4 ms·

I believe what the world needs now is philosophy. What we're experiencing is a crisis of meaning. Philosophy is a shield against meaninglessness and conceptual

I believe what the world needs now is philosophy. What we're experiencing is a crisis of meaning. Philosophy is a shield against meaninglessness and conceptual confusion. In an information environment full of overabundant conflicting and clashing signals, we need philosophy to straighten it out and confer order to the perceptual field. The fact that many people don't understand or hold philosophy in contempt is a major disservice to their own capacity for mastering their intellectual horizons. As Chesterton said, philosophy is simply thought that has been thought out. We're going to work with thoughts either way, but if we haven't thought it out, we are sleepwalking, under the influence of a foreign presence we have not taken the time to identify and dissect.

simmanian 7y ago
I think the crisis of meaning is happening because existing philosophies do not provide enough value anymore in today's world. I believe a non-reductionist and non-dualistic worldview can be the solution. We must see that the world is not a "war of all men against all men" as Hobbes describes in the Leviathan, and realize we are all interdependent beings that exist as expressions of relationships, which we form together.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  But it is in our very DNA to war for status and prestige. Every animal does it, there's a pecking order for every species. No brain surgeon will happily get stuck taking out the trash because a philosopher says we all need to get along and stop striving for position. Philosophy should be telling us that hierarchies are natural and playing the game is healthy, as even if you're on the low end there's still plenty of game to "win".
  - bittercynic 7y ago
    I don't think it is universal or unavoidable to have to play games to establish yourself in a pecking order. In many situations it seems like we work together with our fellow humans towards some common goal, or just enjoy each other's company. This is just one middle-aged mid-status dude's perspective, though, seems your perspective is in conflict with mine.
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      Hierarchies don't have to be vicious. A group of friends will develop the funny guy, the guy who leads the discussions, someone who figures out where to meet up next. The biggest question philosophy should be answering is how can we ensure that everyone wins after we've self-sorted into our natural hierarchies.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    Competition for resources is only one human behavior. In nature, it is carefully balanced not to disrupt the stability of the well functioning community that all primates must have at all times to survive. Being social animals, another more critical instinct is the need to cooperate. Indeed, eliminating cooperation from a human group will extinguish it faster than eliminating competition (assuming it's even possible). And when people have a choice in the matter, pecking order is based on amount of support the higher up people provide to the group, not the leaders ability to serve himself: people do not knowingly and freely back someone who has no interest in backing them. Also instinctive is the sense of fairness[1] Of course those with an abundance of resources might want to convince others that this instinct is unnatural or somehow harmful. But it is clearly a well established instinct over a wide range of mammals and exists for a reason. And while the meaning of life varies greatly from person to person, I suspect that a life lived solely to maximize one's own resources will be as comfortable as it feels meaningless. I image evolution has made it that way. At least so people will have children but also to work fairly with others. Otherwise we would have wandered completely alone in the jungles and been eaten out of existence by Pliocene tigers. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg&feature=youtu.be&t=85 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg&feature=youtu.be...
  - simmanian 7y ago
    It is in our blood to war for resources, but it is also in our blood to share, cooperate, commiserate, empathize, and have compassion. I posit that greed and avarice are (once effective) survival tactics that have been obsoleted by us becoming social animals. It may be hard to imagine it now, but once more people start considering the idea that the notion of self and individual could be a cognitive illusion, that the world is not made up of individuals destined to war each other for more, we may see the end of the current crisis.
westoncb 7y ago
Here's an interesting new series addressing exactly the "crisis of meaning" issue you mention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54l8_ewcOlY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54l8_ewcOlY I've only gotten through the first lecture—and it does take him ~20 minutes to lay out something like the full plan for the lecture series, but he also paints a pretty interesting picture by the time he gets to that point. David Chapman has also been writing on this subject, apparently from a somewhat related angle, for years: https://meaningness.com/ https://meaningness.com/ The two of them try reconciling their approaches here: https://letter.wiki/conversation/209 https://letter.wiki/conversation/209
elfexec 7y ago
> What we're experiencing is a crisis of meaning. Philosophy is a shield against meaninglessness and conceptual confusion. This is simply not true. What you are describing is religion. Outside of the realm of logic, much of philosophy is a neverending open-ended question. Philosophy is great because it exercises the brain and teaches you to think rationally and try to see things from as many angles as possible. But it doesn't provide any answers to "is there life after death", "does life have any meaning", "do I have a soul", etc. Philosophy just helps you think about these questions meaningfully and rationally. Religion provides certainty. Philosophy is more honest and does not.
- shard972 7y ago
  What basis are you using to declare that question of meaning are confined the realm of religion and that they also are without logic?
- empath75 7y ago
  Philosophy from the very beginning concerned itself with exactly those questions. Some of that was subsumed into religion and science at some point but they are all very much in the realm of philosophy, classically and currently. I’m not religious, and I think I have fairly conclusive answers to those questions drawn from philosophy — there’s no soul or life after death and no inherent meaning to life. If you’re going to argue that’s exclusively the realm of religion, then what were nietzche and Plato and Sartre doing?
  - dx87 7y ago
    You're agreeing with them. Philosophy doesn't protect you from meaninglessness, like you said, looking at things rationally, our lives are meaningless in the long term. Religion helps get rid of that feeling of meaninglessness by telling people that you don't just dissapear when you die, and what you do while alive matters for eternity. OP said that philosophy will help protect people from feeling like their life is meaningless, but it's the opposite.
  - elfexec 7y ago
    > If you’re going to argue that’s exclusively the realm of religion, then what were nietzche and Plato and Sartre doing? I'm arguing that certainty is the realm of religion. "Religion provides certainty. Philosophy is more honest and does not." When it comes to the meaning of life, good and evil, soul or the abyss, heaven or hell, religion provides certainty. There are 10 commandments and accept Christ. You have the rules laid out for you. Philosophy is a neverending open-ended question when it comes to these questions. In other words, you can keep asking questions in philosophy. In religion, you have the answers so there is no need to keep asking questions. You have certainty.
B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago
> I believe what the world needs now is philosophy. That and arsonists. Sheesh, most of our troubles come from applied philosophy - ideas translated into memes that went viral, such as salvation, enlightenment, communism, environmentalism, etc. That's where you get really large scale disturbances of the mob. Otherwise people would be chewing the cud peacefully, give or take a few bashings of the nearest tribe.
- empath75 7y ago
  People engaged in large scale warfare and oppression before philosophy existed. Philosophy lead to better methods but people don’t need more of a motive beyond “I want your stuff” to kill each other.
haecceity 7y ago
Crisis of meaning is so last century. I think there are more pressing crises today.
dogcomplex 7y ago
I recommend the Philosophise This podcast for some excellent (and concise) exploration of the history of philosophy and how it relates to today's world

