Is there a wrong philosophy as opposed to a right philosophy?

[cotner]

The background of the present thread is the post from yours truly in my thread on Indicators of reality aside from pinching noses.

 

Is there a wrong philosophy as opposed to a right philosophy?

 

Here is my definition of philosophy:

 

Philosophy

is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

I am sincerely after obtaining the thoughts of people here who do care to think and give their thoughts on this question, for the sake of arriving at a conciliation on the issue whether there is a wrong philosophy.

 

And what is wrong and what is right?

 

Here is my idea of what is wrong, and everything that is not wrong is either indifferent or right.

 

Wrong

is anything that detracts from the conservation of life with mankind and its advancement.

Someone will want to ask me what is life, and I will tell him that it is that state of his existence wherein and whereby he can ask me the question what is life, and I can hear him and answer him intelligently.

 

Of course in a democratic society subscribing to the freedom of thought and speech, anyone can advocate a wrong philosophy and argue that the philosophy he advocates is not a wrong philosophy, in which case people who see that his philosophy is a wrong philosophy can and should point out to society that what is claimed to be not a wrong philosophy is actually a wrong philosophy: because it detracts from life of mankind and its advancement.

 

The reply then to the advocate of a philosophy that is wrong is for people who question him to insist that the advocate of the wrong philosophy live his own philosophy in everyday life.

 

Just as if a philosopher should sell a food product as a sideline commercial activity, which he argues to be healthy, but better informed people from their repeated experience know it to be lethally poisonous if enough is ingested to a cumulatively death causing quantity, then he the wrong philosopher should himself eat his own food product up to the lethally deadly quantity to show that his food product is not poisonous.

 

 

cotner

[Pyrotex]

Good question. But the answer is neither yes or no. :eek_big:

 

There are many things in this world and in life that simply do not exist or function in the domains of Right-Wrong or True-False.

 

Philosophy is one of these things. The essence of a philosophy has nothing to do with truth or "rightness", but with its usefulness at explaining something. Philosophy has value to the extent that it gives us insight and understanding--gives us a "handle" on some aspect of the world.

 

When Nietsche said that philosophy could answer all questions except for the nature of God and the nature of conciousness, he wasn't saying something that was merely "true" or merely "right". That would have been a waste of his time and he knew that.

 

He was trying to explain something about the nature of God and the nature of conciousness--about how these things were unique in the universe and unexplainable, even inaccessible, with the usual tools of logic and science with which we approached everything else.

 

Love is neither right or wrong. It's just beautiful. And that's enough. :)

[REASON]

And the answer is:

 

It depends on whether or not it's my philosophy.

[Kriminal99]

I would say that there are incorrect philosophies and that many held philosophies are incorrect.

 

I say incorrect instead of wrong, because I attribute them to a simple lack of understanding or information on the part of the people that hold them.

 

I categorize them as wrong with a definition similar to yours - a philosophy is wrong if it does not allow the person who holds it to achieve their goals with maximum efficiency, based on the best understanding that person could have.

 

This is different from yours in that it only requires a person to be concerned with their own well being rather than society as a whole, but this is done with the assumption that he exists in a community with others who care equally about their own well being.

 

It is a capitalist model, where each person is responsible for using their limited resources and superior competency regarding how to make themselves happy to do just that. And as a result the best and most efficient society overall results.

 

So for instance, an incorrect philosophy might be the idea that "philosophies can't be incorrect". It is held because people do not want to admit that they are wrong, but realize that it would be selfish to require other people to and not themselves. So they try to create an enviornment where no one is wrong by just labeling philosophies subjective opinions.

 

It is incorrect because the real world has no regard for people's feelings, and sometimes presents problems that a certain philosophy is incapable of recognizing. In order to overcome these problems a person must admit that they are wrong and change their philosophy with respect to a new understanding of the situation.

 

Thus the person who thinks "no philosophy can be wrong" has a view that reduces their efficiency in achieving their goals, because they can't adapt to problems in the real world as well as a person or group who feels it is more important to see reality for what it is than to not admit when you are wrong.

[Symbology]

A philosophy can discuss the survival of another species other than homo sapian. Potentially even to the detriment of human survival and still be right in my opinion. I'm with Pyrotex on this one with my own twist: A philosophy discussing moral behavior for any species whether it is human or otherwise can be right or wrong based on its accuracy... not whether it involves the survival of humans.

 

For example there is the philosophy of establishing nature preserves, such as protecting elephant habitat - even though the teaming masses of humans surrounding it are running out of space because they are over populating.

 

A gray area example would be the philosophy of executing serial killers - where we are discussing the termination of one life to theoretically save the lives of many others.

