On "Correct" Philosophies
Updated: May 21
A "correct" philosophy, also known as a philosophy that is most likely to reach the truth, would possess the following traits:
Correspondence: This philosophy would be based on evidence from the field that it is concerned with. It would be based on research and personal experience to strengthen its logic, making it difficult to refute that logic by trying to contradict it. The most reliable evidence it would be based on would be science, because science is exact and absolute.
Logical consistency: A philosophy is built on arguments, 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.
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. A correct 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.
That philosophy should, above all, provide meaning for its followers, and not only a short-term meaning, but a grand, existential one. It should be able to answer and attack the logic of nihilism, which claims that life is meaningless. It should motivate people to continue to live and even assist them to stay away from suicidal thoughts and tendencies.
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 a stupid individual would be able to understand and contain at least a small portion of it, without the need to indulge in its complex components.
Maximizing: In my opinion, an ideal philosophy should encourage people to bring out the best in themselves, develop into their optimal selves, and enhance their talents to new levels. This would make society much more productive and fulfilled than it already is.
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 vulnerable to criticism? It is important to be able to distinguish between a philosophy of this kind, and a philosophy that is 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.
Many people who accept the philosophy of their choice as ideal and the most correct are those who are cult members and people who do not use the art of doubt to free themselves from possibly enslaving approaches to life. This can lead to them losing their individuality, and perhaps even their property and money.
In my language, there is a saying: "Do not view it to be a Torah from Mount Sinai." This means: do not fall into the trap of blind belief or faith. Work to improve your logical skills, and you will become independent from possible enslaving and deceiving theories, which in practice, not even their creators believe in, and use them only to gain power and wealth.