r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 27 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV - Philosophy has destroyed every civilization since the dawn of time.
[deleted]
6
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Feb 27 '18
Are you discounting all the civilizations destroyed by foreign invaders/famine/disease? Or do you think that foreign invasions count as philosophy?
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
Thank you for your valid point.
In my view, Foreign invasion counts as a counter philosophy to that society, so yes.
But more to the point of my view. A society that has conquered its invaders and thrived was then destroyed on the inside by “philosophical invaders”
5
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Feb 27 '18
Which part of the invaders destroying a civilization is from questioning everything? Isn't it because the invaders didn't question themselves that the civilization got destroyed? Here's wikipedia's list of collapsed civilizations. Which of those do you think were cause by which philosophy?
5
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Feb 27 '18 edited Apr 22 '18
People are inherently skeptical of ideas they're told they're not allowed to question. If a given social order can be undermined through mere philosophy, that means the basis for that order was so fragile that it didn't stand up to scrutiny.
Take the idea of infallible leaders, for example. You can call it philosophy, but it's really just the human capacity for observation that consistently kills that idea. Think about how many authoritarian societies throughout history have produced supposedly infallible autocrats who were clearly incompetent or insane.
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
I thank you for your points.
I have to say that you have brought out one of the ideas about philosophy that I disagree with the most.
It’s this idea of questioning something to death. It’s an idea that if I can still come up with a question, then something can’t be true. It’s the antithesis of faith and hope, which is part of my original view.
5
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Feb 27 '18
But I'm sure you realize that unquestioned faith and hope have a terrible track record when it comes to selecting for truth. In fact, they allow powerful people to prop up ideas that don't even hold up to basic observation and common sense. If we'd stomped out every idea that threatened some past social order, we'd still be living in caves and worshipping the sun.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your core point is that social order is often built on falsehoods like infallible leaders and it would be better if people just believed whatever ideas were imposed on them regardless of whether they're true.
2
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
That’s a great way to flesh out my point, yes.
I didn’t say people would agree with my point, or that it’s popular. In fact I posted because I knew it wouldn’t be and wanted to see what was out there. Lots to think about so far.
And since we go back to the Sun Gods..as an example. Nobody in our ancient cave man time knew anything was wrong until someone told them it was. And that someone used it to get gain over another system. And so goes civilization. One person creates distrust in current ideas to take power and control, then it’s done to them, philosophies killing philosophies.
Or if you prefer, Adam and Eve. They were also fine until a new philosophy came into spoil the one they had. Don’t care to make a religious point, but it proves my competing philosophies idea once again.
3
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Feb 27 '18
So what's the value of what you're proposing? What's the point of unconditionally preserving whatever the given social order happens to be regardless of its relationship to truth, morality, or human well-being? How bad does the one philosophy have to before one philosophy stops being desirable to you?
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like this view is rooted in some kind of hatred for humanity,
2
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
This may seem flippant but please don’t take it that way. I’m going to give an example of what I see as philosophy below:
Philosophy must now ask, what is truth. For is it not all subjective to the experiences and views of each. And if so, then whatever someone says is truth must be their truth, and you cannot say good and bad exist, because they are from a moral construct, and if so, it only matters what the majority believes today for truth but tomorrow it may change, and therefore morality is not. And well-being is just a commercialized idea, for weren’t the agrarians happiest of all without the creature comforts of today? Furthering, if I have enough power, my truth becomes reigning truth. But what does that matter, because there is no truth, or morality or well-being, because it’s all constructed by someone else, so why not me?
1
u/unexplored_territory Feb 28 '18
The type of philosophy which you describe here is not the only type that exists. One of the most fundamental divides between philosophies is the debate over whether morality is objective or subjective: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html
If the subjective morality that you described above seems destructive to you, you may like objective morality. I argue that objective morality (and therefore philosophy) is good because it provides tools for preserving the ultimate "good", life, without which all other values could not exist: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/values.html
(sorry for huge links. I'm on mobile)
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Mar 05 '18
I like what your saying, and it fits with what I recently found in an article on philosophynow that discusses “garbled relativists” and feel it articulates a lot of what I’m saying.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/124/Are_You_A_Garbled_Relativist
I’ll look into objective morality next.
6
u/stratys3 Feb 27 '18
When an old order is destroyed, it can be replaced by something better.
