Quest for the Ideal Philosophy And Competency Directory
- Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein
- Sep 19, 2019
- 7 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
(Subcategory Directory:
Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co.
The article "On 'Correct', 'Competent' Philosophies -- In Quest For the Ideal Philosophy (And Directory On Competency)" presents an ambitious exploration of developing an ideal and competent philosophy. It presents a well-thought-out framework and attempts to define the essential components of such a philosophy, while emphasizing the necessity of intellectual humility and critical thinking.
Positive aspects of the article include its ambitious scope and thoughtfulness, its emphasis on logical consistency, correspondence with reality, and the ability to provide fulfillment, and its focus on practical utility. The article also critiques idealization and fanaticism, highlighting the dangers of blind acceptance of ideas and advocating for skepticism, critical thinking, and self-reflection.
In conclusion, the article provides a stimulating exploration of the quest for a competent and ideal philosophy, presenting a thorough set of criteria that such a philosophy should meet. It highlights the importance of evidence, logical coherence, and practicality, as well as the dangers of blind belief and fanaticism.
Introduction
Most philosophers agree about most things; that Trump is an odious incompetent, that the climate emergency is real and drastic, that Mozart is better than the Bee Gees, that coffee is a basic human right, that *** smells, and the pope is Catholic.
And all that goes without saying, so the stuff you get to hear about [where disagreements are made] is the odd region where things are as yet undecided. -- "unenlightened", The Philosophy Forum
A "correct" philosophy can be known as a philosophy that is most likely to reach the truth with the greatest likelihood. Such a philosophy would be so likely accurate, that it would be able to overcome the ease of being disagreed upon. As one would know, philosophers can rarely have a complete agreement over any philosophy. This is why so many philosophies and philosophers are criticized and even lambasted despite the length of sensibility a philosophical theory might have.
However, have we ever considered an exception to that rule? Have we considered the idea of a philosophy so sensible that very few, who are well versed in philosophy, would completely agree with each other on?
In theory, making such a philosophical theory/idea would require much dedication, much mastery, that it would take much practice to assemble together, for both the scholarly and the intuitively gifted (AKA the "Sorcerer" and "Wizard" factions).
Given the hardship of ever reaching such a complex and skillful notion, there is no wonder intellectual humility is such an important virtue in any intellectual field, and in philosophical research in particular.
The Ingredients in Question..
I would like to suggest a methodology towards crafting the most ideal philosophical theory on any subject whatsoever. When crafting the "ideal theory", it should possess all the following traits:
Correspondence: This philosophy would be based on evidence from the field that it is concerned with. It would also be based on research and personal experience to strengthen its logic, making it difficult to refute that logic by trying to contradict it. To further reinforce it, and steer it away from the Anecdotal Fallacy, it should also be based on the personal experience of others throughout the world as well, with evidence that can be verified.
The most reliable evidence would be able to be varified by different disciplines, strengthening the main argument of the theory overall. Such correspondence would go with the idea that the universe is unified by logic.
Logical consistency: A philosophical argument is built on premises, which are composed of claims. The arguments of the philosophy would be based on consistent and logical claims, which would not contradict themselves, and would be rational and convincing.
It would not contain any paradoxes, since paradoxes would severely damage the stability of that philosophy's logic. Furthermore, it should be completely pure of any fallacies, both common in their recognition, and both in fallacies that might not be well known (AKA, devised by philosophers of their respective contemporary times).
Beneficial: It is possible to say that there are two types of philosophies: one that is only meant for the sake of philosophizing and little or nothing more, and a philosophy that can be practical when encountering life and its various problems (Like Taoism and personal philosophies).
The "ideal philosophy" philosophy should be able to answer not only philosophical questions, but also daily and global ones, that can help those who follow it to navigate the currents of existence. In other words, it would be a philosophy with a great deal of relevance applicable to people across all walks of life.
Fulfilling: That philosophy should, above all, provide meaning for its followers, and not only a short-term meaning, but a grand, existential one.
