| Revision as of 00:12, 2 March 2018 editFritz Fehling (talk | contribs)54 edits Discussion/Research Starter for the Fundamental Relationship between Philosophy and Democracy/Republic← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:25, 2 March 2018 edit undoMPants at work (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,602 edits Undid revision 828340319 by Fritz Fehling (talk) WP:SOAPTag: UndoNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-07-25/WikiProject report|writer= ] ||day =25|month=July|year=2011}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-07-25/WikiProject report|writer= ] ||day =25|month=July|year=2011}} | ||
| == '''Discussion/Research Starter for the Fundamental Relationship between Philosophy and Democracy/Republic:''' "Philosophy or Simply The Best" == | |||
| ::Following is the preamble to the '''Universal Democracy Constitution''' aiming to explain the general need for such a constitution that is integral part of the parallel , which currently contains a draft constitutional-democracy-article design for discussion/development: | |||
| '''Meaning of Philosophy''' | |||
| A Greek word meaning “love of wisdom” and consequently the thinking about thinking. It is literally universal, and is the all-encompassing term of religion, is it not? --- Why? | |||
| '''Superposing Philosophical Term''' | |||
| One branch of philosophy is called altruistic hedonism. It means the wellbeing or “happiness” of the greatest number – not only oneself but of all, and maybe not limited to humans alone. Regrettably, it has not yet been realized that altruistic hedonism is the superposing philosophical term, and that its principles are increasingly theoretically and publicly accepted throughout this world. --- Really? How comes that? | |||
| '''Superposing Praxis Terms''' | |||
| Quite simple: It’s called civilization, and means a well-designed democratic system including constitutional safeguards --- This is the practical form of altruistic hedonism! | |||
| Amazingly, democracy is also communism (from “community”; the East Block never had democracy and thus communism, but helped the downgrading of this term by vested western interests, nor had the West Block – you can hardly describe a fascistic-corrupt 2-party system in this way). | |||
| And it also includes: Electron or gene omnipotence, machismo, capitalism, materialism, egotism, pacifism, artism, rationalism, vegetarianism, meritocracy, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Gnosticism, Atheism, scientologism, technologism, etc. –ism, when it is regulated by the whole community so that it does not clash in serious ways with all the other pluralistic minority –isms --- and vice versa! | |||
| '''Incompatibilities''' | |||
| However, some –isms are fundamentally incompatible with democracy’s altruistic hedonism, i.e. cannibalism, dictatorship, monarchy, satanism, fascism, anarchy, hereditary aristocracy, etc. | |||
| Hence there is the outcrying need for a fundamental agreement between all persons, like for a Constitution, Basic Law or Bill of Rights! | |||
| :But is it really the best? | |||
| '''Reason for Universal Implementation''' | |||
| The answer is given by the question itself! It is the best, because all want the best for one’s own wellbeing, and this philosophy is continuously trying to optimize and achieve just this. Practically, it means the best all-including compromise between the ruling ruled in a democratic system – at its best when safeguarded with the best open-approach constitution. | |||
| '''Underlying Principle''' | |||
| But what is best? Today’s best could well turn out as tomorrow’s worst! History and science show this aspect of “human nature” and “wisdom” clearly; besides that, one needs to make mistakes to learn to correct them … and to learn. | |||
| If one could only prevent the worst damaging mistakes! | |||
| Religions are in general absolute: capitalists are always right and must therefore govern the world, and most other religions usually likewise. But again and again there appear wholly convinced believers who suddenly change to another religion, because they found themselves caught in a maddening contradictive situation. | |||
| Any system that entirely subdues and punishes minority philosophies would rob its rulers of ideas (and freedoms) that could well turn out to be the best tomorrow! With this background one can paradoxically never say what the best sub-philosophy is, but one can say that the best superposing philosophy or societal system is the one that keeps all options open -- with some regulations against excessiveness, before all have to bear the damaging results: Societal and ecological disaster through unlimited all- and self-destroying wealth-accumulating and corrupting egotism (materialism/ capitalism) that would not even want its own destruction! | |||
| '''Motto''' | |||
| Just call it '''The Best For The Most''' | |||
| Not very long after Jesus, Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121-180) placed as a Roman emperor the wellbeing of society before his own individual comfort (while enjoying the spoils of an emperor, of course…): | |||
| “What is not good for the swarm, is not good for the bee” | |||
| '''Remarks''' (or are they conclusions?) | |||
| Absolute philosophies try to cement their arrogant rule above all others for eternity, which is a form of stagnation. By definition, stagnation ultimately means the end of physical and mental life… no more questions please! You need no old age or university degree to be wise, but a mental struggle would help: Why are the ignorant so sure, and the wise so unsure? | |||
| And for us galaxy hitchhikers the answer to the question of absolute sense or purpose of it all remains 42 for the time being; Did the computer create this figure, or did the laboratory mice? | |||
| -- looking forward to constructive criticism/additions ] (]) 00:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 00:25, 2 March 2018
| |||||||||
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used
Draft:Comparison
Any philosophical insight that would be useful for the improvement of Draft:Comparison would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Missing topic
When researching polychora, I came across the idea that spirits are four-dimensional beings. However, I do not see this anywhere on Misplaced Pages. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Unity in diversity
Could I get some feedback on Unity in diversity? Sometime back in April 2017 the page was significantly altered to state that "Unity in diversity" was merely a political motto, but I feel like there's a good case for it being more of an overarching philosophical concept—even if the phrase itself is sometimes used as a slogan. The Lalonde ref on that page mentions that the concept was current in Taoist societies as well as in Ancient Greece, but all I've been able to find so far was its treatment by Ibn al-Arabi and his followers. Would anyone else have any leads on good sources to expand this article? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Henry Clay Brockmeyer
I just put together a biography of this German-born Hegelian, who seems like he was important in the early history of Hegel in America and of the "St. Louis Movement". If anyone wants to look it over and maybe find something better to say about his impact, that would be great. Anyways, there is at least something on him now. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Value theory needs your help
Value theory is overly essay-like and needs more citations to sources.
Would anyone here care to review and improve this article?
Thanks -- 189.60.63.116 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Topics in Metaphysics
Someone has been repeatedly removing much of the content of the article Metaphysics listing the central topics of the field (in a structure closely mirroring other authoritative sources like SEP) citing poor referencing for those being within the domain of metaphysics. Some other editors' attention there would be appreciated. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Critique of Pure Reason
Hello. I have a dispute with Διοτιμα at the article Critique of Pure Reason. I have attempted to engage with this user and discuss the dispute at the article's talk page. He has, however, ignored me. I would welcome any comments on the issue, whatever they are, from editors interested in philosophy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- This user has also tampered with Fundamental ontology. Their latest additions seem to be a personal interpretation of Being and Time. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Omnipaedista. I would appreciate it if you could comment about the dispute on the talk page of the article Critique of Pure Reason. There is a similar dispute at Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) that you might also want to comment on. To be completely explicit about it, I am not asking you or other editors to agree with me. I welcome your comments whatever they are. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
A link to a DAB page
Index of philosophy articles (I–Q) contains a link to the DAB page Pien which has me baffled. Can any expert here help solve the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Pien refers to the concept of gradual transformation in Confucian or Taoist philosophy; see for instance Bianhua#Later_usages. --Mark viking (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Mark viking: In that case, can you repair that bad link, and perhaps also update the DAB page? I don't feel competent to do so. Narky Blert (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Y Done. --Mark viking (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Mark viking: In that case, can you repair that bad link, and perhaps also update the DAB page? I don't feel competent to do so. Narky Blert (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)