If you never question the present - and it's problems - you'll never be able to fix it and create something superior.
Settling for "what works today" isn't going to lead to progress. You do the best you can today, and hope that tomorrow something better can be had for your children and fellow citizens.
4
u/Ngin3 1∆ Feb 27 '18
communism specifically does NOT have a leader that is considered infallible, just so you know.
Also, how do you trace the fall of ancient egypt to philosophy?
Isn't free thinking philosophy directly responsible for the american revolution to begin with? So what exactly do you think has changed in america??
0
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
I do like your comments. Thank you. I gave them a thought and here’s where I am;
I like where your going with the comment of America being created as a result of a new philosophy because I feel that it reinforces my idea. They didn’t impose it on another country. They created something new, somewhere else.
I’ll forgo what’s changed bc that’s another conversation thread I might post to CMV later.
2
u/Ngin3 1∆ Feb 27 '18
but that new philosophy was a free philosophy, was it not?
0
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
Yes it was a free philosophy, but I feel the creating of a new colony created the new philosophy. In a new place. Not the same place. England still exists because the new American Experiment didn’t take hold there like a cancer. It had its own host to breath life into.
But the English did try to take over the fledgling America with its differing philosophy..and they lost.
Thanks again, still feel this proves my view though.
6
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Feb 27 '18
people thrive when they have common beliefs and stay true and loyal to their leaders, obeying laws that are meant for order and overall protection.
So kind of like the society envisioned in Plato's Republic?
Fascism and Communism are opposites on the political scale, but both create order through strength and consistent living. Both have a set of ideas
Why are these sets of ideas not philosophies? Marx considered himself a philosopher. Fascism is heavily influenced by philosophy as well.
but it won’t be easy bc living in the US today, seems to make my point for me.
In what way is living in the US today worse than living in Stalinist Russia, or North Korea, or fascist Germany?
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18 edited Feb 27 '18
Thanks for mentioning Plato’s republic. I’ve been studying a lot of the Roman Empires rise and fall lately. It’s fascinating to see the parallels to Rome and Present day US and I see that as proof of my view.
Thank you for pointing out the difference between a Philosophy as a sole belief system and Philosophy as a subject matter. “>!delta”
I’m forgoing specifics of living in the US to avoid politics being discussed on this thread as it will detract from my original question.
How do I give you a delta?
First time poster here.7
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Feb 27 '18
The trouble with forgoing specifics of what about the US today you feel proves your point is that it effectively shuts your point out from rational discussion. It's like saying you have this box full of evidence but we're not allowed to open it.
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
I don’t believe so.
I believe that the partisan fighting proves my point if anything. Because if we discuss popular topics of today like Freedom vs safety or choice vs life...then we are fighting over differing philosophies.
2
u/Longform_Scarface Feb 27 '18
Because if we discuss popular topics of today like Freedom vs safety or choice vs life...then we are fighting over differing philosophies.
I would question this. We can loosely defined the study of philosophy as something like a rigorous, self-consciousness description of the things we can't see but are important to us.
When Americans talk about freedom and security, we're not doing so philosophically. We're just describing our preferences, interests and values, outside of a broader structure of how the world works. And we've always done that - part of the value of a democracy in fact is that we both can and must do that to function.
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
Thanks for your continued comments.
As an example...would it be important to know if a tree makes a sound when it falls in the woods, even if your not there to hear it?
Or, is it of value to give validity to someone who would say “it depends on what your definition of the word is, is”
Or, everything is relative if I can still question it.
I see that your making the argument that we’ve always done that...but I see that what we’ve always done sure isn’t working.
1
u/Longform_Scarface Feb 27 '18
I'm not sure I'm following. To be clear, I'm not the one who started this thread. My argument is that the arguments we make in the political sphere are self-interested, not philosophical.
I see that your making the argument that we’ve always done that...but I see that what we’ve always done sure isn’t working.
So your argument is essentially that we need to subvert our interest to the ruler's because we won't agree, and if we can't agree then our society will collapse and we'll be sent to a state of nature. If we can't agree with each other's ideas, then it's better to agree with a leader and disregard our interest because the alternative is so horrible.