simmanian 7y ago

I think the crisis of meaning is happening because existing philosophies do not provide enough value anymore in today's world. I believe a non-reductionist and non-dualistic worldview can be the solution. We must see that the world is not a "war of all men against all men" as Hobbes describes in the Leviathan, and realize we are all interdependent beings that exist as expressions of relationships, which we form together.

merpnderp 7y ago
But it is in our very DNA to war for status and prestige. Every animal does it, there's a pecking order for every species. No brain surgeon will happily get stuck taking out the trash because a philosopher says we all need to get along and stop striving for position. Philosophy should be telling us that hierarchies are natural and playing the game is healthy, as even if you're on the low end there's still plenty of game to "win".
- bittercynic 7y ago
  I don't think it is universal or unavoidable to have to play games to establish yourself in a pecking order. In many situations it seems like we work together with our fellow humans towards some common goal, or just enjoy each other's company. This is just one middle-aged mid-status dude's perspective, though, seems your perspective is in conflict with mine.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    Hierarchies don't have to be vicious. A group of friends will develop the funny guy, the guy who leads the discussions, someone who figures out where to meet up next. The biggest question philosophy should be answering is how can we ensure that everyone wins after we've self-sorted into our natural hierarchies.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  Competition for resources is only one human behavior. In nature, it is carefully balanced not to disrupt the stability of the well functioning community that all primates must have at all times to survive. Being social animals, another more critical instinct is the need to cooperate. Indeed, eliminating cooperation from a human group will extinguish it faster than eliminating competition (assuming it's even possible). And when people have a choice in the matter, pecking order is based on amount of support the higher up people provide to the group, not the leaders ability to serve himself: people do not knowingly and freely back someone who has no interest in backing them. Also instinctive is the sense of fairness[1] Of course those with an abundance of resources might want to convince others that this instinct is unnatural or somehow harmful. But it is clearly a well established instinct over a wide range of mammals and exists for a reason. And while the meaning of life varies greatly from person to person, I suspect that a life lived solely to maximize one's own resources will be as comfortable as it feels meaningless. I image evolution has made it that way. At least so people will have children but also to work fairly with others. Otherwise we would have wandered completely alone in the jungles and been eaten out of existence by Pliocene tigers. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg&feature=youtu.be&t=85 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg&feature=youtu.be...
- simmanian 7y ago
  It is in our blood to war for resources, but it is also in our blood to share, cooperate, commiserate, empathize, and have compassion. I posit that greed and avarice are (once effective) survival tactics that have been obsoleted by us becoming social animals. It may be hard to imagine it now, but once more people start considering the idea that the notion of self and individual could be a cognitive illusion, that the world is not made up of individuals destined to war each other for more, we may see the end of the current crisis.

