Have you found anything new or interesting in philosophy lately?

Care to ponder any philosophical ideas?

I'm not smart enough for that...I just poke holes in other people's ideas.
Makes me feel important.

Too many freeriders that take advantage of the social contract we all pretty much live within.

The Socratic method. How philosophical of you.

Eros - poke holes, it challenges people to think.

Keywhee - tell me what you consider to be the "social contract".

What are the responibilities society in a 'social contract'?
And who are the freeriders?

The social contract is that belief that rational people follow a mutual set of rules for their mutual benefit. I won't go around killing your family with the understanding that you won't go around killing mine. It's our typical ethical/moral behavior. We hold doors for people, say excuse me, and other things of that nature expecting others to do so for us in return.

The free riders are those that take advantage of the benefits of mutual cooperation but do not contribute to it.

Kee - do think that people have changed? Have you seen or feel aware of a decline in the more aesthetic moral actions? If so why do you think that is happening?

I don't know that people have changed in the context of the social contract idea. It's been around for 2-300 years. Just not too many people have realized how beneficial things could be to them in a society as described in my previous post.

As far as moral action, we all know that science and religion and modern thinking and all of the advances in all areas that contribute to knowledge morph our morals. An easy example would be discrimination against (insert any group here) decades ago. But now with reasonable rational thinking nowadays, women vote, a lot of the racial issues have weakened, etc. What I think is happening is that we are all being educated to a deeper level.

I thing there is much to be said for basic amenities. However, I think such amenities become a moral action when there is sincerity behind the practice. I often wonder if we are loosing the sincerity, the true social contract or commitment.

Like everyone, over the years I've had many friends. What I find in my newer friendships are less people with a social conscience and more people worried about being duped or getting the shaft or whatever you want to call it.

Lately, within the last 10 months or so, I've noticed a considerable change toward networking. I found that somewhat amusing, as I've believed in 'networking' for many years.

I began to look for reasons why this would appearing now. Almost all of those I've met are in their 30's. A good number of them are only now beginning to see the value of 'society'. There has been a lot of sudden middleclass unemployment here, and those who have never had to struggle are finding a need for extended family - society.

Do you think a major recession or depression might bring back a social conscience?

How about clanism? One might mistake this for herd mentality where one speaks for all. A clan is a group of people united by kinship and descent, which is defined by perceived descent from a common ancestor. Even if actual lineage patterns are unknown, clan members may nonetheless recognize a founding member or apical ancestor. As kinship based bonds can be merely symbolical in nature some clans share a "stipulated" common ancestor, which is a symbol of the clan's unity. When this ancestor is not human, this is referred to as animallian totem. Generally speaking, kinship differs from biological relation, as it also involves adoption, marriage, and fictive genealogical ties. Clans can be most easily described as sub-groups of tribes and usually constitute groups of 7,000 to 10,000 people. Some clans are patrilineal, meaning its members are related through the male line; for example, the clans of Armenia. Others are matrilineal; its members are related through the female line. Still other clans are bilateral, consisting of all the descendants of the apical ancestor through both the male and female lines; the clans of Scotland are one example. Whether a clan is patrilineal, matrilineal, or bilateral depends on the kinship rules and norms of their society.

In different cultures and situations a clan may mean the same thing as other kin-based groups such as tribes and bands. Often, the distinguishing factor is that a clan is a smaller part of a larger society such as a tribe, a chiefdom, or a state. Examples include Irish, Scottish, Chinese, and Japanese clans, which exist as kin groups within their respective nations. Note, however, that tribes and bands can also be components of larger societies. Arab tribes are small groups within Arab society, and Ojibwa bands are smaller parts of the Ojibwa tribe. In some cases multiple tribes recognized the same clans, such as the bear and fox clans of the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes.

Apart from these different traditions of kinship, further conceptual confusion arises from colloquial usages of the term. In post-Soviet countries for example it is quite common to speak of clans referring to informal networks within the economic and political sphere. This usage reflects the assumption that their members act towards each other in a particularly close and mutually supportive way approximating the solidarity among kinsmen. However, the Norse clans, the ätter, can not be translated with tribe or band, and consequently they are often translated with house or line.

Polish clans differ from most others in being a collection of families bearing the same coat of arms, as opposed to actually claiming a common descent. This is discussed under the topic of Polish Heraldry.

