Quote:
Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic
Does philosophy ever arrive at a consensus or it the consideration of different viewpoints part of the point? This is one class I never took.
Just wondering given the value placed on consensus reality in psychosis....
|
There is no DSM manual for philosophy where people come together and create a consensus. All philosophers have their favorites, and usually their favorites are due in fact from who taught them to begin with. Philosophy professors will teach their own twist of philosophy to their students and so the brainwashing begins. I'll never forget when one professor called Descartes a son of a *****. Or when another called Wittgenstein delusional, or Nietzsche a lunatic. Many of these professors have no respect for the history of ideas; the best things said and thought by the human race that give the means to help a rational creature become ever more rational.
There are movements, and with each movement there is a countermovement. With the enlightenment came the romantic rebellion for instance.
If I had to define this age though I'd say science is king. Physicalism is the most persuasive to the masses. Morally, we have become Utilitarian's of some sort. Government wise, well that depends on where you live. Theologically, that's a hot topic!
EDIT: Daniel Dennett, a famous materialistic philosopher and friend of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris believe that religion is a selfish meme. It's like a parasite that controls your mental thoughts. Religion's worldview has an effect on how one sees and acts in the world. Well what I want to suggest is that this is a disgusting viewpoint and that I'd like to point the finger right back at Dennett and say his strict materialism is just as capable of being a parasitic ideology that twists how he sees the world. He believes consciousness is an illusion, yet commonsense, our most dependable judge for knowing the things of this world says just knows that the self exists, it can feel a pain and it knows that it is my pain and not your pain. This is consciousness. So the point of this edit is to show the hubris of even the most famous of philosophers, a reductionist philosopher who came out with a book that I read named "Consciousness explained" yet came no where close to explaining consciousness because he is blinded by an idea that there is no such thing, so he just went on explaining the machinations of the brain.