Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Who are we?
A fence-building graduate opening Montaigne's book before going to bed? Enjoy your time.
A graduate of zaborostroitelny, closing Montaigne's book-opportunities to think “for life” and call your thoughts “philosophy”.
A specialist? Arguments, conceptual analysis, new concepts, and problematization of non-empirical issues relevant to their field of activity.
In literary studies, how self-evident is the concept of “author's death” introduced by Roland Barthes? Is it possible to finally rehabilitate the “author's will” and what are the pros and cons of this approach?
Like-in the social sciences – what is “misogyny”? What is the history of the idea? How does this concept work in society?
As in film studies, what is new about cinema that Deleuze's conceptual framework allows us to say? Does this method of analysis have an advantage over traditional methods?
Like-in the philosophy of science-what is the history of the idea of “objectivity”? How does each of the conceptualizations of an idea work at a particular historical stage?
Like-in anthropology – what do people think is the “meaning of life”? Is it possible to create a typology of finite meanings and trace the functioning of these meanings in society?
Etc.
I'll answer for myself.
When I discovered the opportunity to pursue philosophy and tried it, I expected that it would help me in solving my main task in life-to live. This feeling that life is not lived automatically and that despite all the number of tricks provided for in it, it can be ironed out into something not finite, but worth my presence-this feeling requires taking life seriously, not neglecting anything that can help in this.
But philosophy is distinguished not only by the ability to help in life, which any guru could cope with — philosophy preserves the freedom of a person, the value of his choice and his life. Without it, everything is in vain.
Dear experts, I am a pragmatist from the field of applied research of innovative processes of enterprises and industrial complexes. What do I expect from philosophy? Since my student days, I have viewed philosophy as the queen of all subject studies.
If we evaluate its large-scale integration capabilities, then this topic is in the context of the answer to Alina Chebrikova's question.
And if you look at it from a personal point of view, then this topic is from the context of the answer to Nikita Belyshev's question.
Part 1. On a large scale. Alina N. Chebrikova: “What national idea can you offer that unites all the people?”
Dear colleagues! I have carefully studied the question and all your suggestions. I do not exclude that many of you will be sincerely against the loss of your “favorite toy”. As I consider the proposed methods of solving this problem unsuitable.
First of all, the scale of the problem. Today, it is not individuals or even businesses that are viable, but systems. Therefore, it is desirable to avoid obsession and too small scale statement of the problem of justice at the level of relationships: “Sir, Comrade, Master.” And also from sticking charges and labels on the grounds of belonging. All these are techniques of deliberate destructive information warfare of groups, which I have no interest in participating in.
And those who are emotionally sympathetic to it probably don't know the whole scenario until its tragic end. Practice shows that someone who does not understand the general pattern of events (philosophy should give it) can never get out of a conflict and dispute with addiction. Especially for those who have never held this very rifle in their hands. And he feels how great it can be to solve everything in a row with rallies, and then also with weapons. And he doesn't think about the consequences of such proofs of correctness. Our children and grandchildren will remain extreme, who will soon enjoy the exaltation, enthusiasm,and passion for ideological shooting with a heroic sports stabbing.
There may be no result, and the losses will be catastrophic. Historically, in my small homeland, 70% of beautiful, smart, strong, talented and hardworking men of military age were exterminated under such a game of ideas with protest sermyazhnoy truth until the victory of one of the parties. And almost half of their small children starved to death.
It is necessary to stop (I think you can partly with the help of philosophy) this practice of pseudo-intellectual ugliness in the shocking style of “know our people”, when speakers present special cases and “mutually exclusive things in the form of radical proposals, and it seems to those present (to the exalted hungry crowd) that they are all right” (Terenty Semyonovich Maltsev is a great Russian innovator who confirmed the special integrative role of philosophy). Or they agree to the fatal inevitability of blind copying small samples of other people's experience according to the teachings of the cargo cult of “Airplane fans and Heavenly Gifts”. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (a well – known Russian historian) said on a similar occasion: “A Russian cultural person is a fool, stuffed with the garbage of other people's thinking.” In the opinion of the great Albert Einstein: “The biggest stupidity is to do the same thing and hope for a different result.”
The expediency of repeating a far inappropriate historical intellectual experience is counterproductive in this case. In order to correctly deduce and use a national idea that everyone understands, one should not rush outwardly convincing iron arguments, and then quite logically impulsively and clumsily grab weapons. And substitute young people.
If we are closer to the royal role of philosophy, then, first of all, it is important to correctly include collective intelligence for the production of several useful socially significant intellectual constructions today.
First. To provide a general understanding of the boundaries and deep positive content of the possibilities of innovative changes in reality in the overall system project of Russian civilization.
Second. Design a forward-looking, deeply structured functional environment of reality within the boundaries and use of all the Lord's given capabilities. By identifying which structures are the main and priority ones, and which are nothing more than a successful infrastructure.
