What if there were a perfect philosophy? What would it be? The immediate answer, of course, is “yours.” Yes, you have the perfect philosophy. You are the Aristotle of our times. Or are you?
Conflict. That’s our problem. In fact, conflict arises because I might think you have the perfect philosophy, but someone else will believe otherwise. Maybe we can prove that your philosophy is best. What would that take? What conditions make a philosophy perfect?
First, for your philosophy to be perfect it has to be complete. Perfect derives from the Latin facere (“to make”) and per (“through”). The Latin perfectus and its Romance languages’ derivatives all give “completed” as the synonym and definition of perfect. Second, it has to be universal, that is, it can’t be cultural and limited by a set of historical beliefs. Third, it has to be self-inclusive, that is, it has to incorporate not only meaning but also the origin of meaning. Fourth, it has to be sufficiently understandable (coherent) to be applicable. And fifth, it has to be purposeful, for a philosophy that lacks purpose is a contradiction.
How does your personal philosophy meet those conditions?
Now, your argument: “I don’t agree with your conditions,” you say. “Taking my cue from Kurt Gödel, I don’t think that any philosophy can meet your third condition. And looking at your second condition, I don’t think any philosophy can circumvent a cultural heritage. I have yet another objection,” you continue. “Applicability is a matter of psychology, not philosophy.”
“Okay,” I respond, “What are the conditions that make your philosophy worth defending? I’m willing to listen.”
Conflict. That’s our problem. In fact, conflict arises because I might think you have the perfect philosophy, but someone else will believe otherwise. Maybe we can prove that your philosophy is best. What would that take? What conditions make a philosophy perfect?
First, for your philosophy to be perfect it has to be complete. Perfect derives from the Latin facere (“to make”) and per (“through”). The Latin perfectus and its Romance languages’ derivatives all give “completed” as the synonym and definition of perfect. Second, it has to be universal, that is, it can’t be cultural and limited by a set of historical beliefs. Third, it has to be self-inclusive, that is, it has to incorporate not only meaning but also the origin of meaning. Fourth, it has to be sufficiently understandable (coherent) to be applicable. And fifth, it has to be purposeful, for a philosophy that lacks purpose is a contradiction.
How does your personal philosophy meet those conditions?
Now, your argument: “I don’t agree with your conditions,” you say. “Taking my cue from Kurt Gödel, I don’t think that any philosophy can meet your third condition. And looking at your second condition, I don’t think any philosophy can circumvent a cultural heritage. I have yet another objection,” you continue. “Applicability is a matter of psychology, not philosophy.”
“Okay,” I respond, “What are the conditions that make your philosophy worth defending? I’m willing to listen.”
RSS Feed