What do people even mean by this question? Because I don't think I was ever very concerned about that.
> "What is reality?" Everyone asks those questions, and everyone develops answers.
I guess I'm a bit of an oddity, because I was never that interested in the "big questions", and over time I developed the view that the answer to the questions most people seem to ask isn't really important or useful, but the useful part can be found in a physics textbook.
Have you any concerns about things like war, climate change, etc? Because physics has been quite useful for bringing these things into our reality, but seems less so for making them go away.
Granted, it is extremely easy to dismiss such things with one of the many handy memes our culture has been trained to think in, but dismissing things doesn't make them go way, though it does tend to make it seem like it (which in our culture tends to mean it "has" gone away).
Sure. But I highly doubt that philosophy holds the answer.
Like take the current conflict in Gaza. Can you imagine solving it by having both sides read books about I don't know, stoicism? I can't.
Now I'm not one of the people that thinks that technology is going to magic up a solution to that either by inventing some sort of wonder tool, or way to usher nirvana.
I think if we have a social solution to make things quiet down it's going to be more in the realm of psychology, neuroscience and behavioral studies. Meaning, using propaganda and social manipulation to convince people to stop fighting. And I think at this point we've got the track record to say that works to start a war, so maybe it can also be used in reverse.
But I don't think that's quite in the field of philosophy.
Do you have any interest in the truth of the matter though? Can you have any, and how much? Might you have some unrealized limitations imposed upon not just your beliefs, but your forms of thinking?
Perhaps considering what's at stake could offer additional motivation.
>Like take the current conflict in Gaza. Can you imagine solving it by having both sides read books about I don't know, stoicism? I can't.
Can science solve it, limited to Grade 10 scientific curriculum, or at all? They've certainly helped with the weaponry part.
And yes, I certainly can.
>Now I'm not one of the people that thinks that technology is going to magic up a solution to that either by inventing some sort of wonder tool, or way to usher nirvana.
Good to hear, but I know for a fact many people think very differently. Faith in science is strong.
>I think if we have a social solution to make things quiet down it's going to be more in the realm of psychology, neuroscience and behavioral studies. Meaning, using propaganda and social manipulation to convince people to stop fighting. And I think at this point we've got the track record to say that works to start a war, so maybe it can also be used in reverse.
Agreed! At its best, mysticism is extremely powerful.
>But I don't think that's quite in the field of philosophy.
Some possible explanations:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
Truth of which matter?
> Can science solve it, limited to Grade 10 scientific curriculum, or at all? They've certainly helped with the weaponry part.
I mean, a conflict certainly can end if everyone on one side of it dies, but I don't think that's quite the sort of solution one expects in a discussion about philosophy.
> And yes, I certainly can.
Do tell.
But really, however you supposedly feel about it, if you haven’t understood that very many people concern themselves with this question, what even have you been doing ?
The way I see it, most big questions fall prey to the is-ought problem. Even if God came from the heavens and delivered my purpose to me, to me that'd mean nothing. That merely is an "is".
Everyone also wipes their butts. But that doesn’t mean we need Departments of Butt Wiping and tenured professors who have spent their whole life time studying techniques of butt wiping.
If everyone does it (and often multiple times a day to boot) then there's actual material improvements to the human condition that could be identified and implemented. That improvement requires study, rigor, and people who stand to materially benefit for conducting that study. You'd generally end up in a university-like framework for that study (even private research is structured similar to university research, with some key differences).
But everyone asks questions from metaphysics. "Who am I?" "What is reality?" Everyone asks those questions, and everyone develops answers. (If you're claiming that the conclusions of philosophy on the topic are part of the junk drawer, I'm not necessarily going to argue. But the field itself is really relevant.)
And (almost) everyone asks questions from ethics. "What is the right thing to do? How do I tell? What is moral, and what is immoral?" (I say "almost" because some sociopath types may not in fact ask such questions, or ask them only as a smokescreen to advance an agenda.) And if you look at the world, we could really use a clear consensus on what is moral and how to tell. Again, though, I'm not saying that philosophy's answers aren't stuck in the junk drawer.