The third. Develop a multi-level target structure for a national innovation project with an expected and predictable result.
In this triune architecture, it will be possible to talk creatively and talented, original, substantive and measurable to your heart's content about the social responsibility of government and business, about the qualifications of employees not only by diploma, etc. Accompany, train, stimulate intellectual, heart and soul impulses. Ensure the enthusiasm, hard work and creativity of the masses for a large-scale predictable and verifiable system result.
Part 2. Personal aspect. Nikita Belyshev: “Why is it a sign of immaturity that a person wants to die nobly for a just cause, and a sign of maturity that he wants to live humbly for a just cause?”
Heroes are not born, they become. His heroism is far from exaltation for a beautiful feat. It means that for many years every day regularly, without sticking out yourself, to master and with pleasure and even joy to do a variety of rather difficult mental and physical work. In terms of the ratio of time, a soldier has more than 95% of training and construction work, and less than 5% of the time is heroic clashes.
Everywhere you need careful preparation, and then action.
In extreme situations, a person's multi-faceted, including intellectual and spiritual, willingness to work becomes crucial and leads to mature actions. It is accurate, reliable, and irreplaceable. And, if there is no other choice, to protect the Motherland, he can take the death blow with honor and dignity.
To acquire a set of qualities, it is advisable to start a business career with jobs in production processes and not be shy from military service in the armed forces. An educated person should understand simple work, have at least a small officer's knowledge and high civil responsibility, so that “they are not drawn to small office and street exploits.” The principles listed above are not scientifically defined, and they were given by practice at the cost of huge losses.
Part 3. Tools for systematic and interdisciplinary integration of knowledge. Separately, I suggest you get acquainted with my answer to the question: “Why do we need higher education in our time?” It has a special understanding of the relationship between subject and integrative scientific methodologies in higher education.
Resume. In general, modern philosophical sciences lack the properties of an integrative connection of modern subject knowledge in its metasphere around socially significant tasks (an analog of the situation “Wise Men and an elephant” is obtained). And there is no methodology in the depth of understanding and measuring the primary analytical signs of a problem situation. Knowledge promotion technologies are similar to the”Texas Shooter Method”.
All current tasks have shifted to areas of knowledge that cultivate a deeply structured, systematic and interdisciplinary approach. This approach already contains unshakable private philosophical principles of scientific research. In our country, for the development and analysis of alternatives, there has long been an advanced methodological base for program-oriented planning and management. As well as system analysis of multi-level functional and target structures.
These concepts and tools are much more powerful and productive than everyday, everyday and semi-professional jargon and general theoretical conversations in the genre of “just on the topic” without responsibility for the result. I don't know how this teaching is connected with philosophy today. It is conceptually self-sufficient.
This is my opinion, which in no way should be attributed to scientific gaslighting in relation to philosophers. It is debatable and may not coincide with the opinions of professional philosophers. Therefore, the scientists of this branch will have to solve the problem of “decaying” modern philosophy in a purposeful, large-scale and deep way. But personally, I have more questions than answers about the benefits of big philosophy as a professional knowledge in my small field of knowledge.
I wish my colleagues scientific success, and any comments from our opponents are useful. This is the source of development.
Sincerely, Alexander.
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. I write only about myself and my opinion. I am interested in the Wisdom of the East and studying it I try and try on myself all that the Great Sages wrote and spoke about. I like a lot of things and I understand what these Great People wrote about. In my own practice, I have repeatedly seen how right they are. I lead a healthy lifestyle and have been practicing sages for more than forty years. I am interested in the practices of the Sages of the East and I am trying to learn as much as possible about their philosophy. I consider myself a student of these Great philosophers. This is my life position: “to know as much Truth as possible – – – the truth of life.” That's what I expect from philosophy!!! With respect.
Of course, our expectations (for today) from this discipline are not very encouraging. Because, it turned out that much of what she declared (in the sense of significant for a person), she is not able to fulfill. And perhaps that is why all our interests are most focused on the positive things that many of the natural sciences we know can represent. Yes, we are pragmatic and we care most about those close (to us) and obvious values of the materialistic plan. And they are justified in their own way by the same materialistic worldview and, accordingly, by such a vision of the world, and < our> rationalism does not go beyond it.
But the ancients, who were freed from those totalitarian ideologies and ideologemes (and in terms of knowledge and sciences, i.e. in terms of their methodologies, approaches, paradigms), were different. They were freer in their thoughts, their brains did not succumb to such “globally” massive coding as it happened later, and – in a worthless way. Yes, then humanity was, so to speak, still at that “young age”, which is characterized by everything healthy (according to its essence) received at birth.
In those distant historical times, people realizing the hardships of life and the unenviable position of a person in the world began to think about how to improve it or even make it happy or even blissful. And then many, many people began to think about how to achieve this. Among all of them, there were many who were sure that this was possible (for our: “The spirit has an instinct or tendency to ascend, which shows a natural tendency to be reborn and rise from our present sensuous and low state to a state of light, harmony (order) and purity” – Berkeley, British philosopher) should be decided on the path of knowledge (in knowledge).
