philosophers sumarized - alive why

philosophers and philosophy

philosophy of the mind appears to have arrived at
the idea that the mind is a physical entity, (physicalism)
and thus part of the body, (monism)
and that the mind is capable of creating consciousness
and variations of consciousness
with all the inputs, outputs, concepts, categories,
and all the logic and emotion resulting from the physical makeup of the mind

prior to this, various theories existed
but these are only of historical importance

heraclitus struggled to explain the physical world
but given the knowledge base of 500 BC
his efforts had to fail
his semantic soup and word games
put a smoke screen over vacuousness

schopenhauer's view was that
the universe is not a rational place
that to solve the problem of the human condition
we should curb our innate desires
to achieve a more calm state of mind
and thus progress towards universal beneficence

to comment on whether the universe
is rational or otherwise
seems meaningless
but to comment on our minds level of rationality
is worthwhile

it is true that our minds are partly not rational
this stems from the point
that our experience of life
is only partly to do with rationality

rationality or rational thought
has only to do with non emotional matters

our emotion is the basis of our lives
without emotions
we would become catatonic
our rational mind is for
observation, information storage,
projections into past and future
and problem solving

the reason we do anything:
thought
word
action
is because we have emotions.
without emotions
we could not have the will or want
for any thought, word or action

Schopenhauer's view clearly aims at communality
as he says the outcome of his approach
is universal benificence

implied in such a philosophy
must be some sustainability
otherwise why propose it

so Schopenhauer's philosophy provides
communality and sustainability

to give this philosophy its reason...
...the reason for minimizing our natural desires
apart from empiricism...that it works
is shown below

the reason is:
that our cortex needs to understand
that it is inevitably commanded by emotions
the reason that emotions are not easily managed
is that dna has retained its dominance over humans
by keeping emotions
inscrutable and comouflaged
which is partly by allowing the cortex to believe that it is in charge

once we realize that emotions are directive programmes
for the survival of dna
we realize why we should not be entirely at their command
because each one of us
would not say
that our main individual reason for living
is dna survival

the fact is
that our only reason for living
is to be happy
which is still an emotion
so we are still commanded by emotion and therefore by dna
but now we are able to say why we
do not obey each impulse of emotion
as these impulses are only dna notional directives
which are not automatically tempered
by the need for
sustainability
or communality

sustainability is really just
communality
spread out over time
into the future
so that we are looking at
the happiness of future times and generations

so the reason we seem to often have two different and competing urges
is that dna provides urges which are both
communal
and non communal...
non communal is simply serving the self
in preference to considering communality
and dna does not discriminate between these
our cortex has to

one main problem is the choice of non communality or selfishness
which dna allows us
another is the outcome of negative emotions
which dna gives us
for the individual and for others who are subjected to it

negative emotions tend to compound themselves
within one person
and between people
by washing our view with negativity
this is entraining our thoughts
and then escalating this state
whether it is active or passive

those subject to the negative emotions of others
are inclined to become affected
by negative emotions themselves
this happens automatically

this is probably a defence mechanism
rooted in the days of the caveman
any negative emotion in others
is considered a basic physical threat
as it indicates something is wrong
in caveman days it was often a simple physical danger
to ensure this is dealt with efficiently
our negative emotions are aroused
which take over our mind
command our view
command our behaviour
to deal with danger

in this age
where most of our interactions with others
are at a socioeconomic level
the caveman emotions described above are inarticulate
they do not allow clear understanding of situations
because of high levels of arousal
and they do not help with
forming reasonable responses

the need to understand emotions
in this universally experienced situation
is clear
but since our understanding of emotions is cloudy
we are mostly commanded by emotions
in these situations
and later on maybe try to clean up the mess made
but still don't really know what the problem was

in this sense
emotions have not changed since caveman days
the reason for so little change is
that emotions need to be poorly understood by our cortex
so that they can continue to be dominant

emotions and their consequences will not change
until our cortex begins to understand them...

...not by classifying, stratifying and relating them to other things,
which is what philosophers, scientists and the religious mostly seem to do

but by saying what made them
and for what purpose

dna made them
for dna survival
but our aim is not dna survival
our aim is happiness
which is different
and needs a different method
the method is:
understand what emotions are
then aim for communal, sustainable happiness

raw, inarticulate storms of feeling
do not work well
especially
in the world of socioeconomic hierarchy

Kant's categorical imperative is
a reiteration of standard goodwill
espoused by many if not all religions
this is just human communality

Kant's questioning logic
on the basis of the coffee cup on the train...
...moving in the world
...not moving on the train
is no criticism of logic at all

hegel's views in the phenomenology of spirit
are well described by schopenhauer
as vacuous verbiage