July 11, 2006

•  

  
  

  What is the most dangerous philosophy present today in our world? Which one offers the most hope for humanity? An entry for the Socrates Cafe blogring.

  
  

  I’ll answer this question very simply. Short and sweet. There is NO such thing as a dangerous philosphy. A “philosopher” is a “lover of wisdom”. To embrace wisdom is to embrace humanity, and, by formulating reasonable assumptions based upon logical conclusions rather than by simple observations and ideological rhetoric, the philosopher attempts to explain the reasons for and the implications behind human existence and history. A better question would be “Which ideologies are the most dangerous to our mortal existence?” Or “Can there be any negative repurcussions from any of the religious thoughts taught throughout millennia?”

  
  

  There are many different roads to ruin, maneuvered by pedantic pedagogues and overzealous prophets, but these roads can be detoured by a mind that can analyze and reason through their inconsistencies. Throughout history, mankind has attempted to formulate a reason for existence, and to insure a better future for his progeny. Sometimes and in some parts of the world, he succeeds, and sometimes and in some parts of the world, he fails miserably. The philosophies that attempt to explain and question this existence, and to formulate reasons behind it and a purpose for it, cannot be blamed for any ills through which mankind suffers.

  
  

  There are autocratic and totalitarian ideologies that can be considered malicious and should be avoided. But usually, each ideology is an “answer” to a competing ideology for which the group from which it fostered into existence feels needed to be countered. Ideologies can be secular, sectarian, and religious. Mankind loves to compete, and his belief systems have morphed and changed, adhering to the principle du jour, throughout history. Sometimes the  belief systems which are competing actually comprise a single set of thought, and eventually morph together. At other times they are so solid and unfettered in their assumptions, that the rift that divides them gets ever wider and eventually splits the ideologies into two distinct and warring groups.

  
  

  Hope for humanity. Is there hope for humanity? This is a question that has been racking the brains of humanity since he first opened his eyes and learned to live on this world. Recently, physicist Stephen Hawking asked this question of the Ask Yahoo Search Engine. Is there an answer? Is it positive or negative? I personally believe, derived both from empirical observation and from reasoned logical conclusions, that human nature will eventually doom our species. Perhaps that information was known from the beginning. Philosophical questions have always been on man’s mind. And he has written vast libraries consisting of various “answers” and “conclusions” about his end. He has practiced sacrifice and martyrdom throughout his existence. He has conjured up reasons, as well as ghosts, and he is no closer now to knowing if and when this roller coaster will end than he was when he stepped into the car back in his  beginning. The car goes faster as time advances. This he knows for sure.

  
  

  In conclusion, there are many tributaries of thought. As soon as one idea is stated, an equally valid and possibly wildly incorrect idea can be made that opposes the first. When dealing with feelings, beliefs, and ideas, mankind can rarely agree upon the outcomes, and sometimes can’t agree with himself. There will always be somebody who will bend a philosophy or an ideology to his whims, and there will always be fighting and jockeying for the front position of cultural and historical merit. The philosopher is not at fault for any dangers inherent in the thought processes of human beings. To the contrary, the philosopher attempts to explain, through a reasonable means, exactly what variables are cause and effect, and differing philosophies will not hurl mankind into the abyss. It is man’s intolerance and stubborn stupidity that will accomplish this.

  
  

  Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool

  
  

  ---

  QUESTIONS:

  
  

  Zeal4living : How do you think ideologies will be impacted  if man embraces philosophy as you define it?

  
  

  Mankind has embraced philosophical discussion for millennia, and he will continue. Sadly, I believe certain ideologies are so ingrained in their participants, that warring tribes will continue to war. If we are to learn from history, then we should realize that the problems of the world are not new, but are very ancient, and will just fester and boil as always until we learn the lessons of time.

  
  

  BlackSockCerulean: You point out that philosophy in the strictest sense is only the search for explanations. Starting there, is there a specific mode of questioning that could be considered to offer more danger or hope than another?

  
  

   

  
  

  I believe that “modes of questioning”, however they are phrased or presented, are part of a possible answer towards a “hopeful” future. Philosophy itself has never, can never, and will never “answer” man’s eternal questions. In the Universal, these moral and ethical questions are indeed answered. The great news is that in our final incarnation, upon reaching the final realization, the eternal “mind meld” of the Universal will not only answer our questions, but explain all of humanity and beyond, if life exists elsewhere, and serve to bond us to the godhead.
  
  Do you agree with Zeal that wisdom always precludes dangerousness? It might be a weird direction to go, but could there be a kind of wisdom that is also dangerous to humanity?

  
  

   

  
  

  I’ve written in my essay: “History” that the elders of early societies were always revered, because they possessed memory of weather patterns, and geologic cycles, and could determine when the best times of year to plant, and to store. As society expanded, and mankind became more technological, the philosophers of the “age of reason” discounted the religious dogmas of the time in order to postulate more scientific and reasonable explanations for humankind’s perpetual questions. True, there are some quite dangerous ideologies that are practiced, and have been practiced for centuries. Usually it is not wisdom which precludes the existence of these scary dogmatic sects, but ignorance.

  
  

   

  
  

  curiousdwk : Usually I find that there is a broad spectrum between the two extremes rather than a binary selection.  What would that spectrum include?  Where are we on that spectrum? Are we going in a losing hope direction or a gaining hope direction?

  
  

   

  
  

  The pendulum swings one way, and then the other. We can be on any point of the curve, and it doesn’t matter. From the tenor of news reports, it would certainly seem that we’re losing rather than gaining. The glass is neither half empty or full, but if we don’t watch out , we’ll all be drowning in it’s waters.

  
  

   

  
  

  What_does_God_look_like : Do you believe that there may be just as many attempts to preserve the species that may be responsible for balancing out these attempts or that eventually someone will succeed and destroy the world?

  
  

   

  
  

  Some folks preserve, and some folks destroy. There is “good and bad” in everything. We possess in our existence equal parts “good” and equal parts “evil”. In a Christian sense, the devil and God are perpetually wrestling for control of our soul. Basic Christian beliefs, as outlined in the Holy Bible, maintain that the corporeal world as we know it will not be destroyed, but when Jesus battles Satan during the final war following the Tribulation, the redeemed will occupy the Earth with Him for 1000 years. When using the term “apocalypse”, most would equate this idea as ‘the end of the world.” I wrote that human nature will doom our species. The physical world, in both instances, will survive. The race of humans which treat it so badly will probably go the way of the Dodo and the dinosaur at some future point. Most ideologies deal with this. Perhaps there will be a “star child” to reinvigorate our innocence?

  
  

  ---

  
  ADDENDUM: In past posts, some folks have mentioned my composite header for the Cafe that I usually include in my essays. The header at the top of this post is the “full version” which I created for Simone when she ran the “Cafe” to use as the header for the Xanga blog. She never used it. There are five different elements in the composite. I just now thought about this, and no, Hemlock is not served inside. MFN

  • 9:53 am
  • 23 Comments