A common mistake "truth-seekers" probably make

[Atla]

Why are we here? Why the human form, why this world, why this technological civilization? The world seems to sort of begin to "understand" itself through us, "reflect" on itself.

From the near-infinite of possibilities, why did we end up with this one? Is there something "special" going on here, if yes then what?

In my opinion that's the central question of philosophy. And those who think that there's something going on here that needs explanation, have come up with a million different answers throughout history. Trying to answer the mistery of our existence.

Most of these answers explain what's going on with us, humans. (And that didn't work so far, so there are alternatives where the answer is not directly about us humans, if at all. Maybe it's some machine we will create etc.)

So it was usually implicit that it's about all humans, or none. The universe must be benevolent and egalitarian, life must be something good, so whatever the answer is probably has to do with all of us. After all no one wants to be left behind.

Except that's probably wrong. One of the great dark turns of "truth-seeking" is the realization that such an answer probably only has to do with one human, or maybe with a few humans. The rest of humanity, the vast majority only paved the way, just like evolution before humans paved the way. But otherwise their existence is largely irrelevant here.

[Pattern-chaser]

OK, fair enough. But please clarify the question(s) you wish to ask the assembled throng of philosophers?

[Pattern-chaser]

OK, fair enough. But please clarify the question(s) you wish to ask the assembled throng of philosophers?

Oh, and what's the "common mistake"?

[Atla]

OK, fair enough. But please clarify the question(s) you wish to ask the assembled throng of philosophers?

What questions, it was a statement (that probably invalidates many philosopher's efforts throughout history).

[Pattern-chaser]

Oh. <baffled>

[Atla]

Oh. <baffled>

And robs humanity of hope

[Sunday66]

OK, fair enough. But please clarify the question(s) you wish to ask the assembled throng of philosophers?

What questions, it was a statement (that probably invalidates many philosopher's efforts throughout history).

What exactly "invalidates many philosopher's efforts?"

[Atla]

OK, fair enough. But please clarify the question(s) you wish to ask the assembled throng of philosophers?

What questions, it was a statement (that probably invalidates many philosopher's efforts throughout history).

What exactly "invalidates many philosopher's efforts?"

Why spend your life pondering what fate this world has in store for humanity, when it was probably never about humanity at all, it was just about one or a few humans. The rest just die.

[Sunday66]

OK, fair enough. But please clarify the question(s) you wish to ask the assembled throng of philosophers?

What questions, it was a statement (that probably invalidates many philosopher's efforts throughout history).

What exactly "invalidates many philosopher's efforts?"

Why spend your life pondering what fate this world has in store for humanity, when it was probably never about humanity at all, it was just about one or a few humans. The rest just die.

Sorry, did not understand that. Please explain. The world is only about a few humans? What does that mean.

[stevie]

Why are we here? Why the human form, why this world, why this technological civilization? The world seems to sort of begin to "understand" itself through us, "reflect" on itself.

From the near-infinite of possibilities, why did we end up with this one? Is there something "special" going on here, if yes then what?

In my opinion that's the central question of philosophy. And those who think that there's something going on here that needs explanation, have come up with a million different answers throughout history. Trying to answer the mistery of our existence.

Most of these answers explain what's going on with us, humans. (And that didn't work so far, so there are alternatives where the answer is not directly about us humans, if at all. Maybe it's some machine we will create etc.)

So it was usually implicit that it's about all humans, or none. The universe must be benevolent and egalitarian, life must be something good, so whatever the answer is probably has to do with all of us. After all no one wants to be left behind.

Except that's probably wrong. One of the great dark turns of "truth-seeking" is the realization that such an answer probably only has to do with one human, or maybe with a few humans. The rest of humanity, the vast majority only paved the way, just like evolution before humans paved the way. But otherwise their existence is largely irrelevant here.

That's just another of these speculations.

[Atla]

Why are we here? Why the human form, why this world, why this technological civilization? The world seems to sort of begin to "understand" itself through us, "reflect" on itself.

From the near-infinite of possibilities, why did we end up with this one? Is there something "special" going on here, if yes then what?

In my opinion that's the central question of philosophy. And those who think that there's something going on here that needs explanation, have come up with a million different answers throughout history. Trying to answer the mistery of our existence.

Most of these answers explain what's going on with us, humans. (And that didn't work so far, so there are alternatives where the answer is not directly about us humans, if at all. Maybe it's some machine we will create etc.)

So it was usually implicit that it's about all humans, or none. The universe must be benevolent and egalitarian, life must be something good, so whatever the answer is probably has to do with all of us. After all no one wants to be left behind.

Except that's probably wrong. One of the great dark turns of "truth-seeking" is the realization that such an answer probably only has to do with one human, or maybe with a few humans. The rest of humanity, the vast majority only paved the way, just like evolution before humans paved the way. But otherwise their existence is largely irrelevant here.

That's just another of these speculations.

Your comment even more so

[Atla]

What questions, it was a statement (that probably invalidates many philosopher's efforts throughout history).

What exactly "invalidates many philosopher's efforts?"

Why spend your life pondering what fate this world has in store for humanity, when it was probably never about humanity at all, it was just about one or a few humans. The rest just die.

Sorry, did not understand that. Please explain. The world is only about a few humans? What does that mean.

I don't know what "the world is only about a few humnans" means, read the OP

[stevie]

As to "truth-seeking" the following thoughts of Sextus Empiricus although referring to his own time might be relevant nevertheless:

1.The Main Difference between the Philosophies
When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they find I
it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they continue to search.
So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I think, some people have
claimed to have found the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be
apprehended, and others are still searching. Those who think that they have
found it are the Dogmatists, properly so called-for example, the followers of
Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. The followers of
Cleitomachus and Carneades, as well as other Academics, have asserted that it
cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics continue to search. Hence it is with reason
that the main types of philosophy are thought to be three in number: the
Dogmatic, the Academic, and the Skeptic.

[stevie]

As to "truth-seeking" the following thoughts of Sextus Empiricus although referring to his own time might be relevant nevertheless:

... The Skeptics continue to search. ...

Since Sextus here refers to Pyrrho-skeptics I think that the expression "The Skeptics continue to search" only is applicable to the proto-Pyrrho-skeptic because once the proto-Pyrrho-skeptic has attained a state of "ataraxia" - the goal of her/his endeavour as taught by Sextus - it appears unlikely to me that she/he would continue to seek "the truth" especially when considering the fact that Sextus himself exhaustively elaborates on the fact that there is no universally accepted criterion of truth at all and that all attempts to establish such a criterion logically necessarily fail. Nevertheless since the Pyrrho-skeptics are committed to 'suspension of judgement' they will neither judge that there is no truth nor judge that there is a truth and remain open towards both possibilities. However to me it appears impossible to continue 'seeking truth' on the basis of such an attitude of unbiased openness because the intention of 'seeking truth' appears necessarily connected with the speculation that there 'is' or - weaker - 'might be' a truth and such a speculation actually is a biased judgement incompatible with an attitude of unbiased openness/suspension of judgement.

[Sy Borg]

Except that's probably wrong. One of the great dark turns of "truth-seeking" is the realization that such an answer probably only has to do with one human, or maybe with a few humans. The rest of humanity, the vast majority only paved the way, just like evolution before humans paved the way. But otherwise their existence is largely irrelevant here.

Yes, it's easy to use the word "we" when referring to humanity's future. When it comes to the far future, there is no "we". There will be the few "gods" running the show and the human fauna under their control.

I doubt it will be humans to continue Earth's story past the planet's lifetime, rather their successors.

I do not see humans as being either as special or as wicked as is common. We're just another species in the Earth's development.