They also decided that this kind of knowledge should be carried out by a science called philosophy. Science, which in its essence has access to <higher> knowledge, and-wisdom. As the ancient philosopher Proclus wrote, ” philosophy of this kind was revealed to people for the benefit of local souls-instead of statues, instead of temples… it turns out to be the beginning of salvation both for people living today and for those who will see the light in the future “(it would help [the soul] to “ascend to the highest good”). Also, with the help of this science (they thought), it is possible to “arrange a happy and just life in the whole country”, and in a word, without it,” neither their personal nor public well-being is possible ” (Plato).
Over time, they noticed (which confirmed their early belief in this science) that it can still have a beneficial effect (in terms of improvement) – both on the human body and on its soul. Thus Proclus, referring (to his available) sources about the life and personality of the <great> ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides (VI-V century BC), notes that he is “a lover of truth and existence”, despite the fact that “he was already very old, white-haired, but beautiful and good-looking”, because “his appearance pleases the eye because of the vital force manifested in him”, and his soul is “venerable, because it is filled with intelligence and knowledge”. How can one not notice that all his virtues are largely connected with the fact that his soul is “filled with intelligence and knowledge”?
Not a little time has passed since then, but unfortunately, philosophy has not been able to reach the heights that were claimed, so to speak, at its “birth”. And then, what happens: is it a fruit of illusions (a phantom) of ancient and other philosophizing personalities — in the future and present, or does it still contain (in itself) that < previously declared by her> huge potential, which should be revealed under certain objective historical conditions… and, then…
Philosophy is often expected to do what it cannot do. A philosopher will never tell you what to do. But he will say this: if you do this, the consequences will be like this, and if you do this, the consequences will be like this. All. Only a stupid philosopher gives advice. And yet, the main thing is to see what you are actually doing. Seeing what is really happening to you is the main task of a philosopher. He is a” specialist ” in vision, but only you can see. Self. “Sama, sama, sama”)). A philosopher can only help you “approach” a place where you can see what is really happening in your life
We expect everything from being able to seduce the opposite sex to solving problems in physics and mathematics, we expect that philosophical knowledge will make us special and we will be able to be proud of ourselves, after all, we expect that we will be fed by our compatriots, paying for our work.
I will not speak for all of them, but personally, until samotuzhki delved into the meaning of the words used in the term “philosophy”, namely: “love” and “wisdom” – I was waiting for the authors of “philosophical” texts to specifically indicate objects that represent the universal good, the desire for which unites people not declaratively(at the” level “of psychology and sociology), but “in essence”, that is, more deeply than people understand and realize in everyday life, as well as – a clear explanation of love( as the essence of human experience) and wisdom (as the activity of the individual), which sufficiently distinguishes the subject from everything else.
We (specifically I ) do not expect anything from philosophy, since we know it. We (I) have taken the time to delve into the texts of many philosophers. And we did it. We now know exactly what their intellectual level is. It is insignificant from the point of view of knowledge of the 21st century. But it was insignificant even at the time of its creation, since it did not affect the development of civilization in any way. The progress of civilizations is driven by completely different factors that have nothing to do with the rationalisms of “philosophers”…
Philosophy is the intellectual garbage of evolution. Philosophy, since the emergence of processional scientific activity, is not reasoning for the sake of obtaining a useful result, but reasoning for the sake of the process of reasoning itself – an imitation of intellectual activity. This should be clearly understood. Slowly: I-m – I-t-a-c-I-I….
Evolution trained intelligence to ensure that its host most effectively achieved the following goals: food, reproduction of its genome, dominance, security, energy savings, security, and new knowledge. Point. Evolution has evolved the brain only for these practical purposes.
Philosophy has no practical goals. Philosophical rationalisms, in principle, do not pursue the achievement of any goals other than the achievement of the personal dominance of a particular philosopher.
Consequently, philosophy by its very nature is a formal imitation of intellectual activity, when the form of reflection is observed, and no result other than personal dominance is provided.. There were exceptions only in ancient times, when practical knowledge was negligible. In those days, it made sense to generalize the accumulated facts, since the sciences did not exist then… But generalization is not philosophy. Generalization is something else…
In the 20th century, the imitation of intellectual activity called “philosophy” died out… Forget about this nonsense. And forget it forever. Entertainment by the very process of reasoning is an artifact of the past. Engage in a practically useful activity aimed at developing distributed group intelligence.
I wouldn't expect anything from a modern one. From the present, ancient-understanding the world, approaching the truth, understanding the world's laws and the need to follow them.
You can't expect anything from philosophy it's not a science that you can rely on to solve your life's problems. Philosophy solves the problems of the external world and is not interested in your internal problems