 

Or by contrast the philosophy of the war on terror where we kill tens of thousands of lives "over there" so that nobody dies "over here". That comes down to a value judgment on who deserves to live and who deserves to die - both sides being human. The opposing side has a similar but opposite philosophy. Both philosophies involve the killing of humans. Both are preemptive in nature. Both sides think that they are right. Such discussions generally devolve down to "who threw the first punch" - which all depends on how far back you want to look. Do we consider The crusades for example? Or do we start in 1947 when land was taken from the Palestinians against their will and given to Israel. Or do we pick some other arbitrary time frame to start keeping score?

 

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

 

Voltaire

 

To my observation it pretty much comes down to survival of "us" over survival of "them".

 

To say that the universe is here for our benefit only, and to not have us in it "would be a bad thing" is fairly arrogant and ego centric in my book. Fossil evidence and carbon dating tend to indicate the world operated fine without us. And based on our self-destructive history, it may well be existing without us again soon enough.

 

To be grateful that we are here, and to work to be good stewards of the time we have been given in this place, sounds like good policy, but not necessarily right or wrong philosophy.

 

Asimov pondered this situation quite a bit in his Robot Series where computers might replace us in the future as the next evolution in the species.

 

The Wachowsky brothers had it bang on in The Matrix. They were big fans of Nietzsche as well as Jean Baudrillard.

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

[Kriminal99]

You accept that philosophies can be inaccurate. IMO (as I outlined in my last post) this is all that is required for a philosophy to be wrong.

 

Unlike cotner I didn't use the survival and happiness of the human race as the implied goal of a philosophy, but the survival and happiness of the philosopher (human or otherwise).

 

From there I would say that it is inaccurate to act in a selfish manner in an enviornment full of other "philosophers" who are also fighting for their own happiness and survival. Once this is recognized, the next step and or hurdle is setting up a system that can recognize what is selfish and what is fair in complex situations.

 

Unfortunately this creates situations like you outlined where the elephants are fodder because they lack the ability to fight back. IMO this is unavoidable because for instance nature has us depend on eating other living things for survival. In truth I am outlining this philosophy as completely unavoidable and the way we will always live our lives. We create elephant preserves because we like to have a diverse population of animals for various selfish reasons. Animals are not given rights like human beings are.

[cotner]

Good question. But the answer is neither yes or no.

 

There are many things in this world and in life that simply do not exist or function in the domains of Right-Wrong or True-False.

 

Philosophy is one of these things. The essence of a philosophy has nothing to do with truth or "rightness", but with its usefulness at explaining something. Philosophy has value to the extent that it gives us insight and understanding--gives us a "handle" on some aspect of the world.

 

 

Here is my idea of what is wrong, and everything that is not wrong is either indifferent or right.

 

Wrong

is anything that detracts from the conservation of life with mankind and its advancement.

 

 

I can see that you are talking about indifferent philosophy which is neither right nor wrong; but there is wrong philosophy and there is right philosophy aside from philosophy that is simply indifferent.

 

For example, democracy is a right philosophy while dictatorship is a wrong philosophy.

 

Perhaps you can give an example of a philosophy that is indifferent in regard to my definition of wrong as anything that detracts from life in mankind and its advancement, and right as the opposite of wrong.

 

When Nietsche said that philosophy could answer all questions except for the nature of God and the nature of conciousness, he wasn't saying something that was merely "true" or merely "right". That would have been a waste of his time and he knew that.

 

In which case we need not take him seriously since he is in his own mind and heart by his own words wasting our time as he is wasting his own time, which however we need not bother ourselves with.

 

He was trying to explain something about the nature of God and the nature of conciousness--about how these things were unique in the universe and unexplainable, even inaccessible, with the usual tools of logic and science with which we approached everything else.

 

And pray with what tools if not logic and science was "He was trying to explain something about the nature of God and the nature of conciousness--about how these things were unique in the universe and unexplainable, even inaccessible"?

 

 

Love is neither right or wrong. It's just beautiful. And that's enough.

 

I know love, have received love and given love, and at least there is one man in the vast realm of the universe of time and space that knows that love is right, and hate is wrong; so any philosophy founded on love is right while any philosophy founded on hate is wrong, because hate is not in conservation of life in mankind and its advancement while love is certainly in conservation of life in mankind and its advancement.

 

Moreover, anything beautiful is right while anything ugly is wrong, because the beautiful is in enhancement of life while the ugly is in degradation of life.

 

 

cotner

[Symbology]

And pray with what tools if not logic and science was "He was trying to explain something about the nature of God and the nature of conciousness--about how these things were unique in the universe and unexplainable, even inaccessible"?

 

I would hazard a guess of "creativity" - that genesis through which most anything comes into being through us humans.

 

A Work of Art

... is not a living thing ...

that walks or runs.

But the making of a life.

That which gives you a reaction.

To some it is the wonder of Man's Fingers.

