Hello,

maybe we could try to realise that a new philosophy won't necessarily entail new behaviors:-)) Philosophy is thought, and we as humans often think ok but are not able to act upon our reasonable thougts: we often lack the power to "resist" petty, selfish, unreasonable, overemotive, impulsive cognitions, and find ourselves acting upon those instead of following pondered, responsible, realistic ideas. Maybe professionnal blindness makes me see things this way (I am a cognitivist-behaviorist), but this is what I find most urgent: finding ways to remind us we need to resist illogical impulsive thoughts (not resent them or repress them)  and resist  the temptation to act upon them.

I find it curious this "the either/or" mentality when applied to problem-solving. Making choices of one over the other if one was to survey this is apt to find that doing so is not effective. 

Why do people not see that often workable answers to questions are not necessarily a matter of choosing one over the other but melding both (either and or) in order to answer questions or problem solve?

It seems finding something to agree on first is probably a more effective strategy in solving problems than having to choose one over another. 

Impact investments in human, social and natural ecology are needed, that is an earth sharing economy. The economic rent of monopolies, privileges and inherited wealth must be taxed and made public revenue. The ethics is now in our hands, it must be applied correctly in manufacturing, medicine and finance. The cosmic universe is a perfect accounting system, but it is not run on profit and rent-seeking.The monetary flow must be directed into humanistic future investments and not into asset accumulation.

Article The Supreme Kondratieff: Exponentiality, Teleology and the D...

• In my opinion, we need urgently a new philosophy of life and sociey. Economics has been taking nearly all place,  and even the development of other sciences has been  too much subjected to Economics,  more precisely Financial Economics. I thi k we need sciences a lot,  and new developments, but we have to change the paradigm. Kuhn has writed a lot on the subject in the past. In science,  if the paradigm becomes too complicated,  it means we have to change  it, something is wrong.
• I think this apply to Philosphy and othet fields. We need to recenter the main goals in our society, for instance the place of human beeing,  the value of work, and te value of preserving our planet.

non-dual thinking

I agr

Does it have to be new? I think we have tremendous resources to draw on already, from philosophy, sociology, religion and political thought etc, We are however in the middle of a messy world and nothing will change without hard work, and learning how to work with people we don't necessarily like. Being able to do this and not be screamed down when mistakes are made, rather learning from mistakes. At the moment in the UK alone politics seems set to either tell citizens what is best for them or how they will be looked after, individual growth and work need to be seen as part of the political life, as making important decisions impacting on others whether working on AI or being a parent. Teachers of all kinds are important, as are role models - where are they?! Sorry for waffle I am in pre-election overdrive!!!

Dear all, i am happy about all your answers: Yes it is probabely like always in life - not black or white. And yes it must not always be new. But this would mean we learn from history... at the moment this is a small chance may be and more than before?.

One thing is sure, we are in need of it as the problems are too important and overwhelming...

Dear Thomas,

Thank you to put this issue. In my opinion, the most important for now its new philosophy of life to build the vulnerable society and raise its value.

Want an honest answer?  Let's go back in terms of our morality and philosophy of life.  That is the only way to go forward.  I have a Christian bias, but if I look at the three great monotheistic religions and many of the other mainstream religions there are only two important aspects - love God and love your neighbour.  We have taken the golden rule of "Love your neighbour as yourself" and made it the golden rule of "He who has the gold makes the rules". So returning to these core values is in fact the most important "new philosophy".  The African principle of ubuntu says much the same thing - essentially a person is only a person because of other people.  We need to embrace community, embrace the concept of caring and rid ourselves of the current monotheism which says that "I am the one god".  

Dear Mr. Thomas,

In my view, what is needed is a new technology of morality and philosophy. That is to say, what we need is a technology that can transform human thinking and morality.

This cannot be done by philosophy which as Durant says is mere "brave stupidity without rational excuse". Education and preaching have failed to mould the hard rock of human psychology.

A psychic technology is needed that can transform the human outlook.

This is outside the ken of science and technology in their modern sense. More science, more technology of the modern variety will only replace problems of poverty with problems of plenty that can be more intractable and beyond reprieve.

I have hinted at the solution and analysed the problems in various papers over the decades. To quote two passages that may be relevant to the issue that you have raised:

1. "Only Self control is compatible with the humanist demand for freedom and happiness (Randall, p.59). Unfortunately, self control cannot be inculcated by rational and verbal  arguments alone ...[except]. Only in rare individuals ...  only when individual egotism and myopia is tempered by an intuition the inner unity of Man, Nature and Eternity can rational arguments for eco-balance have a chance of succeeding. What is needed therefore is an educational system which deepens and sharpens this intuition.

To be successful, such an educational system must be rooted in the eternal and not the ephemeral. If life is transient and death final, if all that is, is only sensate - self restraint loses its enduring appeal. ... Thus the knowledge of the Eternal and Infinite is essential for self-transcendence. " - The Crisis of Modern Humanism 

2. " Human nature is diverse. The acquisitive instinct has proved to be more stubborn, widespread and dynamic than mere faith. Even among the faithful, the communist idea has to contend with the claims of nationalism and religion. And it has not always emerged successful from the encounter.

Nationalism and religion have proved to be the soft underbelly of materialism, which believes culture to be epiphenomenal and spirituality to be subterranean. Both streams have proved their autonomy, intractablity and durability. In general, the irrational core of the human psyche has remained out of socialist control, despite innumerable psychiatric brutalities.

The apparent inability of historical materialism to come to grips with human nature is a fatal flaw in a ‘science of man’. It is clearly damaging and unacceptable in its present state as the ideology of socialism. Perhaps the damage can be minimised by rejecting the exclusive claim of materialism on the party of socialism.

Communism requires a universal man. The moral side of such a man, experience suggests, cannot be built by materialism." - Socialism and the Communists

I am attaching herewith copies of both the papers.

with regards,

Rahul

Chapter THE CRISIS OF MODERN HUMANISM - Religious, Ecological and Ec...

Article SOCIALISM AND THE COMMUNISTS

Realmente considero que lo mas importante es la filosofia de vida y de sociedad que puedas tener, puesto que en funcion del conjunto de valores y normas que tu tengas establecido sobre la vida, podras desarrollar un proceso que genera estabilidad o por lo mneos que se oreinte a promover las mejoras en todos los ambitos de la vida, incluido el proceso tecnologico que es parte importante para nuestro desarrollo.

I think technologies have become an integral part of today's lives, and scientific developments are unstoppable. The challenge is how we, humans, can create philosophies that embrace this continual digital evolution--philosophies that guide humans to achieve a vital balance between lives and technological progress.  Moral principles should also be extended to cover the use of technologies. And all of these should be taught in schools since first grade.