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

[Symbology]

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by cotner

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):

Originally Posted by CraigD

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[...]

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]

Originally Posted by cotner

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

Originally Posted by cotner

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 , and the collection of items matching the definition of wrong above . The question then becomes is there any intersection of A and B ().

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

Consider a strongly nihilistic philosophy () 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, is “wrong” as defined above (). Therefore, by demonstrated example, the question is answered “yes” ( 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.

Originally Posted by cotner

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]

Originally Posted by CraigD

[...]

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):

Originally Posted by cotner

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