To some it is the wonder of the Mind.

To some it is the wonder of Technique.

And to some it is how Real it is.

To some, how Transcendent it is.

 

Like the 5th Symphony

it presents itself with a feeling

that you know it, if you have heard it once.

And you look for it,

and though you know it you must hear it again.

Though you know it you must see it again.

Truly a work of Art is one that tells us,

that Nature cannot make what man can make.

- Louis Kahn

Architect of The Salk Institute

[Symbology]

 

Moreover, anything beautiful is right while anything ugly is wrong, because the beautiful is in enhancement of life while the ugly is in degradation of life.

 

Britney Spears is considered "beautiful"

Steven Hawkings is not considered "beautiful"

Paris Hilton is considered "beautiful"

Mother Teresa is not considered "beautiful"

 

I disagree on all points.

 

To go nowhere, follow the crowd.

 

Now I will say that the inverse of your point is true:

the enhancement of life is beautiful

while the degradation of life is ugly

 

 

It is important to note that some of the most beautiful things in nature are the most deadly. Colorful frogs, insects, and snakes;

lighting, tsunamis, and hurricanes.

 

So it is equally important not be taken in by outward appearances. In fact the wise might even take such outward efforts to gather our attention as a proper warning.

[Symbology]

We create elephant preserves because we like to have a diverse population of animals for various selfish reasons.

 

Very astute observation. Thanks

 

In the end we only protect what we love,

we only love what we understand,

and we only understand what we have been taught

[Symbology]

[jedaisoul]

Is there a wrong philosophy as opposed to a right philosophy?

 

Here is my definition of philosophy:

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

Although I was the author of the "wrong" philosophy referred to by cotner, I do not feel any need to justify that. The comments here by others have done that already. My only purpose in posting is to point out that this is the tenth time cotner has put forwards this definition of philosophy in this forum since the 1st December 2007. At that time I suggested that:

• philosophy would be philosophy irrespective of whether it was "continuous" or "unending".
  
• "speculative reasoning" included both science and theology.

Furthermore, on the 14th December CraigD gave a definition of philosophy based on the literal meaning of the word "philosophy"(love of wisdom):

Philosophy is neither a collection of claims, propositions, or theories, nor a method. Philosophy is an activity in which the participant experiences a state of love for the subject matter.

Yet cotner persists with his mantra.

[cotner]

To resolve the question whether there is a wrong philosophy and a right philosophy, we have to first agree among ourselves what is philosophy and what is wrong and what is right.

 

The background of the present thread is the post from yours truly in my thread on Indicators of reality aside from pinching noses.

 

Is there a wrong philosophy as opposed to a right philosophy?

 

Here is my definition of philosophy:

 

Philosophy

is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

I am sincerely after obtaining the thoughts of people here who do care to think and give their thoughts on this question, for the sake of arriving at a conciliation on the issue whether there is a wrong philosophy.

 

And what is wrong and what is right?

 

Here is my idea of what is wrong, and everything that is not wrong is either indifferent or right.

 

Wrong

is anything that detracts from the conservation of life with mankind and its advancement.

Someone will want to ask me what is life, and I will tell him that it is that state of his existence wherein and whereby he can ask me the question what is life, and I can hear him and answer him intelligently.

 

[...]

 

 

 

I will go through the replies here and gather what I think other posters here understand by philosophy, what by wrong and what by right and what by life, and report back.

 

 

cotner

[jedaisoul]

Hi cotner

 

Thats a clever trick, but I think the idea is that you pick out comments made by others and reply to them. You have merely repeated your OP and commented on that. Mantra #11 and counting.

[HydrogenBond]

Right and wrong is the precursor of reason where we learn to label the axis of cause and affect, with right and wrong. Right and wrong wishes to populates the x-axis with all the rights and the y-axis with all the wrongs. With this coordinate system set up, one can then make rational drawings in the 2-D (x,y) areas between the two axis. For example, killing is wrong, so traditionally we populate it on the y-axis. But one can think of scenarios, such a protecting someone, where something traditionally on the y-axis is brought into the (x,y) plane.

 

With philosophy, the idea is to populate the x,y plane by getting beyond looking at only the x and y axis of morality. Like in art, the philosopher will draw rational drawings on this plane. In the area of the (x,y) plane, things are not so clear cut, keeping the mind away from (0,y) and (x,0).

 

An alternative philosophical approach is to make a drawing that to be used to redefine the x and y axis. The relativity of thought philosophy uses this reverse engineering approach. If you brought the x, and y axis back to official right and wrong, the drawings distort. The philosopher may require you accept his basic x,y axis premises first or else one will not be able to see what he is trying to draw. Many philosophies are not for everyone, because many will not allow the axis change needed to see it.