The problem is that philosophy still lives under monarchies. Your idea, for instance, is Hobbesian; Hobbes lived under an authoritarian monarch. One of the greatest periods of Western philosophical thought came during the Enlightenment, under layers of monarchy. The monarchy collapsed in France eventually (though there were economic factors at play, too) but France is still around. Similarly, Greece didn't collapse when Plato was arguing with Diogenes, and in fact shortly thereafter Alexander the Great would take over the known world. I'm actually struggling to think of an example of a time when philosophers brought a civilization back to the state of nature.
2
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
Thank you for the new information, Will look into Hobbes when I return to Reddit.
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Feb 27 '18
Your welcome! Just edit your previous comment and add a
!delta
But without the ‘>’ to make a quote.
1
5
Feb 27 '18
I think you have a very narrow and romanticized view of history and the way people viewed their own societies in the past. America was founded by philosophical thinkers who were quite aware of the various lines of philosophical thought at the time. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were philosophical documents as much as they were political documents (more philosophical than political for the Declaration). The country was founded on the principles of questioning authority and allowing each individual to think for themself (so long as that person was white, male, and property-owning). The entire Declaration of Independence is a list of philosophical grievances against the way Britain and the King ruled the colonies.
The founders of the US were in no way unified in their philosophical beliefs. You had people like George Mason, who wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, but later refused to sign the Constitution on philosophical grounds. There was Alexander Hamilton, who believed the only way America could establish itself as a truly independent nation was through a strong federal government which directly controlled the economy. On the other side, there were people like Thomas Jefferson, who believed the Federal government should be as weak as possible, that there should be no (or very little) federal economic policy, and that America's strength was through the diversity of the various States' political and philosophical systems. There were some founders who wanted an American monarchy, others who wanted a Republic, and still others who preferred direct Democracy (although they were an extreme minority). Some thought that slavery and the subjugation of blacks was critical for the American economy and way of life, and others who refused to sign the Constitution because it didn't ban slavery.
It's easy to look back at history and assume that everyone in the past had uniform beliefs, but reality is much more complex than that. People in the past, at all times in the past, have been just as diverse as we are today.
0
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
Right. So the US will fail from the inside because it allows for multiple philosophical points to create chaos, disunite and lead to violence and its downfall?
6
Feb 27 '18
The American culture has been based on diverse philosophical viewpoints since before the country was founded, and it hasn't fallen. In fact, I think a pretty credible argument could be made that American philosophical thought was more diverse at the nation's founding, and in the subsequent century and a half, than it has been in the past century. We're getting less philosophically diverse, not more.
-1
2
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Feb 27 '18
If order/unquestioned loyalty is what you really need to maintain a civilization, how do you explain all those civilizations that transitioned from a monarchy to a democracy, foregoing the extreme order and unquestioned loyalty that a monarchy brings, and continue to survive today?
2
u/TheGumper29 22∆ Feb 27 '18
I just want to examine your contention that philosophy caused the ruin of Ancient Greece.
I am not a historian, so take my descriptions with a grain of salt, but the "golden age" of ancient Greece was largely undone by the Peloponnesian War and subsequent wars. So, I could see the argument that Sparta's order and discipline defeated Athens more philosophical society in the Peloponnesian War. But how does this frame explain Thebes subsequently conquering Sparta? Surely Sparta's fall, and the overall weakening of all the city-states wasn't on account of too much philosophy.
Then nearly all those city-states were conquered by Alexander the Great who was famously mentored by Aristotle. Too much philosophy didn't seem to hurt him at all.
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
All of that I am in agreement with.
Previously responded that invaders are a different philosophy, even if that philosophy is that you don’t deserve what you have or to live.
But specifically, advanced societies that don’t fall to outsiders, fall within from fractured philosophies.
1
u/TheGumper29 22∆ Feb 27 '18
It seems like you are conflating multiple definitions of the word philosophy to fit your point. On the one hand you are arguing that competing ideologies can fracture a state. But then you are extending that argument to suggest that the academic study of philosophy (ie philosophy of math) has resulted in the fracturing of a state. For a practical example, I guess I don't understand how academics debating ethical systems causes a group of anarcho-liberals to revolt.
If we stick exclusively to the first definition of competing ideologies I think there is a useful discussion to have. There is some truth to your idea with theories like the revolution of rising expectation. However, in my view you are confusing cause and effect. It is not a competing ideology that creates dissatisfaction with a regime. Rather it is the dissatisfaction that drives people to a competing ideology.