Clans in Indigenous societies are likely to be exogamous, meaning that their members cannot marry one another. In some societies, clans may have an official leader such as a chieftain or patriarch; in others, leadership positions may have to be achieved, or people may merely say 'elders' make decisions.

More recently a clan in South London called the TRV clan has been formed by two people called JTFA and Nemo. Their real names are Josh and Nimesh. It is an exclusive club for people just from Trivandrum, a city in the state of Kerala in India. Anyone who wants to join must have proof that they are from Trivandrum.

Clans by country
Albanian Fis clans of the country's northern highlands.
Armenian Tohm clans of Armenian nobility.
Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Chechen Teip and Tukkhum tribal organization
Chinese clan, family name and consort clans
Chinese (Hong Kong) five Great Han Chinese Punti clans: Tang, Hau, Pang, Man, Liu
German clann or Sippe
Iranian clans
Irish clanns and septs (also: Chiefs of the Name)[2]
Indian/Pakistani/Nepalese Rajput clans
Indian - Maratha, Dhangar
Indian/Pakistani Jat clans
Japanese clans
Korean clans and names
Manchu clans and names
Polish clans
Scandinavian Norse clans
Scottish clans
Serbian clans
Somali clans
Ugandan ganda clans], [soga clans],[acholi clans]
Grey clan
Indian clan Rolan rajasthani clan:rolan
Kenyan Kalenjin clans], [Kipsigis clans],[Nandi clans],[Tugen],[Keiyo]rajasthani clan:Rolan the lik

I don't think clans are new but I didn't know that clanism is worldwide. Some clans have negative influence and some have postive influence.

Hill - we have many clans here in the U.S. - they are mostley called 'sub-cultures', but anymore, they are mostley also the norm - which makes those who consider themselves to be normal, no longer so.

"... Where is the future of philosophy headed?..."

Now that is a 'philosophical' question 'in', and of itself.

The 19th and 20th century were a pivotal period for philisophy, a paradigm shift of philosophy itself!!!

"... Thinking 'Thinking' by deconstructing (critical look) 'it', from 'it'..." Not a simple task.

I would argue that the defining nature of philosophy today, regardless of the particular 'current' you pick, is that it is no longer looking for a future! It is, at last no longer "heading" or 'going' anywhere!!! It may be an actualized discipline, maybe!!!

Which is the most revealing, the most powerful, and the most honest state for philosophy.

It could be argued that up to the 19th century, most of the civilized world had evolved on the ethical and moral foundations of 'Socratic thinking'. Yes even the Judeo-Christian world is very much a 'product' of 'Socratic thought' and ethical and moral 'thinking structures'.

It was not until a solid half decade into modern democracies, that Nietzche dared 'attack' the sacred cow of the 'socratic' legacy by demystifying Plato, whom was 'Socrates' first apostle, a bit like Jesus's Peter.

Many followed Nietzche on the pavement he laid. And it was Heidegger, who named the mental structure 'DECONSTRUCTION'.

No longer debilitated by the derogatory 'blasphemous', 'disrepectful', 'unacceptable', 'un-Christian', 'Diabolical' epithets, criticizing the established order, regardless of the domain, was from that point on, referred to as the much nobler discipline of 'deconstructivism'.

So where the Socratic paradigm did not take 'being' in consideration, and thus was and is, 'reaching for' a virtuous state outside of its existence,
current philosophical 'paradigm', factor 'being' into the equation, and eliminates the notion of out there, where most feel a 'need' to go.

Philosophy today is acknowledging and empowering 'being' virtues in the NOW!!!

No future needed, not going anywhere!!!

Ain't that a lot less complicated!!!

This is an interesting thought because even Jesus taught this, “Take no thought of the morrow for the morrow will take care of itself”

I consider the enlightenment that time has no reality to be one of the most profound realizations in my entire life. When I realized its truth I broke into the most natural spontaneous laugh that remained with me the entire day. And that moment has never passed. The timelessness of time is very real.

While it is true that for God there is no time, what most people don’t realize is that this is true for all of creation. There is never any need to rush because time doesn’t flow.

We, of course create the illusion of time by making ‘appointments’ based on clocks. Thus we create time by forcing ourselves to act in simultaneously ways with other events. This kind of mandatory ‘simultaneous-dancing-about” is entirely mankind’s creation. God must be getting a genuine belly laugh watching man dance to his own tune.