 

Like in art, advanced affects include shadowing and highlighting to give the flat rational drawing more sense of depth, so it appears more 3-D. One may highlight with data or even antidotes and then go into denial of other points of view to shadow these in to create some good 3-D affects. This is actually the goal with the best philosophy generating a z-axis. The z-axis changes 2-D rational philosophy into the 3-D thinking called, wisdom.

[CraigD]

Here is my definition of philosophy:

 

Philosophy

is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

…

Here is my idea of what is wrong, and everything that is not wrong is either indifferent or right.

 

Wrong

is anything that detracts from the conservation of life with mankind and its advancement.

Someone will want to ask me what is life, and I will tell him that it is that state of his existence wherein and whereby he can ask me the question what is life, and I can hear him and answer him intelligently.

With such specific definitions, the original post’s question

Is there a wrong philosophy as opposed to a right philosophy?

is almost a formal one. To treat it as such, rather than debate it either definition agrees well with the terms’ usual, consensual ones, I’ll call the collection of items matching the definition of philosophy above [math]A[/math], and the collection of items matching the definition of wrong above [math]B[/math]. The question then becomes is there any intersection of A and B ([math]\exists X \in (A \cap B)[/math]).

 

Because the definitions and question are only almost formal, I must resort to informal reasoning to answer the question.

 

Consider a strongly nihilistic philosophy ([math]X \in A[/math]) that holds:

Biological life-based consciousness is irreparably flawed. This flaw effects another form of consciousness, spirit-based consciousness, preventing it from advancing in its purpose of understanding the programming that exists in everything. Only through the eradication of all biological life can spirit-based consciousness, and thus consciousness of any form, advance.

A reasonable course of actions by an adherent to this view would be to bring about the eradication of all biology-based consciousness – say, by using spacecraft to adjust the orbit of a large body to collide with Earth, utterly sterilizing it of life. Clearly, [math]X[/math] is “wrong” as defined above ([math]X \not\in B[/math]). Therefore, by demonstrated example, the question is answered “yes” ([math]\exists X \in (A \cap B)[/math] is proven).

 

Extreme examples aside, there appear to actually be wrong and right approaches to furthering human understanding. Those approaches that further the understanding of the few at the cost of the lives or basic humanity (eg: the ability to be sufficiently secure and educated to answer a “what is life” question) of the many are wrong.

Just as if a philosopher should sell a food product as a sideline commercial activity, which he argues to be healthy, but better informed people from their repeated experience know it to be lethally poisonous if enough is ingested to a cumulatively death causing quantity, then he the wrong philosopher should himself eat his own food product up to the lethally deadly quantity to show that his food product is not poisonous.

This analogy, IMHO, fails, because unlike the effects of a poison that causes necroscopically detectable death, the consequences of a philosopher “consuming” philosophy – or even if they are or are not actually “consuming” one - are difficult to detect, or even define.

 

Further, many philosophies (used loosely, per the common usage), may be “wrong” for humankind collectively, but not for an individual. For example, “do unto others before they do unto you”, which I believe to be an incorrect moral principle, can be demonstrably beneficial to an individual acting upon it.

[cotner]

 

[...]

 

Further, many philosophies (used loosely, per the common usage), may be “wrong” for humankind collectively, but not for an individual. For example, “do unto others before they do unto you”, which I believe to be an incorrect moral principle, can be demonstrably beneficial to an individual acting upon it.

 

“do unto others before they do unto you”, which I believe to be an incorrect moral principle,"

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly as the statement stands.

 

However, I cannot agree with you that "it can be demonstrably beneficial to an individual acting upon it"; because as I have always pointed out or at least implied, in real life the advocate and adherent of such a moral principle for a philosophy of life will not last long if he ever got born at all, for his parents would have been done in by others acting on the same moral or more correctly immoral principle; no one can be safe as to do unto others before they do unto you.

 

That is why I say (please attend to the word in bold):

 

Here is my idea of what is wrong, and everything that is not wrong is either indifferent or right.

 

 

Wrong is anything that detracts from the conservation of life with

mankind

and its advancement.

 

Someone will want to ask me what is life, and I will tell him that it is that state of his existence wherein and whereby he can ask me the question what is life, and I can hear him and answer him intelligently.

 

The principle of doing to others before they do unto you is a wrong philosophical attitude, it will prevent even the possibility of philosophical discourse among humankind.

 

Humankind would be extinct before it even got started on the way to civilized society; and animals would be safer because they only eat what they need to eat and can eat, before they get eaten by other animals.

 

 

No, I can't agree with you that such a principle, do unto others before they do unto, in an individual can be demonstrably beneficial to himself and therefore it can be a right philosophy. No, it is to its core a wrong philosophy precisely because it detracts from life with humankind and its advancement.

 

 

 

cotner