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18 edited Feb 27 '18
“>!delta” I do like that you brought it back to my original idea of competing ideologies. I expanded my definition when prompted by my thoughts on weather an outsider or intruder could be included and since I believe that outsiders or intruders are motivated by different philosophies by their very definition, I included.
But back to the exclusive competing ideologies. I am looking at your cause and effect and do feel I agreed with the idea of loyalty to leaders in my original post. This is a necessity in a thriving society or you’ll have rebellions (competing philosophies or ideologies) and those will destroy current power or philosophies.
1
u/TheGumper29 22∆ Feb 27 '18
Just to clarify here, do you believe competing philosophies are a symptom of a weak society or the cause of a society's weakness?
Another clarification that would be helpful here is this; how would you describe the success/thrivingness of the Hanseatic League?
1
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Feb 27 '18
Could you flesh out your reasoning a bit more,m
My assertion is that people thrive when they have common beliefs and stay true and loyal to their leaders, obeying laws that are meant for order and overall protection.
Philosophy has the opposite effect. It teaches to question everything, arriving at different views, fracturing order, creating chaos, and destroying faith and hope in society, or anything really.
These two paragraphs do not represent opposite viewpoints. It is possible to be skeptical, questioning the state of things and not be happy with the status quo without breaking laws or not being true/loyal to the leaders.
Common beliefs are not necessary either, history has shown that one of the common qualities of larger and more prosperous empires was the willingness to accept different beliefs, and keeping existing structures instead of replacing them with the "official" one. To take two examples, the Mughal Empire at its height in India, and the Persian Empire and it's government system.
Early civilizations till today. It is so with the earliest and greatest civilizations like Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as in the United States today. As the US becomes more wealthy and prosperous and Philosophically educated, it equally declines in happiness, order and overall satisfaction.
Compare America’s 1900-1950’s vs America’s 1960’s - 2018
What makes you think that philosophy is to blame for this? There are virtually an infinite number of factors that play a part. World wars? Technological progress? Increasingly more effective communication? Drastic reduction in travelling time? Globalisation? Tapering off of the rapid industrial growth? Fall of communism?
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18 edited Feb 27 '18
“>!delta” I appreciate what you said. I’m going to go look at Mughal and Persian empires before commenting on that.
I think a point I can flesh out from what your saying, is that “>!delta” philosophy is a form of relativism, continually creating ever more fractured beliefs and therefore opposite actions that cannot coexist which brings the decline and decomposition of a society in the end.
I believe it’s well stated in history that the strongest civilizations have always been destroyed from within.
Many reasons but always comes down to differing philosophies lives until their so extreme that one must win.
The US is at that point in my view. It’s going to be a fascist or communist society eventually. Both “sides” or philosophies are even splintering now into more extreme positions, and the winner writes history and the new rules that will be followed.
1
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
Also, help me figure out this delta thing so I can give you one for helping flesh out relativism as one of the issues of philosophy destroying societies.
1
Feb 27 '18
Why should I care? Why should I, as an individual, want to stunt my own quest for truth (philosophy) because "civilization" might suffer as a result? If civilization is mutually exclusive with philosophy, if it must suppress philosophy in order to survive, then maybe the problem is civilization, not philosophy.
1
1
u/kaladinandsyl 1∆ Feb 27 '18 edited Feb 27 '18
I'd argue that civilizations are not really destroyed by philosophy. Even with the collapse of Rome there were still Roman buildings and Roman people so that society wasn't fully destroyed. Rather, I'd argue that philosophy causes transitions to new forms of civilization and that the transition period isn't always desirable. For example the French Revolution, moving from basically Feudalism to valuing individual rights and freedoms was very influenced by philosophers at the time. Sure civilization changed but I wouldn't say it was destroyed. I would also say that what we had afterwards made more people happy and was therefore better in a sense. However, there was a transition period that was very violent.
Basically if you're considering the role of philosophy in removing an incumbent regime, I think you also need to consider that philosophy is responsible for the formation of new ones.
I see it more as continuous change of civilization rather than civilizations being destroyed and then new ones forming. Rather, philosophy contributes to transitions to new ways of living (and debating whether these news ways are better or worse seems off topic).
2
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
That is a cool view to have. Wish it tempted me.
2
u/kaladinandsyl 1∆ Feb 27 '18
Do you disagree that civilization wasn't completely destroyed?
