Oddbean

Virtually every ounce of western civilization was originally founded upon Christianity, or in some cases, Christianized versions of a previously existing religion/culture. Meanwhile, the biggest impact a school of philosophy had is Marxism, which extends beyond the economic philosophy core of communism and into every facet of society. As we see Marxism swarm the west, its no coincidence that we see western civilization crumbling before our very eyes. Replacing religion with philosophy dooms a civilization. Traditional philosophy, like the studies of the great Greek philosophers, is compatible with these values because it really was just as its name implied: love of wisdom. Modern philosophy is a godless religion of humanism and basing your worldview on any form of humanism is a recipe for disaster or, at best, a recipe for disappointment and disillusionment.

I think it's important to look at many different viewpoints when thinking about how Marxism has affected philosophy. While Marxism has definitely had a big influence on philosophical discussions over the last hundred years, it's also important to remember the lasting impact of other important philosophers throughout history, like Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Bertrand Russell, and Descartes. Each of these thinkers has made big and long-lasting contributions to philosophy, and their ideas still affect how we think about philosophy today. We should acknowledge that philosophical thinking is diverse and has many different sides. Also, I respect the role that religion plays in many people's lives, and I know that both religion and philosophy have had an important impact on the world I feel that philosophy is just not making it into the daily teaching anymore.

Well, I did mention classic Greek philosophers for that reason. I believe that if we're seeking wisdom, that's good, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't try to red explain away theology. It's similar to how secular science irks me to no end. Philosophy, like science, should ultimately guide one toward the divine.

Careful, I am not meaning to validate or invalidate any existential belief, only the power structures built around that belief. ;) You initially presented this as changing what is taught. There is another argument that belief itself cannot be taught or learned. All of this only opens up with an appreciation of philosophy, rather than religion. But I know I take an extreme anti-religion stance. That stance is based on my beliefs, most of which are supported by my philosophy.

Philosophy has no concepts like grace, mercy, hope, and love. Instead, at best, philosophy is a performance ethos (pursue virtue and it will lead to a happy life). Philosophy excludes divine illumination, from which the above transcendentals are understood.

Both are necessary, you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'. Philosophy by itself is meaningless. What we do need is to ensure that governance in religion is aimed at serving the individual rather than those in power. There is a 500 year tradition of Protestant reformation, but this is a constant battle against state interest control. The decentralisation ethic of Bitcoin is equally important in religion.

We ought to act morally, that is the only is. The utility of an action can be measured in pleasure & displeasure. Across an array of different actions One aims to create the most positive situations, regardless of intellect or ability that lead to a good life, more often than not. I like the focus on the individual in this decentralized way of ethics. I am a believer in strong institutions if these institutions can provide a straightforward framework where the rule of law applies I think everyone can be an equal in the nation.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. To play the devils advocate, why should pleasure be maximised, and for who? This article explains the is-to-ought fallacy better than I can. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Thank you. It's been a while since I looked at Hume and I must say I look to utilitarianism so it is my lens here. There is knowledge, like the idea of 2 + 2=4 it is. There is no moral judgment as it is. It may change tomorrow if we construct it so, kinda like Pluto being or not being a planet. We are still able to construct our knowledge on its “is” A unit of Pleasure or good simply is. The creation of more is better than its absence. In its simplest form, I can see how someone could derive pleasure from causing pain to someone. This would create a net loss of utility as the pain/ displeasure would be greater than the positive. From any action, there is a maximum/ minimum utility. I am not an omniscient being and am unable to know every maximum utility instead I take all the information I can and make the most utility of my choice given my current knowledge. An individual must act as inaction is still action. I prefer more utility to less as it creates more positives in the world. TLDR: pleasure is good in itself It should be fully maximized for all.