|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerald asked:
|
|
Can a philosopher be a philosopher for all people and all time? Meaning: Is philosophy capable of
being unified? Can you reconcile two various philosophies into one philosophy (and/ or philosophy
structure)? And have there been attempts to do so?
|
|
============
|
|
A unified theory (of gravity and quanta) has been the goal of physics for a long, long time. It's actually
very interesting that we would consider the possibility of a unified philosophy, but on what grounds
and using which parameters? Seems to me that there are no right answers to this two questions, so I
can only hazard my own opinion.
|
|
My view is that philosophy, over the centuries, has shown itself a "monster of two heads", so to
speak. Those heads would be: idealism and individualism. On one hand you have large philosophical
systems that deal with the realm of ideas and the deeper meaning of actions and/or concepts; on the
other hand you have smaller or disconnected philosophical theories, that are not systems de per se,
focusing on the individual human being.
|
|
At first glance the two heads are opposite in a way there seems impossible to ever unite them. Just
take Idealism vs. Existentialism, it's enough to read the arguments used by the most famous
philosophers in each camp (like Plato and Nietzsche), to see the task of uniting such opposite views.
So, is it possible? Again, my opinion would be: yes. But not by any traditional ways of thinking. I'm not
aware of any attempts in the past to do so, other than on occasion, no one true global attempt. It's
kind of strange if you consider that one of the main problems of philosophy has been it's
ever-changing nature — theories span a very short time and are seldom build by criticizing (and
destroying) the previous one.
|
|
Here we establish a comparison with physics: is there a set of laws that govern the universe, or is the
universe the domain of chaos and chance? We can ask the same of the analysis of life. Is it possible
to build a book of life or is life a river of ever-changing phenomena and chaos? Maybe we need a
consilium to discuss this, but I would say we could start with existentialism and try to end on Idealism.
Not sure how, not sure it could be done. Maybe someone could try it sometime.
|
|
Nuno Hipolito
|
|
4
|
|