westoncb 7y ago

Here's an interesting new series addressing exactly the "crisis of meaning" issue you mention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54l8_ewcOlY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54l8_ewcOlY I've only gotten through the first lecture—and it does take him ~20 minutes to lay out something like the full plan for the lecture series, but he also paints a pretty interesting picture by the time he gets to that point. David Chapman has also been writing on this subject, apparently from a somewhat related angle, for years: https://meaningness.com/ https://meaningness.com/ The two of them try reconciling their approaches here: https://letter.wiki/conversation/209 https://letter.wiki/conversation/209

elfexec 7y ago

> What we're experiencing is a crisis of meaning. Philosophy is a shield against meaninglessness and conceptual confusion. This is simply not true. What you are describing is religion. Outside of the realm of logic, much of philosophy is a neverending open-ended question. Philosophy is great because it exercises the brain and teaches you to think rationally and try to see things from as many angles as possible. But it doesn't provide any answers to "is there life after death", "does life have any meaning", "do I have a soul", etc. Philosophy just helps you think about these questions meaningfully and rationally. Religion provides certainty. Philosophy is more honest and does not.

shard972 7y ago
What basis are you using to declare that question of meaning are confined the realm of religion and that they also are without logic?
empath75 7y ago
Philosophy from the very beginning concerned itself with exactly those questions. Some of that was subsumed into religion and science at some point but they are all very much in the realm of philosophy, classically and currently. I’m not religious, and I think I have fairly conclusive answers to those questions drawn from philosophy — there’s no soul or life after death and no inherent meaning to life. If you’re going to argue that’s exclusively the realm of religion, then what were nietzche and Plato and Sartre doing?
- dx87 7y ago
  You're agreeing with them. Philosophy doesn't protect you from meaninglessness, like you said, looking at things rationally, our lives are meaningless in the long term. Religion helps get rid of that feeling of meaninglessness by telling people that you don't just dissapear when you die, and what you do while alive matters for eternity. OP said that philosophy will help protect people from feeling like their life is meaningless, but it's the opposite.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > If you’re going to argue that’s exclusively the realm of religion, then what were nietzche and Plato and Sartre doing? I'm arguing that certainty is the realm of religion. "Religion provides certainty. Philosophy is more honest and does not." When it comes to the meaning of life, good and evil, soul or the abyss, heaven or hell, religion provides certainty. There are 10 commandments and accept Christ. You have the rules laid out for you. Philosophy is a neverending open-ended question when it comes to these questions. In other words, you can keep asking questions in philosophy. In religion, you have the answers so there is no need to keep asking questions. You have certainty.

B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago

> I believe what the world needs now is philosophy. That and arsonists. Sheesh, most of our troubles come from applied philosophy - ideas translated into memes that went viral, such as salvation, enlightenment, communism, environmentalism, etc. That's where you get really large scale disturbances of the mob. Otherwise people would be chewing the cud peacefully, give or take a few bashings of the nearest tribe.

empath75 7y ago
People engaged in large scale warfare and oppression before philosophy existed. Philosophy lead to better methods but people don’t need more of a motive beyond “I want your stuff” to kill each other.

haecceity 7y ago

Crisis of meaning is so last century. I think there are more pressing crises today.

dogcomplex 7y ago

I recommend the Philosophise This podcast for some excellent (and concise) exploration of the history of philosophy and how it relates to today's world