inquiry are irrevocably silenced. For instance, asking the question "What is the meaning of life?" no longer makes sense. Life can no longer be plausibility analyzed through intuitions and introspection, but rather life is simply a fact to be explained through biology and perhaps cosmology. The same extends for a lot of traditional philosophical questions.

c) A much clearer path to success in inquiry. While earlier philosophies had to include all of this impossible to figure out data from introspection and intuition, scientism strongly weights a particular approach, and one that has generally shown a relatively high chance of success in it's goals. Sure, we can argue that introspection and intuition cannot be ENTIRELY abolished, and all sorts of other issues, however, a good way to look at the framework is simple. We've tried many different intellectual approaches, and many of these approaches have been unsuccessful. Scientism is simply a reweighting of our epistemological tool-kit towards the methods that have best served the human growth of knowledge and that presumably will provide the most knowledge for our effort, without wasting our time with approaches that will provide no knowledge.

Fine, I'll give it a shot. My philosophy is that different schools of thought apply for different types of problems. I believe in a scientific approach when it comes to scientific problems and a more inductive approach when it comes to social problems. I believe a deductive approach works best when the given factors are constant, clear, and best understood in isolation rather than dynamic, vague, and best understood in terms of interaction.

Wonderful collection of esoteric philosophical concepts (CLICK HERE)

Personally I would say that this would be the most correct :

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it" - Buddha

Utter and complete balderdash.

ruveyn

This is definitely one of the more superb maxims out there, thank you for sharing that.

What do you know? I'm not completely sure how many editions have been published today but The Secret Teachings of All Ages is well over its 20th edition, including paperback and hardcover, and including all the other publishers, it's probably been published over 30 editions. This book has stood the test of time it is going 80 years strong and still selling well. Not to mention the content within, it's a wonderful reference and introduction into various philosophies from around the world.

How do I know? I read that piece of crap.

ruveyn

classic ruveyn tact

Baudrillard- you can observe his truth in your daily life as time goes by.

Douglas Adams- yes, very insightful

Science- the philosophy of mathematically provable results which apply to ever more and more micro and macro cosmic issues in nature in our lives as time goes bye.

There are no correct philosophies. There is only a myriad of philosophies each false and incorrect in their own way.

ruveyn

It follows from the advice given that this advice itself should not be believed either. Who is this Buddha guy or whoever wrote this to tell people what and what not to do? What a ****. In keeping with the spirit of this 'quote', the appropriate response is to take it and shove it up something rude. But I won't do that because that would be following the advice given. Rather, I would do it because I can't stand being told how to live my inner or outer life.

Is there one way things are, have been, will be, or are there many different ways things are, have been, will be?

The question is unclear. There are certain trends that will endure, certain things that as far as we can tell are always the case, and some things that will shift. For instance an enduring trend is human nature as even though it is hypothetically alterable, if something is human, we justifiably expect them to act in certain ways. Math and a number of natural laws will always be the case as far as we see. The social structures of the human race are things that always are shifting, even if there is some minor degree of constancy.