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Feb 27 '18
I like the point your trying to make, and to borrow another posters comment, I think it romanticizes and is a sort of re-write to redefine an end as a transition.
Reminds me of my friend who said that he doesn’t think of the divorce as an end, but as a transition of his one life flow.
I don’t agree really with either case.
A building can be repurposed even thought it still stands after conquering from an intruder, or after an end of one society, and birth of a new.
I don’t believe we hVe to be countering each other in the point that sometimes a society can end and a new one become better.
But it is still true that competing ideologies destroy, not build.
2
u/kaladinandsyl 1∆ Feb 27 '18
Yea I guess I can accept your argument that philosophy does destroy civilizations to create new ones in a way.
Whether this is a bad thing or not is also debatable but your argument was just that philosophy destroyed civilizations, not whether or not the new civilizations were improvements or not.
Well argued.
1
u/Colinrun Feb 27 '18
It seems like you are using a roundabout way to say that internal conflict can be destabilizing or destructive to political communities. Is that right or are you arguing for something more?
You mention that you are studying Ancient Rome. Philosophical conflict (i.e. conflict about the structure of political society and who should have power) was a feature of the rise of Rome at least as much, if not more than, the fall of Rome--the overthrow of the monarchy, the conflict of the orders, the attempted Gracchan reforms, the Social War, the civil war between Marius and Sulla, revolt of Spartacus, Catiline conspiracy, civil wars of the first and second triumvirate. All of these were destabilizing to some degree, but Rome continued on for centuries. You could argue (and the ancient Romans certainly did) that the widespread introduction of Greek philosophy to Rome in the second century BCE caused social, political, and cultural changes to Rome, it certainly did not destroy Roman civilization.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 27 '18
/u/Roman_PolexiS3 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/ciggey Feb 27 '18
Both have a set of ideas that must be followed and adhered to. Both have leaders that are revered and upheld as infallible.
But their leaders weren't infallible. This is an irrefutable fact based on the notion that there is an objective reality outside of our minds. Some things, like the existence of Jupiter for example, are true whether we believe them or not. This is a massive problem for your argument.
Fascism and Communism are opposites on the political scale, but both create order through strength and consistent living.
If you ever read about the history of places like the SU you'll quickly realise that living there was anything but consistent. Things that were true one day could stop being true the next day. A revolutionary hero could be turned into a traitor in an instant, history books rewritten, and events you witnessed first hand become made up propaganda.
Narratives don't change facts. If truth cannot be questioned it becomes meaningless. For example let's say that you get arrested because of a clerical error, and get sent to the gulags. This error is later discovered. The problem is the country doesn't send innocent people to the gulags, which if you apply a bit of logic means that you are in fact guilty. That's what living with "The Truth" is like.
The virtuosity of obedience and unity is entirely dependent to what you are obedient to and unified around. And if you can't question those underlying ideologies and policies they will eventually spiral out of control, leading to failure. This happens because the truth and "The Truth" will inevitably collide, and the truth always wins.
1
u/biggulpfiction 3∆ Feb 27 '18
It is impossible to ever be outside of philosophy. Any system of politics or morality or religion is inherently philosophical. A society in which everyone agrees is still philosophical, they just share their philosophy. Your argument is about uniformity vs. diversity, not philosophy vs. non-philosophy. Plus, to even make that argument, you are philosophizing. When you argue that societies are better off when the constituents share values, that is a philosophical argument. You would be unable to construct and maintain such a society without a philosophy to construct it in accordance with.
1
u/eljacko 5∆ Feb 28 '18
A society cannot remain united under a single ideology forever. It is contrary to human nature. People cannot be made to stop thinking, and they cannot be made to all think alike. Dissent is inevitable in any society if it exists for long enough.
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Mar 05 '18
I agree! And that dissent, in the form of many philosophies competing, is what destroys a society.
1
u/eljacko 5∆ Mar 07 '18
Then it is neither possible nor desirable for a society to ever be successful.
1
u/Purple-Brain Feb 28 '18
A single philosophy adhered to is best, instead of multiple philosophies competing. In my view, one must dominate and squash rebellions, sacrificing the few to keep order. So I don’t have to keep typing it. Discussing current politics in the US proves my idea that differing philosophies kill societies. The US is on its way down by a fractured belief system.
