What do you know?

The people who often say "I know I do not know" sometimes use this assertion for nihilism. If I don't know, how can I claim to know what is truly right or truly wrong? But at the same time, if you acknowledge that you don't know, you can't even claim a right to defend your own philosophy, absolutely.

I think this should be the starting point, or a focal point, to every philosophy.

In my politics, the left has no more right to pursue an agenda to "liberalize" society anymore than the right has a right to "fundamentalize". Both sides express two different sides of human nature. Those who incline to the left, feel a spiritual need for openness, freedom, an antinomian ethic, etc, whereas those who incline to the right, seek a more conservative, structured, calm and controlled sort of ethic. To me, this strikes a perfect balance in a society.

Instead of trying so hard to change each other, to force other's to see your way, we can at least agree that the best political system is one which supports and gives equal voice to all points of view. True humanism consists of this: respecting and tolerating the views of others. It's about compromise.

reply to post by dontreally


I know that i can know nothing for certain.

I know I am here typing this.

But,the mixing of philosophy and politics ,I have not one clue.
I would think that would be somewhat ironic
Philosophy requires some thought.
Politics?
The sun rises and sets everyday where I live.

reply to post by kdog1982


Yes, it's called political philosophy

Political philosophy is the study of such topics as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what, if anything, makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown, if ever

It's a very important branch of philosophy.

It was Einstein who said something to the effect of Ethics being a human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

That said, ethics and morality truly ARE a societal structure, as what is considered morale, humane, acceptable, or reprehensible varies from region to region, country to country, culture to culture.

Who is right and who is wrong? That's the crux of it.

IMHO .. it boils down to the idea that we are somehow separated and 'better' than the natural world around us, i.e. predator vs prey mentality, when in reality.. we still play the same game, but call it something different.

How many people today would, if society broke down and there was no threat of law enforcement, adhere to the 'moral standard' we currently impose on ourselves?

Too bad compromise isn't our forte...I don't even think it's in our set in a global sense.

reply to post by dontreally


Oh,that.
Sounds like someone trying to tell someone else a bunch of bull#,cough,I mean a belief.

In political philosophy, Aquinas is most meticulous when dealing with varieties of law. According to Aquinas, there are four different kinds of laws:
God's cosmic law
God's scriptural law
Natural law or rules of conduct universally applicable within reason
Human law or specific rules applicable to specific circumstances.

reply to post by kdog1982


No, political philosophy simply means "the philosophy of the affairs of state".

Thomas Aquinas (why did you quote him? ) was Catholic theologian and philosopher who had his own ideas of political philosophy. Before him there was Aristotle (politics), Plato (the republic)...And since Niccolo Machiavelli there's been a plethora of influential political writers (hobbes, locke, hume, mill, etc)...

Society wouldn't be able to function, civilization wouldn't exist, without some sort of political philosophy.

Originally posted by dontreally
whereas those who incline to the right, seek a more conservative, structured, calm and controlled sort of ethic. To me, this strikes a perfect balance in a society.

And tell me where this "right" exists. In every western country the majority right-wing party is only fractionally less liberal than the left. There is a lot of economic divergence, social spending vs austerity, opposite tax plans, save for protectionism vs free markets which is no longer represented; but there is very little (read none) social divergence. Not the way you state it. In most western countries the major left/right parties swap every election or two. Social liberalization according to progressive principles continues unabated regardless.