It should, for instance, be able to answer and attack the logic of nihilism, which claims that life is objectively meaningless. This is something many would agree upon simply due to lack of evidence against it (AKA The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy).
In this case, it should motivate people to continue to live and even assist them to stay away from suffering thoughts and such tendencies. Hard to refute, such philosophy would be able to effectively fulfill the problematic voids that allow such philosophies to endure and be widespread in agreement.
Convincing: It should be able to be practiced not only by intellectuals and philosophers, but also be approachable to the common people, who do not indulge in intellectual or philosophical matters on a regular basis.
That way, even an individual of lesser intelligence would be able to understand at least a small portion of it, without the need to indulge in its complex components. In other words, such philosophy would be able to convince even those who avoid philosophy due to apathy, lack or intellect, or due to the "Bored Man Fallacy".
Maximizing: An ideal philosophy should encourage people to bring out the best in themselves, develop into ideal optimal selves without overly sacrificing their health, and enhance their talents to new levels.
This would make society much more productive and fulfilled than it already is, prevent stagnation, and motivate people to be more moral. In other words, such a philosophy should be able to effectively maximize the virtues found within ourselves and within our work and behavior.
Among thousands of comrades, among ten thousand enemies, only you, only you, only you made me forget my dream. ...I sacrifice. -- Griffith, Berserk
The question is, is it possible to invent such an ideal philosophy? That is, a philosophy that meets all of these conditions optimally, with minimal flaws that would make it easily vulnerable to sensible criticism of both geniuses and regular folk alike?
Furthermore, it is important to be able to distinguish between a philosophy of this kind, and a philosophy that is merely presented to you as ideal. When a philosophy is presented as supreme above other philosophies, it is highly advised to be critical, or else you may be vulnerable to being brainwashed, deceived, and manipulated.
This is why a truly ideal philosophy isn't to be taken lightly, and isn't to be accepted so quickly. Negative, it should be examined for any flaws that would deem it very much imperfect. Presentation, especially through rhetoric, is quick to deceive the most faithful of people in it. Hence the danger of fanaticism.
And of course, a philosophy presented as such as ideal, could be very destructive, shooting itself in its own foot, in the embodiment of the followers which practice it. You can see this in the fall of the Scientology Church.
In theory, many organizations, countries and businesses succeeded and failed based on their organizational philosophy, for instance.
The Functionality of the Truth
When we fail to act accordingly to the truth, we would only deter ourselves to the change we wish to see in this world.
After all, truth is but a component of execution. The truth is the key for one to make informed decisions, which is one of the basic expressions of the logical being. When you underestimate, overestimate or completely ignore reality, you could lead people to unexpected, difficult failures. These failures can be avoided through flaw-detection and through critics who are capable of making sensible counterarguments.
Many people who accept the philosophy of their choice as ideal and the most correct are, usually, those who are cult members and people who do not use the art of doubt to free themselves from incorrect, perception-restricting approaches to life.
I find this problematic in the world of religions, for instance, hindering the pro-philosophical function. Under the wrong hands in positions of authority, this can lead to them losing their individuality, and perhaps even their property and money.
Conclusions
We shouldn't trust in those who offer us the exact, absolute truth. Putting our trust without examination is an unlucky move. On the other hand, when we refuse learning from anything and anyone, we technically deter ourselves from our own research (Conventional or otherwise).
Ideally, any idea must be examined and verified before being accepted as accurate. The same weight of consideration should then be amplified at the sight of those who claim to possess an ideal philosophy in whatever field that philosophy may be about. As ad-hominem as it may sound to you, marketing is a double-edged sword that can be used be skilful people to hide their ulterior motives.
There is a certain saying: "Do not view anything to be a Torah from Mount Sinai." This means: do not fall into the trap of blind belief or faith. Instead, work to improve your logical skills, and you will become independent from possible enslaving and deceiving theories of the power-hungry and of the megalomaniacs.
Comments