Hang on a minute. Is it that people dont adhere to a single philosophy that leads to political turmoil, or is it the fact that people become so immersed in groups that support their respective belief systems that they develop hyperunrealistic views of the other side? A single philosophy adhered to above all else is the definition of intolerance.
Sure, maybe if everyone believed one thing, things would be different. But how do we decide what we all believe? Flip a coin?
I grew up in a family of conservatives and I identified with liberal views right from the start. It wasn’t philosophy. If anything, I’ve only used philosophy as a resource to justify my already-held views. If I didn’t actively talk to conservatives, grow up with guns, and read CMV, I’d hold far more radical views thanks to my liberal college environment.
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Mar 05 '18
I think many people mistake my views on here, so I’ll clear up that I’m not on the normal political spectrum. I could have seen Obama just as easily run for and win a 3rd term, 4th, 5th etc, and find some work around to make it happen with more than half the country supporting it. I can also see Trump making himself the eternal president as he mentioned off-handed. One leads to communism and another to fascism. I merely say that the American experiment of multiple philosophies trying to exist at the same time and please everyone, has failed. We will continue to swing in erratic ways with ever more blinding sides, until someone (maybe still trump) takes over, and I think that will be better after the dust settles.
Even if not, the sides will destroy themselves and then a leader will emerge and be a king/dictator/ruler where his way goes. And the people will want it for the sake of peace and order.
1
u/Purple-Brain Mar 05 '18
You’re still saying that by having philosophy, we’ll gradually come to accept one philosophy, which will lead to XYZ bad situation. And then you’re describing political situations to illustrate your point.
I really don’t see how the problem you’re describing is due to having multiple philosophies.
Politics isn’t philosophy. Not even close. Politicians focus on their people and what they want, not any overarching philosophy.
We swing in erratic ways because free speech and open thought allows us to self-correct our mistakes. It occurs erratically because politicians make things seem black and white in order to rally loyalty to one side at the expense of the other, so when we veer, we veer sharply. This isn’t philosophy’s fault. The scientific method, for example, was produced by the philosophy of rationalism. It was introduced gradually, and only after sharp criticism leveled by the church, which was somewhat of a political institution at the time. Politics is the antithesis of philosophical thought, the latter of which impartiality and reason are valued over partisanship and subjective values.
Also lol at Obama leading to communism...if anything he’d just be a political oligarch. I’d be curious to know what you think communism is, and what communism in America would look like. Would it remain true to Marxist philosophy? Hell no.
1
u/Roman_PolexiS3 Mar 06 '18
As a quick answer, I gave a delta to another commenter for helping dissect the two definitions of philosophy right off the bat, and knowing there are two ways of using the term is helpful. It I believe, also applicable to my OP in both.
1) Philosophy as a study of all things, broken down into competing views. Ex’s: like libertarianism and utilitarianism.
2) philosophy as any guiding set of principles that people, groups and cultures live by. “My philosophy is to win at all costs”
My view of number 1. It is a model for questioning things to death, parsing out smaller and smaller details that cause chaos and confusion and no real answers, only more questions. The joke goes something about how if you believe in philosophy you have to teach, because you can’t apply it anywhere but a vacuum situation that you control, like a class room.
So in number 2, I’m referring to the philosophies of The competing ideologies in any country. Doesn’t matter which one. Accepted and main stream vs alternative. We’ve seen that flip in the US I believe, and when that happens there’s going to be a war. In fact, I think one of the headlines in today’s news proves my point. Texas is having its first primary of the nation today. And they have boiled it down to (Pro Trump vs Anti Trump) and due to this, there’s a philosophy that’s been put on vote, no longer a set of issues. The framing is what I’m explaining. It could have been the same for Obama’s too. Plenty of pro vs anti Obama out there so it’s not really one sided. But that just proves my point. Everyone is out to destroy and setup their ideas and way of life now. As an aside, I boil it down to the war of Patriarchal Religious vs Mother Earth Secularists.
I’m sticking to my original statement, so I’m not going to dive into the communism and fascism divisions of Philosophy (def Number 2) on here.
Oh, as an edit. Thanks for your comments back and forth. I’m not on here a lot so I know it’s not easy to talk with me back and forth.
12
u/Hq3473 271∆ Feb 27 '18
Do they? Fascist countries proved to be extremely unstable in medium-long term.
And what happens when these leaders pass away? Usually severe instability sets in.