Time in the philosophical sense doesn’t exist. There never was a time when we were not, and there will never be a time when we will cease to exist. In that most elementary sense of time there is no time. All that exists is the eternal now.

It is impossible to cease to exist because there I no other time in which to not exist. If you exist ‘now’ you will exist for all of eternity. There’s simply no other time to cease to exist in. All you can do is take on a different dance.

You may already be familiar with Martin Heidegger, Abra, if not you will laugh a whole lot more after a read of his amazing "... On time and 'being'...".

Time!!! Man-made evidently, and the single most important invention which keeps us from 'being'.

Some will argue that the greatest obstacle to 'being' is 'our' profound anxiety and fear of death. But that's just it, it is profound and deep. Time is right there, in our face so to speak, reminding us every moment of our profound anxiety.

Some people have invented a paticular phisical god, that 'promises' eternal life and heaven, which coincidently soothes them, and helps deny this quintessential anxiety.
Other's simply observe the anxiety, distinguish for the noisy and absurd bio-chemical activity that it is, take a deep breadth, and get back to timeless life now!

'bout that!!!

I'm not a philosopher by profession, but here is an idea of my own: (keep in mind that this is for fun)

PHILOSOPHY OF REALITY

Humans exist. Why they exist is beyond the scope of my philosophy and will not be discussed. There are a variety of ways to organize all of the things that exist. For the purposes here, I have chosen to organize things (all things that exist) 3 ways:

Category 1: Humans.
Category 2: Exist because of humans. (Humans are relevant.)
Category 3: Exist prior to humans. (Humans are irrelevant.)

Summarily, we have humans, those things humans have brought into existence, and those things that existed prior to humans. Examples, I feel, are appropriate at this point.
-An ant maintains a category 3 existence. If humans disappeared, ants would not disappear. Ants do not require humans in order to exist. This example can be extended to nearly the entirety of the animal kingdom, with the exception of certain bacteria and insects that require humans.
-The boogeyman maintains a category 2 existence. He exists within the imagination of human beings. If humans ceased to exist, the boogeyman would go extinct. This example can be extended considerably to encompass the totality of human imagination.
-Atoms maintain a category 2 and 3 existence. Elements heavier than plutonium do not occur naturally, so they require our existence. Those lighter than, and including plutonium, do not require humans.
-Both science and religion maintain a category 2 existence. Science is a process by which natural processes are investigated and occurs due to the human mind. Religion is a collection of belief systems and exists due to human imagination.
-The Gods (Christian, Muslim, Greek, Norse, etc.) maintain a category 2 existence. Since Gods arise from religion, they are automatically category 2. Some people mistakenly place Gods in category 3.
More examples of category 2 existence:
Art, sports, writing systems, music, computers and books.
Highly debatable category 2 possibility:
Language. (Animals do communicate.)
More examples of category 3 existence:
Dinosaurs, planets, gravity, stars, electrons, space and time.

My philosophy does not invalidate the existence of anything. Reality is simple and this is a simple explanation. In order to accept my philosophy, one must overlook a minor detail - the future. The future is beyond the scope of my philosophy, although time is included. Paradoxes do exist, and have fun with that one!

Excellent. So, category 1 holds exclusivity in uniqueness by design. ACCOMPLISHING TO ATTRACT EGO. intriguing.

category 2 gives meaning and credence to architecture and plays into category 1.

Polluting the planet can remain as an autonomous event in category 3 , yet enjoy being enhanced by category 2.

But, category 1 remains exclusive.

Amazing.

Any more toys in the attic?

It's only exclusive from the human point of view.

No, it would hold incunbent upon the other two for any number of reasons.
One, that category 3 is subjective to category 1 thus incumbent upon category 3 to be justified by the presence of category 1.
secondly, category 2 is dependent on category 1 and incapable of viability independent of category 1. Likewise, category 3 would enjoy the same subservience to category 1.

Time_Engineer,

Came through loud and clear.

Most enjoyable and interesting construct.

Just as a sidenote though, some men confuse sport with god, an put it in #3, just like some do with god.

Question: do you suppose that it could have something to do with all the games god plays with humans (or is it humans blaming their games on god?!?!? I always mix that up).

Anyway fun grid Time_Engineer. Thanks.

on a religious stand point, i wonder how come people ask questions regarding religion and at the same time refuse to believe anything other than thier own opinion.